Kati

Renault Under Investigation?

600 posts in this topic

Doh! Schumi I come back to one of my original points - and one which ultimately on the balance of probability indicates who Witness X is NOT.

Let's assume you are right and Alonso is X - what would be his motive to snitch on Flav/Renault/Pat? I cannot think of a single reason why he would do this? Go on, tell me.

- NPJ had a motive - he had been spurned and wanted to get back at Flav/Renault

- Max had a motive - retribution

- Bernie did not have a motive - he is Flav's business partner; his motive would be to protect (a role I feel he is slipping into now with the talk of an appeal).

- I don't believe Renault HQ had a motive, until this point they seemed OK with Flav

So what motive would Alonso have?

He did not have any issues with Pat/Flav.

If he were X why would he give evidence about something which could blow up in his face? If it came out he would be screwed (and given that Flav knows who X is, if indeed they exist, it would be bound to come out, esp. if Flav appeals/go to court).

He has no need for money.

Knackering Renault would damage his drive.

He has no need for any special favours.

I cannot think of a motive, only reasons for him not to do it. So rather than trip out the same old stuff. Tell me - what was his motive?

You went back and I am going back, FIA knowing Alonso knowledge of the case offered him immunity for his declaration just like they did with PS also knowing he was involved, Alonso not wanting to be known as the whislte-blower given his reputation and given that PS refused the immunity offer he also asked for the annonimity, Alonso confession would not affect Renautl given that they already decided not to contest the charges and as we all know Alonso is heading out of Renault so he wouldn't care too much about how that would affect the team, just like he did to Mclaren, as for FB he doesn't care about him, he didn't care about him when he signed for Mclaren why would he care about him now?

His motive waas to protect himself and nothing else, so far everybody confessed exceto FB, I know he would not go to the courts with this because he knows he is guitly and like BE said he would loose againt and it will be worse for him at the end.

Edited by Schumikonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jnr will never race in F1 again.

you could see him back in F1 as soon as next year.

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/320431/Manor_interested_in_smashing_Piquet_Jr/

Manor interested in 'smashing' Piquet Jr

New Formula One outfit Manor GP have hinted that they may be prepared hand Nelson Piquet Jr a drive for the 2010 season.

It had been suggested that the former Renault driver may never compete in another grand prix after deliberately crashing his car to help then team-mate Fernando Alonso at Singapore last year.

Although Piquet Jr was granted immunity in return for his full confession, some observers feel his reputation has been tarnished by the 'Crashgate' scandal.

But John Booth, boss of the Yorkshire-based team, sees no moral dilemma in negotiating with the Brazilian.

"I've not spoken to him at the moment, but he's a smashing little driver," Booth told the Yorkshire Post, somewhat ironically.

"I've no personal problems with him, but it is unclear what his current position is with regards sponsorship."

The sport's commercial rights owner, Bernie Ecclestone, also thinks that Piquet's attitude means he will find a way back into Formula One.

Edited by Schumikonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You went back and I am going back, FIA knowing Alonso knowledge of the case offered him immunity for his declaration just like they did with PS also knowing he was involved, Alonso not wanting to be known as the whislte-blower given his reputation and given that PS refused the immunity offer he also asked for the annonimity, Alonso confession would not affect Renautl given that they already decided not to contest the charges and as we all know Alonso is heading out of Renault so he wouldn't care too much about how that would affect the team, just like he did to Mclaren, as for FB he doesn't care about him, he didn't care about him when he signed for Mclaren why would he care about him now?

Answer the question!

What would Alonso's motive be to rat on Renault/Flav?

What would he gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for an extra bit of info regards witness X - quote from Bernie...

"There were three people who knew what was going on and that is it. Noone else was involved," said Ecclestone.

who here can count?

source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another question: NPJ was offered immunity in exchange of telling the truth and nothing but the truth, right?

Now, Symonds says that NPJ come with the idea. Perhaps he is lying, although I still wouldn't get why confess everything and say he is sorry but at the same time keep lying about that. Not that it matters because we have...

Witness X (let's assume he does exist): he is the key to condemn Briatore. Obviusly, his credibility must be high as it is his testimony, not Piquet's, the basis for the ban. He wwas also offered some kind of immunity or at least protection of identity in exchange of telling the truth and nothing but the truth...but he also says that NPJ came up with the idea.

FIA said that, in the end, it was irrelevant who came up with the idea first. I doubt so. If nothing else, because it proves that at least Piquet or Witness X is lying. Which means that they are not fulfilling their part of the deal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for an extra bit of info regards witness X - quote from Bernie...

who here can count?

source

So you mean that Bernie knows who Mr X is? in that case won't he tell his friend/partner about it? or Bernie is part of the conspiration against FB? he knowing that Mr X. doesn't exist or didn't know anything about it will say that FB wil loose anyway if he goes to court? some reason must he have to say this.

Or like I suppose you think Bernie is telling the world that FIA, Renault and everybody in that hearing just invented the Mr X stuff just to punished FB? but the real thing here is that there was no need of a Mr X, to do this, because the other two involved confessed too, and even Bernie the one you are believing here say that FB should have confessed because even Bernie (the one your are citing here) believe he is guilty, so what's the point of inventing a Mr X?

