The race-fix case of Briatore and Symonds versus the FIA

[Richard]

What did the documents say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/no ... appeal-ban

[Chaparral]

Richard if I was a betting man I would have a rather large wager on Briatore winning this case

[SZ]

Hey settle down and think once in a while will you.

You can take that to the bank, so true

This adjudication wasnt in a court of law - it was some council deciding that someone had transgressed the 'law' in their own self defined (star chamber) court (give me a break the FIA under Mosely's stewardship was the most corrupt of all) - they adjudged that Briatore had either sanctioned or ordered PK Jr to crash for the benefit of the team - PK admitted he did it but they NEVER proved Briatore either sanctioned or ordered the fix - thats a fact - and to be honest I dont care a whole lot about Briatore but I dont like Kangaroo courts either which is what happened to Briatore

I'll save those of you having read my extensive posts on the court case thread, as the above is a pretty good summary of fact.

I would suggest that three words - "pot", "kettle" and "black" might feature prominently in a logical retort to the FIA's latest on this...

...but the small detail I love most, many of you seem to have missed - the FIA "issued a statement". Previously it was Max Mosely's soundbite on a matter concerning the FIA - the official "voice". Have we got the voice of the new Prez JT this time around - no! - just an anonymously issued "statement".

...so we've just got a subsequent step in a battle royale between the same two master puppeteers.

[xpensive]

If this court-case, involving Paris-based FIA and Frenchman Jean Todt, had taken place anywhere else than in Paris,
I would have agreed with Chap that Briatore had a good chance.

But it's not.

[SZ]

Sure xpensive... but it's far from over at any rate too... plenty of entertainment out of this Max-Flav battle for at least a decade yet

[tarzoon]

Sure xpensive... but it's far from over at any rate too... plenty of entertainment out of this Max-Flav battle for at least a decade yet

As Bernie said... "never count Flavio out" (sorry if I'm misquoting)

The entertainment will continue depending on Todt.



Still I'm trying to imagine what Flavio's answer when Pq Jr suggested the crash...

"Yeah, sure! -- sorry, FOR SURE! -- IF you can last 12 laps AND if you can crash on that turn, I'll give you the contract!"

Little did he know...

[WhiteBlue]

In a way I'm not too displeased that this goes in front of a regular court. The predicted outcome should be:

• Briatore is still found responsible for allowing the plan to go forward
• Symmonds still responsible for detailed planning
• FIA found right to have jurisdiction on the matter
• Piquet's amnesty confirmed
• Briatore and Symmonds still punished but perhaps with a slightly smaller verdict.

The verdict is really a matter of discretion and so the punishment should vary at every instance that deals with the case. Judges have different values and that influences the penalty. The WMSC under MM obviously did not like to be lied at. The civil judge may have different standards.

In any case the "kangaroo court" nonsense should be dismissed by a regular court and another f1 myths will be eradicated.

[SZ]

In a way I'm not too displeased that this goes in front of a regular court. The predicted outcome should be:

• Briatore is still found responsible for allowing the plan to go forward
• Symmonds still responsible for detailed planning
• FIA found right to have jurisdiction on the matter
• Piquet's amnesty confirmed
• Briatore and Symmonds still punished but perhaps with a slightly smaller verdict.

The verdict is really a matter of discretion and so the punishment should vary at every instance that deals with the case. Judges have different values and that influences the penalty. The WMSC under MM obviously did not like to be lied at. The civil judge may have different standards.

In any case the "kangaroo court" nonsense should be dismissed by a regular court and another f1 myths will be eradicated.

You've essentially come up with a mind-boggling number of ways in which to express the same, very rigid opinion. Ever considered the trial might focus more on the Briatore/FIA/ban side of things than having anything to do with anyone else?

[WhiteBlue]

I'm not making comments about other users here and I expect all other users to stick to the posting guide lines as well. Have your say on the issue and be done.

[Conceptual]

I'm not making comments about other users here and I expect all other users to stick to the posting guide lines as well. Have your say on the issue and be done.

It must be a great comfort for you to be so well shielded from being called out for your bullshit.

Is that why you came here in the first place? Because of all of your old message boards ran you out for the same garbage?

For someone with as much to say as you do, you really say nothing.

I tend to agree with Chap and SZ on this, and wish it was possible to filter your posts out entirely. Then we can all ignore your opinion much easier than we do now...

[Rob W]

In any case the "kangaroo court" nonsense should be dismissed by a regular court and another f1 myths will be eradicated.

This is something I've mentioned previously.. I doubt an outside court can rule on anything other than perhaps to 'undo' the verdict (European Union regulations might enable this - I'm not sure). There is no way they could impose a new ruling*, rather they just send the parties involved back to their own sporting body for a new hearing - with recommendations of course. Failing that I think the French appeal court (or equivalent of) is possibly the final stop for all FIA-related disputes.

(*Unless both parties agree that a separate court is the way to settle this dispute - which I doubt the FIA would)

In the end F1 is still participation by agreement that the ruling body is the law. If their set of laws are such that they have a the ability to impose open-ended/limitless penalties or offer immunity for *whatever* then you chose to participate in that knowledge.

The European Union courts of course can always rule where they see anti-competitive behaviour happening etc, but I'm not sure a dispute over sporting cheating and the punishment dished out is really their concern. Their concern will normally be over what I mention a line above and procedural issues etc. It may be that the FIA can point to a document, previously signed by Flavio, which says he agrees that all disputes be settled by the FIA and their 'court'. The burden-of-proof or standard-of-evidence we normally expect in criminal/civil courts may not apply here at all.

Lastly. I imagine the restrictive penalty to Flavio will be one of his major avenues of protest: protest the punishment, not the verdict. Also, like Nigel Stepney before him (who's punishment magically and very quietly seemed to disappear), Flavio possibly has a lot of discussions/emails from the past which could prove very damaging to F1 and they'd be pretty happy to not see the light of day.

[WhiteBlue]

The European Union courts of course can always rule where they see anti-competitive behaviour happening etc, but I'm not sure a dispute over sporting cheating and the punishment dished out is really their concern...

There is also the human rights issue that is usually watched by the EU. Life ban on professional activities could be something that could be seen as a conflict with other values that need to be upheld. So the question of the appropriateness of the punishment could play a role.

[xpensive]

I think Briatore's lifetime-ban could probably be considered to be within the jurisdiction of EU competition laws?

Besides, first offenders in sport's most flagrant doping-cases rarely get more than a year or so do they?

[WhiteBlue]

Besides, first offenders in sport's most flagrant doping-cases rarely get more than a year or so do they?

The difference is that doping just endangers the offender and disadvantages the honest participants. The deliberate crashing of a racing car can have tragical consequences not only for the participating drivers but also for the marshals and spectators. It is not so long ago that young Surtees was killed by a flying wheel and that a marshal was killed by a wheel in Australia. Because of the safety concerns one cannot compare this with doping. The conspirators certainly had potential manslaughter on their conscience if the crash had caused further accidents.

[xpensive]

If danger to innocents is the bearing argument here, wouldn't it be an even worse offense to deliberately crash into someone?

Actually, I belive there are some xamples of that happening in the past, no?