Renault Under Investigation?

[Jean Todt 4]

Me too, we should start a Foundation to save Flavio (no, wait, there's already Greenpeace to save the whales) Poor Flavio, no job, at his age, having to look after an ugly wife and kids...do these people have no mercy?

[pabloh20 1]

they all know but they want to think it was someboy else, but I know the guy and I know he is the one.

Alonso was never worried about being a whistle blower before, why would he start now?

I also believe that if it was Alonso, then he would have blown the whistle after the Singapore grand prix.

[Quiet One 15]

Issue 1 - the X identity

X could be the boy who mops the floor, X could be a bloke that was standing around at the time, X could be a figment of Renault's imagination, X could be an FIA invention, X could be a liar given a nice bonus by Renault to finger Flav (since they couldn't find anyone to do so), X could be a mechanic that sniffed a rat after the event, X could be one of Flav's X's. X could be Alonso, X could be a disgruntled engineer in Renault.

This is a lot like when you are trying to make some scientific or historical point out from religious writings. It's like trying to establish who wrote the gospels, or whether Jesus is based on a historical figure or just a fictional character. In this case, X does not have many things to make him look like a historical figure, sadly.

If we choose to believe that he is real, he can't be a minor character, though. After all, Pat Symonds told him about the secret meeting so he must be somebody important enought to be told about this. A Senior Manager, Piquet's racing Engineer or Alonso are the most obvious choices. Of these, Alonso is the less likely, according to the FIA and Renault statements

Issue 2 - the X paradox

If X exists and is telling the truth - then Flav, Symonds, Jnr all know who he is - so why the anonymity? The fact that none of them appear to know who this is shows that he's either a fabrication or his story is. (who's fabrication is a matter for further debate - my money's on Renault paying someone to do this).

It depends on how did he knew about the crashgate, something that the annoyingly vague statement fails to reveal. Was he told by Pat only? Then maybe Piquet and Flav didn't knew about him, but in that case his testimony is almost worthless. Was he actually present at the meeting? Then why he is deemed an innocent party without further explanation? Like you say, the fact that he is not named by anybody (some sort of "invisible witness") seems to point to a paid witness or just a fabrication. Unless it was someone who only spoke to Pat. It still remains curious as why Pat doesn't mention him.

Issue 3 - the X mystery

Next - X's statement is not direcly quoted (surprised?) so it's hard to tell exactly what he says he saw/heard and in who's presence or who told him. All a bit iffy if you ask me. What would be the reason for this imprecise statement unless it was to avoid anyone easily disproving it (note how all of FIA's case follows same logic - they've learnt their methods from the creationist lobby). If X was indeed there - why can't he plainly tell us what happened - or did he, and the FIA cut out the bits where he said Flav wasn't there?

That bothers me as well.

Issue 4 - the X factor

Last problem - X still doesn't actually say any more than we already have from Jnr and Symonds - so what on earth is the statement in there for anyway?

Essentially - X's statement is 100% worthless.

Apparently, they knew that there was nothing to condemn Flavio (even their own investigations came to that conclusion. So they needed some sort of leap of faith. And then X testified, mah brothah! Yeah, it is worthless, but a little fast talk and suddenly you replace a missing chain in the logic with a surprise witness, by the time you realize his testimony deos not add anything new Flavio was already convicted.

Issue 5 - why X?

The ONLY reason it is in there is to lend more credence to the verdict in the eye's of those who want to find Flav guilty. Not for anyone who want's to find out if he is guilty.

Agreed

Issue 6 - Xcuse me but...

For anyone who thinks X's 'statement' (fictitious or not) proves anything - I will tell you what it proves - It proves that you are easily duped, and that is all.

It proves that a shameless witch hunt, even if it actually manages to bring a witch to the burning stake is still a witch hunt.

