Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic


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

Well, you can say that your claims are backed by the transcripts of radio transmissions (all those asterisks when he speaks...i never speak in asterisks so it is probably an alien language) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I still believe that Michael Jackson is alive and he faked his the in order to get the money he needed because he was so in debt. :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Let me ask you this straight, do you think they(FB and PS) actually told him(NPJ) to crash to help Alonso win that race?

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)

:lol:, even I knew Piquet would crash, it would be surprising if he didn't. But precision with which he crashed is staggering.:D.. Anyways...Since he will never be employed in F1 he can now try to be a good stunt crew....May be Topgear can employ him to crash cars with precision....oh wait, he would blow his cover in twitter the very next day would blackmail Jermy for trying to molest him.....so no more job for Piquet.

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.

Quite funny to read with the theories you Reno fans come up with...:P

While, when ever Mclaren or Lewis made the slightest mistakes, even for crashing.....phiew, you guys are all over the forum accusing them for this, that..:lol:

Anyways.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post above Autumnpuma - thanks for the info.

So basically...

FIA will punish Renault for actions of Piquet while he was under their management which bought the sport into disrepute.

That's fair enough. He crashed deliberately - telemetry shows it, he admitted it and he was employed by Renault at the time.

Wonder what they'll get.

If I were FIA I'd go for cash, and lots of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Andres, I have to say I'm totally unconvinced by this point. I think it is inconceivable that he would quit if there were no evidence that the accusation was true. Remember that we and everybody else in the world believed it was just sour grapes by Piquet until a couple of days ago. I don't know ANYONE who took these allegations seriously.

Max's supposed vendetta is not relevant in establishing their guilt- only the scale of their punishment. If there was no proof of any wrongdoing there's absolutely nothing he could have done to FB, PS or Renault. Something caused them to quit, and it certainly wasn't the word of an angry young ex-driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andres, I have to say I'm totally unconvinced by this point. I think it is inconceivable that he would quit if there were no evidence that the accusation was true. Remember that we and everybody else in the world believed it was just sour grapes by Piquet until a couple of days ago. I don't know ANYONE who took these allegations seriously.

Max's supposed vendetta is not relevant in establishing their guilt- only the scale of their punishment. If there was no proof of any wrongdoing there's absolutely nothing he could have done to FB, PS or Renault. Something caused them to quit, and it certainly wasn't the word of an angry young ex-driver.

Ah, thank you for pointing that out. Coherence is not one of my strong points and once I get into these babbles I tend to get lost myself. I forgot to explain a very important point in that theory: it needs PS to have been actually involved in the matter. ANd I think that he pretty much is. Even if we take the naive way here as well, PS at least, was either the brain or the person who knew before the race that Piquet would crash. In any case, Pat was severely commited.

So, Flavio, being innocent for once in his life takes the maniacal route. He says that Piquet used to share his bed with Nick Fry and Kellog's Tony the Tiger. The war gets dirtier and dirtier and Ghosn fears about all the skeletons in the closet that might yet see the light before all this is over. When Max offers PS immunity Ghosn realizes they are threading on very thin ice and tells Flavio to leave. It will save Renault, it will give Flavio free hands to move onto other things or pursue his Mutual Assured Destruction tactics with the Piquet family without putting the whole firm at risk. PS, of course, had no other choice either and, frankly, I think he would have been even easier to convince even if he was innocent, being amore sensible person than Flavio (again, subjective perceptions here)

We all know Flavio is ruthless, unscrupulous and hot headed. But he also possesses the cunning of the con men and the twisted sense of loyalty of a mobster, so it could happen.

Maybe I am leaving other details behind. If so, please pont them out too.

For the umpteenth time (this goes for you, Tommy): I don't believe this is actually what happened. I BELIEVE NPJ, PS, AND MOST PROBABLY FLAVIO BRIATORE CONSPIRED TO MAKE A DELIBERATE CRASH ON TURN 17 OF THE 2008 SINGAPORE GRAND PRIX. I am just showing that the evidence at hand has many other explanations. That always happens, but the more diverse and numerous explanations you can make, the feebler the case seems.

This isn't about culpability, this is an argument about what can be proved, and thus what can be punished and the consequences of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about culpability, this is an argument about what can be proved, and thus what can be punished and the consequences of it.

Interesting Andres. Now on the other hand, Renault could have kicked PS out so as to prevent him from accepting the offer of immunity and blabbing, thereby dropping them even more in the poo. This could be a smart move as the FIA can only work on the basis of the information they have now, which may limit sanctions. But it does strongly suggest that Renault know for certain that if PS had blabbed, they would be in more trouble.

