Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic


This just shows that so far not a single convincing proof of conspiracy has been produced. Worse than McLaren saga, somebody said? Only if we believe FIA and Piquet. And the more the saga unfolds, the less convinced I am about the conspiracy.

Hmm well, not really. There are several damning bits of evidence:

1) Pat Symonds acknowledgement that NPJ had discussed it with them;

2) Pat Symonds refusing to answer the questions;

3) Renault's apparent lack of action - given that 1) above has been acknowledged as happening and then NPJ crashed under his own steam (as Flav/Pat claim), why didn't Renault react/take action? Gross misconduct, etc. The fact this got overlooked and knowing Flav's well publicised issues with NPJ indicates clearly that something else was going on

4) NPJ's sworn statement - like it or not, this is evidence and with nothing to counter it, it stands

1 and 2 were stated as reasons by the FIA as to why they believe there is guilt. Certainly put together they are not the actions of an innocent party. For part 1) as an innocent party, I would clearly state to NPJ that joking aside this was not something he should do. If he had crashed deliberately as a solo action, I would have taken disciplinary action or involved FIA. In any subsequent investigation I would have been open and answered all the questions.

Sorry Andres, but to think anything else is wishful thinking and a bit naieve.

I agree with Sid also in that Renault strike me as an organisation who, if they believed they were in the right would have fought hard to prove themselves innocent. Why did they capitulate so easily/quickly?

Finally, as much as it hurts to say it, I find it inconceivable to think that Alonso knew nothing of this either before or after. I can believe that he was not an instigator, however he must have known about this. Even if he didn't beforehand, he sure as hell would have afterwards - why did he not say something to FIA then? He could have come out of this as a hero, kept his win and exposed the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm well, not really. There are several damning bits of evidence:

1) Pat Symonds acknowledgement that NPJ had discussed it with them;

2) Pat Symonds refusing to answer the questions;

3) Renault's apparent lack of action - given that 1) above has been acknowledged as happening and then NPJ crashed under his own steam (as Flav/Pat claim), why didn't Renault react/take action? Gross misconduct, etc. The fact this got overlooked and knowing Flav's well publicised issues with NPJ indicates clearly that something else was going on

4) NPJ's sworn statement - like it or not, this is evidence and with nothing to counter it, it stands

1 and 2 were stated as reasons by the FIA as to why they believe there is guilt. Certainly put together they are not the actions of an innocent party. For part 1) as an innocent party, I would clearly state to NPJ that joking aside this was not something he should do. If he had crashed deliberately as a solo action, I would have taken disciplinary action or involved FIA. In any subsequent investigation I would have been open and answered all the questions.

Sorry Andres, but to think anything else is wishful thinking and a bit naieve.

I agree with Sid also in that Renault strike me as an organisation who, if they believed they were in the right would have fought hard to prove themselves innocent. Why did they capitulate so easily/quickly?

Finally, as much as it hurts to say it, I find it inconceivable to think that Alonso knew nothing of this either before or after. I can believe that he was not an instigator, however he must have known about this. Even if he didn't beforehand, he sure as hell would have afterwards - why did he not say something to FIA then? He could have come out of this as a hero, kept his win and exposed the plot.

A good and thoughtful post, but evidence does not equal proof. Much may we all think they did it, there is still no definative proof.

I agree that they are certainly guilty of covering up after the fact - that is beyond doubt, but that is a different crime from instigating the whole thing - which is what everyone is saying they did. They may well have, but there is still no proof of this - I wish there was, so we could lay the saga to bed, but there (as yet) isn't.

Using lack of evidence to the contrary as proof of an argument is like religious people insisting that if you can't show them that God doesn't exist then he must do.

We're on a slippery slope to justice being dished out on a whim.

The funny thing is that I agree with everyone who says they 'think' they're guilty - so do I - but I can't agree with anyone who categorically says they 'are' guilty - I just haven't seen evidence enough to find them guilty of anything other than keeping quiet after the event (for which they deserve proportional punishment).

Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've left...they're guilty...and presumably see this as the easiest way to escape sanction / penalty / jail. But they can't just drop off the face of the earth and never have this bite them on the a## again. With no real statement coming forth from Renault (apart from we won't contest the charges...in other words, we haven't got a leg to stand on because its all true), then everything Renault touch now is tainted. How many fans have now turned their backs on them? How many sponsors?

