At today's World Motorsport Council at Paris, the judges have decided to put Renault on probatation until the end of 2011, during which no further offences must be found. Former Renault F1 heads Briatore and Symonds are both punished severely and banned of FIA events.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
timbo wrote:Thing is - there CAN'T be any evidence, except for a personal affidavit (or an e-mail ).
And that is the key of the story. If nobody recorded Piquet's thoughts at the moment before the crash, there can't be any evidences that he did it deliberately, nor there can't be disapproval of the claim that he did so.
That is indeed a checkmate. Probably we can argue that Flavio didn't play his part all that great, but sh*t sticks even if you are clean.
exactly, unless they get Flav and Pat confessing, the case is very week. The radio communications show nothing unusual. Then they have only the word of NPjr, man who crashed 17 times in 27 races He got sacked and has all reasons to hate his former bosses. We shoudl wait until Monday to see, if at all, any new evidence.
timbo wrote:Thing is - there CAN'T be any evidence, except for a personal affidavit (or an e-mail ).
And that is the key of the story. If nobody recorded Piquet's thoughts at the moment before the crash, there can't be any evidences that he did it deliberately, nor there can't be disapproval of the claim that he did so.
That is indeed a checkmate. Probably we can argue that Flavio didn't play his part all that great, but sh*t sticks even if you are clean.
Hard evidence... or a bluff... it gets the same results... the weak hand folds and they scoop the pot.
This is what I see as happening... Quest huddles all their talent, sorts through their known facts and suspicions and they strategize. They have their target (Flav) and they have their allies (NP Sr. and Jr.). They identify a weak link (PS) and put the pressure there. They then interrogate Symonds, who may or may not have been mentally prepared to resist/obstruct/lie... but before they start their questioning they tell him some of what they know (and suspect) with some detail (like there was a cocktail napkin with a drawing of turn 17 on it that he drew). Then they either state or hint that they have voice recordings between NP Jr. and Flav during contract negotiations, incriminating voicemail, emails or texts and a certain cocktail napkin.... (and perhaps they do, we will never know). Then while Symonds is still off balance and before he is able to collect his thoughts, they start immediately with the questions. Very early on Symonds has to chose all alone which road he is going to go down. Will he lie or not? He is poised enough, and mentally prepared to have already considered much of this. He already knows that the target is Flav, he doesn't want to incriminate his pal but he is not willing to lay it all on the line for Flav and blatantly lie. He knows NP got an immunity deal. Pat is cagey enough to intimate that he has knowledge that they want but he is going to withhold it until they motivate him sufficiently with guaranteed protection or an acceptable wrist slap. In admitting he had knowledge of a pre-race crash discussion he sealed the fate of which direction the investigation would take. Getting him to admit that was all that Quest had to do. The selectively timed and measured FIA leaks of such an admission would do the rest.
We really don't know what hard evidence Quest has. Emails? Texts? Secret voice recordings by NP Jr of his father with PS or Flav? I am willing to bet that there is SOME trace of what happened. And more importantly, Pat Symonds wasn't willing to bet that there isn't ANY trace of what happened.
Last edited by gcdugas on 17 Sep 2009, 17:50, edited 1 time in total.
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
timbo wrote:Thing is - there CAN'T be any evidence, except for a personal affidavit (or an e-mail ).
And that is the key of the story. If nobody recorded Piquet's thoughts at the moment before the crash, there can't be any evidences that he did it deliberately, nor there can't be disapproval of the claim that he did so.
That is indeed a checkmate. Probably we can argue that Flavio didn't play his part all that great, but sh*t sticks even if you are clean.
Hard evidence... or a bluff... it gets the same results... the weak hand folds and they scoop the pot.
