Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic

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.

I agree. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that what Renault F1 did (and you agree they did):

I think all of us are more or less convinced that it happened.

was far, far worse than what McLaren did. I'll explain. I thing I'd be correct in saying that nearly all (above 90%, maybe) injuries and deaths in Formula 1 since the championship began have been the direct result of a crashing race car. Even with the safety these current cars have, Surtees the younger recently proved that all the safety in the world cannot cope with every bit of a destructing race car flying about. Death in racing comes in many odd forms...a piece of suspension through Senna's head, a tyre bouncing off Surtees' head, a detached wheel shooting through a three-foot-wide break in a fence to kill a steward. All that is certain is that when a racing car crashes, everyone around it are put in mortal danger. Renault F1 dangerously and naively caused a crash that had a very real chance of killing or injuring Piquet, another driver, a steward or a spectator. This, in my mind (and in any rational human's mind) is far, far worse than McLaren being in possession of stolen documents.

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.

The WMSC and the FIA are not courts of law. They are a group of people that represent different motorsport clubs in different nations. They come together to decide if any team has breached any rule in motorsports. There is no threshold of proof here. Those members just need to be convinced that something happened in a certain manner. I daresay that if we buffoons on this forum can be, as you say, 'more or less convinced' that Renault F1 is guilty of asking Piquet Jr. to crash, the WMSC and the FIA, who have more data available to them than we do, probably are convinced as well.

What happens now? Well, when any team signs up to participate in an FIA-sanctioned championship, they sign a legally-binding document that says the entrant will abide by the applicable rules the FIA have created for the series and motorsports in general. When Renault F1 became an entrant, they legally put themselves at the mercy of any decision the WMSC chooses to make, regardless of proof. This is why McLaren payed the massive fine. They were legally bound as an entrant to follow any rules the FIA have and to take whatever punishment is dished out. They probably could take the matter to a real court of law, but if they won they would face even more scrutiny by the FIA in the following years. Much better, the team decided, to just take the hit and continue on, trusting that F1 would eventually make them money again.

If the punishment is too harsh for Renault, they may leave F1, but they will be legally bound to pay whatever fine the WMSC/FIA come up with before they go. They may contest it in court, but the court will point to the documents Renault signed to become an entrant in the sport and say, essentially, "you agreed to put yourself under these folks, so you now have to pay the piper".

As you can see, all this talk of proving this and evidence of that....is....well....just so much rubbish.

Edited by Autumnpuma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that what Renault F1 did (and you agree they did):

was far, far worse than what McLaren did. I'll explain. I thing I'd be correct in saying that nearly all (above 90%, maybe) injuries and deaths in Formula 1 since the championship began have been the direct result of a crashing race car. Even with the safety these current cars have, Surtees the younger recently proved that all the safety in the world cannot cope with every bit of a destructing race car flying about. Death in racing comes in many odd forms...a piece of suspension through Senna's head, a tyre bouncing off Surtees' head, a detached wheel shooting through a three-foot-wide break in a fence to kill a steward. All that is certain is that when a racing car crashes, everyone around it are put in mortal danger. Renault F1 dangerously and naively caused a crash that had a very real chance of killing or injuring Piquet, another driver, a steward or a spectator. This, in my mind (and in any rational human's mind) is far, far worse than McLaren being in possession of stolen documents.

The WMSC and the FIA are not courts of law. They are a group of people that represent different motorsport clubs in different nations. They come together to decide if any team has breached any rule in motorsports. There is no threshold of proof here. Those members just need to be convinced that something happened in a certain manner. I daresay that if we buffoons on this forum can be, as you say, 'more or less convinced' that Renault F1 is guilty of asking Piquet Jr. to crash, the WMSC and the FIA, who have more data available to them than we do, probably are convinced as well.

What happens now? Well, when any team signs up to participate in an FIA-sanctioned championship, they sign a legally-binding document that says the entrant will abide by the applicable rules the FIA have created for the series and motorsports in general. When Renault F1 became an entrant, they legally put themselves at the mercy of any decision the WMSC chooses to make, regardless of proof. This is why McLaren payed the massive fine. They were legally bound as an entrant to follow any rules the FIA have and to take whatever punishment is dished out. They probably could take the matter to a real court of law, but if they won they would face even more scrutiny by the FIA in the following years. Much better, the team decided, to just take the hit and continue on, trusting that F1 would eventually make them money again.

If the punishment is too harsh for Renault, they may leave F1, but they will be legally bound to pay whatever fine the WMSC/FIA come up with before they go. They may contest it in court, but the court will point to the documents Renault signed to become an entrant in the sport and say, essentially, "you agreed to put yourself under these folks, so you now have to pay the piper".

As you can see, all this talk of proving this and evidence of that....is....well....just so much rubbish.

Amen..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that what Renault F1 did (and you agree they did):

was far, far worse than what McLaren did. I'll explain. I thing I'd be correct in saying that nearly all (above 90%, maybe) injuries and deaths in Formula 1 since the championship began have been the direct result of a crashing race car. Even with the safety these current cars have, Surtees the younger recently proved that all the safety in the world cannot cope with every bit of a destructing race car flying about. Death in racing comes in many odd forms...a piece of suspension through Senna's head, a tyre bouncing off Surtees' head, a detached wheel shooting through a three-foot-wide break in a fence to kill a steward. All that is certain is that when a racing car crashes, everyone around it are put in mortal danger. Renault F1 dangerously and naively caused a crash that had a very real chance of killing or injuring Piquet, another driver, a steward or a spectator. This, in my mind (and in any rational human's mind) is far, far worse than McLaren being in possession of stolen documents.

The WMSC and the FIA are not courts of law. They are a group of people that represent different motorsport clubs in different nations. They come together to decide if any team has breached any rule in motorsports. There is no threshold of proof here. Those members just need to be convinced that something happened in a certain manner. I daresay that if we buffoons on this forum can be, as you say, 'more or less convinced' that Renault F1 is guilty of asking Piquet Jr. to crash, the WMSC and the FIA, who have more data available to them than we do, probably are convinced as well.

