Renault get a 2 year suspended ban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Now you're nicking my lines :p
Now you've shared your views on my apparent trolling, what are you going to do about your trolling?

---

What trolling?! :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

What lap am I on?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Sometimes, your sponsor decals can come back to haunt you.....

---

Dude, that is so wrong, on so many levels... :laugh: :rotflmao:

Good one, though... :D :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by veeten

Dude, that is so wrong, on so many levels... :laugh: :rotflmao:

Good one, though... :D :up:

---

I think it gives us all an idea of just how much damage this going to do to renault F1, and anyone associated with them.

I honestly think they will quit, sponsors will exit stage right at their earliest opportunity, and the average Frenchman certainly won't want to bankroll some bit part drivers in cars that cannot win as they have no money.....

As that woman at the rental desk told Steve Martin - they're f****d!

They are also getting bad press over the leniency they were shown.

You cannot polish a turd, so why stick around and be widiculed like the common soldiewy?

Actually, thinking about it, I wander if Max has had a conversation with Renault along the lines of;

'If you quit, book gets thrown at you, stay, and we will play nice'

:?: :?: :?: :?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

Actually, thinking about it, I wander if Max has had a conversation with Renault along the lines of;

'If you quit, book gets thrown at you, stay, and we will play nice'

:?: :?: :?: :?:

---

And how would they stop Renault if they decide to quit after the FIA played nice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And how would they stop Renault if they decide to quit after the FIA played nice?

---

Good point well made...

An expected outcome, to be honest. It was clear that FIA wouldn't risk with losing more teams by banning a manufacturer from the sport, like they didn't dare to ban McLaren-Mercedes. Quite a heavy punishment to Briatore and especially Symonds though.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6845194.ece

Quote:

---

Witness X came forward on the eve of the FIA World Motor Sport Council hearing to reveal the elaborate details of the plot as Renault executives struggled to piece together events in their internal inquiry.
According to Witness X, Briatore knew all about the plan and the architect was Pat Symonds, Renault’s once highly respected director of engineering.
The FIA statement said: “Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore. Witness X objected to the idea. He did not know the plan was to be carried into effect until the crash happened.
“As a result of the evidence, including Mr Piquet’s admission, Mr Symonds’s responses and Witness X’s evidence, Renault F1 concluded that they and Mr Briatore must have known about the conspiracy.”
The trio kept the plan secret from the rest of the team, which explains why the FIA was keen to go easy on Renault, handing out a two-year suspended ban to the manufacturer team, while cracking down on Briatore and Symonds, who was banned from motor racing for five years. Piquet was given immunity for revealing the plot.

---

Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr
if any team even pick Nelson Piquet Jr as a test driver they are F_en mad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunderbolt

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6845194.ece

Quote:

---

Witness X came forward on the eve of the FIA World Motor Sport Council hearing to reveal the elaborate details of the plot as Renault executives struggled to piece together events in their internal inquiry.
According to Witness X, Briatore knew all about the plan and the architect was Pat Symonds, Renault’s once highly respected director of engineering.
The FIA statement said: “Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore. Witness X objected to the idea. He did not know the plan was to be carried into effect until the crash happened.
“As a result of the evidence, including Mr Piquet’s admission, Mr Symonds’s responses and Witness X’s evidence, Renault F1 concluded that they and Mr Briatore must have known about the conspiracy.”
The trio kept the plan secret from the rest of the team, which explains why the FIA was keen to go easy on Renault, handing out a two-year suspended ban to the manufacturer team, while cracking down on Briatore and Symonds, who was banned from motor racing for five years. Piquet was given immunity for revealing the plot.

---

Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr
if any team even pick Nelson Piquet Jr as a test driver they are F_en mad

---

Selective reading or jumping to conclusions :?:

Let's read that again:

Quote:

---

Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore.

---

There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?

Is it:

Quote:

---

Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr to Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore.

---

Or is it:

Quote:

---

Witness X was told of the idea suggested to Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore.

---

Are you a journo too?!

The Spanish FIA representative is clearly a tool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by autosport.com

"Briatore's (sanction) seems excessive to me, as there were no clear evidence to incriminate him and he didn't have the chance to defend himself," Gracia was quoted as saying by AS newspaper.

---

If I'm not mistaken Flavio was invited to the WMSC hearing but chose not to attend. Since when does this mean that 'he didn't have the chance to defend himself'?! :rotflmao:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by autosport.com

"Moreover, I'm not ruling out that he decides to resort to regular justice, because he has been left without his means to earn a living."

---

Poor Flav he will not have the possibility to repaint his yacht next winter and maybe he will have to fire one of his room maids and settle for 354 thongs instead of the usual 355. :\ Who would want a dog life like that?! :D

Anyway this Gracia guy is really having some huge troubles with reality perception from his 7th cloud!