This is what I see as happening... Quest huddles all their talent, sorts through their known facts and suspicions and they strategize. They have their target (Flav) and they have their allies (NP Sr. and Jr.). They identify a weak link (PS) and put the pressure there. They then interrogate Symonds, who may or may not have been mentally prepared to resist/obstruct/lie... but before they start their questioning they tell him some of what they know (and suspect) with some detail (like there was a cocktail napkin with a drawing of turn 17 on it that he drew). Then they either state or hint that they have voice recordings between NP Jr. and Flav during contract negotiations, incriminating voicemail, emails or texts and a certain cocktail napkin.... (and perhaps they do, we will never know). Then while Symonds is still off balance and before he is able to collect his thoughts, they start immediately with the questions. Very early on Symonds has to chose all alone which road he is going to go down. Will he lie or not? He is poised enough, and mentally prepared to have already considered much of this. He already knows that the target is Flav, he doesn't want to incriminate his pal but he is not willing to lay it all on the line for Flav and blatantly lie. He knows NP got an immunity deal. Pat is cagey enough to intimate that he has knowledge that they want but he is going to withhold it until they motivate him sufficiently with guaranteed protection or an acceptable wrist slap. In admitting he had knowledge of a pre-race crash discussion he sealed the fate of which direction the investigation would take. Getting him to admit that was all that Quest had to do. The selectively timed and measured FIA leaks of such an admission would do the rest.
We really don't know what hard evidence Quest has. Emails? Texts? Secret voice recordings by NP Jr of his father with PS or Flav? I am willing to bet that there is SOME trace of what happened.
and I do hope FIA will put it out to the public. Otherwise, the whole story is very smelly.
vall wrote:and I do hope FIA will put it {previously mentioned hard evidence] out to the public. Otherwise, the whole story is very smelly.
I suspect that Renault and the FIA have already cut a deal. Renault wants no more bad publicity. The FIA and FOM need Renault to stay in F1. (so does Williams and possibly Red Bull). It is clear that the FIA and FOM are conspiring to preserve the market value of Alonso by not pursuing his possible involvement with any great zeal. Is there a Ferrari angle here too?
(I can't see Ferrari paying $41M to get rid of Kimi but... the 2010 Alonso rumors are strong. Why wouldn't Ferrari commit publicly to its 2010 driver line up at Monza? Could Renault be forced to "trade FA for Kimi in return?)
Considering FOM's interests and influence, I see the deal that was cut between Renault and the FIA to include a certain amount of silence and sweeping things under the rug. In return Renault will agree to remain in F1 for a few more years. The FIA will announce that it is unfair to punish Renault beyond stripping them of the ill gotten points. FOM will have to recalculate their 2008 Constructors money distribution in fairness to the other teams and Renault will have to surrender the amount back to FOM for redistribution. The FIA will also have to impose some sort of a penalty such as mandatory "public service" acts vis-a-vis some FIA "Safety Initiative" promotion (which will also benefit Renault's image ). The FIA will also pronounce that they are satisfied with the purging of guilty parties and that it is unfair for all the little people and hard working engineers to suffer because of the actions of a few. Also the fact of Renault being on probation for the Renault/Mac mini-spygate saga will similarly be treated as satisfied with the purging. Times have changed, F1 cannot lose another engine maker. Renault know this is their bargaining chip and will not pay anything near $100M. Max has got his pound of flesh with Flav's head on a platter so that mollifies his vindictive rage considerably. It will all be swept under the rug and a big happy face will be placed over everything.
The party line will be... "All is well. Justice has been served. Nothing to look at here. Let's move along now."
Innovation over refinement is the prefered path to performance. -- Get rid of the dopey regs in F1
1 - Team orders were always around, although this is an absolute extreme case
2 - I'm still finding hard to believe someone could crash and put his life at risk (let's forget about car safety for a moment) just like that
If it turns out to be true, Piquet Sr. just put his son's life at risk for nothing - when you don't have passion and talent, what's the point of risking everything for something you'll never be good at?
vyselegend wrote:Everyone seems to forget one important detail about the timing and the real reasons behind the Renault Anouncement:
Yesterday was the official inauguration of the Salon automobile de Francfort 2009, one of the biggest meeting for automotives industries in Europe.
Word on the street is that Carlos Gohsn, who was personaly opening the press conference for Renault, kept being asked about the F1 scandal by journalists, despite he made it clear he wouldn't treat about that at all.
This basically ruined Renault's PR about their core business, and the big boss left the stand totally pissed.
A few hours later we all read the news on autosport: Pat & Flav were effectively fired and Renault had rushed an announcement saying they wouldn't speak about that crap again.