What happens now? Well, when any team signs up to participate in an FIA-sanctioned championship, they sign a legally-binding document that says the entrant will abide by the applicable rules the FIA have created for the series and motorsports in general. When Renault F1 became an entrant, they legally put themselves at the mercy of any decision the WMSC chooses to make, regardless of proof. This is why McLaren payed the massive fine. They were legally bound as an entrant to follow any rules the FIA have and to take whatever punishment is dished out. They probably could take the matter to a real court of law, but if they won they would face even more scrutiny by the FIA in the following years. Much better, the team decided, to just take the hit and continue on, trusting that F1 would eventually make them money again.

If the punishment is too harsh for Renault, they may leave F1, but they will be legally bound to pay whatever fine the WMSC/FIA come up with before they go. They may contest it in court, but the court will point to the documents Renault signed to become an entrant in the sport and say, essentially, "you agreed to put yourself under these folks, so you now have to pay the piper".

As you can see, all this talk of proving this and evidence of that....is....well....just so much rubbish.

- Deliberately crashing to fix a race (or for any other reason, for that matter) is obviously far worse than spying on another team. Nobody is denying that as far as I know.

- Just to annoy you and everybody else, though, let me point something that somebody else (I don't recall who, maybe it was Hill) pointed out as well: if we are going to go hysterical over the fact of the endangered lives, then the deliberate crashes between cars (prost/senna, and many others, make your pick) are far, far worse (or at least twice as worse!) than this one. after all, back then safety measures were sketchy at least so cars were more prone to fires, for example, or loosing tires. Saferty measures for public and stewards were minor or non existant...yet they did that stuff and now we talk about the valiants, wheel to wheel fighting knights.

Again, endangering lives for the sake of it is crfiminal. Just remember that fairness is always a double egded sword. ;) This is a moot point, made to annoy people, btw. What Piquet made was criminal (I bet nobody will read this and will go on yelling at me that I am defending Piquet's deliberate crash)

- This particular buffoon is convinced, but only on the grounds of Flavio's personality (and, paradoxically, is the less involved of the trio so far in this situation). As I have no part on the actual "trial" and its consequences, I can pretty much be convinced by far less without that meaning anything. I could be convinced of Lewis worngdoings in the past just because I dislike him for being black (NO, I DONT!). I doubt FIA can afford such luxury, though.

- I completely agree that Renault, no matter what, should be penalized. I even think that if some convincing enough (by FIA's standards, not court of law standards) evidence can be produced, they should also find a way to fine Flavio, Piquet (that immunity is a shame) and Pat...and everybody else they could find guilty. Yes, even Nando. I want some sort of justice delivered and I am angry that all this will probably end with a fizzle. Yet another scnadalous behaviour treated liek a personal vendetta so once Max's thirst for blood was quenched nobody will give a Sh#t bout the worrying fact that such a joke of the sport can be done with impunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renault firing of Flavio and Pat were pure legal defense manouvers. With those two out of Renault they cannot appear in front of WMSC and be "forced" to answer question. When Renault representative apears there on MOnday he can answer on any question "Renault has no knowledge of that because those who might have knowledge are not with the team any more". Thus Renault is blocking FIA to extract any facts through court proceedings. That leaves FIA with set of evidence that is kind of sh!ty.

Only thing that FIA can prove beyond reasonable doubt is that NPJ deliberately caused crash and that Renault knew about it. So FIA can go after Renault as responsible for actions of driver and the fact that they did not report although they knew NPJ crashed on purpose. Without FB and PS answering questions they are not in position to prove conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

I allow you, but just this once! :P

I put it to you, Sir, that you dismissing the other evidence as "pretty much nothing else" is a testament to your bias in this case :lol: If this was Mclaren, I am sure your arguments would take a different tone (then again, they are cheating b#####ds :lol:) :P Piquet may well be a "bitter man" but that doesn't invalidate his testimony, even with the smallest of digging the evidence quickly comes to light, and it's clear there are some weight to these accusations.

I am not sure if Renault would have lost two of its most valued employees and decided not to contest the charges if they thought there was no evidence. While I agree that it is in the interests of the sport to pursue the case and find more evidence, in terms of justice and sentence it doesn't matter because Renault [symonds & Piquet] are clearly at fault.

I think that you already agreed that Renault (well, Symonds at least) are guilty of the charge, right? You made that decision from the evidence you've seen, right? Consider that we have seen most of the evidence in this trial as it has been leaked. How come an intelligent guy like you, and even a fan of Renault, would come up with the opinion of Renault being guilty whereas a court, using the same evidence, and supposedly free from bias, wouldn't?

My point is the WMSC isn't going to use some magical technique to assess the evidence, they will do exactly what you have done. Using the same basic common sense principles as you they will put 2+2 together and form the same opinion, the only difference is that they call it a verdict and then dress up their conclusion in some elaborate explanation which will actually just mean "we found them liable because it's obvious they did it".

You say imaging scenarios is a way of testing the evidence, and you can come up with as many as you like and say it somehow undermines the case, but if none of them are anywhere near as likely as Piquet's explanation then it's irrelevant. All you are doing is testing your own creativity and indulging your bias. None of your explanations fit the evidence anywhere near as well as Piquet's testimony does, that's because you have to make a number of unlikely concessions before you can find something which doesn't implicate Symonds and/or Briatore, and by extension Renault. None of the evidence points to Piquet lying, or the crash not being deliberate and not being an instruction. Everything points to an instruction to crash.

