Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic


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.

+1. I'd very much like the result to be declared null & void.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good and thoughtful post, but evidence does not equal proof.

WTF? First people complain about the FIA leaking stuff, now apparently the problem is the lack of leaks. Live in denial if you want.

Much may we all think they did it, there is still no definative proof.

What constitutes definitive proof? Symonds' interview and Piquet confession are as definitive as they come. Read the latest autosport piece. Still in denial?

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

My god. Your logical fallacies and non sequitors are staggering, I am amazed you haven't proved 2+2=5 yet.

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).

One of them confessed. The others ran away rather than standing up and admitting it. The telemetry is conclusive. Tehre is no way Piquet could have planned the crash all by himself without assistance from the pitlane. What more do you want?

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.

Drivers have no team loyalty. Least of all Ferdy. What would be the point of sacking Ferdy now if he isn't staying next year. The point is not whether he was in on the plan, but whether someone is prepared to stand up and say he was.

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.

You can live in denial about this, just like you were in denial about any foul play being involved at all, just like people were in denial about Mclaren. Just wait till the hearing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

So your alternative explanation is they discussed it, and then Piquet just happened to crash there???

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.

WTF are you on about? They will be found guilty of cheating, bringing the sport into disrepute etc, there are practically no limits on what the punishment can be.

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

Committing the crime?? FFS. The team will pay for what happened. Obviously.

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.

Bullcrap. There is no objective justice, especially here, with no precedents and no legally proscribed punishments. Anything they decide, people like you can find something to complain about.

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

Line up all the objective and fair minded people on the forum, ask them what the punishment will be. I bet they won't agree.

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.

Screw what Max wants or wanted. Get this into your head. MAX DIDN'T PLAN THIS. HE DIDN'T MAKE PIQUET DRIVE LIKE Sh#t AND GET FIRED RIGHT NOW. HE DIDN'T MAKE HIM CRASH OR MAKE FLAVIO OR PAT DO SOMETHING SO STUPID. There is nothing he is doing right now that you can whine about. They got themselves into it. Maybe Max hates Flav. Doesn't matter.

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.

Definitive proof?????????????????? WTF. Who asked for definitive proof ever? Where was the definitive proof that Michael Schumacher crashed into Villeneuve? Did you complain about there being no definitive proof there? It was a damn sight less definitive than in this instance - THERE IS A FUCCKING SIGNED CONFESSION.

you are just a whiner. whine whine whine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:lol: Well so far everything is going the way I've saying it is and I have not been in a situation of having to change what I think about this case, so I will stick to methods for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thisis why people like me should be in charge of things like justice andpeople like you should be kept in nice, cozy places, preferably faraway from anything you can use to start bonfires. We would not like yougoing into a rampage and trying to kill every firstborn because youmistook 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 NPJare all guilty. But how guilty are they and whether are other partiesinvolved and, in such case, just how involved they were/are issomething 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 comewith some cosmic Renault-FIA-Greenpeace conspiracy theory)

I think we're all on the same page here - we all think they're guilty, we're just curious as to how the FIA handle things on Monday. Even meaninanny understands.

tortured but spectacular missing of point

Oh.

...the blue is just for you Cav ;) - bless

EDIT - For those talking about removing points from Singapore race - sod it - just declare the season null and void - Hamilton won't be WDC any more.

Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok this is the situation as I see it, FIA has a sworn confession from Piquet, they also have a confession from PS, he said they talked about but it was NPJ's idea so there's no way out of this, they talked about it and it also happened, absolutely no way out of this, even if they can say they didn't planned it, they did encovered it which is as bad as actually planning it, they have the telemetry which shows something non normal hapenned but that is the least part of this given the other points like they already talked about this before the crash, right now FIA does not need Telemetry the have some better, they have confessions and now the have a Renault team that is not going to defend themselves after firing FB and PS, so the only veredict they can get is guilty, the rules says the team is responsible for what the people in the team do so Renault is already guilty even if they don't get any punishment at all, there's no escape at all, Renault by firing FB and PS is showing to the world that they are guilty and they are punishing the responsible parties for what they did, they are not being fired because they are innocent, I don't know why people here is still talking about evidence of proof we should be talking about veredict and punishement if any, Alonso may escape to this one but he is part of this as I've been saying, the strategy would not work without him knowing about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So. I was right. Will I be right again? Probably. Renault play Max's game better than McLaren did. Ron Dennis stubbornly tried to fight Max's will and his team got a hefty fine for it. Renault realize that Max wants Flavio gone and they've duly given the duo the chop. Ok, so now that Max has gotten what he's wanted, I predict that Renault will escape McLaren's fate, even though they've been found guilty of breaching the same article that McLaren did. In a fair world, you're given the same punishment for the same crime, but fair doesn't come into play when Max runs the show.