[pabloh20 1]

Issue 1 - the X identity

X could be the boy who mops the floor, X could be a bloke that was standing around at the time, X could be a figment of Renault's imagination, X could be an FIA invention, X could be a liar given a nice bonus by Renault to finger Flav (since they couldn't find anyone to do so), X could be a mechanic that sniffed a rat after the event, X could be one of Flav's X's. X could be Alonso, X could be a disgruntled engineer in Renault.

Issue 2 - the X paradox

If X exists and is telling the truth - then Flav, Symonds, Jnr all know who he is - so why the anonymity? The fact that none of them appear to know who this is shows that he's either a fabrication or his story is. (who's fabrication is a matter for further debate - my money's on Renault paying someone to do this).

Issue 3 - the X mystery

Next - X's statement is not direcly quoted (surprised?) so it's hard to tell exactly what he says he saw/heard and in who's presence or who told him. All a bit iffy if you ask me. What would be the reason for this imprecise statement unless it was to avoid anyone easily disproving it (note how all of FIA's case follows same logic - they've learnt their methods from the creationist lobby). If X was indeed there - why can't he plainly tell us what happened - or did he, and the FIA cut out the bits where he said Flav wasn't there?

Issue 4 - the X factor

Last problem - X still doesn't actually say any more than we already have from Jnr and Symonds - so what on earth is the statement in there for anyway?

Essentially - X's statement is 100% worthless.

Issue 5 - why X?

The ONLY reason it is in there is to lend more credence to the verdict in the eye's of those who want to find Flav guilty. Not for anyone who want's to find out if he is guilty.

Issue 6 - Xcuse me but...

For anyone who thinks X's 'statement' (fictitious or not) proves anything - I will tell you what it proves - It proves that you are easily duped, and that is all.

Well, for sure, if X's statement is true, then Piquet's statement is devalued. If Piquet did say to Renault that he would crash, a la X's statement, then somebody suggested to him that he should crash, because I just can't imagine he would come up with that idea on his own.

Now who would want to put that sort of idea in young Piquet's head.............

Sorry, I hadn't started a conspiracy theory for a while, so I thought it was about time I did

[wapi 4]

X is definitely not Alonso although there is history of him playing that role.

I think adamstrags is right. X is fictious character or his story is fictious.

If it ever comes to court I do not think that X's identity will remain secret. Renault would either withdraw that character thus admiting conspiracy to frame Flavio Briatore (while pleading for leniency of the court because "it was done to save the team from Max Mosley rage as FIA dictator...") or reveal his identity.

[Schumikonen 2]

X is definitely not Alonso although there is history of him playing that role.

I think adamstrags is right. X is fictious character or his story is fictious.

If it ever comes to court I do not think that X's identity will remain secret. Renault would either withdraw that character thus admiting conspiracy to frame Flavio Briatore (while pleading for leniency of the court because "it was done to save the team from Max Mosley rage as FIA dictator...") or reveal his identity.

X = Alonso, and the only reason why he is demaning anonimity there is because he is a well known figure any unkonwn charater would not demand any anonimity, just think about this, if hey had all this evidence and they considered Alonso not to be involved in this case, Why was he summond to appear at the hearing? the answer he was whistleblowing, why he didn't do it earlier? because he was the direct beneficiary of this adn he was reciving the only thing he needs from a team, full support, he just blowed the whistle at Mclaren when he felt he was not getting all that much suppoot or felt that LH was being consider the number one driver a the team, he was bitter with that situation and he blowed the whistle, now he didn't feel this way so he had no reason or motivation to blow.

Why would Renault come up with something like this? they would gather evidence against them even when they know they could probe they are innocent? that's a really big nonsense.

[Quiet One 15]

Well, for sure, if X's statement is true, then Piquet's statement is devalued. If Piquet did say to Renault that he would crash, a la X's statement, then somebody suggested to him that he should crash, because I just can't imagine he would come up with that idea on his own.

Now who would want to put that sort of idea in young Piquet's head.............

Sorry, I hadn't started a conspiracy theory for a while, so I thought it was about time I did

Sorry, but your theory is wrong. Schumacher can't be witness X

You are right though, Piquet would have never crashed unless instructed. Wait...

