Maybe we all lack a sense of humor and don't see what you find humorous about this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Printable View
Maybe we all lack a sense of humor and don't see what you find humorous about this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
That one was never proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
And he got punished for the other ones even if the proof wasn't really there either.
As for Senna, I'm still amazed that someone got away with such a premeditated action and was also handed the title on a plate after that. Just shows that the approach the FIA are having now is more down to earth than what we had 20 years ago.
Let's keep Schumacher and Senna off here, thank you !
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Not quite...a crock of excrement with no proof is not the basis for a sensible debate.
It's still not very cricket , but I would suggest that Flavio may have ordered young Piquet to spin and stall , rather than spin and crash .
He would have achieved the same thing , but without the skills , he crunched the car .
This does not excuse the cynical nature of the order , but it makes it a little less sinister .
"Spin , and cause a safety car so that your team-mate can win" is not so different an order to , "hold the others up , so your team-mate can win" .
Given that orders are forbidden , they would need to be stated differently , but , though a dirty trick , not so far from the rules , really , if Nelson could have kept it off the wall .
I think it would be pretty hard to convince any driver to deliberately crash in F1 , no matter who it was , but you might ask them to spin .
they only proof they could have would be Piquet talking sh!t. But I guess in the land of Islam you are guilty until proven innocent. So they will try and deball Flavio and he will buy the Italian mafia who will sever the FIA is many places and life will go on in the name of money and power with the little twerps always trying to cause problems.
I saw this article today from longtime F1 writer Adam Cooper and found it interesting.
http://formula-one.speedtv.com/artic...e-2008-affair/
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Sorry Pino but I believe it has some relevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
I am sure ioan and I will be happy to ignore whether there was any malice intended or whether the incidents were imagined or real ;)
I agree with ioan that it's amazing Senna was "rewarded" for crashing into his rival.
Then we have Schumy who (argueably) did the same thing twice; getting away with it once and being hammered the 2nd time.
Lots of (typical) inconsistency here from the FIA as you would expect.
However, as I said, neither involved anything apart from the drivers. If a team were to request a driver crash to benefir other drivers then it's a whole new bag.
The Schumacher & Senna incidents were relevant to the point I was making and relevant in Knockie's reply. The fact that certain other members couldn't resist the opportunity to rake up old arguments is their problem.
Autosport's latest news story on Crashgate (as it inevitably will become) suggests it was Piquet Jr who came up with the idea of crashing out, and Piquet Sr who ran to Max with the story. Bearing in mind some of the stories I've heard about Piquet Jr's time in Brazilian F3, with some, er, interesting interpretations of rules, and gun-toting race promoters threatening rival drivers and the like, this remarkably seems the most plausible theory...
IMO this story doesn't have credibility as Piquet Sr is not so stupid as to turn in his son.Quote:
Originally Posted by inimitablestoo
Either Piquet Jr had the idea, which I have my doubts about and than Piquet Sr wouldn't go straight to max to report it.
Or Someone else had the idea and Jr was pressured into doing it or else bye bye F1 seat and in this case I believe it that Piquet Sr might have reported it.
Wouldn't put anything past the Piquets, me.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
What this story does all but confirm, is that the crash was most definately deliberate, and for the sole benefit
Of Alonso.
This is bad news for Fred, as that is two negatives from ywo seperate teams.
Be interesting to see this pan out now, cos the poop is gonna hit the fan for sure.
Interesting views from James Allens blog - With Symonds and Briatore all but admitting that this conversation to deliberatly crash DID happen, then I reckon this will be a real nail in the coffin - Will be interesting if the whole team is punished (I.e. a Renault exclusion, or whether the individuals involved will be the main bearers of any punishment and or even criminal charges:
=========================
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2009/0...crash-meeting/
Explosive new information on Renault pre-crash meeting
Posted on | September 9, 2009 | by James AllengravatarcloseAuthor: James Allen Name: James Allen
Email: [email:2xdc0a8i]editor@jamesallenonf1.com[/email:2xdc0a8i]
Site: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com
Autosport is carrying a story this evening with some amazing revelations about a meeting which took place between Renault’s Flavio Briatore, Pat Symonds and Nelson Piquet Jr at Singapore last year.