As a result of being kicked out currently FB & PS cannot be summoned to the WMSC as they are no longer employees. Furthermore the rules, as I understand them don't currently allow action against ex-employees (which is why no lifetime bans have been handed onto Dave Ryan/Nigel Stepney/Mike Coughlan). This is, apparently, something which FIA are going to discuss changing on Monday, although I am not sure if it will be in time to use against FB & PS. Another possible consequence is a licensing system a la superlicence, but for senior personnel (so they can have their license revoked and preventing them from working in any FIA-governed field of motorsport).

It will also be interesting to see if Renault follow up the blackmail allegations - this was something that Flav was driving - will they (or he) pursue this? Er.... thinking aloud about this blackmail is a criminal offence and the authorities have been involved, so maybe it is out of Renault's hands now.... (?)

Now, about the aliens....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Andres. Now on the other hand, Renault could have kicked PS out so as to prevent him from accepting the offer of immunity and blabbing, thereby dropping them even more in the poo. This could be a smart move as the FIA can only work on the basis of the information they have now, which may limit sanctions. But it does strongly suggest that Renault know for certain that if PS had blabbed, they would be in more trouble.

Of course PS was kicked to shut him off. That would be the case even in my theory. The problem with PS testimony, whatever it might have been, is that the offer of immunity would have made it more or less worthless. James Allen in his blog (I can't believe JA is now like my bible) copied the comments of an F1 fan and criminal investigator. He says that immunity deals should be offered sparsingly, as people under an immunity deal tend usually to say whatever the authorities want to hear. I think that that offer of immunity was what either scared the Sh#t out of Renault thinking PS might tell the truth and made them kick PS and FB, or made them realize that Max would spare no expenses to destroy Flavio. In any case, the result would be the same.

As a result of being kicked out currently FB & PS cannot be summoned to the WMSC as they are no longer employees. Furthermore the rules, as I understand them don't currently allow action against ex-employees (which is why no lifetime bans have been handed onto Dave Ryan/Nigel Stepney/Mike Coughlan). This is, apparently, something which FIA are going to discuss changing on Monday, although I am not sure if it will be in time to use against FB & PS. Another possible consequence is a licensing system a la superlicence, but for senior personnel (so they can have their license revoked and preventing them from working in any FIA-governed field of motorsport).

That's interesting, though I don't see FIA being short on punishing resources as they come pretty much with whatever punishment they like. Their problem is with their procedures which allow gross manipulation even against the FIA's interests as it probably was in this case where they could have unveiled the most horrible cheating in sport history, but now they will just have to handle some random punishment without any real base other than Max Mosley's little dirty war objectives (at least from what we know so far)

It will also be interesting to see if Renault follow up the blackmail allegations - this was something that Flav was driving - will they (or he) pursue this? Er.... thinking aloud about this blackmail is a criminal offence and the authorities have been involved, so maybe it is out of Renault's hands now.... (?)

I think so. If FB actually filed criminal charges against Piquet, the real stuff will be outside the F1 universe. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds...

Now, about the aliens....

I've heard David Vincent was hired by FIA to prevent further invasions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the umpteenth time (this goes for you, Tommy): I don't believe this is actually what happened. I BELIEVE NPJ, PS, AND MOST PROBABLY FLAVIO BRIATORE CONSPIRED TO MAKE A DELIBERATE CRASH ON TURN 17 OF THE 2008 SINGAPORE GRAND PRIX. I am just showing that the evidence at hand has many other explanations. That always happens, but the more diverse and numerous explanations you can make, the feebler the case seems.

This isn't about culpability, this is an argument about what can be proved, and thus what can be punished and the consequences of it.

See? you don't have all the information and you are convinved they are guilty, so far the evidence leaked have demmonstrated they are guilty and that is the only reason why you believe that, unless you have more data that you are not willing to share with us :whistling::victory:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways..we all seem to have caught M1F1....or maure flu for overreacting to this scandal...

Even singapore organizers are least bothered about this.....Lets talk something else..I am sick of bashing Reno and Nando.....I miss wez and kiko01....:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways..we all seem to have caught M1F1....or maure flu for overreacting to this scandal...

Even singapore organizers are least bothered about this.....Lets talk something else..I am sick of bashing Reno and Nando.....I miss wez and kiko01....:D

I was thinking that this thread has been so entretaining to me that I didn't want monday to come so we can continue blaming Alonso's team for a longer time.

Edited by Schumikonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New, but not particularly surprising devolpments...