[Schumikonen 2]

Sorry, but your theory is wrong. Schumacher can't be witness X

You are right though, Piquet would have never crashed intentionally unless instructed. Wait...

I correted your post and now I agree with it.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Right Schumikonen... Let's deal with this Alonso business.

Is X Alonso?

1) None of the other witness statements mention any other party

2) Alonso has a track record of whistle blowing which works both ways i) he is more likely to be a whistle blower and ii) he is more likely to do this at the time (which he didn't)

3) What motive would Alonso have to be X?

- Money -nope

- Getting rid of Briatore/Symonds - unlikely as he seemed to have a good relationship and would be unlikely to dob them in

- Guilt - possibly, but the implications of whistle-blowing would be serious for him (loss of key staff above him, reputation, risk of losing points)

4) He came along to the investigation. If he were X this would be counter-intuitive as people would naturally think he was possibly X and under stress he could expose the truth; implications if it were ever found out would also be so damaging that it would kill his career. Let's put it this way if you were Alonso and X, would you feel comfortable standing in from of the FIA and world's media and saying you were not implicated (i.e. lying). Don't see it, too risky. Them bringing him in was simply to publicly clear his name to prevent any finger-pointing.

5) Would Alonso go along with the crash if he knew it was going happen? I'm not sure if he would as I think morally he would find it difficult and also very risky. He did not need the win. The team did.

Who could it be?

Engineer - 75% probability - they are more likely to be around. Protecting them would make more sense as, if they were innocent bystanders why kill their already low-paid career

Senior Manager - 75% probability - Flav/Pat may confide in another senior team member. More likely, again witness protection important to prevent more "Renault is rotten" claims

Alonso - 30% probability; although he benefitted he has too much to lose by going along with it and not that much to gain

A made up person - 85% probability as it would be easy to construct and difficult to prove. Gets Renault off the hook and no risk of further issues

[Quiet One 15]

Right Schumikonen... Let's deal with this Alonso business.

Is X Alonso?

1) None of the other witness statements mention any other party

2) Alonso has a track record of whistle blowing which works both ways i) he is more likely to be a whistle blower and ii) he is more likely to do this at the time (which he didn't)

3) What motive would Alonso have to be X?

- Money -nope

- Getting rid of Briatore/Symonds - unlikely as he seemed to have a good relationship and would be unlikely to dob them in

- Guilt - possibly, but the implications of whistle-blowing would be serious for him (loss of key staff above him, reputation, risk of losing points)

4) He came along to the investigation. If he were X this would be counter-intuitive as people would naturally think he was possibly X and under stress he could expose the truth; implications if it were ever found out would also be so damaging that it would kill his career. Let's put it this way if you were Alonso and X, would you feel comfortable standing in from of the FIA and world's media and saying you were not implicated (i.e. lying). Don't see it, too risky. Them bringing him in was simply to publicly clear his name to prevent any finger-pointing.

5) Would Alonso go along with the crash if he knew it was going happen? I'm not sure if he would as I think morally he would find it difficult and also very risky. He did not need the win. The team did.

Who could it be?

Engineer - 75% probability - they are more likely to be around. Protecting them would make more sense as, if they were innocent bystanders why kill their already low-paid career

Senior Manager - 75% probability - Flav/Pat may confide in another senior team member. More likely, again witness protection important to prevent more "Renault is rotten" claims

Alonso - 30% probability; although he benefitted he has too much to lose by going along with it and not that much to gain

A made up person - 85% probability as it would be easy to construct and difficult to prove. Gets Renault off the hook and no risk of further issues

Thank you. I wrote at least a dozen posts trying to make this point clear but eventually gave up without posting them. I know my credibility is rather devaluated and it would not have convinced anybody

My own opinion is that it has to be either a fabrication, or a Senior Manager. Maybe Piquet's race engineer.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I know my credibility is rather devaluated and it would not have convinced anybody

Must be the smell of cabbage that puts people off.