Lets look at the two testimonies, Piquet versus Symonds, and decide which is more likely (including some deviations on how it might have happened). By the way, these are the only two explanations which you need to come up with to asses the strength of the evidence in this case ;) Okay, so Symonds admitted a meeting took place beforehand regarding a deliberate crash, he says Piquet brought it up, so is it more likely that: 1) Piquet brought up the crash himself in that meeting, was not instructed in any way on how to crash or where to crash, potentially was told not to crash, but then decided to crash anyway. (Deviation 1) He was able to plan, by himself, to crash on a corner where it would necessitate a safety car, and on a lap which would ensure his team mate benefited significantly. Remember, at the time Piquet was in contract negotiations, if he was told not to crash it would be odd if he disobeyed the order and crashed deliberately (which the telemetry proves to a high standard). (Deviation 2) He decided to listen to an instruction not to crash, but crashed accidentally. Yet the telemetry exactly matched his statement of events on that day and strongly suggested he purposefully lost control of the car. This also, accidentally and by complete chance, necessitated a safety car and managed to help his team mate gain many positions in the race.

OR, is this more likely? 2) Bear in mind Piquet was in a vulnerable position in the team, and that Renault's position in Formula One was not certain (this is just as relevant as Piquet being a "bitter man"). A meeting took place before the race where it is accepted that crashing was discussed. Symonds or Piquet suggested Piquet deliberately crash his car; Symonds showed him where to do it, and told him on which lap to do it. He set Alonso's strategy so that he would benefit from a safety car. Piquet's telemetry stongly suggests he did crash deliberately, and perfectly matches his statement which was made some time after the race. Symonds is unable to provide any detailed counter explanation of events at the Singapore Grand Prix.

So the question for the WMSC is, "how likely is it, that a crash took place in the race, on a part of the circuit where a safety car was required, on a lap which would provide massive benefit for Alonso's strategy, that the telemetry supports as being deliberate, that helped Alonso win the race, was not in any way linked to a meeting on the same day where a deliberate crash was discussed by the driver and team management"?

On the balance of probabilities, the second scenario is significantly more likely and the answer to the question above is "quite unlikely". With the meeting being admitted by Symonds, it's too much to swallow (like this post) that the crash was accidental or of Piquet's own accord.

The strength of the evidence has obviously been assessed by Renault, their course of action has been to rid themselves of the parties involved. Renault reached the same conclusion as you, I, everybody else and most probably the WMSC would reach. Surely it is the only conclusion. They did it, and it's provable to WMSC standard, hence no contest.

Edited by El Maestro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Lots of intelligent posts in the tail end of this thread.

It seems that you guys are basically arguing over standards of proof. You all agree that on balance it's more likely than not that Renault planned the crash in advance with NPJ. And you all agree that, if they did plan it out, it's a worse form of cheating than the Spygate fiasco. But you seem to disagree over what standards of proof should be used to determine whether they are 'guilty' or not.

We the fans don't have any set standards of proof. Not having to put a binary guilty/innocent label on the case means we can say something a little more nuanced like: compared to Spygate, the evidence in Crashgate is less convincing but we all accept they most likely did cheat - and cheat in a far more serious way than McLaren did. The evidence is less strong, but the crime more serious.

The WMSC is in a trickier situation. Someone needs to find out exactly what criteria they use to assess guilt. I imagine the criteria will be very complicated in practice. Andres probably is correct that the more serious an allegation, the higher the burden of proof will be. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that as damning evidence as was found against McLaren is required - perhaps the FIA had far more proof than they needed in that case. Perhaps El George already knows what criteria are used to make these judgements?

One more thing: whether the WMSC has the 'legal' justification to find Renault guilty of such a serious 'crime' is of course, and unfortunately, rather by the by. I find it hard to believe that they will give Renault even as severe a punishment as that given to McLaren, although I personally think they have enough evidence to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Deliberately crashing to fix a race (or for any other reason, for that matter) is obviously far worse than spying on another team. Nobody is denying that as far as I know.

In an earlier post I thought you were. My apologies.

- Just to annoy you and everybody else, though, let me point something that somebody else (I don't recall who, maybe it was Hill) pointed out as well: if we are going to go hysterical over the fact of the endangered lives, then the deliberate crashes between cars (prost/senna, and many others, make your pick) are far, far worse (or at least twice as worse!) than this one. after all, back then safety measures were sketchy at least so cars were more prone to fires, for example, or loosing tires. Saferty measures for public and stewards were minor or non existant...yet they did that stuff and now we talk about the valiants, wheel to wheel fighting knights.

Wheel-to-wheel battles (Villeneuve vs. Arnoux) are different from intentional collisions (Senna vs. Prost) which are in turn different from a team telling a driver to crash during a race. I'm not sure what else you're going for here except to say 'motor racing is dangerous'. Yes, but it's monumentally stupid to intentionally increase that danger.

Again, endangering lives for the sake of it is crfiminal. Just remember that fairness is always a double egded sword. ;) This is a moot point, made to annoy people, btw. What Piquet made was criminal (I bet nobody will read this and will go on yelling at me that I am defending Piquet's deliberate crash)

Fairness in punishment for the same crime is never a moot point and is rarely a double-edged sword. It's merely justice.

- This particular buffoon is convinced, but only on the grounds of Flavio's personality (and, paradoxically, is the less involved of the trio so far in this situation). As I have no part on the actual "trial" and its consequences, I can pretty much be convinced by far less without that meaning anything. I could be convinced of Lewis worngdoings in the past just because I dislike him for being black (NO, I DONT!). I doubt FIA can afford such luxury, though.

No, no, you're quite intelligent and a pretty hard person to convince regarding Renault's wrongdoings simply because you like Renault so much. The fact that you are convinced says alot about the flimsy evidence we have on this forum and also says alot about what evidence the FIA must have. I doubt, though, the evidence they have is simply 'We know the sort of person Flavio is". I also doubt that's all that has convinced you. ;)

- I completely agree that Renault, no matter what, should be penalized. I even think that if some convincing enough (by FIA's standards, not court of law standards) evidence can be produced, they should also find a way to fine Flavio, Piquet (that immunity is a shame) and Pat...and everybody else they could find guilty. Yes, even Nando. I want some sort of justice delivered and I am angry that all this will probably end with a fizzle. Yet another scnadalous behaviour treated liek a personal vendetta so once Max's thirst for blood was quenched nobody will give a Sh#t bout the worrying fact that such a joke of the sport can be done with impunity.

