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

[gibells]

eish its too early in the morning

[xpensive]

...Even though he won who in their right mind would employ him.

Kovalainen and Webber still do.

BBZZZZ wrong - Mark and his partner Ann Neal manage his affairs now

Webber had been managed by Briatore throughout his F1 career, and spoke up Thursday on the Italian's behalf.

"He was a very good character for our sport, and I'm sure a lot of other people would agree," Webber said ahead of this weekend's Singapore Grand Prix. "I've had Flavio looking after me for 11 years I have never looked at the contract from the day I signed it, and there's not many other people in the paddock you could say that about."

"I won't work with anyone else in the future if I can't work with him."

[mcdenife]

There was no restriction on Coughlan only a recommendation that license holders to not work with him. That is the limit of the FIA power in this regards. License holders are the teams, drivers etc not Team personnel, talk less of ex team personnel. Hence why their punishment of FB was illegal.

WB, the court cannot overturn or anul the FIA's ruling, that is an internal FIA matter and not what this was about. Banning FB or anyone from working with him however, is illegal and no longer simply an internal FIA matter. Regardless they commented on the irregular nature of the case which in fact it was. whether you like him or not, saint or devil incarnate, FB was unfairly treated by the FIA as this outcome demonstrates, end of.
Saying

... did not examine the facts and has not reversed the FIA's finding that both Briatore and Symonds conspired to cause an intentional crash at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.

is stating the obvious. The only facts the courts needed to examing was how this was handled, not who did (or did not) order who to do what. There will be no appeal. Regardless of whether you think FB is guilty or not (which was not even establised either way), any reasonable person can see and admit there are serious issues regarding how this was handled.

[Chaparral]

Webber had been managed by Briatore throughout his F1 career, and spoke up Thursday on the Italian's behalf.

"He was a very good character for our sport, and I'm sure a lot of other people would agree," Webber said ahead of this weekend's Singapore Grand Prix.

Yes thats what he said back then - Anne & Mark do it themselves these days - which wasnt a big step up as she has handled the day to day affairs from his entry into F1.

[Chaparral]

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=38610

According to above source

In February this year, the FIA lifted restrictions imposed on Coughlan which had involved the governing body recommending that licence holders should be wary of working with him.

Amazing disparity in how the various people were treated in the spygate b/s McLaren cop a $100 million fine Coughlan is free to continue Stepney is sanctioned from participation in the sport or publishing a tell all book - thats just frog ---! I did read somewhere that Dennis said the real truth will come out in the presence of time and I think it will.................

[Rob W]

But he put lives at risk, damaged the credibility of the sport, and misused his power over drivers to get results he wanted..

This ruling effectively overrules the original ruling by the FIA.

WRONG

Yeah.. bla bla . Read what I said. I said it effectively overrules... which it does - no matter what the FIA say.

The judge considered the most important aspect of Flavio's case, the part regarding the scope and limits of sanctioning available to the FIA, and decided they had it wrong. Which they did it seems.

For them to have erred so badly (on their own rules no less) and now have a judge overturn the punishment 100% paints them in a pretty incompetent light legally. It makes you wonder what else they might have decided upon without actually having either evidence or otherwise.

Flav may have been a bad boy for sure but the entire thing reeks of FIA deciding it was a good time to do away with the guy who threatened to open up shop in competition.

[xpensive]

Perhaps not Briatore's finest moment, the one above...but I don't believe anyone can hold a candle at him when it comes to the ability of combining flamboyance with sporting success, which is what F1's all about. To my mind anyway.

[WhiteBlue]

License holders are the teams, drivers etc not Team personnel, talk less of ex team personnel. Hence why their punishment of FB was illegal.

Not quite so. In certain aspects of the law team principals and directors are personally responsible for the actions of the company. If a company board conspires to murder someone the directors who participate in the meeting are responsible and will be prosecuted and trialled. This is why they are treated as the personification of the license holder. Simple team members are a different matter entirely, I agree. The question if the FIA can legally sanction ex directors for culpable behavior during their period of responsibility seems to be under dispute.

WB, the court cannot overturn or anul the FIA's ruling, that is an internal FIA matter and not what this was about. .... Regardless they commented on the irregular nature of the case which in fact it was.

Briatore asked the court to overturn the finding of the WMSC. This wasn't done for whatever reason. They may be incompetent in that regard or just not inclined, it does not matter. For the public the finding of the WMSC stands unchallenged. In the view of the court the punishment was irregular. We will have to see if that legal opinion will stand in the end.