Think this comes down to motivation. I cannot think of one reason why Alonso would be motivated to be Witness X, whereas I can think of many why he would not (risk, damage to reputation, integrity)

I can think of several reasons why another Renault staff member would be motivated. (see earlier post).

I can think of many reasons why it would be fabricated and this would suit many parties.

[JHS 1]

Even though there is no evidence saying that the witness X is Alonso, I will never be shocked to find out its him...

Why on earth would Alonso dob Flavio in?

[Max Mosley 2]

As an impartial observer of this debate, I still think X could be Alonso. He was in a vulnerable position because we all know he has at least been lying about not realising what happened after the event, and his reputation is very important as a driver compared to a mechanic's, so Max could have put pressure on him to testify. If he is as involved in team strategy as his supporters claim, he surely would have kicked up a fuss about such a seemingly stupid strategy. I can't believe he would have blown the whistle of his own accord before or after Singapore - he did it at McLaren only when it was in his interests. Nelsinho probably had no problem with Alonso so just left him out of it, although his father almost let it slip once. And Ferrari might have asked Max to keep his involvement secret in light of a possible move.

Of course it might not be Alonso - there are plausible alternatives. But we don't know it wasn't either. I find it hard to say which explanation is more likely given the scant data we have to go on.

[Schumikonen 2]

[quote name='JHS' date='23 September 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1253739322' post='299499']
Why on earth would Alonso dob Flavio in?
[/quote]
That's easy, we all know he is knew about it and he wanted to get out of this as clean as possible, he FIA knew his participation in this and once again offered him immunity/anonimity in exchange by his confession, he once again did the same he did at Mclaren and the same he've done all this year just thought about him, the rest is secondary for him.

Why to avoid the publicity? because he is trying to go to Ferrari next year and making of public knowledge that he agreed to do this is not the best for his intentions, he has every reason to be X, even if you read the FIA paperwork you will see that right after talking about the whistle-blower the start talking about why Alonso presences was "required" in the hearing, this is like saying "I have a whitle-blower but don't think it is Alonso".

Maybe he had too much to loose but is if he would have gone to the FIA to tell about it when nobody knew about this, but now in hte way things developed he was even more benefited by no stripping him from the win/points from that race which it was the more logical action in a case like this, the team cheated, he won a unfear race, but everything was left like it was, all that was part of the immunity given to Alonso and like I've been saying he is the only other person who needed to know about this in order to make it work.

[Schumikonen 2]

As an impartial observer of this debate, I still think X could be Alonso. He was in a vulnerable position because we all know he has at least been lying about not realising what happened after the event, and his reputation is very important as a driver compared to a mechanic's, so Max could have put pressure on him to testify. If he is as involved in team strategy as his supporters claim, he surely would have kicked up a fuss about such a seemingly stupid strategy. I can't believe he would have blown the whistle of his own accord before or after Singapore - he did it at McLaren only when it was in his interests. Nelsinho probably had no problem with Alonso so just left him out of it, although his father almost let it slip once. And Ferrari might have asked Max to keep his involvement secret in light of a possible move.

Of course it might not be Alonso - there are plausible alternatives. But we don't know it wasn't either. I find it hard to say which explanation is more likely given the scant data we have to go on.

Completely agree with you, I also think it may not be Alonso but I think there is a 95% of chances that this X is actually Alonso.

[Quiet One 15]

As an impartial observer of this debate, I still think X could be Alonso. He was in a vulnerable position because we all know he has at least been lying about not realising what happened after the event, and his reputation is very important as a driver compared to a mechanic's, so Max could have put pressure on him to testify. If he is as involved in team strategy as his supporters claim, he surely would have kicked up a fuss about such a seemingly stupid strategy. I can't believe he would have blown the whistle of his own accord before or after Singapore - he did it at McLaren only when it was in his interests. Nelsinho probably had no problem with Alonso so just left him out of it, although his father almost let it slip once. And Ferrari might have asked Max to keep his involvement secret in light of a possible move.