You've got the point I've been driving at in all of this. The FIA is a joke. Membership in the FIA is voluntary and F1 doesn't need to be governed by them. That thought needs to circulate a bit.

The strength of the evidence has obviously been assessed by Renault, their course of action has been to rid themselves of the parties involved. Renault reached the same conclusion as you, I, everybody else and most probably the WMSC would reach. Surely it is the only conclusion. They did it, and it's provable to WMSC standard, hence no contest.

El Maestro, there's no need to convince Andres of anything. He's said he believes Renault are guilty and that's the important part here. Nice summation of the evidence we have, though, but you should add 'Flavio being Flavio' to the list. That's apparently powerful enough to convince some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Lots of intelligent posts in the tail end of this thread.

It seems that you guys are basically arguing over standards of proof. You all agree that on balance it's more likely than not that Renault planned the crash in advance with NPJ. And you all agree that, if they did plan it out, it's a worse form of cheating than the Spygate fiasco. But you seem to disagree over what standards of proof should be used to determine whether they are 'guilty' or not.

We the fans don't have any set standards of proof. Not having to put a binary guilty/innocent label on the case means we can say something a little more nuanced like: compared to Spygate, the evidence in Crashgate is less convincing but we all accept they most likely did cheat - and cheat in a far more serious way than McLaren did. The evidence is less strong, but the crime more serious.

The WMSC is in a trickier situation. Someone needs to find out exactly what criteria they use to assess guilt. I imagine the criteria will be very complicated in practice. Andres probably is correct that the more serious an allegation, the higher the burden of proof will be. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that as damning evidence as was found against McLaren is required - perhaps the FIA had far more proof than they needed in that case. Perhaps El George already knows what criteria are used to make these judgements?

One more thing: whether the WMSC has the 'legal' justification to find Renault guilty of such a serious 'crime' is of course, and unfortunately, rather by the by. I find it hard to believe that they will give Renault even as severe a punishment as that given to McLaren, although I personally think they have enough evidence to do so.

Nope, certainly don't. I've never sat in on a WMSC hearing and there isn't a wealth of information about the methods, practices or procedures they use (the promised era of transparency from the new President will be nice ;)). I am basing my argument on the idea that the issues the WMSC deal with really are of very, very little impact or importance outside of the small world of F1, i.e. people's liberty is not at stake, reputations don't actually get seriously tarnished by instances of cheating in sport, etc. An example is Mclaren's 2007 "transgression", biggest case of cheating until this one, does anyone care? No.

So, on that basis I would've thought the standard of proof would be closer to civil cases rather than criminal ones, which means it is much lower. It only has to be more likely to be true on one side, and my massively long post was simply to point out that it's more likely that Piquet's version of events is true than Symonds'. A court (which the WMSC is not) may use some complicated sounding tests but they are only going through the evidence and seeing what is most likely to have happened using common sense, any reasonably intelligent person can come to the same conclusion, minus the legal jargon. Btw I don't think there would be any specific criteria for a case like this, you just go through all the evidence and see who you believe and what you can establish. That really is it, it's not like you have to establish state of mind or causation or negligence in a case like this. Even for a "civil" case it seems quite simple (mainly because the defendant doesn't even give an alternative explanation :lol:). I mean seriously, no contest makes a lot of sense for Renault right now.

I think Renault's actions post revelation have been pretty clean cut here, they've got their house in order well and are essentially putting their hands up to it. Much smarter than Mclaren's response.

El Maestro, there's no need to convince Andres of anything. He's said he believes Renault are guilty and that's the important part here. Nice summation of the evidence we have, though, but you should add 'Flavio being Flavio' to the list. That's apparently powerful enough to convince some.

Oh I know Andres agrees that Renault are guilty and that Piquet is a despicable idiot! I was just trying to clarify (for myself as much as anyone) how the WMSC might come to a decision. Of course, I may be completely wrong, maybe the WMSC will line up a bunch of homeless people and use the wisdom of the crowd to reach a decision. Or predict the lottery. Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, after countless days of grovelling through cheap shots, flame baits and sour grapes with a few honorable exceptions something akin to a coherent debate is finally taking form!

Mike/Graham/George: I am glad you've joined the debate with your full wits. Saves me having to retype every ****ing time all the things I already said on my first post :D

Basically the argument is now centered on how will the FIA proceed and what criteria will they use. That is where we disagree. Like Mike say (and I can't deny it) my own bias makes me look for alternative explanations more to placate my own concience for having supported such a shameful team than for the benefit of Mr.Mike (geddit?). Yes, if it was McLaren I wouldn't have bothered this much. If it had been STR, or Williams I wouldn't have given a rat's arse, to be honest. If it had been Ferrari, I would be already marching towards Maranello with a torch and a pitchfork.

But Ferrari and McLaren had their own defenders so it is only fair that someone steps up for Renault ;)

So, my point rest as it is: the crime is more serious. I think that the obvious version is the way it happened. I don't think it was proven enough: NPJ statement is of relative value, Symonds explanations are suspicious but not directly incriminating, telemetry is "unusual" but obviously was not damning (or FIA could have used it a year ago when Piquet Sr. blowed the whistle...they could have at least asked for it without having a confession or anything else, right?) plus Hill says that he doesn't think it proves that there was a deliberate crash from it. Radio transcripts are as boring as any routine radio transcript. NPJs statement does not incriminate Briatore directly. Cover up accusations are barely sustainable when the FIA itself acted the same way. Renault could be still considered guilty for what at least here is known as "culpa in contraendo" and "culpa in vigilando" (thats latin/lawyer lingo for "guilt for hiring them" and "guilt for not watching over them". "Them" being NPJ, FB, PS or any combination). And finally, the sackings could be a sacrifice to end the war before it gets actually costly as much as a confession of guilt. Ditto fro Renault not contesting the charges. (McLaren's worst crime in the eyes of FIA was not the documents in the spygate, or the cheating in the Liegate, but the perception that the team was trying to obstruct FIA...basically, making Mosley look like a moron)

In the end, I tend to agree more with Graham. Having to come to a decision, they will probably handle some kind of punishment (pressure would be too much to let it just die on its own) but it will be very lenient so as to keep Renault around and thus it willbe not just a punishment fro Flavio, who in any case lost his job, but also yet another punch towards Dennis who will see Renault getting away when he knows that, had this happened to McLaren under his command, he would have been tortured to death, resurrected and then tortured again. Max gets 2 for 1. Winner of the match: Mosley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stick with me on this one - it's long

Ahhh, after countless days of grovelling through cheap shots, flame baits and sour grapes with a few honorable exceptions something akin to a coherent debate is finally taking form!