Certainly more will come of this from the FIA, and if they don't fine them at least an equal amount of what they did McLaren, then they should be giving the cheque back to Ron, for this is far worse than some info regarding tyre pressures being bandied about.

So I leave you with the following to go hmmmm on....

1- Will Renault be suspended from FOTA, or kicked out even?

2- When has a team ever been told that they will be a reserve team for the following season? And for that same team to release a statement that they hope to be on the grid in one sentence and then "we look forward to the first race in Melbourne" (or something to that effect) in the next? Were BMW Sauber's new buyers told that Renault WILL be kicked out? Max must be fuming at Flav and co, and to suggest 14 teams/reserve team surely has a different meaning to what we see from the outside.

My prediction....Renault out....BMW Sauber in....13 teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've left...they're guilty...and presumably see this as the easiest way to escape sanction / penalty / jail. But they can't just drop off the face of the earth and never have this bite them on the a## again. With no real statement coming forth from Renault (apart from we won't contest the charges...in other words, we haven't got a leg to stand on because its all true), then everything Renault touch now is tainted. How many fans have now turned their backs on them? How many sponsors?

Certainly more will come of this from the FIA, and if they don't fine them at least an equal amount of what they did McLaren, then they should be giving the cheque back to Ron, for this is far worse than some info regarding tyre pressures being bandied about.

So I leave you with the following to go hmmmm on....

1- Will Renault be suspended from FOTA, or kicked out even?

2- When has a team ever been told that they will be a reserve team for the following season? And for that same team to release a statement that they hope to be on the grid in one sentence and then "we look forward to the first race in Melbourne" (or something to that effect) in the next? Were BMW Sauber's new buyers told that Renault WILL be kicked out? Max must be fuming at Flav and co, and to suggest 14 teams/reserve team surely has a different meaning to what we see from the outside.

My prediction....Renault out....BMW Sauber in....13 teams.

hey handy - good to see you again - been a while.

Actually - I'll be interested to see what happens at the 'uncontested' trial - surely someone from Renault will have to attend. Do they get to actually plead guilty or just not speak? What's the deal in the FIA's kangeroo court? OR will they skip the formalities of a trial and go straight to sentencing a la South Africa under apertheid circa 1970? Which dictator is Max aping today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is any substance to this story it will likely get big and ugly real fast. If, on the other hand, it's Piquet brooding and trying to 'stir the pot' so to speak he can forget about spending any more time behind the wheel of a Formula One car,

Given the volume of words written about this somewhat bizarre tale I needed to return to it's origins to remind myself how quickly it has indeed played out (with more, of course, to come). It's been just over two weeks since "Kati" began this post and however disinclined I would typically be towards quoting myself I'll stand by my words that "...this story... will likely get big and ugly real fast." However much we think we've become immune to the lack of ethics in business and sport this entire matter, as much as we know of it as of this date, is quite staggering in it's blatant conceptualization. How much we utlimately learn in the weeks to come remains uncertain; hard evidence would be preferable to the smoke and mirrors (as someone suggested) we will most likely receive. I was prepared for a company like Renault to bow out at season's end due to world economic conditions but could not have fabricated this scenario as a potential for what could be imminent departure. The 2009 season continues to be filled with drama and drama queens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the plus side, that means Hammy gets promoted to 2nd, which means Glock's actions in Brazil are irrelevant, so all the crap conspiracy theorists can shut up about last year's WDC. I'm sure they won't of course.....

As for the punishment? A harsh punishment is wishful thinking. But it will be more than a slap on the wrist I think. Even Max would find it hard to do that, and he's already let them off once recently for their part in the spying debacle. I expect a large-ish fine, no punishment for Alonso, a lifetime ban for the protagonists. If Renault are banned for any length of time we can probably assume that means Renault HQ was going to pull the plug anyway.

Either way I find this quite astonishing. Makes the McLaren saga look trivial by comparison.

What about erasing Singapore 08 from history and not giving anybody any point from that race which it was all fixed afgter all and giving Massa, the real champion, the crown he won fearly and that deserves?

That would be the best way to go.

Edited by Schumikonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez, seriously? Aren't radio transmissions available to the FOM, so obviously they won't say that anywhere. Flav Pat NP and Darth Alonso plan it. Voldemort gets his win. NP gets to keep driving and crashing. FB and PS get pats on the back for getting Renault back to winning ways. The truth is f#$king obvious.