Of course it might not be Alonso - there are plausible alternatives. But we don't know it wasn't either. I find it hard to say which explanation is more likely given the scant data we have to go on.

The scant data...ay, there's the rub. That is what undermines the whole issue.With the data available, they could have as easily decided that it was Ron Dennis to blame for all this. With so little data available and a lot of vague generalities, it is up to you to choose your personal Mr.X. The most annoying one for me is where was witness X during the events. Placement is essential though we have no idea. Was he present at the meeting? Why nobody else mentions him? Allegedly, it was when confronted with X's sayings that Symonds recognized his part to Renault investigators. But we have no idea what exactly X said. Even the indirect hints we have about what he said speak of he being told by Pat that there was a meeting, so my assumption is that the guy was not present at the meeting and is just somebody Pat told about the crash plan. In that case, he is worthless as a witness against Flavio. If he was present at the meeting, Briatore knows who he is and that X destroyed his career. If Briatore accused Piquet of being homosexual for spilling the beans, wouldn't you expect to go around yelling X's name to the top of his lungs now? What does Flavio has to lose? He can ruin X's career too and get even.

Regarding the "stupid strategy" that the FIA used as an excuse. Renault engineers explained (it's in the dossier) that there was an issue with tire graining on the soft tires. Everybody thought that a short stint on the soft tires and light fuel was an aggressive strategy buty they had nothing to lose (exactly what Flavio said and it was interpreted as having said that with regards of the crash...couldn't he have just told so about the aggressive strategy?). No engieneer sounds too surprised.

An aggressive strategy when you arein the back is not the usual, but is not stupid or unusual, either. Barrichello, 18th on the grid, was also on a similar strategy (I was looking some similar strategies in other races from other drivers and I found it on the same race...that is just how unusual it was). It is rather common that the weakest qualifier gets a huge load of fuel. But is also common that when the "number 1" driver has a bad qualifying session, he gets a more aggressive strategy.

There are many more reasons against the Alonso theory. That does not rule him out completely of course...like you said, there is not enough evidence to prove one way or the other. In fact, the most irritating thing is that there is no ****ing enough evidence about anything! Yet we all know some sort of cheating had happened. Justice was not served. I have a bitter taste in my mouth and is not Paul's crotch this time.

[Rainmaster 7]

I wonder if "Witness X" is Symonds. I mean, they offered Symonds immunity and he refused, probably because he didn't want Flav to know he had betrayed him. With anonymity, Symonds can very clearly point the finger at Briatore without creating any vendettas, whilst also ensuring he gets a lighter sentence. Also, it fits with the idea that Symonds is the one who told witness X. Well, what if they were the same person??

I don't really think it's Symonds, his testimony is already fairly incriminating for Briatore, but it's fun to speculate.

By the way, just reading through the transcript now, the explanation of Briatore's involvement (page 14) seems pretty reasonable to me (based on WMSC standard of proof, see next sentence). Regarding previous debates about standards of proof, the transcript talks of "preponderance of evidence" (aka probability) as the standard of proof, as with civil cases.

Anyway, I'll make a longer post tomorrow once I've read through it all.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Ooh I like that one

Anyway onto preponderence of evidence. Agreed this can be applied if this exists, however for this to stick, the evidence would have to be tangible and fairly solid.

Bear in mind that the only real evidence that they have is: telemetry and sworn statements.

If this goes to a court, a sharp lawyer could argue that Piquet's statement was made out of revenge and therefore tainted. Equally, given the deals that were clearly done behind the scenes between FIA and Renault and offers made to Symonds, again a sharp lawyer could claim that any statements from Symonds and Witness X may not be entirely reliable as they were obtained using coercion, bribes or under duress. Witness X's identity would have to be revealed and judgments made about their standing (and to a degree their involvement in the situation).