For anyone that's interested, the FIA are supposed to enforce the clauses in the Internation Sporting Regulations. The relevant article here is 123 and it reads ""the entrant shall be responsible for all acts or omissions on the part of their driver, mechanic and passengers, each equally responsible for any breach of this code". So, regardless of Briatore and Pat's firing, Renault still should face punishment. But they wont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding, a plea of no contest ("nolo contendere") means the hearing is simply a matter of deciding sentence, it effectively means no fact finding trial is required as the defendant accepts the charges against them. It is not to be mistaken for a guilty plea even though it has the same effect. It's basically used when you feel that you'd almost certainly lose the case (despite the fact it's not a guilty plea, it's usually taken as a sign of guilt for obvious reasons).

However it's beneficial to Renault in two ways, 1) the trial is less public, less information comes out, as it's only a matter of sentence. 2) No "guilty" association by their name, obviously an important consideration for a big company like Renault who are concerned with their brand, no one can say they were found "guilty" of race fixing.

I suppose some people would argue that they are merely protecting their brand and it has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt (well, really it's their liability). But you have to consider whether Renault would get rid of two of it's most highly valued employees if they genuinely thought that neither had done anything wrong, and also consider whether those two employees would leave (by their own will or Renault's), and thereby accept the damage to their credibility, without making a serious fuss.

As for the evidence, it's all about the standard of proof. There is no concrete evidence of Renault's wrongdoing in this case, however there are many different things which all add up to form a bigger picture, which, although a bit blurry, does suggest wrongdoing on the part of Pat Symonds (there is less of a link to Briatore from what we've seen). His sketchy testimony can (and should) be taken as a sign of guilt. Along with the various other pieces of evidence, it seems more likely than not that Symonds did indeed instruct Piquet to crash. That is all the WMSC has to find, there is no need for definitive proof, only a greater than 50% chance that Symonds did instruct Piquet to crash (literally, 51% would suffice). From the evidence (bear in mind there is probably more we don't know of), I think it's pretty clear that the case against Symonds and potentially Flavio was strong enough.

Since Renault aren't contesting these charges, and the allegedly guilty parties are out of the picture, I think the FIA are in a difficult situation with regards to the sentence. Most people see this as just as serious, if not more serious, than Mclaren stealing secrets in 2007. Even with the mitigating factors you would still expect the punishment to be fairly severe, if it's lenient as some people think it might be, then the FIA/WMSC will come under even more scrutiny for it's methods.

One last thought, I wonder if the WMSC can reject the no contest plea? It really is in the interests of the sport for there to be a proper trial (not that they have ever been all that bothered about that).

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/78682

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Not sure why you keep quoting me when referring to things I have never, ever said, but I presume I will find out in due course :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my understanding, a plea of no contest ("nolo contendere") means the hearing is simply a matter of deciding sentence, it effectively means no fact finding trial is required as the defendant accepts the charges against them. It is not to be mistaken for a guilty plea even though it has the same effect. It's basically used when you feel that you'd almost certainly lose the case (despite the fact it's not a guilty plea, it's usually taken as a sign of guilt for obvious reasons).

However it's beneficial to Renault in two ways, 1) the trial is less public, less information comes out, as it's only a matter of sentence. 2) No "guilty" association by their name, obviously an important consideration for a big company like Renault who are concerned with their brand, no one can say they were found "guilty" of race fixing.