Oh telemetry could prove that Michael Schumacher crashed on purpose, everyone loved telemetry back then. It can prove anything then.

They can only see what they want to see nothing else after all they are ABF Alonso's Blind Fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why hasn't Nelson said that Alonso was in the know? How can this be not mentioned?

it was mention by his father and like I said I that time he knows more than us about this whole situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was mention by his father and like I said I that time he knows more than us about this whole situation.

FIA "knows" more than Piquet Sr. and they didn't accuse him. Piquet Jr. probably "knew" more than Piquet Sr. yet he didn't accuse Nando, either. Renault sacked two key players that are worth more than any driver (and obviously more than a driver that almost surely would leave the team by the end of year anyways) yet they didn't move a finger against Nando.

Actually, besides Cavallino, Piquet Sr and you, nobody else can make any connection either based on hard facts or circumstancial evidence between Nando and Piquet's crash. And even you three failed to even give a simple explanation on how you jump into such conclussion except for "I don't like him, and he won that race, so he MUST be guilty".

Yes, I am blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about erasing Singapore 08 from history and not giving anybody any point from that race which it was all fixed afgter all and giving Massa, the real champion, the crown he won fearly and that deserves?

That would be the best way to go.

Bollocks! Massa lost it fair and square and even more so in the light of this - he finished 13th in this race and if Alonso was excluded:

- Massa would have been 12th (no points)

- Hamilton would have earned two more points, making him the clear champion before the Brazil race

I like Massa, but had he been a tad more careful and not tried to drive off with his fuel rig attached it would be a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usinglack of evidence to the contrary as proof of an argument is likereligious people insisting that if you can't show them that God doesn'texist then he must do.

Agreed, but you will neverget this evidence as the issues focus around conversations that werenot recorded. All we can therefore go on is the evidence we do have andlook at probability:

NPJ's statement - 50:50 that it is true (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Telemetry - 90% likelihood that it is true as the car behaviour is not consistent with normal driving

Pat's refusal to answer questions - whilst it would start at 50:50 aswe cannot ascertain one way or another, his refusal implies he ishiding something, making it 60:40 that he ordered it (increasedlikelihood)

Flav's denials: 50:50 that it is true (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Renault's statement that they are not contesting charges 75% probability there is some truth - why else would they accept liability? (bear in mind the financial/other implications)

Renault's dismissal of Flav and Pat - again we are not party to thedetails, but given employment law issues and the speed of theirdeparture implies:

- Likelihood they are innocent and stepped down voluntarily 30% - why would they walk away immediately from a job and lose face?

- Likelihood they are innocent and were forced to resign 20% - this would cost Renault a lot (they would need to be incentivised and again why would they walk away immediately from a job and lose face?)

- Likelihood they are innocent and were sacked immediately with Renault not having a confession/evidence 10% (potential tribunal issues, why would they lose face/walk away without a fight?)

- Likelihood they were sacked immediately on the basis of gross misconduct (meaning they either confessed or Renault have evidence) 90% - would explain the rapid departure, lack of fight

Renault's lack of action/sanctions on NPJ after an apparent "solo" crash action by NPJ - 20% likelihood that it was solo and they ignored it (why would any company turn a blind eye to his misconduct?)

Flav's inexplicable backing of NPJ over 2 years despite terrible results (no other driver in a top team has underperformed consistently for so long without sanction), implying a deal - 60% chance

Alonso knowing about the plot before the race 50:50 (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Alonso knowing about the plot after the race 60% chance - given that FIA/other pit people "knew" before the confession came out it is unlikely he did not know

So, putting that all together. Ignore anything that is 50% or below as this has the same odds as chance: 90% probability that the crash was deliberate; 90% chance Flav/Pat were sacked; 75% chance that Renault have evidence to sack them; 60% chance that NPJ was under some sort of special deal; 60% chance that Alonso was aware after the race.

Whilst we don't have evidence I would suggest on the basis of probability alone that it was deliberate, Flav and Pat were involved, NPJ used it to renew his contract and Alonso was at least aware post-race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bollocks! Massa lost it fair and square and even more so in the light of this - he finished 13th in this race and if Alonso was excluded:

- Massa would have been 12th (no points)

- Hamilton would have earned two more points, making him the clear champion before the Brazil race

I like Massa, but had he been a tad more careful and not tried to drive off with his fuel rig attached it would be a different story.