Mike/Graham/George: I am glad you've joined the debate with your full wits. Saves me having to retype every ****ing time all the things I already said on my first post :D

It is indeed good to see that people have stopped reading this simply as "Quiety/Adam don't think Renault are guilty of anything" - I got very tired of explaining that I think Flav and Symonds were in on it and then having people trying to convince me that they were in on it.

Basically the argument is now centered on how will the FIA proceed and what criteria will they use. That is where we disagree. Like Mike say (and I can't deny it) my own bias makes me look for alternative explanations more to placate my own concience for having supported such a shameful team than for the benefit of Mr.Mike (geddit?). Yes, if it was McLaren I wouldn't have bothered this much. If it had been STR, or Williams I wouldn't have given a rat's arse, to be honest. If it had been Ferrari, I would be already marching towards Maranello with a torch and a pitchfork.

But Ferrari and McLaren had their own defenders so it is only fair that someone steps up for Renault ;)

I actually can't stand Flavio, so I can claim bias in the opposite direction to which my strict objectivity is taking me.

So, my point rest as it is: the crime is more serious. I think that the obvious version is the way it happened. I don't think it was proven enough: NPJ statement is of relative value, Symonds explanations are suspicious but not directly incriminating, telemetry is "unusual" but obviously was not damning (or FIA could have used it a year ago when Piquet Sr. blowed the whistle...they could have at least asked for it without having a confession or anything else, right?) plus Hill says that he doesn't think it proves that there was a deliberate crash from it. Radio transcripts are as boring as any routine radio transcript. NPJs statement does not incriminate Briatore directly. Cover up accusations are barely sustainable when the FIA itself acted the same way. Renault could be still considered guilty for what at least here is known as "culpa in contraendo" and "culpa in vigilando" (thats latin/lawyer lingo for "guilt for hiring them" and "guilt for not watching over them". "Them" being NPJ, FB, PS or any combination). And finally, the sackings could be a sacrifice to end the war before it gets actually costly as much as a confession of guilt. Ditto fro Renault not contesting the charges. (McLaren's worst crime in the eyes of FIA was not the documents in the spygate, or the cheating in the Liegate, but the perception that the team was trying to obstruct FIA...basically, making Mosley look like a moron)

There are 2 seperate crimes here and I fall half way between you and the others...

Here's where I disagree with you...

The bold part - first I think the evidence is enough and has proven something beyond doubt, but not what everyone wants it to. That's where my line is drawn...

I think that Jnr's statement + telemetry + Symonds admittence that they had a meeting where deliberately crashing was discussed before the race + renault decision not to contest the charges (all together) proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he crashed deliberately - it was a premeditated act.

I also think that that evidence + Flav's comments prove that certain people in Renault (Symonds, Flav and Jnr for sure, possibly others also) covered up after the event and are guilty of that crime.

Furthermore, I think that it is fair enough to punish Renault for the actions of Jnr (crashing deliberately) and Symonds and Flav (covering up afterwards).

However, here's where I differ from the people out for Flavio's testicles...

There is a second crime that most people are finding F+S guilty of - that of actually planing the crash and ordering Jnr to do it.

I do NOT think that Flav and Symonds can be proved guilty of the premeditation of Jnr's crash (even though I DO think they planned it).

The only evidence of their part in the planing is Jnr's statement and Symonds' refusal to talk. That is thin evidence on which to find Symonds and especially Flav guilty of this seperate, but more serious crime.

Even renault's decision not to defend themselves is not indicative of any guilt on F+S's parts for actually planning the crash. Their decision not to fight the charges as they stand can not be fought. They are guilty (as a team) of causing a deliberate crash - who planned it is irrelevant for Renault.

Now some people will point out that Renault "forced" Flav and Symonds out, but given the nature of Max's actions I find that not at all surprising. Immunity to the only person they actually knew was guilty of anything (Jnr), was a ridiculous move. At that point it was patently obvious that Max, Snr and Jnr were after Flav's head - they believed/knew he was guilty or simply didn't care. At this point Renault had a few options...

i) defend themselves and keep Flav / Symonds on

result - they are guilty for Jnr's actions and would be seriously fined or chucked out of F1 since they had dared not to give up F+S

ii) defend themselves and ditch Flav / Symonds

result - same as above but kinder punishment from Max for ditching F

iii) not contest and keep F+S

result - same as (a)

iv) not contest and dump F+S

result - lightest punishment of all (and this is what they did)

Ultimately the FIA could prove that renault (being responsible for actions of all members including Jnr) had deliberately caused a crash and covered their actions up for almost a year. So FIA can always hand out their punishment for that crime.

But as FIA couldn't prove F+S planned and ordered the crash, frustration would inevitably have led to Max dishing out the harshest punishment he could to renault in an attempt to indirectly hurt Flav. Everyone could see that option iv would be best for all concerned.

In the end, I tend to agree more with Graham. Having to come to a decision, they will probably handle some kind of punishment (pressure would be too much to let it just die on its own) but it will be very lenient so as to keep Renault around and thus it willbe not just a punishment fro Flavio, who in any case lost his job, but also yet another punch towards Dennis who will see Renault getting away when he knows that, had this happened to McLaren under his command, he would have been tortured to death, resurrected and then tortured again. Max gets 2 for 1. Winner of the match: Mosley.

agreed

Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a third crime and one that won't get punished as a result of this, which is the saddest thing of all because of the immunity ruling.