So I think we are all influenced by our passion for F1 and the importance it has for us. Quite probably the decision at Renault had little to do with the evidences presented or the bad press inside the F1 world. But it had all to do with the marketing heads firing the alarm signal because the crap was overflowing outside of the F1 microcosm and parasiting their real world. Renault didn't sack Briatore & Symonds IMO; it's rather a furious Carlos Gohsn who sacked F1...
For these people, F1 (and any other motorsport involvment) is just advertising money. They can decide to withdraw F1 and invest $250 millions in a new big TV add for the new Megane or Laguna instead, without much regrets...
Now that's a more intelligent guess. Although I still believe the race-fixing did happen, at least this one is logically sound to show that I could be wrong to link the sacking of Flav and Pat to the fact that they are guilty.
SZ, the meaning of checkmate is that you have nowhere to go. I still don't see any logic in your argument that describes what it is that will hold Renault in a checkmate position IF the race-fixing didn't happen. IF it didn't happen no sufficient evidence can prove them guilty! They could put up the effort to prove their innocence, and they would have every reason to want to do that - they wouldn't want their corporate image to be tainted by this. So, unless it's an external pressure as depicted by vyselegend above, I see no reason why they don't want to take the time and effort to prove their innocence to the world, IF they were innocent.
It was along this line that I linked the firing of Flav and Pat, plus the no-dispute-to-allegations attitude, to the fact that the race-fixing did happen and at least the two individuals were involved.
Of course now I would also consider vyselegend's view as a very good guess. So at this moment I am not so sure.
What I am NOT disputing with you, SZ, is the fact that this could all be a setup from Max to get rid of Flav. I am perfectly fine with that view, and it does NOT contradict with what I said and what I am saying. I am not questioning why there is an allegation, why both Flav and Pat were fired and not just Flav, or any of the things that you mentioned. But effectively you are saying the following happened:
Max: Yo! NP Jr said this. We have investigated this and we think you are guilty.
Renault: C'mon you serious? This guy just got sacked and is setting us up! Nothing like that happened!!
Max: I don't care, now this could end peacefully if you sack Flav and Pat. Or you can ignore me and come to WMSC. Expect heavy fine and punishment then.
Renault: Okay... Although we are innocent and the WMSC cannot prove us guilty, just because you are threatening me like this, I get sooooo scared and decide to give in.
it was good to hear Irvine say his piece
'its always been like this' etc
'its hardly life threatening'
'its not a pure sport, never has been'
clearly no place for him on a modern f1 grid
gcdugas wrote:We really don't know what hard evidence Quest has. Emails? Texts? Secret voice recordings by NP Jr of his father with PS or Flav? I am willing to bet that there is SOME trace of what happened. And more importantly, Pat Symonds wasn't willing to bet that there isn't ANY trace of what happened.
That's a good point. Although all this may come down to that single meeting - maybe Pat was afraid that Nelson recorded that meeting and denying that the idea of deliberate crash was mentioned there would automatically paint him guilty.
Although admitting that the topic was discussed tied his hands anyway.
vall wrote:and I do hope FIA will put it {previously mentioned hard evidence] out to the public. Otherwise, the whole story is very smelly.
I suspect that Renault and the FIA have already cut a deal. Renault wants no more bad publicity. The FIA and FOM need Renault to stay in F1. (so does Williams and possibly Red Bull). It is clear that the FIA and FOM are conspiring to preserve the market value of Alonso by not pursuing his possible involvement with any great zeal. Is there a Ferrari angle here too?
(I can't see Ferrari paying $41M to get rid of Kimi but... the 2010 Alonso rumors are strong. Why wouldn't Ferrari commit publicly to its 2010 driver line up at Monza? Could Renault be forced to "trade FA for Kimi in return?)
Considering FOM's interests and influence, I see the deal that was cut between Renault and the FIA to include a certain amount of silence and sweeping things under the rug. In return Renault will agree to remain in F1 for a few more years. The FIA will announce that it is unfair to punish Renault beyond stripping them of the ill gotten points. FOM will have to recalculate their 2008 Constructors money distribution in fairness to the other teams and Renault will have to surrender the amount back to FOM for redistribution. The FIA will also have to impose some sort of a penalty such as mandatory "public service" acts vis-a-vis some FIA "Safety Initiative" promotion (which will also benefit Renault's image ). The FIA will also pronounce that they are satisfied with the purging of guilty parties and that it is unfair for all the little people and hard working engineers to suffer because of the actions of a few. Also the fact of Renault being on probation for the Renault/Mac mini-spygate saga will similarly be treated as satisfied with the purging. Times have changed, F1 cannot lose another engine maker. Renault know this is their bargaining chip and will not pay anything near $100M. Max has got his pound of flesh with Flav's head on a platter so that mollifies his vindictive rage considerably. It will all be swept under the rug and a big happy face will be placed over everything.