You are right....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm well, not really. There are several damning bits of evidence:

1) Pat Symonds acknowledgement that NPJ had discussed it with them;

2) Pat Symonds refusing to answer the questions;

3) Renault's apparent lack of action - given that 1) above has been acknowledged as happening and then NPJ crashed under his own steam (as Flav/Pat claim), why didn't Renault react/take action? Gross misconduct, etc. The fact this got overlooked and knowing Flav's well publicised issues with NPJ indicates clearly that something else was going on

4) NPJ's sworn statement - like it or not, this is evidence and with nothing to counter it, it stands

1 and 2 were stated as reasons by the FIA as to why they believe there is guilt. Certainly put together they are not the actions of an innocent party. For part 1) as an innocent party, I would clearly state to NPJ that joking aside this was not something he should do. If he had crashed deliberately as a solo action, I would have taken disciplinary action or involved FIA. In any subsequent investigation I would have been open and answered all the questions.

Sorry Andres, but to think anything else is wishful thinking and a bit naieve.

I agree with Sid also in that Renault strike me as an organisation who, if they believed they were in the right would have fought hard to prove themselves innocent. Why did they capitulate so easily/quickly?

Finally, as much as it hurts to say it, I find it inconceivable to think that Alonso knew nothing of this either before or after. I can believe that he was not an instigator, however he must have known about this. Even if he didn't beforehand, he sure as hell would have afterwards - why did he not say something to FIA then? He could have come out of this as a hero, kept his win and exposed the plot.

I agree with the above entirely. Damning evidence continued:

5) Alonso had a strategy that doesn't make any sense without Renault planning in advance that NPJr would crash.

6) The radio transcripts are suspicious, despite what others think. If you read the link Fed Up posted in this thread it explains in great detail how Symonds repeatedly made unusual or erroneous comments, all of which lead to Alonso sticking to the alleged plan to cheat.

7) There appear to be inconsistencies in Symonds's and Briatore's statements, although I admit we don't know everything they said.

Clearly none of this is knock-down evidence. But it's enough to make it more likely than not that they planned it out in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but you will neverget this evidence as the issues focus around conversations that werenot recorded. All we can therefore go on is the evidence we do have andlook at probability:

NPJ's statement - 50:50 that it is true (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Telemetry - 90% likelihood that it is true as the car behaviour is not consistent with normal driving

Pat's refusal to answer questions - whilst it would start at 50:50 aswe cannot ascertain one way or another, his refusal implies he ishiding something, making it 60:40 that he ordered it (increasedlikelihood)

Flav's denials: 50:50 that it is true (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Renault's statement that they are not contesting charges 75% probability there is some truth - why else would they accept liability? (bear in mind the financial/other implications)

Renault's dismissal of Flav and Pat - again we are not party to thedetails, but given employment law issues and the speed of theirdeparture implies:

- Likelihood they are innocent and stepped down voluntarily 30% - why would they walk away immediately from a job and lose face?

- Likelihood they are innocent and were forced to resign 20% - this would cost Renault a lot (they would need to be incentivised and again why would they walk away immediately from a job and lose face?)

- Likelihood they are innocent and were sacked immediately with Renault not having a confession/evidence 10% (potential tribunal issues, why would they lose face/walk away without a fight?)

- Likelihood they were sacked immediately on the basis of gross misconduct (meaning they either confessed or Renault have evidence) 90% - would explain the rapid departure, lack of fight

Renault's lack of action/sanctions on NPJ after an apparent "solo" crash action by NPJ - 20% likelihood that it was solo and they ignored it (why would any company turn a blind eye to his misconduct?)

Flav's inexplicable backing of NPJ over 2 years despite terrible results (no other driver in a top team has underperformed consistently for so long without sanction), implying a deal - 60% chance

Alonso knowing about the plot before the race 50:50 (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Alonso knowing about the plot after the race 60% chance - given that FIA/other pit people "knew" before the confession came out it is unlikely he did not know

So, putting that all together. Ignore anything that is 50% or below as this has the same odds as chance: 90% probability that the crash was deliberate; 90% chance Flav/Pat were sacked; 75% chance that Renault have evidence to sack them; 60% chance that NPJ was under some sort of special deal; 60% chance that Alonso was aware after the race.

