Singapore 2008: Briatore and Symmonds resign

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Make yourself a copy and prepare for a long and interesting read containing Jr's testimony, Symonds interrogatory, telemetry data and the transcript of an interesting radio discussion between Symonds and Alonso's race engineer where Symonds is trying to convince the engineer that pitting on lap 12 is the right thing to do.

Don't know who wrote this article, I just ran into it, but at least it contains most of what it's know until now.

http://axisofoversteer.com/blog/docu...%20Of%20PK.pdf

---

Good read :up:

Certainly seems to incriminate them. Telemetry seems odd and Symonds was being very evasive. If there was no conspiracy he'd have said so, surely? There is nothing to gain from being cagey about answering, it just means the FIA will be even more suspicious.

I don't really know what to say now. So IF it's true: Symonds is acting as a fall guy for Briatore, Piquet Jr. is finished as an F1 driver, Renault are either going to leave the sport or be kicked out. Real shame for the 99% of honest staff who've apparently been screwed over by their corrupt bosses. (if if if if if it's true!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That begs the question why didn't Renault start this legal action back then if they were REALLY trying to blackmail them?!

There's to many questions asked and way to few answers from the Renault camp.

---

Talking of questions, these come to my mind:

The relationship between Renault (or at least Briatore) and Piquet Jr. was already damaged by Singapore 2008 (Jr. admitts as much in his leaked statement) and Renault must have been aware by that time that Piquet would leave (or be forced to leave) the team before too long. Why give him ammunition by ordering him to crash?

Knowing that Piquet had this damaging information and would most likely take it to the FIA once fired by Renault, why did they still terminate his contract? It would have been safer to end the relationship on a mutual agreement, which probably would have meant a substantial sum of money for the Piquets in exchange for keeping their mouths shut about the whole issue.

IMO, there are only two possible answers:
a) Renault did not believe anyone would believe Piquet for whatever reason
b) Renault knows Piquet's claims to be untrue.

For the record, I have no clue about what the answer may be. Originally, I thought the allegation to be bogus, but meanwhile I'm not sure about that. Certainly Pat Symonds in the link ioan posted somewhere above doesn't come across as very convincing with all of his "I don't recall" and "I'd rather not answer that".

I then go back to my orginal question gm99

Knowing that it would ruin his career, his rep and probally his life (be honest who in their right mind would hire him after this regardless of it being racing related or not ) why make this up?

his evidence is to elaborate and detalied to be made up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Make yourself a copy and prepare for a long and interesting read containing Jr's testimony, Symonds interrogatory, telemetry data and the transcript of an interesting radio discussion between Symonds and Alonso's race engineer where Symonds is trying to convince the engineer that pitting on lap 12 is the right thing to do.

Don't know who wrote this article, I just ran into it, but at least it contains most of what it's know until now.

http://axisofoversteer.com/blog/docu...%20Of%20PK.pdf

---

Thanks for the heads up. What a great find.
Having read the report, I would be very surprised if Pat Symonds turns up in Singapore; or even Briatore for that matter. They do allow betting in Singapore and there is every chance both could be arrested by the ICAC there on arrival. I wouldn't even be surprised if the Renault cars are impounded.

No need for me to say what I feel about the alleged conspiracy, or alleged instructions given to Piquet Jr by Symonds. I doubt anyone, having read ioan's linked article, would have any doubts.

I hope Symonds likes Singapore noodles, because if he turns up in Singapore, he'd better get used to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by truefan72

and that's why the whole thing shoyuld just go away. it is a he said she said thing of the past that has no bearing on the sport and only serves to further demean F1. There really wasn't enough evidence to go forward and there is plausible deniabilty on either side so why bother. It really is an internal renault matter that has spilled over to the public light, which mosley is all too happy to oblige at is is an opportunity to dirty up or scandalize one of his chief nemesis. This is like a celebrity divorce case played out in public with a corrupt court with an axe to grind

---

If you read teh article in the link given by ioan, then you will realise this a far more than just he says she says. There is a helluva lot of evidence to support Piquet Jr's side and from Pat Symonds reluctance to answer any questions, it sis easy to see who is being evasive and where the evidence is leading to.

If you havn't read the article, then it is in my quote just above this post.

They're buggered either way. Even if it was purely Piquet's idea and his alone, the fact that Symonds admits he was aware of the suggestion would damn him. Symonds would have had an obligation to inform the FIA, and the fact that he appears to have chosen to cover the matter up is - in itself - unforgivable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

1. As I read it, it wasn't a "normal" meeting
2. If it was brought up and shot down, then it was raised and discussed.
3. The fact that it was discussed, happened, ignored and not reported is the crux of the matter. It cannot be ignored.