I suppose some people would argue that they are merely protecting their brand and it has nothing to do with their innocence or guilt (well, really it's their liability). But you have to consider whether Renault would get rid of two of it's most highly valued employees if they genuinely thought that neither had done anything wrong, and also consider whether those two employees would leave (by their own will or Renault's), and thereby accept the damage to their credibility, without making a serious fuss.

As for the evidence, it's all about the standard of proof. There is no concrete evidence of Renault's wrongdoing in this case, however there are many different things which all add up to form a bigger picture, which, although a bit blurry, does suggest wrongdoing on the part of Pat Symonds (there is less of a link to Briatore from what we've seen). His sketchy testimony can (and should) be taken as a sign of guilt. Along with the various other pieces of evidence, it seems more likely than not that Symonds did indeed instruct Piquet to crash. That is all the WMSC has to find, there is no need for definitive proof, only a greater than 50% chance that Symonds did instruct Piquet to crash (literally, 51% would suffice). From the evidence (bear in mind there is probably more we don't know of), I think it's pretty clear that the case against Symonds and potentially Flavio was strong enough.

Since Renault aren't contesting these charges, and the allegedly guilty parties are out of the picture, I think the FIA are in a difficult situation with regards to the sentence. Most people see this as just as serious, if not more serious, than Mclaren stealing secrets in 2007. Even with the mitigating factors you would still expect the punishment to be fairly severe, if it's lenient as some people think it might be, then the FIA/WMSC will come under even more scrutiny for it's methods.

One last thought, I wonder if the WMSC can reject the no contest plea? It really is in the interests of the sport for there to be a proper trial (not that they have ever been all that bothered about that).

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/78682

You drink Coffee or tea?:D Just asked..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok this is the situation as I see it, FIA has a sworn confession from Piquet, they also have a confession from PS, he said they talked about but it was NPJ's idea so there's no way out of this, they talked about it and it also happened, absolutely no way out of this, even if they can say they didn't planned it, they did encovered it which is as bad as actually planning it, they have the telemetry which shows something non normal hapenned but that is the least part of this given the other points like they already talked about this before the crash, right now FIA does not need Telemetry the have some better, they have confessions and now the have a Renault team that is not going to defend themselves after firing FB and PS, so the only veredict they can get is guilty, the rules says the team is responsible for what the people in the team do so Renault is already guilty even if they don't get any punishment at all, there's no escape at all, Renault by firing FB and PS is showing to the world that they are guilty and they are punishing the responsible parties for what they did, they are not being fired because they are innocent, I don't know why people here is still talking about evidence of proof we should be talking about veredict and punishement if any, Alonso may escape to this one but he is part of this as I've been saying, the strategy would not work without him knowing about this.

You're persistent, I'll give you that :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone that's interested, the FIA are supposed to enforce the clauses in the Internation Sporting Regulations. The relevant article here is 123 and it reads ""the entrant shall be responsible for all acts or omissions on the part of their driver, mechanic and passengers, each equally responsible for any breach of this code". So, regardless of Briatore and Pat's firing, Renault still should face punishment. But they wont.

Thanks for posting this, I was refering to that part of the rules in my last post, meaning that even if the cheaters are out of the now, they are still responsibles for their actions until this is over.

You're persistent, I'll give you that :lol:

In spanish we say this:

El que persevera alcanza.

that means something like: the one who persist will reach his goal.

I am trying to reach my goal of getting Alonso involved in this, I know he is but want someone to come out and point at him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alonso knew Piquet would develop a Safety Car that day.

I can only say that.

mellow.gif

Wait wait wait...you can't just say that! Are you serious? Do you know that from a reliable source? (I know you wouldn't say such thing just to throw mud at Alonso, so I am ready to believe you)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Renault aren't contesting these charges, and the allegedly guilty parties are out of the picture, I think the FIA are in a difficult situation with regards to the sentence.