Whilst we don't have evidence I would suggest on the basis of probability alone that it was deliberate, Flav and Pat were involved, NPJ used it to renew his contract and Alonso was at least aware post-race.

Although I agree entirely with what you say it remains subjective, which guilt is not and cannot be.

I can definatively say that Symonds was guilty of discussing this with Jnr before the race and covering it up afterwards. I can also say that Flavio at least became aware of it afterwards and was equally guilty of hiding the truth. Those are facts that we know. But that is as far as I can go with certainty.

What I think happened is that they planned it, ordered it and hid it and I agree that probability and evidence suggest that.

I'll be interested by the FIA's statement. What can they say? - "We find Renault guilty of not defending themselves" - a curious charge for which I don't know an appropriate punishment.

They can certainly charge them with hiding the crime after the event and Piquet with deliberately crashing, but past that what?

It's a curious case to be honest. Most interestingly, it will demonstrate how far from objective justice the FIA's own version has gone. That will be a true indication of the destructiveness of the Mosely era.

EDIT - I liked the use of random stats to lend weight to your argument by the way - do you have a source? ;)

Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but you will neverget this evidence as the issues focus around conversations that werenot recorded. All we can therefore go on is the evidence we do have andlook at probability:

NPJ's statement - 50:50 that it is true (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Telemetry - 90% likelihood that it is true as the car behaviour is not consistent with normal driving

Pat's refusal to answer questions - whilst it would start at 50:50 aswe cannot ascertain one way or another, his refusal implies he ishiding something, making it 60:40 that he ordered it (increasedlikelihood)

Flav's denials: 50:50 that it is true (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Renault's statement that they are not contesting charges 75% probability there is some truth - why else would they accept liability? (bear in mind the financial/other implications)

Renault's dismissal of Flav and Pat - again we are not party to thedetails, but given employment law issues and the speed of theirdeparture implies:

- Likelihood they are innocent and stepped down voluntarily 30% - why would they walk away immediately from a job and lose face?

- Likelihood they are innocent and were forced to resign 20% - this would cost Renault a lot (they would need to be incentivised and again why would they walk away immediately from a job and lose face?)

- Likelihood they are innocent and were sacked immediately with Renault not having a confession/evidence 10% (potential tribunal issues, why would they lose face/walk away without a fight?)

- Likelihood they were sacked immediately on the basis of gross misconduct (meaning they either confessed or Renault have evidence) 90% - would explain the rapid departure, lack of fight

Renault's lack of action/sanctions on NPJ after an apparent "solo" crash action by NPJ - 20% likelihood that it was solo and they ignored it (why would any company turn a blind eye to his misconduct?)

Flav's inexplicable backing of NPJ over 2 years despite terrible results (no other driver in a top team has underperformed consistently for so long without sanction), implying a deal - 60% chance

Alonso knowing about the plot before the race 50:50 (we cannot ascertain one way or another)

Alonso knowing about the plot after the race 60% chance - given that FIA/other pit people "knew" before the confession came out it is unlikely he did not know

So, putting that all together. Ignore anything that is 50% or below as this has the same odds as chance: 90% probability that the crash was deliberate; 90% chance Flav/Pat were sacked; 75% chance that Renault have evidence to sack them; 60% chance that NPJ was under some sort of special deal; 60% chance that Alonso was aware after the race.

Whilst we don't have evidence I would suggest on the basis of probability alone that it was deliberate, Flav and Pat were involved, NPJ used it to renew his contract and Alonso was at least aware post-race.

:D

You drink tea or coffee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bollocks! Massa lost it fair and square and even more so in the light of this - he finished 13th in this race and if Alonso was excluded:

- Massa would have been 12th (no points)

- Hamilton would have earned two more points, making him the clear champion before the Brazil race

I like Massa, but had he been a tad more careful and not tried to drive off with his fuel rig attached it would be a different story.

I don't know if you remember this but they all have to pit a a different time adn under different condition than they would without this cheatihng from Renault, the whole race was altered by this and Massa was given the green light to leave the pits, there was nothing he could have done to avoid this and this all happened just because Renault was cheating to make Monobrows win the race so no Bollocks here, the whole race result should be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how FIA approach this. They are hardly objective and fair minded.