Link to article: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78785

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2391

This article explains the reason for the jail sentence, among other little gems....

---

This link is no good. You can only read it if you pay money, and I won't. :(

Those who have time can listen to the WMSC hearing and it's outcome here:
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...0909_docs.aspx

Good night everyone, wherever you are! ;)

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

Anyone asking such a question does not grasp that THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Monday was a sentencing and anything said was in mitigation.

But too many people here in their disgusting eagerness and happiness at this are showing their ignorance.

Briatore is not an idiot, he is an excellent businessman who, together with Symonds, had their day of justice pulled out from under them by the French government aka: Renault.

This was not justice, it was a panicked corporation throwing the racing team management to the wolves - by accepting Flavio and Symonds' resignations - in the FIA in order to receive "leniency". You see Renault understand that the FIA is a reactionary authoritarian body that acts capriciously.

They looked over at Mclaren and knew a $100 million fine would collapse the team at least and probably every other formula they are involved with.

The sacrifice in order to appease was Briatore and Symonds - big mistake because the Renault team is finished. Flavio WAS the team.

And to replace him who? Alain Prost? God help them!

And Flavio? Does anyone here believe that this is the end? Briatore is within his right to seek redress through the European justice system and this could be extremely bad for f1. Flavio has nothing to lose and a man with billions to use can do a lot of damage.

The argument that Piquet acted on his own and the team tried to protect him but he used the secret to turn on Renault for firing him can be argued. You think it is far-fetched? Why? This entire case is based on what is essentially a map of technical readings.

There is an idea that perhaps Flavio can use his considerable connections with the billionaires around the world to start a different sort of sanctioning body.

The issue is that the FIA has acted yet nothing has happened to the team itself other than it has sewn the seeds of its own self-destruction.

This is not going to sit well and f1 looks like it accepts cheating - which it does as punishments are subjective.

It aint over and I hope Flavio wreakes havoc. Now that WILL be justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

Anyone asking such a question does not grasp that THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Monday was a sentencing and anything said was in mitigation.

---

Bla bla bla.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

But too many people here in their disgusting eagerness and happiness at this are showing their ignorance.

---

More bla bla!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Briatore is not an idiot...

---

Right, he's a scumbag first of all, one with a criminal record. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

Anyone asking such a question does not grasp that THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Monday was a sentencing and anything said was in mitigation.

But too many people here in their disgusting eagerness and happiness at this are showing their ignorance.

Briatore is not an idiot, he is an excellent businessman who, together with Symonds, had their day of justice pulled out from under them by the French government aka: Renault.

This was not justice, it was a panicked corporation throwing the racing team management to the wolves - by accepting Flavio and Symonds' resignations - in the FIA in order to receive "leniency". You see Renault understand that the FIA is a reactionary authoritarian body that acts capriciously.

They looked over at Mclaren and knew a $100 million fine would collapse the team at least and probably every other formula they are involved with.

The sacrifice in order to appease was Briatore and Symonds - big mistake because the Renault team is finished. Flavio WAS the team.

And to replace him who? Alain Prost? God help them!

And Flavio? Does anyone here believe that this is the end? Briatore is within his right to seek redress through the European justice system and this could be extremely bad for f1. Flavio has nothing to lose and a man with billions to use can do a lot of damage.

The argument that Piquet acted on his own and the team tried to protect him but he used the secret to turn on Renault for firing him can be argued. You think it is far-fetched? Why? This entire case is based on what is essentially a map of technical readings.

There is an idea that perhaps Flavio can use his considerable connections with the billionaires around the world to start a different sort of sanctioning body.

The issue is that the FIA has acted yet nothing has happened to the team itself other than it has sewn the seeds of its own self-destruction.

This is not going to sit well and f1 looks like it accepts cheating - which it does as punishments are subjective.

It aint over and I hope Flavio wreakes havoc. Now that WILL be justice.

---

My goodness, what a load of tripe. I fully expect your next post to suggest that Briatore should overthrow all world governments as part of a crusade of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

My goodness, what a load of tripe. I fully expect your next post to suggest that Briatore should overthrow all world governments as part of a crusade of justice.

---

Careful now, or he's going to type another post stating how biased and crazy we are for wanting a cheating race fixer out of the sport. But it's just due to our personal bias of course. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

My goodness, what a load of tripe. I fully expect your next post to suggest that Briatore should overthrow all world governments as part of a crusade of justice.

---

No, that is only something you would say because as usual you say NOTHING but point your fingers at people here a lot.

Evidently you are a bitter individual disliking the folks in f1 and rejoicing at their problems, yet stuck in the past, attached to a driver that was a cheat par excellence.

You have my deepest pity. :vader:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

Why did Briatore not defend himself?

---

Sleazy Flav did not defend himself because he was not charged. He departed Renault and therefore didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing where Renault pleaded "no contest". Flav maybe dishonest, but he is not stupid!! :rolleyes:

The issue is who will take over management of the team and how this changes the affects the decision of Alonso and Kubica.