The thing here is that only if Mr X. is Alonso this whole thing has some weight, it doesn't matter what a person who heard about it in the hallway could say (which it was not the case, given that Mr X said that he was informed about it by PS and he rejected the idea so it must be someone who got to be part of the whole idea) but if is Alonso confession indicating that FB planned this in order to make him win that race it is a more powerful declaration than what any other person could say, you already said that you believe X is a real person but he didn't know anything about it, well i just told you the problem with that idea.

Edited by Schumikonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, not a good year for Renault! 1st, the FIA vice-president crashes their F1 car from last year & now this, how very fair!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, not a good year for Renault! 1st, the FIA vice-president crashes their F1 car from last year & now this, how very fair!

Its okay, when the next scandal arises everyone will forget this, just like they forgot Mclaren spygate after Mosley romp, then Mclaren Liegate, replaced by FOTA vs FIA, now Crashgate, Next would be Adamgate, after a guy from Singapore alerts our mods about the thread titled Singa****ingpore was found in this forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its okay, when the next scandal arises everyone will forget this, just like they forgot Mclaren spygate after Mosley romp, then Mclaren Liegate, replaced by FOTA vs FIA, now Crashgate, Next would be Adamgate, after a guy from Singapore alerts our mods about the thread titled Singa****ingpore was found in this forum...

Before that one start I will say that he is guilty so I don't want anybody saying that I am influenced by the press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another question: NPJ was offered immunity in exchange of telling the truth and nothing but the truth, right?

Now, Symonds says that NPJ come with the idea. Perhaps he is lying, although I still wouldn't get why confess everything and say he is sorry but at the same time keep lying about that. Not that it matters because we have...

Witness X (let's assume he does exist): he is the key to condemn Briatore. Obviusly, his credibility must be high as it is his testimony, not Piquet's, the basis for the ban. He wwas also offered some kind of immunity or at least protection of identity in exchange of telling the truth and nothing but the truth...but he also says that NPJ came up with the idea.

FIA said that, in the end, it was irrelevant who came up with the idea first. I doubt so. If nothing else, because it proves that at least Piquet or Witness X is lying. Which means that they are not fulfilling their part of the deal...

WMSC was right that it's irrelevant who came up with the idea. The charge against Renault was "bringing the sport into disrepute", in this case, that includes the team management, knowing beforehand, of any plan to crash (guilty mind), and then an actual crash to happen (guilty act). Clearly the team management did know before the race as Symonds admitted the meeting took place. This alone is enough to make Renault "guilty" of the charge regardless of who suggested the plan, therefore it is totally irrelevant despite the fact it would be nice to know (again, details like this are unimportant in civil cases and can rarely be confirmed).

Almost all testimonies are biased towards the person who gives them, and it is indeed more likely that Piquet is lying than the other two, as he has more to gain by saying he didn't come up with it, whereas Symonds has no reason to lie for the reason you stated. Also, if "Witness X" was in fact solely created/coerced into testifying to help the FIA, why wouldn't he/she say that it was Briatore or Symonds who came up with the crash plan? Even though it wouldn't make any difference to the verdict, I don't see why they wouldn't throw that in there. Therefore Piquet probably did lie about that aspect of the case, but it doesn't matter because you can't throw out his whole testimony based on the fact he probably lied there (especially when the rest of his testimony stands up well under investigation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMSC was right that it's irrelevant who came up with the idea. The charge against Renault was "bringing the sport into disrepute", in this case, that includes the team management, knowing beforehand, of any plan to crash (guilty mind), and then an actual crash to happen (guilty act). Clearly the team management did know before the race as Symonds admitted the meeting took place. This alone is enough to make Renault "guilty" of the charge regardless of who suggested the plan, therefore it is totally irrelevant despite the fact it would be nice to know (again, details like this are unimportant in civil cases and can rarely be confirmed).

Almost all testimonies are biased towards the person who gives them, and it is indeed more likely that Piquet is lying than the other two, as he has more to gain by saying he didn't come up with it, whereas Symonds has no reason to lie for the reason you stated. Also, if "Witness X" was in fact solely created/coerced into testifying to help the FIA, why wouldn't he/she say that it was Briatore or Symonds who came up with the crash plan? Even though it wouldn't make any difference to the verdict, I don't see why they wouldn't throw that in there. Therefore Piquet probably did lie about that aspect of the case, but it doesn't matter because you can't throw out his whole testimony based on the fact he probably lied there (especially when the rest of his testimony stands up well under investigation).

I am not trying to discredit his testimony. I am just asking if the immunity still stands if they are found guilty of lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to discredit his testimony. I am just asking if the immunity still stands if they are found guilty of lying.

Oh yes, sorry, I did actually mean to address that in my post as it was your main point :lol: That is what happens when replying to more than one thread/person. Anyway yeah, the immunity still stands since you can't really prove that part of Piquet's testimony is false, (and again, it doesn't matter for the judgement if that part was false to make Piquet look slightly better). Also, of course, because if you withdrew his immunity on that basis (providing a false testimony) he would retract his statement, therefore making Flav's court case just a bit easy. Even if that small part of Piquet's testimony seems likely to be untrue, it's not in the interests of FIA to withdraw immunity on that basis.