The party line will be... "All is well. Justice has been served. Nothing to look at here. Let's move along now."
Yes, there is a Ferrari angle to this mess. It's the angle that Massa lost the drivers' championship. come on now.
For some time, F1 has been a marketing exercise. vyselegend is completely correct here, and it's something I've repeatedly posted myself. Though it's a far reach to say it's F1 being sacked on these grounds. Outside of the sports car manufacturers, manufacturer-sponsored F1 is going to be on increasingly shaky ground as it's relevance to the road car activities that fund it's existence becomes increasingly remote, and - with little concrete attempts to cut cost and sponsors departing like crazy - the cost of competition stays high. If Renault doesn't have a sponsor for next year lined up, for instance - and you'd have to imagine that that was a good part of Flav's responsibility, something he's quite good at - then yes, this announcement will serve as a precursor to an eventual Renault withdrawal/sale/whatever.
However - commercially Renault has a lot more to lose if they're forced to sit out the championship next year - they'd effectively not just be able to compete, but would have nothing to sell, and the bad PR would last a good while - it's just an allegation now, it's not yet proven not have maximum penalties been applied. It's in no-one's interests to contest this. The game was officially up the second Symonds was offered immunity - as there's no solid evidence proving that the race was thrown or otherwise, but with the PR machine in full swing suggesting everything from blatant cheating to the end of F1 as we know it over this event - taking the fight to the WMSC is suicide. At best it's a my-word-against-yours argument with jury already convinced.
I know what checkmate means, but you're not reading this game well! The game isn't FIA-Renault, and it's not FIA-Flav and Pat either. It's strictly FIA-Flav. Flav is tied to Renault. With nothing to stick to Flav directly, a good opportunity to throw this latest mud around has come up. That's it. Consider that if the allegation is true and the evidence so far supports it, Nelson crashed the fcking car/endangered lives/screwed the championship/bought the sport into disrepute/etc, Pat called out his laps - but they've got immunity! - and at the very worst, Flav was pissed off that he crashed - but he's out in the cold!
Read Renault's wording carefully: they will not dispute the allegations. They're not agreeing, they're not disagreeing, they're not admitting anything. They're betting that Quest didn't dig up anything more concrete that is yet to come to light, and given their recent sackings they consider the matter concluded and any penalty a processional matter. For their sake, I hope they're right - should anything definitive come up, they're totally f*cked. It's quite telling that they're willing to take that bet.
And I'll stress this again for you: despite there being no concrete evidence that a fool was asked to jump off a bridge (and did), there's been far, far worse in F1, for which the WMSC has done... nothing. For which... no one ever lost a job. For which... zero individuals were ever offered immunity from prosecution, and no individuals were ever singled out so selectively.
And that's the truly incredulous part. If you've studied relevant history and followed the sport for a while, the attention the FIA is giving this matter, the severity of the retaliation proposed and the selectivity of the treatment it's giving those alleged to be involved is very, very much unprecedented.
But most people don't follow the sport, they follow PR spin. And that's currently being spun to tell a different story, and in a season where the sport's big brands aren't firing in a big way, it's keeping F1 in the headlines in a way nothing on track ever could. Unless your name is Flavio Briatore or Pat Symonds, it's win-win. Particularly the more the old nutters bleat on about "the worst thing that has happened in Formula 1" etc.
That - regrettably - is modern F1... lap up this spin whilst it lasts, fanboys - we're all guilty, all of us on 30+ pages of this thread - or wait with baited breath and a bucket o' popcorn to see what the FIA cooks up next for your enjoyment...
).
He got sacked and has all reasons to hate his former bosses. We shoudl wait until Monday to see, if at all, any new evidence.