Removing the persons in a team that broke the rules does not remove the team (or entrant) from being responsible for the rule breaking. The only difficulty the FIA hs in affixing a sentence is the sure knowledge that Renault will pull-out of F1 if the same punishment is dished out as was dished to McLaren for breaking the same rule.

Most people see this as just as serious, if not more serious, than Mclaren stealing secrets in 2007.

Different people will assign different levels of severity to the McLaren case and this one. One thing is certain...Renault stand in breach of the same regulation that McLaren did.

Even with the mitigating factors you would still expect the punishment to be fairly severe, if it's lenient as some people think it might be, then the FIA/WMSC will come under even more scrutiny for it's methods.

I agree. The punishment should be the same as was handed down to McLaren for breaching the same rule. Any lenience will be met with some uproar, but ultimately the FIA/WMSC don't answer to us, so our uproar will be meaningless. We can scrutinize the FIA/WMSC's methods from here until doomsday and it won't change their behaviour one iota. Only a change in leadership (Max) will see a change in governance.

Thanks for posting this, I was refering to that part of the rules in my last post, meaning that even if the cheaters are out of the now, they are still responsibles for their actions until this is over.

By they you must mean Renault, as the Sporting Regulations hold that whatever a member of the Renault F1 team does, the ultimate responsibility is Renault F1. The individual persons may have other punishments, but those have nothing to do with the punishment Renault F1 must receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait wait wait...you can't just say that! Are you serious? Do you know that from a reliable source? (I know you wouldn't say such thing just to throw mud at Alonso, so I am ready to believe you)

We all knew he would!

It was a new track, night race and it was a street circuit.

Everybody knew Nelsinho would crash and it would certainly develop a Safety Car.

Agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all knew he would!

It was a new track, night race and it was a street circuit.

Everybody knew Nelsinho would crash and it would certainly develop a Safety Car.

Agree?

Bah, I thought you had some new info! :meh:

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah, I thought you had some new info! meh.png

tongue.gif

Sorry, I wish I had.

I believe Alonso wasn't involved. He could be involved but why would you tell him about the plot if he didn't need to know anything about it to make it work out fine. It would be even more stupid if he knew about that, nearly as stupid as McLaren spying Ferrari and giving every member of the team a floppy with the drawings. tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, been reading Briatore's comments to the Times or something like that. All he said (apparently) was: "I quit to save Renault".

Now, as there is no proof of anything (and no, Mike, this case is very different from the mcLaren's sagas or even the Renault's very own spygate for there is no evidence against anybody but Piquet) we can certainly choose what to believe and what not to believe based merely on our likes/dislikes and our own subejctive interpretations of each action without many things to back it up. So I will again produce a gedanken experiment:

1) FB is telling the truth. Sh#t! Stop throwing rocks at me! I am using this as a hypothese, get it? He might be a cheater, he could even be a paedophiliac, serial killer shabbath breaking procastinator (not unlike Graham) but he could be saying the truth on this one, right? Why not?

2) If he and Symonds resigned, then I guess Meanie Weenie's reservations about the local laws are not applicable.

3) Why would he quit when we all know that, for once in his life being faced with an accusation that is not true he could easily stuff Piquet's a## with sues? Aha! Gotcha, Andres! Well...not quite. He alredy wanted to resign a couple of times in the past years but Ghosn persuaded him to stay. You can say that he never meant that but again, that would be pure speculation. Just like this.

4) I guess there must have been some meetings with Ghosn in the past days. Mosley's maniac immunity offers to everybody must have convinced the CEO that Max would not stop with all this until Flavio's head was served to him on a plate. Now, Flavio usually reacts like a maniac, too. But among the many things that you can accuse Flavio of, lack of love for Renault isn't one of them. It would have been pretty obvious that with Flavio around, Renault's prosecution would go far and get as dirty as needed until either Max or Flavio gave up. And in the line was Renault and their workers.

5) So, in the end, perhaps he chose to do the right thing for once. Without him and Pat, FIA's case becomes pretty much irrelevant, and even if they decide to punish Renault, the differences with the McLaren saga (again, sorry Mike) are enough to grant them a punish light enough to esnure the team's survival.