Irrespective of what the team said/did and even if he was acting solo, NPJ did the crash. A singularly moronic act which he could have chosen not to do.

I find NP Senior's rantings a bit galling - whilst he was right to bring this one out in the open, he has failed to acknowledge his son's role/guilt.

OK so NPJ will suffer as no-one will want to touch him with a 10 foot pole. But I would like to have seen proper justice on this one - interestingly he is now the only individual WMSC can punish as they could rescind his super-license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a third crime and one that won't get punished as a result of this, which is the saddest thing of all because of the immunity ruling.

Irrespective of what the team said/did and even if he was acting solo, NPJ did the crash. A singularly moronic act which he could have chosen not to do.

the crash itself was actually crime 1 above - come on meani - make an effort! :D

but I know what you're getting at and you are right in the sense that it's ridiculous that NPJ - the guy guilty of actually crashing was given immunity.

as I said above - that move immediately signalled the FIA's one and only goal - get Flavio - Max had been biding his time since he found out at Brazil last year.

the deliberate crash itself is the crime for which renault will pay and which caused their capitulation since it's the crime that has been proved.

jnr's immunity directed the nature of that capitulation (dumping Flavio and Symonds and not contesting any charges).

crime 2 (Flav and Symonds actually ordering Jnr to crash) is what everyone thinks happened (including me), but can not be proved and has anyway become irrelevent since Jnr Snr and Max got their way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes yes...Its definitely Maure Flu....M1F1.

Edited by abbas_gear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, certainly don't. I've never sat in on a WMSC hearing and there isn't a wealth of information about the methods, practices or procedures they use (the promised era of transparency from the new President will be nice ;)). I am basing my argument on the idea that the issues the WMSC deal with really are of very, very little impact or importance outside of the small world of F1, i.e. people's liberty is not at stake, reputations don't actually get seriously tarnished by instances of cheating in sport, etc. An example is Mclaren's 2007 "transgression", biggest case of cheating until this one, does anyone care? No.

So, on that basis I would've thought the standard of proof would be closer to civil cases rather than criminal ones, which means it is much lower. It only has to be more likely to be true on one side, and my massively long post was simply to point out that it's more likely that Piquet's version of events is true than Symonds'. A court (which the WMSC is not) may use some complicated sounding tests but they are only going through the evidence and seeing what is most likely to have happened using common sense, any reasonably intelligent person can come to the same conclusion, minus the legal jargon. Btw I don't think there would be any specific criteria for a case like this, you just go through all the evidence and see who you believe and what you can establish. That really is it, it's not like you have to establish state of mind or causation or negligence in a case like this. Even for a "civil" case it seems quite simple (mainly because the defendant doesn't even give an alternative explanation :lol:). I mean seriously, no contest makes a lot of sense for Renault right now.

I think Renault's actions post revelation have been pretty clean cut here, they've got their house in order well and are essentially putting their hands up to it. Much smarter than Mclaren's response.

Cheers, George. I've no experience of law so I can't really give much of an opinion on how the FIA will make their decision. What you say sounds very plausible to me - and I find it interesting to learn how courts work. The main cause for pause I have with all this is that 'justice', as Mike rightly calls it, will in this case have serious implications within F1 and to some extent for the Renault brand outside F1, although it's possible that that damage is already largely done. So to me it still seems like a serious matter that might need a high level of proof. But as I say, I really have no idea how these things work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes yes yes...Its definitely Maure Flu....M1F1.

nah - it remains good natured when the wanlker's not around - funny that - surely if we were as nasty as he always claims, we should have killed each other by now - especially with such an ongoing disagreement between us as this thread has shown - but somehow we're remaining civil - beats me how.

looking forward to Monday - I want to read the "For........" bit of the FIA statement rather than the "Renault will pay........" bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That a great explanation you gave before Adam, at would also explain why we keep running in circles. Yes, I agree with your 2 crimes explanation. It's weird to agree with you this much. Weren't we supposed to disagree usually?

The world makes sense no more, since this scandal started. Repent, for it is written "And it come to pass that the Big Whale in Thongs fell into the abyss. And it come to pass that He Who Was Spanked exceedingly rejoiceth himself and it was a sign that the end of the world neareth"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stick with me on this one - it's long

It is indeed good to see that people have stopped reading this simply as "Quiety/Adam don't think Renault are guilty of anything" - I got very tired of explaining that I think Flav and Symonds were in on it and then having people trying to convince me that they were in on it.

I actually can't stand Flavio, so I can claim bias in the opposite direction to which my strict objectivity is taking me.

There are 2 seperate crimes here and I fall half way between you and the others...

Here's where I disagree with you...

The bold part - first I think the evidence is enough and has proven something beyond doubt, but not what everyone wants it to. That's where my line is drawn...

I think that Jnr's statement + telemetry + Symonds admittence that they had a meeting where deliberately crashing was discussed before the race + renault decision not to contest the charges (all together) proves beyond any reasonable doubt that he crashed deliberately - it was a premeditated act.

I also think that that evidence + Flav's comments prove that certain people in Renault (Symonds, Flav and Jnr for sure, possibly others also) covered up after the event and are guilty of that crime.

Furthermore, I think that it is fair enough to punish Renault for the actions of Jnr (crashing deliberately) and Symonds and Flav (covering up afterwards).

Agree.

However, here's where I differ from the people out for Flavio's testicles...

There is a second crime that most people are finding F+S guilty of - that of actually planing the crash and ordering Jnr to do it.

I do NOT think that Flav and Symonds can be proved guilty of the premeditation of Jnr's crash (even though I DO think they planned it).

The only evidence of their part in the planing is Jnr's statement and Symonds' refusal to talk. That is thin evidence on which to find Symonds and especially Flav guilty of this seperate, but more serious crime.

Even renault's decision not to defend themselves is not indicative of any guilt on F+S's parts for actually planning the crash. Their decision not to fight the charges as they stand can not be fought. They are guilty (as a team) of causing a deliberate crash - who planned it is irrelevant for Renault.

Disagree, of course! :lol: Again, this comes down to a disagreement about standards of proof. Nobody has to prove it was premeditated, WMSC does not have to "prove" that Symonds, Flav and Piquet conspired to fix the race. Nobody can do this because the only three people there in the meeting were Flav, Symonds, and Piquet. There were no cameras or microphones present. So, barring a full confession from all three, which you will never get, you will never be able to prove to a high standard where you can reliably say "the WMSC has proved that Renault premeditated the crash". Won't happen, can't happen. A case like this is about likelihoods, probability. It is more a case of "the WMSC believes that..etc". Very rarely is anything "provable" in "civil" cases like this. Your looking at what is likely to have happened.

The crash is basically accepted as being deliberate, Piquet drove into the wall. His statement and the telemetry match up perfectly, it would be odd if he was able to describe exactly how to crash into the wall at that turn unless he had actually done it before. So, bearing in mind that the crash is accepted as being deliberate, then consider the other evidence. The damning evidence is from Symonds (remember, they only have to be convinced of his wrongdoing beforehand to find Renault guilty of the charge), he admits a meeting took place when Piquet said it did, then consider that he admits crashing deliberately was brought up. Now the only real question is the one I made before "how likely is it, that a crash took place in the race, on a part of the circuit where a safety car was required, on a lap which would provide massive benefit for Alonso's strategy, that the telemetry supports as being deliberate, that helped Alonso win the race, was not in any way linked to a meeting on the same day where a deliberate crash was discussed by the driver and team management"?

Then there is the further question of: "And how likely is it, that such a deliberate crash would solely involve the driver and not the team management, even though the team management accept a crash was discussed beforehand?".

Now if you can answer those two questions, in any other way than "quite unlikely" and "extremely unlikely" respectively, then you have shattered WMSC case against Renault.

Ahhh, after countless days of grovelling through cheap shots, flame baits and sour grapes with a few honorable exceptions something akin to a coherent debate is finally taking form!

Mike/Graham/George: I am glad you've joined the debate with your full wits. Saves me having to retype every ****ing time all the things I already said on my first post :D

Basically the argument is now centered on how will the FIA proceed and what criteria will they use. That is where we disagree. Like Mike say (and I can't deny it) my own bias makes me look for alternative explanations more to placate my own concience for having supported such a shameful team than for the benefit of Mr.Mike (geddit?). Yes, if it was McLaren I wouldn't have bothered this much. If it had been STR, or Williams I wouldn't have given a rat's arse, to be honest. If it had been Ferrari, I would be already marching towards Maranello with a torch and a pitchfork.

But Ferrari and McLaren had their own defenders so it is only fair that someone steps up for Renault ;)

I guess somebody has to represent Renault in this case :P

So, my point rest as it is: the crime is more serious. I think that the obvious version is the way it happened. I don't think it was proven enough: NPJ statement is of relative value, Symonds explanations are suspicious but not directly incriminating, telemetry is "unusual" but obviously was not damning (or FIA could have used it a year ago when Piquet Sr. blowed the whistle...they could have at least asked for it without having a confession or anything else, right?) plus Hill says that he doesn't think it proves that there was a deliberate crash from it. Radio transcripts are as boring as any routine radio transcript. NPJs statement does not incriminate Briatore directly. Cover up accusations are barely sustainable when the FIA itself acted the same way. Renault could be still considered guilty for what at least here is known as "culpa in contraendo" and "culpa in vigilando" (thats latin/lawyer lingo for "guilt for hiring them" and "guilt for not watching over them". "Them" being NPJ, FB, PS or any combination). And finally, the sackings could be a sacrifice to end the war before it gets actually costly as much as a confession of guilt. Ditto fro Renault not contesting the charges. (McLaren's worst crime in the eyes of FIA was not the documents in the spygate, or the cheating in the Liegate, but the perception that the team was trying to obstruct FIA...basically, making Mosley look like a moron)

In the end, I tend to agree more with Graham. Having to come to a decision, they will probably handle some kind of punishment (pressure would be too much to let it just die on its own) but it will be very lenient so as to keep Renault around and thus it will be not just a punishment fro Flavio, who in any case lost his job, but also yet another punch towards Dennis who will see Renault getting away when he knows that, had this happened to McLaren under his command, he would have been tortured to death, resurrected and then tortured again. Max gets 2 for 1. Winner of the match: Mosley.

When I think about it, this debate is pretty strange. Most people agree that Renault (Symonds certainly and probably Briatore) did do this, most of us agree that it is worse than Mclaren's crime, yet we are still arguing about the standard of proof in the WMSC, even though Renault are not contesting the charges :lol:

Anyway, since none of us really knows the standard of proof, it's kinda pointless, but a little bit of fun nonetheless. IMO Renault aren't contesting the charges because they know that FIA has enough evidence to convict on the WMSC standard.

On my model of proof for the WMSC, it would be quite easy to find Symonds "guilty" of the race fixing allegation, and therefore by extension Renault. That's because he fails to provide an alternative explanation of events. You might say this is not a damning piece of evidence, but I think it's a very strong indicator of wrongdoing, e.g. Lets say you and me had a long standing feud. Somebody comes around to your house and vandalises it while you are out. Your neighbour witnessed it but nobody else did. You take me to a civil court looking for me to pay damages, your neighbour makes a testimony against me on your behalf. I admit to being at your house on the night it was vandalised, but I claim I just realised you weren't in and left. However, I can't describe why I was there, where I was before or after I left, or what I did before or after I went there.

In that case, you are the FIA, your neighbour is Piquet and I am Symonds [Renault]. It would be enough evidence that if I couldn't provide an explanation of what happened, or a witness testifying on my behalf, that since I had admitted being there on the same night as the vandalism happened, it was most likely I did indeed vandalise your house. I would end up paying the damages because a witness saw me there + we have a long standing feud + I admitted being there + I can't provide any explanation of why I went there + your house was in fact seriously vandalised.

Of course, I may not have vandalised your house, your witness may be lying so they get part of the damages pay-off; I may be unable to provide testimony of what I was doing because I was at some orgy with Max Mosley and am embarrassed to reveal it. It doesn't really matter, it's more likely than not I did do the deed and that is enough.

Now, you believe that WMSC needs a higher standard of proof in this case because it is a serious incident by F1 standards, and therefore believe they need more evidence. Back in my case example, it would be the equivalent of me admitting to doing the vandalism, or your witness having photos me doing the vandalism, or being caught on CCTV, or me being caught by the police later that night with a baseball bat in my car and empty cans of spray paint (providing of course I had spray painted your house). My point here is you are never going to get such a high standard of proof in a case like this. It would be very nice to have such high standards, but people would be able to get away with quite a lot. There will not be a confession of wrongdoing, normally both sides will make up a bunch of stuff which is close the the truth to try and make themselves look better. In this case Symonds couldn't even do that, he couldn't even say "hey, it was Piquet who did this and he suggested he crash here, and I told him 'don't be so stupid'" etc. If Symonds had said something like that and elaborated on it, or not admitted to a meeting, then I would not be making these arguments. But since he didn't say that, and did admit to the meeting, the case seems pretty simple. The mistake people make is thinking law is a massively complex system which relies on some kind of higher reasoning. WMSC is not a court, and even if they operated free from bias they would still find Renault guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what happened to all of you guys with these long post, right now I am working and don't have the time to read/answer all of them, I will need to wait until I get home but if in that time you continue to post like this I will have a real hard time catching up :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, you believe that WMSC needs a higher standard of proof in this case because it is a serious incident by F1 standards, and therefore believe they need more evidence. Back in my case example, it would be the equivalent of me admitting to doing the vandalism, or your witness having photos me doing the vandalism, or being caught on CCTV, or me being caught by the police later that night with a baseball bat in my car and empty cans of spray paint (providing of course I had spray painted your house). My point here is you are never going to get such a high standard of proof in a case like this. It would be very nice to have such high standards, but people would be able to get away with quite a lot. There will not be a confession of wrongdoing, normally both sides will make up a bunch of stuff which is close the the truth to try and make themselves look better. In this case Symonds couldn't even do that, he couldn't even say "hey, it was Piquet who did this and he suggested he crash here, and I told him 'don't be so stupid'" etc. If Symonds had said something like that and elaborated on it, or not admitted to a meeting, then I would not be making these arguments. But since he didn't say that, and did admit to the meeting, the case seems pretty simple. The mistake people make is thinking law is a massively complex system which relies on some kind of higher reasoning. WMSC is not a court, and even if they operated free from bias they would still find Renault guilty.

Yep, I agree with you there, George.

The bold is they key part for me. It seems to me that whatever evidence the FIA had, it needed Piquet and Symonds to make it work, as it were, otherwise the FIA would have acted before now, as has been said.

The fact that Symonds didn't deny any such discussions makes me think that he knew there was/is some evidence that could come to light, but they need him to link it up. I have no idea what that evidence could be, though. Maybe it's why Piquet and Symonds were offered immunity.

I suppose hindsight is a wonderful thing, but surely they could have made the crash more 'realistic' knowing that telemetry would possibly show any intentional crash, or certainly make it look suspicious. Couldn't Piquet have put a tyre on the grass, or something, or even if they had said at the time there was a fault that caused the crash. I guess they just never thought it would be investigated :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what happened to all of you guys with these long post, right now I am working and don't have the time to read/answer all of them, I will need to wait until I get home but if in that time you continue to post like this I will have a real hard time catching up :wacko:

Don't worry, that will be my last essay on the matter :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I agree with you there, George.

The bold is they key part for me. It seems to me that whatever evidence the FIA had, it needed Piquet and Symonds to make it work, as it were, otherwise the FIA would have acted before now, as has been said.

The fact that Symonds didn't deny any such discussions makes me think that he knew there was/is some evidence that could come to light, but they need him to link it up. I have no idea what that evidence could be, though. Maybe it's why Piquet and Symonds were offered immunity.

I suppose hindsight is a wonderful thing, but surely they could have made the crash more 'realistic' knowing that telemetry would possibly show any intentional crash, or certainly make it look suspicious. Couldn't Piquet have put a tyre on the grass, or something, or even if they had said at the time there was a fault that caused the crash. I guess they just never thought it would be investigated :lol:

Hi, it's me, the self appointed Renault defendant again :lol:

As you can see, we all guess that there has to be more incriminating evidence that that which was released so far. That not only means that we all think that they need more evidence, but also that the evidence so far failed to convince us (at least of crime nr.2 in Adam's system). The fact that we have no idea what could that evidence possibly be is also telling, as leakings to the press had been very generous this time (we got full transcripts, telemetry, confessions, stewards pleminiary findings and what not). With all that stuff, all we can say is that Piquet crash was weird and that it was coincidental with a nice chat he had prior to the race where NPJ, PS and possibly FB spoke about a deliberate crash. That is enough to make NPJ responsible of a deliberate crash, and possibly PS of being aware and not acting. Probably you could charge FB to a lesser extent of the same. Everybody else who could have been suspicious you can not accuse for the FIA itself now is one of the parties that didn't act on that suspicion, and they were the ones that ought to have acted.

Again I ask: if FIA knew about this since last year, why would they need any kind of statement from Piquet to start an investigation? I am not talking about a full scale investigation, but they had every right to ask for the telemetry data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH, and I enjoy long posts, btw. Means we are actually trying to say something interesting besides our usual witty oneliners :lol: Something I don't like about other forums is the fact that all posts are so short they usually consist in jokes, insults and digs at other members. Well thought posts are usually long. Except when it is because of a fundamental lack of conciseness (which is my case).

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