.. whether you like him or not, saint or devil incarnate, FB was unfairly treated by the FIA as this outcome demonstrates

I do not agree with that opinion. Briatore had a lot of slack over the years. His account was long overdrawn.

There will be no appeal.

I'm surprised by the confidence of that statement. The FIA has announced that they will consider all aspects of appeal. So one cannot at the moment say what will happen.

I am confident that the FIA will be able to prevent Briatore from repeating his frivolous play with the lives of drivers, marshals and spectators for personal profit. He should not be able to pull a stunt like Singapore 2008 ever again. That is the main thing. Certainly the Renault team will not allow him back into his office. One can also expect that rules against managing drivers and teams by the same person will be introduced and team ownership may become subject to an FIA license.

Briatore responded the question of the Italian newspaper 'Gazzetta dello Sport' if he would take action against the Piquets as following:

"That's very likely"

.

Perhaps that will serve as a further inhibition to people who consider similar manipulations. If Briatore and the Piquets spend a lot of time and money to sue each other and make their lives unpleasant they have my full support to do so.

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
If a company board conspires to murder someone the directors who participate in the meeting are responsible and will be prosecuted and trialled.

Indeed. the key words being: the directors who participate in the meeting.

WB wrote
Briatore asked the court to overturn the finding of the WMSC. This wasn't done for whatever reason. They may be incompetent in that regard or just not inclined, it does not matter. For the public the finding of the WMSC stands unchallenged. In the view of the court the punishment was irregular. We will have to see if that legal opinion will stand in the end.

The finding was never challenged. The finding can only be challenged in another wmsc hearing on appeal. what was challenged was the process and how the finding were reached.Thats why the court did not (and cannot) annul the finding.

WB wrote:
Briatore had a lot of slack over the years. His account was long overdrawn.

I think you will find on closer review, this demontrates the FIA's (specifically Max's) collusion and incompetence. Regardless I thought this was about crashgate rather than because they had been "lenient" with him in the past because if this is the case, then you have just shown that he was indeed unfairly treated in this case.

WB wrote:
I am confident that the FIA will be able to prevent Briatore from repeating his frivolous play with the lives of drivers, marshals and spectators for personal profit. He should not be able to pull a stunt like Singapore 2008 ever again.

If indeed he did.But so far neither you nor the FIA have been able to show this and why the courts commented on the irregularities. Face it WB all you seem to be saying is you dont like the guy. Fair enough, I dont like him either but I wont crucify him just because of that.

[SZ]

WB;

Some time ago I took pains to document the FIA's findings and wrote a nice, long post highlighting the various flaws in this.

I predicted two things:

- Flav would be vindicated on what he was charged with
- You're a blinded fanboy prat

So far we're 2-0 me.
It's been fun. Want to play again?

I see someone remembers my prior arguments for Max's motivations pretty clearly:

As much as this was a pretty disgraceful effort by the senior team members Max has shown himself to be vindictive and beyond reason time and time again. I am convinced the primary reason for the original heavy punishment was basically that the breakway series plans would have put a huge dent into F1's security, revenue and future plans. Basically the most serious issue F1 could ever face.

Max doesn't even need to rise from his den. The main point of the action - to thwart FOTA at a time a breakaway threat was at it's most serious, with the very business-savvy Flav as business director - was to remove Flav from competition. Job done. Doesn't really matter if he comes back now.

I loved the chronology of events leading up to his 'complicity'. Proper soap opera stuff.

RF1 conducts an internal investigation and can't implicate Flav. They argue that for the purposes of the WMSC trial at hand - did the team cheat or not - it really didn't matter whether it was Pat and Nelson, or Pat, Nelson and Flav involved.

FIA answers the same day and says no, we need the third guy.

Not a day later RF1 discovers a whistleblower that can link Flav to proceedings - a guy that RF1's own lawyer never met and whose name Max supposedly couldn't remember not four days on! RF1 gets the message, suspended sentence minus Flav, Flav gets life for evidence of a guy that likely doesn't exist.

Regardless of what he's done elsewhere... the FIA should be thankful he only challenged their ruling. Would've been far more amusing had he challenged the process...

...oh, and WB. I was kidding. Don't play again.

[Giblet]

Flav was far from vindicated with what he was charged with. He is still guilty guilty guilty of cheating and endangering a bunch of lives bla bla.

His punishment has changed, but the charges remain intact and the verdict remains the same.