Without Briatore and Symonds in the team, Renault are at this stage the least effective team.

Alonso will definitely want out as the only reason he is at Renault is because of his close friendship and good management that has guided the team to double world titles of Braitore.

I would expect Alonso a definite Ferrari driver in 2010 alongside Raikkonen - unless Mercedes makes Kimi a good offer.

Ferrari have no idea how Massa will be when he returns and that is only possible in 2010. So they could act like Enzo used to - replace the driver because of uncertainty and fire him - Enzo Ferrari was never sentimental over his drivers except Gilles.

But where does Kubica go? Renault HAS to be out of the question along with Toyota - how about Kubica to Mclaren? Excellent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

Sleazy Flav did not defend himself because he was not charged. He departed Renault and therefore didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing where Renault pleaded "no contest". Flav maybe dishonest, but he is not stupid!! :rolleyes:

---

He did not defend himself because there was no trial - I have stated this in my post. Do not SPIN this story.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Selective reading or jumping to conclusions :?:

Let's read that again:


There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?

Is it:


Or is it:


Are you a journo too?!

---

I don't know why I am doing this - I must be completely off my mind but so far, I have agreed 100% with ioan's reasoning on this entire shameful episode. Who on earth could possibly accuse Jr of even having the brains to contemplate anything so complex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

He did not defend himself because there was no trial - I have stated this in my post. Do not SPIN this story.....

---

And if he went to the WMSC meeting, he would have had to give evidence or hear Pat Symonds give damning evidence and then there would have been a trial.

Do you honestly think Sleazy Flav wanted a trial? He may be dishonest but he is not stupid!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

And if he went to the WMSC meeting, he would have had to give evidence or hear Pat Symonds give damning evidence and then there would have been a trial.

Do you honestly think Flav wanted a trial? He may be dishonest but he is not stupid!!

---

How do you know he is dishonest? How do you know he did not want a trial?

You are presuming guilt without any trial. That is disgraceful - in fair justice systems innocence is presumed until proven otherwise in trial beyond reasonable doubt. There is at the minimum lots of reasonable doubt on the side of Flavio and Symonds.

Settlement by corporations for whatever reason, especially in a kangaroo court like the FIA, is arrived at not based on guilt or innocence but on cost or expediency.

I have commented on this in a recent previous post. :vader:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

How do you know he is dishonest? How do you know he did not want a trial?

You are presuming guilt without any trial. That is disgraceful - in fair justice systems innocence is presumed until proven otherwise in trial beyond reasonable doubt. There is at the minimum lots of reasonable doubt on the side of Flavio and Symonds.

Settlement by corporations for whatever reason, especially in a kangaroo court like the FIA, is arrived at not based on guilt or innocence but on cost or expediency.

I have commented on this in a recent previous post. :vader:

---

First of all, you are wrong in law: In France, he is guilty until proven innocent.

Secondly, you are the only person on earth who has any doubt about both Pat Symonds's and Sleazy Flav's guilt.

In fact, from the transcribe of the FIA's original interview of Pat Symonds, his evasive answers lead me to believe not only that he was well and truly involved in the conspiracy, but it gave the indication that if he was put under oath, he would have spilled the beans on Sleazy Flav.

As I said before, the only reason both Sleazy Flav and Pat Symonds are not on trial is because the were smart enough to depart Renault so that they didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing. It sure as hell wasn't because the FIA didn't want to interrogate the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saint Devote

How do you know he is dishonest?

:vader:

---

Actually there is a link http://www.autosport.com/features/article.php/id/2391
about his crooked dealings. Of course you have to pay to read the whole article; maybe you could charge it to Sleazy Flav's account. :p :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

The Spanish FIA representative is clearly a tool:

---

I like to think the entire FIA is a collective tool in its current guise....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Selective reading or jumping to conclusions :?:

Let's read that again:


There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?

Is it:


Or is it:


Are you a journo too?!

---

This clears it up...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6845194.ece

Quote:

---

“I was the one who, when the idea was first suggested to me by Nelson Piquet Jr, should have dismissed it immediately,” he said. “I can only say I did it out of a misguided devotion to my team and not for any personal gain whatsoever. I consider the role I have played in bringing the team to where it is today to be my life’s work

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There is obviously a typo (or just a bad journo, who knows?).
Which one of the two 'BY's should be a TO?

---

No I think it is correct.

Quote:

---

Witness X was told of the idea suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr by Mr Symonds, whilst in the presence of Mr Briatore.

---

The idea was suggested by Nelson Piquet Jr.
Witness X was told of the idea by Pat Symonds.