So the case is still thin, I think as far as Flav is concerned (not him, the evidence ). Nothing concrete and no independent, tangible, reliable evidence.

[Jean Todt 4]

Why on earth would Alonso dob Flavio in?

He has already stabbed a team at its back, and there is no way he won't do it again.....

Why on earth would Alonso dob Flavio in? When Alonso signed for Mclaren, Flavio didn't even know about it.....when asked he said he couldn't reach Flavio! Flavio was his manager for Godsake, he groomed him...he built a team around him, he made him then the youngest driver to win a race, and championship....he just walked away when Ron said yes.. So it wouldn't come as a surprise to know that Nando did it again.

http://english.peopl...222_229926.html

We know he was clearly seeking a refuge in Reno last season, and had toextend the contract because he had no place to go since Kimi Won on2007 and Massa almost won on 2008.

And Knowing Flavio's ship was sinking anyways, more damage wouldn't make any difference. But there is still that slim possibilty that it was not him, or there was never any witness X.

As a driver I have a lot of respect for him, he is fantastic, one of the top three ever since he started winning, out of his car, he is a snake with a lot of venom...

(I still belive there is a 0.0009% chance that this incident may not have been planned, because we still havn't seen the solid evidence and Renault seemed to have been forced to admit and kick Flavio out) Nando would not have been directly involved, but I am sure he knew about it, anyone who thinks he didn't know atleast after it happend is a complete idiot....

[Quiet One 15]

He has already stabbed a team at its back, and there is no way he won't do it again.....

Why on earth would Alonso dob Flavio in? When Alonso signed for Mclaren, Flavio didn't even know about it.....when asked he said he couldn't reach Flavio! Flavio was his manager for Godsake, he groomed him...he built a team around him, he made him then the youngest driver to win a race, and championship....he just walked away when Ron said yes.. So it wouldn't come as a surprise to know that Nando did it again.

http://english.peopl...222_229926.html

We know he was clearly seeking a refuge in Reno last season, and had toextend the contract because he had no place to go since Kimi Won on2007 and Massa almost won on 2008.

And Knowing Flavio's ship was sinking anyways, more damage wouldn't make any difference. But there is still that slim possibilty that it was not him, or there was never any witness X.

As a driver I have a lot of respect for him, he is fantastic, one of the top three ever since he started winning, out of his car, he is a snake with a lot of venom...

(I still belive there is a 0.0009% chance that this incident may not have been planned, because we still havn't seen the solid evidence and Renault seemed to have been forced to admit and kick Flavio out) Nando would not have been directly involved, but I am sure he knew about it, anyone who thinks he didn't know atleast after it happend is a complete idiot....

Biased crap. Next?

[yurp 0]

I wonder if "Witness X" is Symonds. I mean, they offered Symonds immunity and he refused, probably because he didn't want Flav to know he had betrayed him. With anonymity, Symonds can very clearly point the finger at Briatore without creating any vendettas, whilst also ensuring he gets a lighter sentence. Also, it fits with the idea that Symonds is the one who told witness X. Well, what if they were the same person??

I don't really think it's Symonds, his testimony is already fairly incriminating for Briatore, but it's fun to speculate.

By the way, just reading through the transcript now, the explanation of Briatore's involvement (page 14) seems pretty reasonable to me (based on WMSC standard of proof, see next sentence). Regarding previous debates about standards of proof, the transcript talks of "preponderance of evidence" (aka probability) as the standard of proof, as with civil cases.

Anyway, I'll make a longer post tomorrow once I've read through it all.

What - like fight club?

Personally - I think the most probable explanation for X is also the most likely...

Since X's statement adds absolutely nothing to the case against Flav, it doesn't actually matter who X is. If it doesn't matter who X is, then it is most likely a mechanic or manager who Renault found and fed with the made up witness story.

It's far simpler than anyone seems to think.

Saying that - if it is Alonso - that would still make no difference to me - so hey, why not - it's Alonso.

