Presumably because it was Flavio who fired him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Unless the orders came from Renault bosses, leaving Flav no choice????? Unlikely though.
Printable View
Presumably because it was Flavio who fired him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Unless the orders came from Renault bosses, leaving Flav no choice????? Unlikely though.
Fair point. Perhaps he will, although was he actually dismissed? Renault's statement simply said "...its managing director, Flavio Briatore and its executive director of engineering, Pat Symonds, have left the team."Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Wouldn't Renault have distanced themselves more effectively from the actions of 2 or 3 individuals by saying they had been sacked? Perhaps there are legal issues which determine the wording.
Somewhat confusing - of Piquet, Symonds and Briatore two were offered immunity. Two have admitted participating in the fix. Two have been banned from F1 :crazy:
The statement "The trio kept the plan secret from the rest of the team" in the Times article is not a direct quote from Renault, I think it's paraphrasing this passage from the FIA judgement:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
The documents make it clear that Witness X is a member of the Renault team.Quote:
The WMSC considers that the evidence indicates that this was a secret conspiracy, kept from the remainder of the team and executed by three individuals who were acting far outside their authority and, arguably, contrary to the interests of Renault F1. No other member of the team was involved in the conspiracy or (with the exception of Witness X) had any knowledge of it Therefore, no other member of the team apart from those directly involved can fairly be singled out for individual criticism.
Clearly Flavio will know who witness X is from what's been said. Lucky for Witness X that Flavio is such a forgiving and easy-going person :crazy:
Flav and Pat knew they were doomed so when they sat down with Renault, it was agreed that they would part company. If they didn't then they would have been sacked for gross misconduct.
So, that's the end of that. All we have now is Flav knawing over some old bones to (attempt to) save a bit of face. He is defeated and no court case will develop. Just hot air so in latter days he can say to his cronnies how he was going to sue the ass off them but couldn't be bothered, or was asked nicely by X, or was paid a fortune to drop it etc.
Still I do not qualify somebody's confession as a bulletproof evidence. In the former Soviet Union it was frequently used by the repressive justice to make the trials look fair. The inverstigators would just beat the crap out of the suspect and make him/her confess. That was sufficient even in the absence of any other evidence. This is why I always tend to take 'stories' skeptically. Here the power of FIA is such that they did not need to even threaten. The alternative was clear: cooperate and get away or make your point and face the consequences. I do not question the fact of conspiracy, I am just unhappy with the court inability/unwillingness to find more convincing evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
To make the analogies, people gave Schumi the benefit of the doubt at Adelaide '94 because nobody had any evidence to prove his 'story' wrong. But three years later at Jerez it was crystal clear he crashed deliberately and his 'story' did not work.
Anyone listened yet to the FIA hearing?
Piquet seems awfully vague over who's idea it was to crash....
This makes for good listening. Looks like Daddy has pushed Jnr into this.
Way out of his depth, he couldn't even remember what time the race started in Singapore, so how can he be considered a reliable witness?
Presumably we will never get a satisfactory explanation for this now that the FIA has granted immunity to the relevant parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I am no legal expert, but might this have something to do with the specific nature of his departure from the team. I can't recall if we know the details of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinho
Maybe, just maybe, he felt it was the right thing to do? Or would you prefer it if such matters always went unknown? If so, you are a fine one to comment on whether France's justice system is fair, because you have no concept of justice at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But if it doesn't exist, the end result could be to do absolutely nothing, which wouldn't be right in this case because something clearly did happen that wasn't right. There is no 'smoking gun' e-mail or written document, for example, and there was never going to be. So far we have heard no complaints about confessions being forced out of the relevant parties under duress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Damn! I wish you could have been on the last Jury I was on. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78798
I suppose Pat is the only one I have any sympathy for.
it seems to me that he has not lied all the way through and refused to answer when it ment he couldn't tell the truth so his clear statement that it was Piquets idea holds a lot of sway with me.
In fact, the Piquets coming up with an idea like this to secure a drive (and have a blackmail chip to boot) demonstrates motive, opportunity and fits in with character of Snr.
Flav has had it coming for a long time as well and I'm glad he has gone. He was only ever in F1 for the business and ego rather than the racing. Good riddance.
Pat though has put his heart and soul into the team. He was there at the beginning and has sacrificed much. His personal dissapointment and regret must be consuming. Why, why, why didn't you just send Jnr packing with a flea in his ear when he came up with this preposterous idea Pat? WHY!
I am afraid then it will set a precedent to pass a judgment on race fixing based on stories and nothing else. Let us imagine, somebody is leading a race by two laps (and that has happened) but knows he will run short of fuel. He crashes real bad, causes a red flag and becomes the winner because he was still in the lead technically. He says he lost his concentration and you gotta believe him. The next year he goes broke for whatever reason and decides to sell his tell-all story to a tabloid for a good amount of quid. Again, we have nothing, but a story. Shall we take it or shall we look for more evidence? It is an open question to me...Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I totally see where you're coming from, but I think in this case sufficient evidence has been presented. Have any of the parties involved actually denied it? I feel that a more dangerous precedent is to do nothing because the evidence only comes in the form of stories — which is, after all, inevitable — and then open the floodgates to other teams realising that they can fix races by means of unattributable conversations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Rudy. This case seems pretty open and shut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Jnr says he has cheated with 2 other people.