I never knew you were such a Renault fan TrueFan and cannot see why you are trying to brush this under the carpet.

When McLaren were mooted with wrongdoing, I was loud in calling for a full investigation. When they were guilty, I accepted their punishment (althought I questioned the size of the fine).

They did wrong, they were punished and I never tried to ignore the facts or sweep it under the carpet. They have paid their price and I still support them but what happened was wrong and they deserved their ass kicked.

IF Renault are in the wrong, and IF this happened as Jn'r says, then Flav, Jn'r and Pat are finished. However, we need an full and fair investigation.

---

I'm not a renault fan, but I am a fan of logic and reason. I cannot fathom that Renault,not fighting for a championship, in a terrible year, will all out of a sudden choose to instigate a situation that could easily backfire, and cost them a $100 mil fine, removal from the sport and about 400 jobs to give Alonso a race win at the latter stage of a meaningless seaosn to them, in a situation that could not even gurantee them the victory. Or I can see NPJr and his father figure out some way to save a seat in F1 by any means necessery and try and hold a team hostage. Given flav's history and management and just after releasing a rooke for not performing, I found it confusing as tyo why Piquet was retained for 2009 having an even worse year then kovy and a highlight reel of embarrasing incidents to last a career.

Then bring forth the claim once he got fired a year after the fact along with his father making statements to bernie who just happens to be close to briatore and are in fact business partners.

so IMO it seems more likely that the piquets are up to no good (knowing his fathers antics too in the past) rather than Renault risking their entire race organization for a meaningless victory in an already lost season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That begs the question why didn't Renault start this legal action back then if they were REALLY trying to blackmail them?!

There's to many questions asked and way to few answers from the Renault camp.

---

why does it take anyone a while to press charges or report a blackmailing. Usually they try to resolve it internally, but the timing seems like Renault just had about enough of the piquets and fired him after it looked like they were going to go forward with this nonsense.

If they did not fire him, they could not press charges because it would seem odd and the last thing they wanted would be a circus.

If you compare it to the Mclaren situation, if they did not fire him and he was granted immunity, as with alonso, then the team would have been forced to continue employing Piquet while the proceedings went on, including his immunity and thus forcing the team to have fIA inspectors at every subsequent race to make sure he was getting "fair treatment" under that scenario, Piquet gets what he wants, which is to drive for the remainder of 2009, look like a victim and create an untenable situation for the team.

So from their perspective it was a preemptive move while they still has some control of the situation. That would also explain why Britore simply left the paddock in hungary as he couldn't even stomach it to feing any interest in NPJr racing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That begs the question why didn't Renault start this legal action back then if they were REALLY trying to blackmail them?!

There's to many questions asked and way to few answers from the Renault camp.

---

The answer to both those questions is quite simple — that their lawyers will have advised against starting the legal action until a certain point and saying too much at this stage.

Whatever transpires, this is one of the most fantastically absurd situations ever to have arisen in F1, but let's not pretend that it will do the sport any serious damage. It is now clear, surely, that nothing much does. The McLaren and Mosley scandals have obviously not harmed the sport one iota, despite what some of the more pompous observers, or those with a particular axe to grind, might say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gm99

Talking of questions, these come to my mind:

The relationship between Renault (or at least Briatore) and Piquet Jr. was already damaged by Singapore 2008 (Jr. admitts as much in his leaked statement) and Renault must have been aware by that time that Piquet would leave (or be forced to leave) the team before too long. Why give him ammunition by ordering him to crash?

Knowing that Piquet had this damaging information and would most likely take it to the FIA once fired by Renault, why did they still terminate his contract? It would have been safer to end the relationship on a mutual agreement, which probably would have meant a substantial sum of money for the Piquets in exchange for keeping their mouths shut about the whole issue.

IMO, there are only two possible answers:
a) Renault did not believe anyone would believe Piquet for whatever reason
b) Renault knows Piquet's claims to be untrue.

For the record, I have no clue about what the answer may be. Originally, I thought the allegation to be bogus, but meanwhile I'm not sure about that. Certainly Pat Symonds in the link ioan posted somewhere above doesn't come across as very convincing with all of his "I don't recall" and "I'd rather not answer that".

---

sometimes as maclaren have showed in Australia, it is actually the evasive response and non disclosure that becomes more problematic than the actual situation. For my money symonds was doing what any normal human being in his position would do, be evasive, and try and not incriminate himself in a no win situation. his non answers are just that, not admission of guilt, but rather a statement made in a tense situation where he knows any answer he gives to the fIa will be construed however max wants it to be since they already sided with piquet.