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

[Mr Alcatraz]

Just because.

For christ sake that’s just his wife. He's got a lotta' somethin' on the side.
It's difficult for me to imagine this cat has bad days

BTW I'd like to teach her how to chirp in the key of yodel
Then bust a crate of eggs in her face

[mcdenife]

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.

It pays to read carefully before posting.
If you can read you will see I said THE BASIS of his case and the courts ruling was based on the irregularities. Go and read the case filed with the court I am sure you can find it.

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.

If you read anything I wrote and the outcome of this case you will also see no one said anything or ruled on whether his team cheated or not.

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.

Stay focused now, read both the WMSC hearing and the statement from court ( if you can) and you will also see his leadership or what happened 'on his watch' was never an issue. This is just you grasping at straws to prove something that never was, in effect you just jump from pillar to post but can come up with nothing with regards to his complicity which is what the WMSC's ruling was based on. If anything you move the goal post after the event (which is exactly what the FIA did during the their hearing and which is publicly available info when their focus shifted to him). Based on the basis of FB,s court case and what they ruled, the FIA does not have a leg to stand on, period.

[vall]

@WB

Did you read the SZ' nice sum up of the time-line of the investigation? It is quite clear that FAI made everything possible to find Flav guilty, no matter what. It even seems that MrM forced RF1 to find Mr. X, otherwise......? So, the way this "investigation" was carried out smells.

[Fil]

A good overview of the current events, balanced well with a refresh of what went wrong at the FIA during this case..

BBC's Andrew Benson

[Richard]

It is a judgement that the FIA used an arbrtary process that resulted in a restriction on Briatore's ablity to do business.

The court didn't say whether Briatore was guilty or not, merely that the process used against him was flawed and the punishment was unsubstantiated.

It is about time that Max's kangeroo courts were shown up as arbitrary and without any sense of natural justice.

This judgement should be to the benefit of F1 because it gives Todt a reason to sweep away the current feudal arrangement and put in something more suited to 20th century ... or even the 21st?

ps.. read this for an insight into the workings of a previous FIA hearing ... http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=57753

[WhiteBlue]

This discussion is going nowhere as long as we don't have a written statement of the court explaining why it found the ban irregular. Reports in the French press were similar to the one below.

Flavio Briatore, ex-manager de l'écurie et instigateur de l'affaire du « Crashgate » a obtenu l'annulation de sa suspension à vie de la Formule 1 par le tribunal de grande instance de Paris qui a jugé « irrégulière » la décision prise le 21 septembre 2009 par la Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA).

http://www.sport365.fr/auto-moto/articl ... tore.shtml

This states that the court simply invalidated the 21.09.2009 decision of the WMSC as irregular or against the law. The big disagreement is about the subject of irregularity. Some people think the only irregularity is that the ban cannot apply to non license holders (which I tend to follow). Some people seem to think that the french court also criticised the WMSC process but there is no evidence for that. Until someone finds a genuine French source confirming criticism by the tribunal de grande instance de Paris (TGIP) with the WMSC process there is no point to discuss those opinions in my view.

[Richard]

Reminds me of a Private Eye regular ...

Is this F1 trying to become more accessible to young people? Is Briatore trying to give an example of the juxtaposition of the old and the young brought together in reasonably harmonious union?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_ ... ndividuals

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
This discussion is going nowhere as long as we don't have a written statement of the court explaining why it found the ban irregular.

Classic, just like Mosley, switching the debate to one that can be 'won'.
According to Mosley himself:

"But the suggestion that we can't penalise anyone who doesn't have a licence is very serious because, for example, we wouldn't be able to ban those people who blacked up their faces and upset Lewis Hamilton [in Barcelona in 2008] from coming to a race.

"But in any case the FIA can easily change its rules so that it takes account of what the court said. They said we weren't allowed to ban non-licence holders. Well obviously you can bring in a rule which does allow you to, if you wish.

So Mosley effectively concedes that they did not have rules to ban non-license holders, yet he did..... Goodness methinks thats sounds like an irregularity.

WB wrote:

Some people seem to think that the french court also criticised the WMSC process but there is no evidence for that.

According to Mosley himself...yet again

"Remember, the court did not find that [Briatore] was not guilty," Mosley said. "They just didn't like the procedure we used.

Nuff said!!

From Mosley once more:

"Aspects of it are just extraordinary. Symonds actually admitted in writing that he was guilty and yet they found in his favour. But that's only because they are not looking at the substance, they are just looking at the procedure."

You are right when you said "this discussion is going nowhere", but not for the reasons you stated.