6) This theory might explain why he and Pat resigned (and were not fired), why Briatore kept a rather low profile so far. His pride? He said he did it to save Renault. He never had much credibilty to start with, but if that never bothered him before why would it bother him now?

7) Of course, the other versions might be more "believable" as Flavio is hardly a likeable character, but this just proves that without actual evidence, we can pretty much believe whatever we choose to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, been reading Briatore's comments to the Times or something like that. All he said (apparently) was: "I quit to save Renault".

According to the sporting regulations, this should not 'save Renault F1'. The team is responsible regardless of what Flavio does or does not do.

Now, as there is no proof of anything (and no, Mike, this case is very different from the mcLaren's sagas or even the Renault's very own spygate for there is no evidence against anybody but Piquet) we can certainly choose what to believe and what not to believe based merely on our likes/dislikes and our own subejctive interpretations of each action without many things to back it up.

Any evidence against Piquet falls under article 123 (I think that's the number) of the Sporting Regulations which state that the entrant (Renault F1) is responsible for the actions of it's employees. Piquet was a Renault F1 employee. As to the matter of proof, well, this isn't a court of law and there need not be any proof of anything. What Renault F1 was ultimately guilty of was to bring the sport into disrepute. This is nothing more than an opinion made by the FIA/WMSC. The same opinion that was made against McLaren. In that regard the two cases are exactly alike. Now McLaren was proven not to have used any information about Ferrari on their car. They had possession of it, but it could not be proven that they had used it. A Renault F1 employee, on the other hand, took action that fixed the outcome of a race so that Renault F1 would win. I think anyone not governed by bias would recognized which one is more seriously damaging to the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the sporting regulations, this should not 'save Renault F1'. The team is responsible regardless of what Flavio does or does not do.

Any evidence against Piquet falls under article 123 (I think that's the number) of the Sporting Regulations which state that the entrant (Renault F1) is responsible for the actions of it's employees. Piquet was a Renault F1 employee. As to the matter of proof, well, this isn't a court of law and there need not be any proof of anything. What Renault F1 was ultimately guilty of was to bring the sport into disrepute. This is nothing more than an opinion made by the FIA/WMSC. The same opinion that was made against McLaren. In that regard the two cases are exactly alike. Now McLaren was proven not to have used any information about Ferrari on their car. They had possession of it, but it could not be proven that they had used it. A Renault F1 employee, on the other hand, took action that fixed the outcome of a race so that Renault F1 would win. I think anyone not governed by bias would recognized which one is more seriously damaging to the sport.

Anyone not governed by bias would recognize that even if two teams are found guilty of the breach of the same rule, that does not mean that the punishments should be the same, or even comparable. Even more so, as the FIA is not a court of law, as both you and I agree on.

Now: if PS and FB actually told Piquet to deliberately crash to cause a SC, then yes, I agree with you that it is far worse than photocopying 780 pages of documents from Ferrari. Far, far worse.

But again, anybody not governed by bias would recognize that nobody is discussing here the seriousness of the crime, but whether it happened or not, how it happened, what can FIA prove or not, and how will they deal with it.

I think all of us are more or less convinced that it happened. All of us mostly agree on how it happened. We disagree on what the FIA can prove or not, or what does the FIA needs to prove or not. We will all certainly disagree on how FIA will deal with it. And, regarding the McLaren's case, the difference between the 100 million fine and whatever Renault gets (from a lifetime ban and public stoning to a mere friendly slap on the butt and lots of group hugs) will depend exactly on these issues, not on the seriousness of the crime per se, but on what they can prove, what they will consider or disregard as mitigating circumstances, etc. Those considerations exceeed whatever you or I could think about the actual events that happened on that fatal afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this just proves that without actual evidence, we can pretty much believe whatever we choose to believe.

Oh that's good as I believe that Flavio is an intergalactic cetacean from planet SquornShellous Zeta called Thrub. His nemesis Thraddak IV (NPJ) was sent by the Dark One to avenge his father's untimely death at the hands of Thrub.... I could go on....

Yep, your right, no evidence so just as feasible :D

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