Obviously if you could actually prove Piquet had seriously lied he would lose his immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate Mosley, I hate the FIA, I hate... Aaaaaaarggggggghhhh!

Why don't they say the truth. Ok, Alonso is Mr. X and they granted inmunity for the truth... But why anonimously? eusa_think.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to discredit his testimony. I am just asking if the immunity still stands if they are found guilty of lying.

I think in a case like that the person who lied who could be charged for that because the immunity just cover the case in question, but why would Piquet come up with such idea? I mean if what he really need it's a good result to get better chance of drivng for the team next year, why would he suggest that he would crash the car in order to get a good result for Alonso, that would not helping at all he would be without any good result anyway, but on the other hand if PS/FB asking to do this in exchange for a new contract that it is a lot more believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in a case like that the person who lied who could be charged for that because the immunity just cover the case in question, but why would Piquet come up with such idea? I mean if what he really need it's a good result to get better chance of drivng for the team next year, why would he suggest that he would crash the car in order to get a good result for Alonso, that would not helping at all he would be without any good result anyway, but on the other hand if PS/FB asking to do this in exchange for a new contract that it is a lot more believable.

It's still the same. If NPJ didn't lie, then witness X lied. If FIA was convinced that NPJ was telling the truth, then they must have realized that X was not telling the truth. Both of the capital testimonies have a fundamental contradiction. It was dismissed because focusing on that contradiction would have destroyed the case against Flavio, not because it was irrelevant. I guess that, if Flavio decides to go to court, one of those two (Piquet or X) will lose their benefits regardless of the outcome.

Edited by Quiet One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still the same. If NPJ didn't lie, then witness X lied. If FIA was convinced that NPJ was telling the truth, then they must have realized that X was not telling the truth. Both of the capital testimonies have a fundamental contradiction. It was dismissed because focusing on that contradiction would have destroyed the case against Flavio, not because it was irrelevant. I guess that, if Flavio decides to go to court, one of those two (Piquet or X) will lose their benefits regardless of the outcome.

I am going to read that again and then I will let you know if I find the contradiction, I think El Maestro said that he found no contradiction but I need to have my own opinion about it, I'll let you now then.

I found this:

"Surely someone senior within the organisation who would have sufficient 'security clearance' to be party to such discussions?" suggested one hack. "Maybe even their star driver, Fernando Alonso?" said another. "Did you notice that in the audio transcript, the FIA lawyer Paul Harris slipped up and referred to Witness X as Witness A at one point?!"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/renault/6224406/Nelson-Piquet-Jnr-accused-by-Witness-X-in-Renault-race-fixing-scandal.html

If Witness X it's Alonso then he was trying to protect FB with that declaration, for some unkown reason(I know that who suggested the idea it's irrelevant because the idea was carried out and covered anyway) I can believe that NPJ would suggest that he would crash, when like I said he needed a good result or a poor result form Alonso to justify his own poor performance.

Edited by Schumikonen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its okay, when the next scandal arises everyone will forget this, just like they forgot Mclaren spygate after Mosley romp, then Mclaren Liegate, replaced by FOTA vs FIA, now Crashgate, Next would be Adamgate, after a guy from Singapore alerts our mods about the thread titled Singa****ingpore was found in this forum...

wasn't me

MCLAREN CHEATED!

:clap3:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are clear that Witness X = Witness A = Alonso but I don't want to let this thread die with mentioning the "apology" Alonso gave to FB in the podium press conference, dedicating that podium to FB was just an apology not a real dedication of his podium, when FB says he was betrayed he is only talking about Alonso, there is more about this coming so stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we are clear that Witness X = Witness A = Alonso but I don't want to let this thread die with mentioning the "apology" Alonso gave to FB in the podium press conference, dedicating that podium to FB was just an apology not a real dedication of his podium, when FB says he was betrayed he is only talking about Alonso, there is more about this coming so stay tuned.

:lol:

Witness X was Alan Permane. But is always interesting to see how paranoia works so be my guest :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Witness X was Alan Permane. But is always interesting to see how paranoia works so be my guest :P

That have not been confirmed because X is Alonso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X is whoever you want it to be. I think X is Cav, personally. He knew about this in 1999, since he is the prophet, and wrote a letter to the FIA explaining the whole scenario for future reference. They tried revealing his full name, but they were sick of everyone asking "how could 'a beer' give such a detailed account?" so they went with Witness X instead. Now you know the truth. Let your lives be full of life and fried, processed, and cheese-drenched artificial food products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X is whoever you want it to be. I think X is Cav, personally. He knew about this in 1999, since he is the prophet, and wrote a letter to the FIA explaining the whole scenario for future reference. They tried revealing his full name, but they were sick of everyone asking "how could 'a beer' give such a detailed account?" so they went with Witness X instead. Now you know the truth. Let your lives be full of life and fried, processed, and cheese-drenched artificial food products.

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