[WhiteBlue]

It is all hear say and second hand interpretation. Where do we have a genuine quotation of the TGIP judgement?

Just for the record we should remember that all WMSC meetings on cheating have always been published well ahead of the actual meeting date. All interested parties were generally given access and thus there have always been both sides of a dispute being heared. The Ferrari vs McLaren conflicts around Spygate were monumental battles of legal teams. Everybody and his dog was heared who had an interest in the affair.

It is not the fault of the WMSC that Renault accepted the charges and that Briatore and his lawyer did not appear before the counsil. Every innocent man of honor would have used the opportunity to reject the charges that were brought against the team under his leadership. Briatore preferred to fight legal technicalities to create the appearance of innocence rather than stand up for himself and defend what he and his technical director did.

[timbo]

Briatore preferred to fight legal technicalities to create the appearance of innocence rather than stand up for himself and defend what he and his technical director did.

"Legal technicalities"? "stand up for himself"? Excuse me, would YOU stand up for yourself if you new that investigator, prosecutor and judge are the same person? What would be the point?
Mosley claims that the case was of extraordinary because a human life was in danger. OK so he should take it to the proper court, but guess what, I bet dollars for donuts that with given evidences either Briattore would be found innocent or that Piquet would face as severe punishment as Briattore might have had.

[WhiteBlue]

would YOU stand up for yourself if you new that investigator, prosecutor and judge are the same person

This is just bovine manure that smells no better by endless reurgitation. The FIA investigators did not include Max Mosley. I can check back and give you the names if you don't believe me. The jury wasn't Max Mosley either, it was the WMSC with more than 20 persons. I wonder if other sports actually have legal procedures for cheaters that involve a separate investigative branch, prosecutors, judges and juries. The appropriate neutrality of a WMSC hearing on cheating is usually established by giving access and legal hearing to all parties. This is the same procedure as a Senat hearing in US politics.

[CMSMJ1]

I am not sure that I quite understand the animosity here.

Do the majority of F1T believe that there was a conspiracy to cause a crash that involved PS, FB and NPjr?

I think so.

The situation is that we had the WMSC deliver a verdict and punishment that was not justifiable in it's extremes of range.

The guilty party - NPjr - who admits the case and casued the accident - No punishment.

The only party to declare innocence - FB - banned for life and forbidden from holding any motorsport roles.

Now - whichever side you come down on in this and regardless of who these people are - you cannot agree that the WMSC gave a balanced or "regular" response to the information it had in front of it?

It looks like a political decision.

@ WB - do you sincerely think that the result of the WMSC was correct?

Would it have been correct if it involved someone other than Flavio?

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
It is all hear say and second hand interpretation. Where do we have a genuine quotation of the TGIP judgement?

Just for the record we should remember that all WMSC meetings on cheating have always been published well ahead of the actual meeting date. All interested parties were generally given access and thus there have always been both sides of a dispute being heared. The Ferrari vs McLaren conflicts around Spygate were monumental battles of legal teams. Everybody and his dog was heared who had an interest in the affair.

It is not the fault of the WMSC that Renault accepted the charges and that Briatore and his lawyer did not appear before the counsil. Every innocent man of honor would have used the opportunity to reject the charges that were brought against the team under his leadership. Briatore preferred to fight legal technicalities to create the appearance of innocence rather than stand up for himself and defend what he and his technical director did.

Its official, you really have nothing coherent to say on, this do you? Incidentally, it was remarkable how you managed to conveniently sidestep SZ' 'chronology of events' post. We are yet to hear a comment, response, refutal, rebuttal, explanation.....something...anything, from you about it. Or was that too intelligently laid out for your ramblings?

[Richard]

would YOU stand up for yourself if you new that investigator, prosecutor and judge are the same person

This is just bovine manure that smells no better by endless reurgitation. The FIA investigators did not include Max Mosley. I can check back and give you the names if you don't believe me. The jury wasn't Max Mosley either, it was the WMSC with more than 20 persons.

That may be the case on the surface, but history indicates the WMSC to have been a rubber stamp for Moseley.

[WhiteBlue]

would YOU stand up for yourself if you new that investigator, prosecutor and judge are the same person

This is just bovine manure that smells no better by endless reurgitation. The FIA investigators did not include Max Mosley. I can check back and give you the names if you don't believe me. The jury wasn't Max Mosley either, it was the WMSC with more than 20 persons.

That may be the case on the surface, but history indicates the WMSC to have been a rubber stamp for Moseley.

If you replace history with prejudice or opinion you are about right.