Piquet at centre of huge storm (Photo: Darren Heath)
Piquet at centre of huge storm (Photo: Darren Heath)
Renault stand accused of deliberately causing Piquet to crash, just after Alonso’s early first pit stop, in order to give Alonso the chance to win the race, as the rest of the field would pit under the ensuing safety car.
The first ever night race, the Singapore Grand Prix was sponsored by Renault’s title sponsor, ING, making it a perfect day for them.
Autosport’s Jon Noble quotes ’sources’, in his report as follows:
“Sources claim that in evidence submitted to the FIA by Nelson Piquet, the Brazilian driver says he was asked by Briatore and Symonds to crash deliberately early in the race so as to help Alonso win.
“Piquet says that he agreed to do so because he felt uncomfortable about his situation at the team, with Renault having not renewed his contract for 2009 at that time – and Briatore was stalling on making a firm commitment. Piquet suggests that he only went ahead and caused the accident because he felt he would be rewarded for his actions.
“In his evidence, Piquet claims that he was taken aside by Symonds after the first meeting and instructured that he should crash on lap 13 or 14, shortly after Alonso’s scheduled first stop, at Turn 17.
“The reason this part of the track was singled out was because there were no cranes present there to lift the car away, so any accident would virtually guarantee a safety car.”
The story has echoes of the blood scandal in rugby last season, when a Harlequins player was instructed by the team manager to fake a blood injury using stage blood, in order to get a specialist kicker onto the pitch.
Autosport goes on on say that the information was given to FIA president Max Mosley by Nelson Piquet Sr on July 26th. This was the day of the Hungarian Grand Prix. That same day Renault were charged for releasing Alonso’s unsafe car back into the race after a pit stop. That infringement initially got them a one race ban, which was lifted on appeal, but it germinated the notion that the team was not acting safely.
Since then the Singapore issue has been extensively investigated by an FIA team, assisted by representatives of Quest, a leading independent investigative firm, run by former Metropolitan police chief Lord Stevens, which Mosley hired last year to look into who set up the sting on him in the News of the World.
This is an extremely serious allegation and if proven, is far more serious than the McLaren spy case of 2007 because it concerns putting the lives of the driver, the marshals and potentially the public at risk. If proven the race fixing aspect of it would have a very negative impact on the image of the sport, just as it is emerging from the instability of the teams’ breakaway threat.
According to the story, both Symonds and Briatore deny Piquet’s account. They accept that the meeting took place, but say that the idea of crashing was not theirs – two men’s word against one.
Interestingly in the evidence which has come to light thus far, there is no suggestion that Fernando Alonso, who was the main beneficiary of Piquet’s accident and who is hoping to be unveiled as a Ferrari driver shortly, had any part in the planning of it.
The hearing before the World Council, will take place on Monday September 21st.
Wow! Somebody is lying.
Good Lord, I hope that is not true!
I will have a completely new perspective on the sport and be embarassed to be labeled a "fan" :s
So there really was something behind this, I though it was all just hot air. Sad day for F1.
Here's the actual Autosport link JA mentions: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78446
Okay, right there they ADMIT there was a conspiracy to cause an accident, and thus bring out the SC, yes? In a sense, whoever came up with the idea is irrelevant - all that matters is the plan.Quote:
Piquet's claims have, however, been denied by both Briatore and Symonds in documents that are believed to have been submitted with the FIA. Although they confirm that the meeting between the three of them took place, both suggest that it was Piquet's own suggestion to cause an accident.
And...
Well, well.Quote:
A report in Italian magazine Autosprint also suggests that telemetry data from Piquet's car has emerged as another reason why the matter has gone to the WMSC.
At Turn 17 where Piquet crashed, normally the rear wheels of the Renault would lose grip on the exit - requiring the driver to ease off the throttle briefly. However, on the lap he crashed, Piquet kept accelerating even though the rear wheels had lost grip.
Not good, is it? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody
If there is evidence to suggest deliberate wrong-doing, is it possible that the Singapore authorities launch their own investigation into a possible criminal offense?
yea they want to "cane" piquet and flavio :)
http://www.tsn.ca/auto_racing/story/?id=290536
this looks like it will be bigger then spygate - liegate -
Quote:
It appears Nelson Piquet Jr. is responsible for the "new evidence" the FIA is using against Renault in the race fixing allegations related to last year's Singapore Grand Prix.
