The issue I'd take with your argument (and the many possible deconstructions of doubt you've supplied) lie in your summary paragraph.nipo wrote:Guys, Max behind this doesn't mean Flav and Pat are not responsible. These are two separate things. Put it this way, Max has always have this type of insider information about many teams and many people in the paddock. This time it is with Flav so he pulled out the file about Renault and used it against him. That doesn't make the information contained in the file any less true.
This is not a matter of truth or responsibility. The evidence supplied proves nothing, and FWIW I don't discount the possibility that the crash was orchestrated - in fact I think it's wholly possible. Very probably, the WMSC will vote that an accident was likely deliberately caused.
But that's not relevant. This is a matter of relevance.
Really, what does it matter that Renault may have cheated? Consider the severity of the reactions thus far and of the penalties that may be metered out at the WMSC meeting in progress. Then consider other actions of cheating in the sport, other actions that have more seriously put lives in jeopardy - there are many - and contrast the FIA's reaction to that we've seen.
Even the timing with which evidence has come to hand underpins it's relevance. For instance, the FIA first knew of such allegations last year - they only called evidence recently. One of many points of interest.
These points of interest, of course, are not what the WMSC meeting is about. So far as playing Dr Holmes regards what may or may not have happened, your arguments are all very valid. But nor are today's findings the endgame. You're missing the far bigger game at play, and the significance of the stakes at hand which underpin the highly irregular manner in which this whole facade's been played out.
).