EDIT - I liked the use of random stats to lend weight to your argument by the way - do you have a source? ;)

Random? Random??Random!!!! Cheeky bugger :D I thought long and hard about those percentages -seriously, go through the exercise yourself. Start at 50:50 (chance)and see what conclusions you come up with.

On the other hand, it is boring, the domain of the geek and sodding off down the pub is much more fun....

.....probably (80%) :D

And as for tea/coffee - just the smell of tea practically makes me gag(no spit/swallow jokes please :) ) so it has to be 100% coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIA "knows" more than Piquet Sr. and they didn't accuse him. Piquet Jr. probably "knew" more than Piquet Sr. yet he didn't accuse Nando, either. Renault sacked two key players that are worth more than any driver (and obviously more than a driver that almost surely would leave the team by the end of year anyways) yet they didn't move a finger against Nando.

Actually, besides Cavallino, Piquet Sr and you, nobody else can make any connection either based on hard facts or circumstancial evidence between Nando and Piquet's crash. And even you three failed to even give a simple explanation on how you jump into such conclussion except for "I don't like him, and he won that race, so he MUST be guilty".

Yes, I am blind.

At the beggining of the thread the discussion was that this it ws all Piquet's bitterness and this never happened, but after PS confession the subject changed to the no evidence allegations, after Renault decided not to contest and fired FB and PS indicating they are guilty now the subject is about if FA knew it.

Well all tell you all agian

It was an intentional crash.

Planned by Renault to make FA win.

Alonso was part of this and I am not saying that he planned it, I am just saying that he knew everything from the beggining and I said from the beggining that he would deny it like he is doing, NP said Alonso knew it, to make that strategy work they would need a real SC situation that never came so they created one, otherwise that strategy would never work, they were stuck behind Nakjima and they were going to fall behind the pack and at the point no matter what strategy you're having you just lost the race, if you don't want to see then don't but this is the truth, he knew it from the beggining but you just don't want to see it, seeing is believing for you, I am a man of faith I don't need to see to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if you remember this but they all have to pit a a different time adn under different condition than they would without this cheatihng from Renault, the whole race was altered by this and Massa was given the green light to leave the pits, there was nothing he could have done to avoid this and this all happened just because Renault was cheating to make Monobrows win the race so no Bollocks here, the whole race result should be removed.

I have it on good authority that Hamilton was wearing green underpants from Silverstone onwards. This is clearly unacceptable; the whole season's results should be cancelled and Massa crowned WDC, nay king, emperor of the free world, in fact....

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how FIA approach this. They are hardly objective and fair minded.

For me this is the most interesting side to this - I'm as sure as I'm going to get that Flav and Symonds planned all this, but I'm going to be very interested to see how Max plays it - he's kind of got what he wanted anyway - as have the Piquets, so what's really the point in turning the thumb screws on Renault.

It will be hard to hand out a serious punishment without definitive proof and since the main parties have all left Renault, it won't seem very fair if Max gives them too stiff a penalty. On the other hand, if he doesn't, people will know he has absolutely no solid evidence and start feeling sorry for Renault, Symonds and Flavio (I doubt that).

Max has opened his christmas presents early and got a Barbie.

Random? Random??Random!!!! Cheeky bugger :D I thought long and hard about those percentages -seriously, go through the exercise yourself. Start at 50:50 (chance)and see what conclusions you come up with.

On the other hand, it is boring, the domain of the geek and sodding off down the pub is much more fun....

.....probably (80%) :D

:clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seeing is believing for you, I am a man of faith I don't need to see to believe.

This is why people like me should be in charge of things like justice and people like you should be kept in nice, cozy places, preferably far away from anything you can use to start bonfires. We would not like you going into a rampage and trying to kill every firstborn because you mistook a fart from the guy next to you with an order from above. :P

Seriosuly, now. I agree with Adam. We all think that most probably PS, FB and NPJ are all guilty. But how guilty are they and whether are other parties involved and, in such case, just how involved they were/are is something I think we won't know. And this, due to Renault actions (something that makes sense, they were trying to limit their damage) but also thanks to FIA actions (which makes no sense, unless you come with some cosmic Renault-FIA-Greenpeace conspiracy theory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now