X just isn't an issue - much though we're all enjoying the tangent - it's the exact reaction that the FIA wished us (as racing fans) to have. They have muddied the waters sufficiently to force their verdict through with little protest - while we argue over the identity of X.

If this debacle shows anything it's that the FIA can convict anyone they choose of whatever they want and the general public is too gullible and easily led by emotive argument that they'll swallow anything. Advertising works on the same idea - enough people are stupid enough - we can get away with telling them anything!

[Quiet One 15]

I wonder if "Witness X" is Symonds. I mean, they offered Symonds immunity and he refused, probably because he didn't want Flav to know he had betrayed him. With anonymity, Symonds can very clearly point the finger at Briatore without creating any vendettas, whilst also ensuring he gets a lighter sentence. Also, it fits with the idea that Symonds is the one who told witness X. Well, what if they were the same person??

I was thinking about Malcolm X. After all, can we really be sure he died? After all, I've seen Elvis yesterday (actually, it was Steve trying to pass as a rabbi, but it looked like Elvis). That wopuld explain many things (Malcolm X being the witness, not Steve posing as a rabbi, that does not explain anything). For starters, it would explain the X. It would also explain why nobody spoke about him. After all, you can't walk into a hearing and say: "well, there was me, Flavio, Pat...and Malcolm X". That would probably ruin your chances. It would also explain why he would testify against Flavio. For Malcolm X, Flavio's personality would surely seem despicable (something that only Malcolm X and 99.9999997% of the earth's population would think...flora and fauna included)

I don't really think it's Symonds, his testimony is already fairly incriminating for Briatore, but it's fun to speculate.

It can't be. It will mean that Pat testified, then testified again supporting his own testimony. At least a Groucho Marx's costume would have been required to fool Mosley on that one.

By the way, just reading through the transcript now, the explanation of Briatore's involvement (page 14) seems pretty reasonable to me (based on WMSC standard of proof, see next sentence). Regarding previous debates about standards of proof, the transcript talks of "preponderance of evidence" (aka probability) as the standard of proof, as with civil cases.

Anyway, I'll make a longer post tomorrow once I've read through it all.

Meanie already said it. But I agree with him. Preponderance of evidence here is just a poor substitute for "some prejudice turned into fact thanks to theories pulled out of our arse". There is not enough evidence to even prove what kind of conspiracy it was, much less to prove that Briatore was part of it. It is to notice, though, that FIA claims on that page you mention that "Witness X has also directly stated that he was present when Mr Briatore discussed the plan with Mr Symonds on the day before the race". That simply does not emerge clearly from the dossier with evidence attached. According to Renault X said that Piquet told Pat the crash idea, Pat told so to Briatore (when did X knew about all this?), the strategy was consistent with the crash idea (that's a mere inference), and no one else knew about the conspiracy (how did X know?). Afterwards, a letter from FIA puts more pressure on Renault to explain Briatore's involvement threatening them. After that letter, an email from Whitters (Investigators hired by Renault) shows that: "The whistleblower was told of the idea suggested by NPJ by Symonds, whilst in the presence of Briatore"

Somewhere in the middle between these different accounts, PS was presented with a copy of X declarations which he "neither denied, nor confirmed".

A joke, really. Apparently, FIA asked for an interview with X (perfectly natural and actually mandatory for his testimony to have any weight) which Renault grudgingly accepts. We don't hear about X anymore afterwards except for a line where Whitters mentions that "the interview has taken place, apparently to the FIA's satisfaction" (?)

A damning testimony, made of the substance dreams are made of...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I've worked out who X is.

Simple really. I was thinking - wants to keep identity secret, high profile figure.

Yep its:

No wonder they can't find him in Afghanistan!

[Jean Todt 4]

Biased crap. Next?

May be...I have admitted in the past I am biased...

Facts prove I have every reason to be biased..

[Jean Todt 4]

I've worked out who X is.

Simple really. I was thinking - wants to keep identity secret, high profile figure.

Yep its:

No wonder they can't find him in Afghanistan!