Flav claims to have fallen on his sword to save Renault, not because he was in the least guilty of anything.

Renault have pointed the finger at Flav and Symonds.

Piquet Sr has said that he told Charlie Whiting at Brazil last year about race fixing at Singapore.

Max says yes - he knew a while ago, but needed signed statement from Piquet Jnr to that affect - once he got the can, it was inevitable.

FIA are discussing ways to change their rules so that they might go after individuals in future even if they've left the F1 arena.

All fairly boring and expected really, just thought I'd fill in the blanks.

Sources are various and many if anyone requires - since none of it's that contentious I shan't bother here.

EDIT - one extra thought - If FIA want's to go after people for bringing the sport into disrepute from now on, I suggest they start with Max as soon as he's out of the hot seat - if anyone has mad a mockery of what was once a fine and honorable sport, it's him.

Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways..we all seem to have caught M1F1....or maure flu for overreacting to this scandal...

Noooooo! :lol:

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.

Yes, we can choose to believe whatever we want, and make up numerous explanations which "fit" the evidence. That is the beauty of our own subjective bias and freedom to form our opinions, and people will always believe whatever they like no matter what is before them. The job of the WMSC however is to look at the evidence (and there is clearly evidence, everything counts as evidence, even Symonds lack of testimony) free from any bias (I know I know), and see whether it fits Piquet's story, and as it stands, it does fit the description he gave. It's not the job of the WMSC to come up with a bunch of different scenarios and say "look at all these possibilities! We simply don't know what happened it could have been any of these!". They do their investigation and see whether the description they build of what happened fits what Piquet accuses, in terms of likelihood, not proof. The only major concern would be Briatore's actual involvement in this, but that doesn't really matter. Symonds and Piquet were more likely than not to have been engaged in race fixing at Singapore last year, and Renault do have some liability for that even if 99.99% of their employees weren't involved. Unfortunately that is the way it works.

The problem with the sentence is that the charge of "bringing the sport into disrepute" is so broad and vague it could apply to a variety of different cases. That's a benefit for the FIA because they are free to pursue whoever they like for basically anything they want, but since it can apply to different situations, there can be no standard or mandatory punishment, and people will always disagree about what is a "fair" punishment. Most people would agree it's a more serious offence than what Mclaren did, others would say the guilty parties have been dealt with and the penalty should be minor. The FIA can't win with regards to the sentence, but that's their own fault for having such hazy regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we can choose to believe whatever we want, and make up numerous explanations which "fit" the evidence. That is the beauty of our own subjective bias and freedom to form our opinions, and people will always believe whatever they like no matter what is before them. The job of the WMSC however is to look at the evidence (and there is clearly evidence, everything counts as evidence, even Symonds lack of testimony) free from any bias (I know I know), and see whether it fits Piquet's story, and as it stands, it does fit the description he gave. It's not the job of the WMSC to come up with a bunch of different scenarios and say "look at all these possibilities! We simply don't know what happened it could have been any of these!". They do their investigation and see whether the description they build of what happened fits what Piquet accuses, in terms of likelihood, not proof. The only major concern would be Briatore's actual involvement in this, but that doesn't really matter. Symonds and Piquet were more likely than not to have been engaged in race fixing at Singapore last year, and Renault do have some liability for that even if 99.99% of their employees weren't involved. Unfortunately that is the way it works.

I will respectfully disagree with the pile of utter tosh you just wrote, you worthless slimy maggot. If you allow me, that is :D

I am not talking about "hey, if I can come with a scenario which makes them free of charge, no matter how ellaborate and unlikely it might seem" then they should be allowed to get away scott free.

What I am trying to do with all my alternative "naive" explanations is to assess the strength of the evidence provided. WSMC, we said it many times, is no court of law, but they still have to give something that resembles some kind of justice to maintain their authority. That is why they have regulations, hazy as they might be. Otherwise they would just handle random punishments here and there just because (well, they do that, but at least they have to go through the task of finding a bunch of articles of their code previously)

Like you said, they do not need 100% undeniable proof. But one thing is having in your hands a bunch of photocopied documents (or a bunch of floppy disks, if you think I am being anti McLaren here) and another is having a confession from a bitter man accusing the guys he swore to destroy and which was given immunity...and pretty much nothing else. Yes, they can give a penalty to Renault based on the fact that we all know that Flavio is unscrupulous, but that won't have the same strength or sense of fairness as if they actually went on and found further evidence or confessions adding weight to the acussation.

If looking unscrupulous or having cheated before were grounds enough to convict someone, then Todt would surely have been locked in Guantanamo already. :whistling:

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