Piquet reportedly told F1 officials he agreed to the idea because he was worried about his future within the team as he had no contract yet for 2009.
Meanwhile, according to Autosprint magazine, telemetry from Piquet's car shows he continued to accelerate through Turn 17 on the lap he crashed despite his rear wheels losing grip. On previous laps, the data showed him easing off the accelerator to compenstate for the loss of grip.
What's the old saying, something like:
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Oh dear, from the look of things, heads are gonna roll on this one. :mad:
I think we are very tolerant, you are innocent although proven guilty... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by fousto
For most of the times though, a thing walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is indeed a duck.
Isn't it the other way around in f1? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by leopardsleeping
Flavio is saying that Piquet alone suggested this, and that Renault wanted no part of this. However, I can see no other possible explanation for Alonso's phenomenally heavy fuel load at his first stop other than the team being confident of a safety car period.
This raises the possibility of Alonso himself having some prior knowledge. He's not an idiot, and would have known that his qualifying fuel load gave him absolutely zero chance of a decent result unless there was an interruption to the race, just after his first stop.
Purely circumstantial, but I can't help thinking back to his reaction in the holding area just before the podium ceremony. For somebody who had just won his first race of the year after half a season of struggle, he looked positively subdued. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I find it difficult to believe that he wouldn't have had some inkling that his victory wasn't entirely down to luck. :s
we are So Fine :)Quote:
Originally Posted by DexDexter
It's a story of a man
Who works as hard as he can
Just to be a man who stands on his own
For those doesn't know what was it about, it was only small pick of So Fine from GNR ...
Flav said such idea was never talked about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
Symonds says that it was Piquet's idea.
Their contradictory stories are already more than enough to question the integrity of their words.
When you add the strange Alonso strategy, and I doubt it was Piquet who decided Alonso's furl load for the race day, it's obvious that the liar isn't Jr.
Yes - it looks that Nelson Piquet is telling the true story and it’s clear that there is a serious risk for the negative consequences to every one involved - it's there also for Nelson. How or if it will affect even Alonsos carrier will the future show – but I hope he is not involved. When Symonds says that it was Piquet's idea doesn’t really changes or help – it’s not interesting who came with the idea - sadly we can say now that it’s clear that an idea was there.. sad sad..Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
This little snippet;
Radio transcripts of the race, which have been obtained by the FIA, show that director of engineering Symonds did not share the concerns of fellow team members about making such an early stop – telling the team: "No, no, it's going to be alright."
From this story - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78451 - is most concerning.
"No, no, it's going to be alright."
That could be the sentence that hangs them out to dry. Why not "it's a calculated risk" or "we're predicting a safety car"? Symonds seems pretty certain that the outcome is guaranteed. I'm starting to wonder if him and Flav and were in any way involved in Derren Brown's lottery "predictions" :p
Why? Did they use split screens and pre recorded segments too?!?!
Apologies for thread creep, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
If that guy Brown can predict the lottery, why does he not win every draw?
Same for every clairvoyant etc......
;)
I knew you were going to say that.... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Groan.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
:rotflmao:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
If it weren't Jr. then it must be that mechanic who can not tighten those wheels.....where is Dave Ryan when you need him? :rolleyes:
Good point and I think that the one who will lose out in this situation will be Dave Ryan's equivalent, Pat Symonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
but the real question may not be what the FIA will do as to making pat walk the plank, but if this is a criminal violation of Singapore law......those folks seem to love to throw necktie parties for spitting on the sidewalk, :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
so i wonder if there could be any match fixing charges, esp. if anyone bet any money..... :confused:
mind you, just idle speculation, because at first right after the crash, for the first 5 seconds afterwards, i thought?????
then I thought, well no way, just coincidences......even with all this stuff of the last few days, I still would say NO WAY...but now from what I have seen in the last 24 hours, the "did they do it discussion" no longer has any relevance.....my advice is if this constitutes a possible crime in Singapore, them three boys need to stay out of that country and any country with extradition treaties.......
Besides, Flav's own statements make him out to be a liar compared to Pat and the other facts as you point out.....
It puzzles me why Symonds would admit that the matter was discussed. If Flavio & co did it, they should deny that discussions took place and it would just be their word against Piquet. I almost wish they would do that cause I don't want to see Renault get out of F1. If you have a strategy where driver crashes intentionally, lying about it is no big deal after that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan