Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic


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.

Well, because that is a back to front way of doing an investigation. They could have taken the telemetry data, but that alone without any statement or testimony is worthless. Just like if Piquet said he crashed deliberately but the telemetry showed the crash was caused by a brake failure. One part without the other can be put down to coincidence or accusation, but when they both fit each other (explanation & telemetry) it becomes evidence.

First you have an official accusation with some testimony, then you get the telemetry data and interview everyone and see if there is any substance. It is the most sensible way of doing it. Sorry, but on this case the FIA were not in the wrong; there is a difference between covering something up (Symonds, Flav) and not having enough reason to launch a proper investigation (which without any testimony from one side would go nowhere and yet still be potentially damaging to Renault).

Besides, stop changing the bollocking issue and answer my posts, or aren't you man enough :whistling::lol:

Idiot!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, because that is a back to front way of doing an investigation. They could have taken the telemetry data, but that alone without any statement or testimony is worthless. Just like if Piquet said he crashed deliberately but the telemetry showed the crash was caused by a brake failure. One part without the other can be put down to coincidence or accusation, but when they both fit each other (explanation & telemetry) it becomes evidence.

First you have an official accusation with some testimony, then you get the telemetry data and interview everyone and see if there is any substance. It is the most sensible way of doing it. Sorry, but on this case the FIA were not in the wrong; there is a difference between covering something up (Symonds, Flav) and not having enough reason to launch a proper investigation (which without any testimony from one side would go nowhere and yet still be potentially damaging to Renault).

Besides, stop changing the bollocking issue and answer my posts, or aren't you man enough :whistling::lol:

:lol:

Good reply :eusa_think:

On the other hand...**** off you ****ing morons! Nando is the best! Renault is innocent! Flavio is a gentleman and gorgeous! I am the best!

Long live batracer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reply :eusa_think:

On the other hand...**** off you ****ing morons! Nando is the best! Renault is innocent! Flavio is a gentleman and gorgeous! I am the best!

Long live batracer!

That's more bloody like it! Actually, you have convinced me now, it was the batracer line that did it :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reply :eusa_think:

On the other hand...**** off you ****ing morons! Nando is the best! Renault is innocent! Flavio is a gentleman and gorgeous! I am the best!

Long live batracer!

Don't make me publish that picture again... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** off you ****ing morons! Nando is the best! Renault is innocent! Flavio is a gentleman and gorgeous! I am the best!

Long live batracer!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tol ya......They cant be cured....:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Exsqueeze me, bollocky face??? Wasn't it you who said Renault were guilty from the start and me who said I think Piquet is trying to exploit a convenient consequence?? Ok, the fact that I was totally wrong is completely irrelevant, it was the principle that counts and you know it :whistling::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exsqueeze me, bollocky face??? Wasn't it you who said Renault were guilty from the start and me who said I think Piquet is trying to exploit a convenient consequence?? Ok, the fact that I was totally wrong is completely irrelevant, it was the principle that counts and you know it :whistling::lol:

No, I said that Flavio was an alien...no, wait...that wasn't me. Well, I am just a 16 years old kid so stop nagging me! No, wait...that not me, either...:eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I said that Flavio was an alien...no, wait...that wasn't me. Well, I am just a 16 years old kid so stop nagging me! No, wait...that not me, either...:eusa_think:

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.

good

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.

hang on - that's crime 1 - yes Jnr premeditated the crash and he was working for renault - they are therefore guilty of that - I'm arguing more guilt than you on this one :blink:

crime 2 is whether or not F+S were involved in ordering the crash (they are guilty of covering up afterwards - that's part of crime 1) - you're mixing your crimes up see, it's like if I say, "Go and bludgeon that table with the kettle" and you go and bludgeon my aunt Mable - see? completely different crimes.

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"?

crime 1 again - proves nothing concerning crime 2 (F+S's involvement other then from covering it up, which was part of crime 1).

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?".

extremely unlikely - agree

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.

for crime 1 - we've already established that Renault are guilty of having a driver who crashed deliberately.

for crime 2 - "irrelevent to crime 2" and "extemely unlikely" - this does not prove F+S ordered it.

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

I prefer to think of myself as defending rationality:P

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.

agree - but finding Reanult guilty of race fixing is easy (always has been) - they are responsible for Jnr's actions and Jnr has confessed. again - that is crime 1 and that's all FIA actually need to charge renault.

This is for everyone...

Throughout this whole thread many people have mistaken my talking of proving F+S's guilt in actually ordering the crash as an indication that I thought that was related to proving Renault guilt for race fixing / premeditated crashing.

This is a false assumption - please read posts more carefully.

EDIT - equally (another false assumption) - I think it can't be proved the F+S ordered the crash and that there is enough doubt not to be able to say categorically that they did. Because of this, many people assumed I didn't think that they planned/ordered it, when actually I do.

Does that make my position any clearer for anyone? - perhaps those who have read my previous posts carefully didn't need this clarification and those who didn't won't have understood this anyway - they'll already be busy writing another post about how I'm crazy to think Renault aren't guilty :D

Edited by adamstrags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good

hang on - that's crime 1 - yes Jnr premeditated the crash and he was working for renault - they are therefore guilty of that - I'm arguing more guilt than you on this one :blink:

crime 2 is whether or not F+S were involved in ordering the crash (they are guilty of covering up afterwards - that's part of crime 1) - you're mixing your crimes up see, it's like if I say, "Go and bludgeon that table with the kettle" and you go and bludgeon my aunt Mable - see? completely different crimes.

crime 1 again - proves nothing concerning crime 2 (F+S's involvement other then from covering it up, which was part of crime 1).

extremely unlikely - agree

for crime 1 - we've already established that Renault are guilty of having a driver who crashed deliberately.

for crime 2 - "irrelevent to crime 2" and "extemely unlikely" - this does not prove F+S ordered it.

I prefer to think of myself as defending rationality:P

agree - but finding Reanult guilty of race fixing is easy (always has been) - they are responsible for Jnr's actions and Jnr has confessed. again - that is crime 1 and that's all FIA actually need to charge renault.

This is for everyone...

Throughout this whole thread many people have mistaken my talking of proving F+S's guilt in actually ordering the crash as an indication that I thought that was related to proving Renault guilt for race fixing / premeditated crashing.

This is a false assumption - please read posts more carefully.

EDIT - equally (another false assumption) - I think it can't be proved the F+S ordered the crash and that there is enough doubt not to be able to say categorically that they did. Because of this, many people assumed I didn't think that they planned/ordered it, when actually I do.

Does that make my position any clearer for anyone? - perhaps those who have read my previous posts carefully didn't need this clarification and those who didn't won't have understood this anyway - they'll already be busy writing another post about how I'm crazy to think Renault aren't guilty :D

I knew it was weird that I agreed with you so much. Why do you think that the accident never happened and that Flavio was actually trying to save F1? Your arguments make no sense! Haven't you read the whole thread???

Tsk, tsk...some people never learn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew it was weird that I agreed with you so much. Why do you think that the accident never happened and that Flavio was actually trying to save F1? Your arguments make no sense! Haven't you read the whole thread???

Tsk, tsk...some people never learn...

:lol::clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I said that Flavio was an alien...no, wait...that wasn't me. Well, I am just a 16 years old kid so stop nagging me! No, wait...that not me, either...:eusa_think:

:D No I'm the best...

oh hell this Maurenfluenza is catching :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world...

Alonso summoned to the WSMC hearings tomorrow. Flavio too, though I don't think he will attend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world...

Alonso summoned to the WSMC hearings tomorrow. Flavio too, though I don't think he will attend.

Wow..fantastic! :clap3:

I hope he thinks he too has the immunity and spills out everything and gets caught!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow..fantastic! :clap3:

I hope he thinks he too has the immunity and spills out everything and gets caught!

I seriously doubt so but...whatever :P

Update: it seems that Flaviomight actually attend. Articles keep mentioning that he will because his future as driver's manager and his interests in football might alse be at a stake in case of a full life ban from the FIA....but as he will not be able to defend himslef I don't see any reason for him to attend, except maybe to strangle Piquet with his own hands.

In any case, tomorrow is the day. WHat we will talk about when this is over? FIA should guarantee a steady flow of these scandals, we have developed a taste for them in the past years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world...

Alonso summoned to the WSMC hearings tomorrow. Flavio too, though I don't think he will attend.

YES :yahoo: Alonso"s reaction to the news :eekout: and his reaction on monday will be :what:

He said he is suprised by the summond but how could he be when all this was done to make him win the race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt so but...whatever :P

Update: it seems that Flaviomight actually attend. Articles keep mentioning that he will because his future as driver's manager and his interests in football might alse be at a stake in case of a full life ban from the FIA....but as he will not be able to defend himslef I don't see any reason for him to attend, except maybe to strangle Piquet with his own hands.

In any case, tomorrow is the day. WHat we will talk about when this is over? FIA should guarantee a steady flow of these scandals, we have developed a taste for them in the past years.

don't worry the silly season already started now the press says that Kimi is Mclaren bound causing some movement on other teams, I think we'll have plenty to talk especially in Alonso is prooven to be involved in the crashgate :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on - that's crime 1 - yes Jnr premeditated the crash and he was working for renault - they are therefore guilty of that - I'm arguing more guilt than you on this one :blink:

crime 2 is whether or not F+S were involved in ordering the crash (they are guilty of covering up afterwards - that's part of crime 1) - you're mixing your crimes up see, it's like if I say, "Go and bludgeon that table with the kettle" and you go and bludgeon my aunt Mable - see? completely different crimes.

My argument is about what Renault are actually accused of, not crime 1 and 2 which you came up with :lol:

My statement, which you bolded, meant this: you (or anybody else) can't prove Renault (Symonds, Briatore) planned a crash before the race, which is what the case is actually about. I wasn't talking on your terms of crime 1 and 2, obviously Renault are guilty of having one of their drivers crash deliberately (Piquet admits it, telemetry confirms it). That's not what is being discussed, though. The case is about race fixing, this is the accusation before the WMSC.

crime 1 again - proves nothing concerning crime 2 (F+S's involvement other then from covering it up, which was part of crime 1).

How does that only concern crime 1? That paragraph is about the planning of the crash :lol: Nothing to do with covering it up. And once more, with feeling, you will never get proof of crime 2, it's probability, not proof.

extremely unlikely - agree

for crime 1 - we've already established that Renault are guilty of having a driver who crashed deliberately.

for crime 2 - "irrelevent to crime 2" and "extemely unlikely" - this does not prove F+S ordered it.

See above :lol:

I prefer to think of myself as defending rationality:P

Yes, I guess Renault's highly paid lawyers are quite irrational and that's why they are not contesting the charges :whistling::lol:

agree - but finding Reanult guilty of race fixing is easy (always has been) - they are responsible for Jnr's actions and Jnr has confessed. again - that is crime 1 and that's all FIA actually need to charge renault.

Well, see, I guess this is where we disagree then and hence why your post makes no sense to me :lol: Because the charges against Renault are that the crash was planned, ordered, by Symonds and Briatore. I am not sure whether it would be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care on Renault for the actions of one employee (the driver), however, the actions of a senior engineer and team principal are a completely different story. If you can prove they were involved then it certainly is just, fair and reasonable to hold Renault liable.

If FIA only needed Piquet to prove their case, I don't see why they would have interviewed a bunch of other people considering he has already confessed ;)

This is for everyone...

Throughout this whole thread many people have mistaken my talking of proving F+S's guilt in actually ordering the crash as an indication that I thought that was related to proving Renault guilt for race fixing / premeditated crashing.

This is a false assumption - please read posts more carefully.

EDIT - equally (another false assumption) - I think it can't be proved the F+S ordered the crash and that there is enough doubt not to be able to say categorically that they did. Because of this, many people assumed I didn't think that they planned/ordered it, when actually I do.

Does that make my position any clearer for anyone? - perhaps those who have read my previous posts carefully didn't need this clarification and those who didn't won't have understood this anyway - they'll already be busy writing another post about how I'm crazy to think Renault aren't guilty :D

Seriously, I just don't understand how you can think Renault aren't guilty of this :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the news here say nelson piquet (father) didn't know of the thing, until two days after. then he argued with nels and they spent two months not talking to another. in the inbetween nelson went fia to tell of what his son did, and told Whiting, who didn't do anything bout it because nels himself didn't go there and wasnt willing to. http://blogs.band.com.br/barbaragancia/ thats from another tv channel, says sources r good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is about what Renault are actually accused of, not crime 1 and 2 which you came up with :lol:

My statement, which you bolded, meant this: you (or anybody else) can't prove Renault (Symonds, Briatore) planned a crash before the race, which is what the case is actually about. I wasn't talking on your terms of crime 1 and 2, obviously Renault are guilty of having one of their drivers crash deliberately (Piquet admits it, telemetry confirms it). That's not what is being discussed, though. The case is about race fixing, this is the accusation before the WMSC.

How does that only concern crime 1? That paragraph is about the planning of the crash :lol: Nothing to do with covering it up. And once more, with feeling, you will never get proof of crime 2, it's probability, not proof.

See above :lol:

Yes, I guess Renault's highly paid lawyers are quite irrational and that's why they are not contesting the charges :whistling::lol:

Well, see, I guess this is where we disagree then and hence why your post makes no sense to me :lol: Because the charges against Renault are that the crash was planned, ordered, by Symonds and Briatore. I am not sure whether it would be just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care on Renault for the actions of one employee (the driver), however, the actions of a senior engineer and team principal are a completely different story. If you can prove they were involved then it certainly is just, fair and reasonable to hold Renault liable.

If FIA only needed Piquet to prove their case, I don't see why they would have interviewed a bunch of other people considering he has already confessed ;)

Seriously, I just don't understand how you can think Renault aren't guilty of this :whistling:

sorry, but i think (for the most part) we're talking about different things here and actually agreeing over most of this (much though we're doing a good job of pretending not to).;)

if I were renault I wouldn't contest the charges either - best take the route of least resistance.

my understanding was that the charges were the red bit - not the blue bit (at least I hadn't heard that that was part of the charge, but since renault aren't contesting, there's no reason why FIA shouldn't add that on to the charge sheet anyway). They could equally add 'and renault are guilty of having the ugliest livery of 2009' and renault still wouldn't contest - so really that shows nothing other than that Max wants all he can get - it doesn't mean any of its actually true (much though we may both think it is).

Concerning impossing the punishment on Renault for Flav's actions being fairer than for Jnr's actions - sorry but that's nonsense. They were both employees of Renault - doesn't matter who did the naughty, Renault will be held accountable.

Why did FIA interview more people than just Jnr? - notice they stopped doing that when Flav left Renault and they decided not to contest, then ask that question again - They wanted Flav's head. Once he left they stopped asking around because they have enough to pin on Renault just from Jnr (which is all they've actually got), since Renault aren't contesting they can add whatever charges they want to - simple.

As for the last sentence - :lol: - by actually reading a post you qualify for sensible answers.

For the most part I agree with you, but I simply don't think that it's been proven that Flav actually ordered this. That's the only place where we differ. Whether or not FIA will say he did plan it is kind of irrelevent. They can, so they probably will - there is no onus on them to prove anything now, so they can say what they like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the hearing has started!

damn it - this needs to be televised - it promises to be slightly less boring than most of this season's racing.

EDIT - (that's not saying much)

Edited by adamstrags

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