Guilty of cheating.

[vall]

I loved the chronology of events leading up to his 'complicity'. Proper soap opera stuff.

RF1 conducts an internal investigation and can't implicate Flav. They argue that for the purposes of the WMSC trial at hand - did the team cheat or not - it really didn't matter whether it was Pat and Nelson, or Pat, Nelson and Flav involved.

FIA answers the same day and says no, we need the third guy.

Not a day later RF1 discovers a whistleblower that can link Flav to proceedings - a guy that RF1's own lawyer never met and whose name Max supposedly couldn't remember not four days on! RF1 gets the message, suspended sentence minus Flav, Flav gets life for evidence of a guy that likely doesn't exist.

Regardless of what he's done elsewhere... the FIA should be thankful he only challenged their ruling. Would've been far more amusing had he challenged the process...

...oh, and WB. I was kidding. Don't play again.

oh, I really like that!!! +10

[WhiteBlue]

The finding can only be challenged in another wmsc hearing on appeal. what was challenged was the process and how the finding were reached.Thats why the court did not (and cannot) annul the finding.

This is your story which isn't backed by any evidence except by your word. Fact is that Briatore asked the court to declare him innocent which it did not.

I thought this was about crashgate rather than because they had been "lenient" with him in the past because if this is the case, then you have just shown that he was indeed unfairly treated in this case.

Your logic is strange. Every court and also the WMSC can and will consider the history of a purpetrator. Briatore got the benefit of doubt too often to find a lenient jury in the WMSC.

...so far neither you nor the FIA have been able to show this and why the courts commented on the irregularities.

Again, nothing but opinion on your part. The WMSC came to a guilty verdict. The grand tribunal came to the decision that the WMSC decision was irregular. It is unknown from the available direct sources why. All talk about it is speculation.

Until another instance looks into the matter all we know is that Briatore is guilty and that his punishment is lifted.

[mcdenife]

Wb Wrote:
This is your story which isn't backed by any evidence except by your word. Fact is that Briatore asked the court to declare him innocent which it did not.

This is getting tiring. This is not MY story or my word. At least have the decency to read his claims to the court before posting.

WB wrote:
Your logic is strange. Every court and also the WMSC can and will consider the history of a purpetrator. Briatore got the benefit of doubt too often to find a lenient jury in the WMSC.

Its perpetrator and yes they may consider his history, but usually when sentencing. However you dont declare someone guilty or throw out due process simply because he has been before the courts one time too many which is what you imply.

WB wrote:
Again, nothing but opinion on your part. The WMSC came to a guilty verdict. The grand tribunal came to the decision that the WMSC decision was irregular. It is unknown from the available direct sources why. All talk about it is speculation.

The court disagrees.Briatore's basis for going to court and which the court ruled in his favour: The FIA

Rendered a decision that it was not competent to pronounce.

Infringed its own articles of association

Totally failed to respect his right to a fair defence

Finally, entrusted the tasks of investigation, prosecution and judgment to a principle player known by all to be hostile to FB.

Where is the speculation? Open your eyes or switch the debate. It is amazing that a person of your supposed intelligence is blind to the serious flaw in the process of how the FIA arrived at its decision. Have you ever heard the term miscarriage of justice?

[WhiteBlue]

The court disagrees.Briatore's basis for going to court and which the court ruled in his favour: The FIA

Rendered a decision that it was not competent to pronounce.

Infringed its own articles of association

Totally failed to respect his right to a fair defence

Finally, entrusted the tasks of investigation, prosecution and judgment to a principle player known by all to be hostile to FB.

Where is the speculation? Open your eyes or switch the debate. It is amazing that a person of your supposed intelligence is blind to the serious flaw in the process of how the FIA arrived at its decision. Have you ever heard the term miscarriage of justice?

You cannot even quote a court decision. So you make this up from a hotchpotch of Briatore assertions that are not what the court says.

This isn't a case of miscarriage of justice, it is a case of Briatore exploiting some EU human rights to muddy the water on his or his team's cheating. No reasonable person denied that there was a plan by the team to let Piquet crash to make Alonso look better in the race. Briatore was the person responsible for all team actions and so he has to carry the blame. If he came up with this, did not stop it or looked the other way is irrelevant. His responsibility is moral leadership which would have prevented the conspiracy in the first place. The FIA and Todt cannot give up on punishing him for the conspiracy. They got the right man and now they simply need to trick back on the trickster.