So it looks like Jr. dreamt it up in the first place. He told Symonds, who instead of firing him on the spot went "Hmm, good idea!" and then told Briatore and Witness X about their plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

This link is no good. You can only read it if you pay money, and I won't. :(

---

My bad, didn't think that one through very well, did I?

Of course, the amazing thing in respect of this latest development is that, while Renault and the FIA have told us no-one else in the Renault team bar the three in question knew of the intention to crash, suddenly a fourth member of the team, Witness X, has come through and saved the day for the FIA in giving them the lifeline they need to keep Renault in, and boot Flavio out.

Convenient or coincidence?

Perhaps Witness X is actually Woman D or Mistress E.... ;)

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

---

I really can't believe that Jr has the intelligence to suggest anything so complex.

I have noticed that all we talk about on this thread is stories from all parties involved but no concrete evidence except telemetry, which can be interpreted in many ways. It is the case of 'your story' vs 'my story'. Here we have a disenchanted fired driver who said 'black', his former boss who said 'white', another boss who avoided saying anything and the team which pled no contest to whatever has been said by everybody else. I see no smoking gun here. I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and many circumstances point at it indirectly, but from the legalistic point of view the court had no ground for passing such a severe judgment. I just don't think that's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

I really can't believe that Jr has the intelligence to suggest anything so complex.

---

Eh? Crashing was his party piece, an artform perfected over many races in F1.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

It is the case of 'your story' vs 'my story'. Here we have a disenchanted fired driver who said 'black', his former boss who said 'white', another boss who avoided saying anything and the team which pled no contest to whatever has been said by everybody else.

---

According to the WMSC hearing (link):

Quote:

---

...this conspiracy did not go to the heart of the team, but was restricted to the actions of 2 or 3 people

---

Both Piquet and Symonds have admitted their involvement, although their account differs, so that's 2. The "or 3" presumably refers to Briatore who has indeed has said little.

Well, with Witness X coming forward, lets be honest here, how many more within the team knew? People talk, it's human nature.

While a convenient means to an end for Max to watch Flavio fall on his sword, I just don't buy the clique little conveniences that just seemed to have slotted into place.

If this Witness X was party to the Whistlblower policy - which you assume was a condition of contract of employment, why wait till the absolute last possible moment?

I am prepared to eat my hat if it transpires that no-one else in the Renault team new of this plot.

NB - I aint stoopid (only my opinion!!!!), I keep a chocolate hat for such wagers!!! ;)

if Flav were innocent why isn't he taking Renault to court for wrongful dismissal?

we also now have an additional Renault employee (who Renault found in their investigation, not the FIA's) - do people continue to believe that no-one outsde that room knew of the plot (even if it was only after) given the odd strategy, the Piquets loose lips and the prolifereation of data and suspicion.

and why is one person continuing to protest about Flav being so hard done by? a convicted criminal who avoided jail by fleeing the country before being given an amnesty by a no doubt entirely incorruptable organisation, a man who was at the helm during the traction control Bennetton days (in the car but not used my arse), the fuel rig tampering and now race fixing, to name a few issues with one thing in common - Flav. sure he's been successful, but all that can be questioned for what it appears to be based on - a desire to win at all cost regardless of rules or morals - what a shining example to us all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

with one thing in common - Flav.

---

Don't forget Pat......


[Sorry Pat]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

There is a still a descrepancy in the stories here. Pay Symonds says that the plan was suggested to him by Piquet. Then Piquet says he regrets "following the orders he was given". :mark:

---

There is also an argument for punishing Jnr here, as he has clearly been 'economical' with the truth - or his version of it.....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

First of all, you are wrong in law: In France, he is guilty until proven innocent.

Secondly, you are the only person on earth who has any doubt about both Pat Symonds's and Sleazy Flav's guilt.

In fact, from the transcribe of the FIA's original interview of Pat Symonds, his evasive answers lead me to believe not only that he was well and truly involved in the conspiracy, but it gave the indication that if he was put under oath, he would have spilled the beans on Sleazy Flav.

As I said before, the only reason both Sleazy Flav and Pat Symonds are not on trial is because the were smart enough to depart Renault so that they didn't have to attend the WMSC hearing. It sure as hell wasn't because the FIA didn't want to interrogate the two.

---

I know very well what the system in France is which is why I said in FAIR justice systems. France's system is not right.

You can debate a decison whether or not it is a good one to decide against a trial - the FIA is capricious so it is more important what can be arranged before hand.

But I see Symonds has admitted according to a report in Autosport and he is saying he will "eternally regret etc". I am not surprised he turned out to be weak. He looks like a weak character.

Anyway, I still think that the decision to ban them was excessive.

And why Nelsinho decided to become a snitch instead of keeping Flavio as a friend and getting his help to seek another drive in f1 as his manager is also extremely puzzling. Maybe he has not learnt that burning your bridges is always foolish.

Well, its over and time to move on. This weekend is Singapore after all :D