One has admitted it was true that he cheated.
A witness has come forward and confirmed the accusation.
Telementary data backs up the deliberate crash.
There was motive for the crash.
Where is the doubt in this case. Only Flav is blowing hot air and I will bet physical money with you that his threat of taking everyone and their dog to court comes to nothing.
Quite unlike your hero Sleazy Flav.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
the same witnesse said that it was Piquet that came up with the idea while his ´confession´ didn´t include this little insignificant detail. I think the immunity given to him should be reconsidered since it was based on false facts. Or ´maybe´ this was just the revenge of the allspitefull one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Deep Throat! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Legally speaking under English/Welsh law, which I believe is what applies here as Renault operates from England. You can still sue for wrongful or constructive dismissal even if you resigned yourself. If you can prove that you had no option but to quit.
However no case Flavio Briatore brought would be likely to be successful. As there is overwhelming evidence of gross misconduct.
Flav was going to sue the two Piquets also. He wouldn't dare sue over this case as a lot more evidence may come out further incriminating him. I reckon the guy is all bluff but no show anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
LMFAOOOO!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
What I still don't understand is Piquet was offered immunity to come forward about Renault, yet it now seems that it was Nelsinho who came up with the idea and put it to Symonds, Witness X and Flav? Hopefully we'll never see him in F1 again either - although his results suggest we won't ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
As for Symonds...it's odd what seemingly decent people, as Pat appears to be, will do when under pressure. Renault lacked results, the car was a dog, sponsors were unhappy. In the cold light of day it was idiotic but many people in many walks of life make similar mistakes...just look at banks!
You know nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
A weak character would probably have taken the immunity offer and implicated Briatore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Thing about that is that, today, it's virtually impossible to bring out a red flag - in days of yore, Piquet's little stunt would have done so, but now they bring out the SC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Remember, the last non-weather-related red flag was six years ago. Since when the regs have been altered to raise the bar still further for a red flag situation (basically, the track would need to be literally impassible because of weather - as in Malaysia this year - or because the track was completely blocked by a pile-up).
The penalty the FIA is giving does sound extremely harsh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody
I have here the rule at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway "Bullring" race track for something similar to what Piquet did.
Rule 1.12.1 "The Race Director reserves the right to penalize any driver one (1) lap for intentionally causing a (safety car)." Most tracks also state no wave-arounds or beneficiary rule.
NASCAR has a rule, Article 12, Rule 4, Section N, "intentionally causing a (safety car) during the race".
A 10-point penalty would have been suitable for Renault in that race for "intentionally causing a safety car".
Hm, interesting. But then the attitude to bending or breaking the rules is different in Europe and the U.S.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78843
Good old Flav planning revenge now.
It's obvious he wouldn't have much of a chance through the courts but what about a Christmas best seller. I would read that!!!
Could you imagine the s**t he has in his back pocket? The first Schumacher WDC fix, the dodgy deals and the electronic cheats of Tad's era.
Apart from the next head of the FIA, the current head of the FIA and Bernie, I don't think there's anyone that knows more about the shady side of F1. It's going to come out one day and perhaps this is it?
Flav's got no dignity. At least Symmonds made a sincere apology, Flav's just making himself look even more bitter and stupid that usual.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
@Knockie: I wouldn't lose time with reading what a liar says (he will not be writing it himself anyway).
Yeah I mean who will actually believe anything that he says now. He's discredited himself and should shut up. Pat does seem genuinely sorry and realises now what a horrific scheme it was and his dignity is a credit to him
Dignity and Flavio Briatore will never be seen in the same article, let alone the same sentence.
Mutterings of a betrayed dodgy character - should make for a good reading and subsequent movie. Sleazy Flav might even be able to star in it.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88614Quote:
The Renault F1 team has agreed to pay substantial damages and court costs to former driver Nelson Piquet and his father for libellous comments relating to the race fix scandal that surrounded the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.
Substantial damages eh? Sometimes an apology just isn't enough.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
What a sad state of affairs. I'll have to defer to "The Bard" on this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78Quote:
Originally Posted by Shakespeare
You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crashQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
But you might feel better if I gave you some cash
The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight
You don't want to work, you want to live like a king
But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing
Henley, D. 1994
Henley also references William Shakespeares Henry VI pt.II when he states, "old billy was right, lets kill all the lawyers and kill em tonight", echoing Shakespeares line; "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"
Pino's going to brain me for this but I just can't he'p it ]6kMw6U9KUJ4[/youtube]Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilko
Why's that, he more of a 'Chas 'n Dave' man is he....????Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Alcatraz
He won't get that, will he?