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

[owabonga]

The judgement can be found here:
http://blog.autoplus.fr/moncet/2010/01/ ... -elements/
Reading the judgement, there is absolutely no doubt that the core of the judgement is not the fact that Flavio and Pat were not licence holders. This appears to be only one of the reasons for the annulment of the decision:
The Court also considered that the FIA bended its own rules to create a punishment that did not exist in the by laws of the FIA,
The Court expressly states that the "rights of the defendants were not respected" by the FIA, including by
-not proving that Flavio was guilty, save by using an anonimous and secret witness to whom Flavio's lawyers were not given access
-asking Briatore to appear only by email on the Friday preceeding the Monday''s hearing of the MSWC, without explaining ti him the charges, the possible consequences of the hearing or providing the available evidences that may be used against him
-having both the inquiries, the pursuits and the judgement issued by the same person, publicly know as being hostile to Bratiore.

Finally, the only thing that the tribunel appears to he refused to accept is that it was proven that the trial was just a sham and was decided in advance as alledged by Briatore. The judge considered that the declaations made by one member of the MSWC to only one paper was not sufficiently hard evidence in that respect.
All of this is mentioned in page 7 of the judgement.
I believe that it is also important to understand that the French court did in any way not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the alledged cheating, as stated by the decision (p6). I suppose that this should probably be for the court of Singapore to decide as the case may be, but the fact is that as long as a court having jurisdiction did not find Flavio guilty, he should just be treated as innocent.
The argument of the FIA that the French court did not rule on that issue is thus typically a bad faith argument. The key, here is that NO IMPARTIAL JURISDICTION empowered to do so ever proved that Flavio was guilty and even the decision of the MSWC appears to be quite unconclusive in that respect.
Cheers

[WhiteBlue]

Thanks owabonga for providing an original source which can be studied by French speakers.

I agree that the court criticised some aspects of the FIA WMSC procedure. In the first place the reason for the invalidation of the ban was that it conflicts with the European law (implemented in France) of professional freedom without a counterbalance of a license contract between Briatore and the FIA that was enforcable. The other points were mentioned further down which indicates that they were noted but not the most important points. Having found some serious problem with the FIA procedure the court may have not bothered to let the parties argue and took most of the Briatore claims for granted. I'm sure several points do not reflect the true circumstances. Anyway they are moot because the issue of a professional ban without the presence of a previous license threat seems incurable at the present state of FIA rules.

Under the circumstances I also agree that an appeal is not likely to rectify the situation. In my view the FIA needs to change its licensing rules for drivers, driver managers, directors and team equity share holders. Then a new disciplinary meeting must be conducted with written invitation and all the niceties of lawyer communication demanded by Briatore. If the new hearing comes to the same verdict as the WMSC meeting license applications by Briatore can be denied. The process is a bit tedious and may not get any different results but it will satisfy the legal guidelines. I agree with the FIA that cheating like the race fixing in Singapore 2008 must be punished and I still believe that Briatore is responsible and guilty.

[Richard]

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

Facts are that Max was prosecutor, judge, & jurist. The council don't get any evidence in advance and are expected to to weigh up complex technical arguments based on an hour or two of oral advocacy. The council are largely non-technical people elected due to the honour of representing their national associations rather than for their technical capabilities to assess the rights and wrongs of a case. Of course helpful Max summed up the case and the non-technical council members ended up voting based on his summing up.

Better regulated sports use a system of each side putting their case forward in writing beforehand and then having a small panel of experts who understand the technicalities. Each side and the judging panel are each supported by lawyers to ensure due process. Punishments are normally set out in the statute, not made up on the spot. The FIA process has none of these features.

[WhiteBlue]

The WMSC counsil hearings usually had those written statements in all other cases. The procedural problems in the Briatore case stem from the fact that Briatore's strategy was obviously from the beginning to get the FIA involved in procedural conflicts. Normally all interested parties are eager to be represented at a disciplinary hearing. Briatore apparently thought that the FIA couldn't discipline him after he had resigned as an executive director of Renault F1 and made no effort to show up or submit materials to the FIA prior to the meeting. He was quite successful with that strategy and the onus is now on the FIA to plug the loop holes that allowed him to trick them.

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
I agree with the FIA that cheating like the race fixing in Singapore 2008 must be punished and I still believe that Briatore is responsible and guilty.

and:

The procedural problems in the Briatore case stem from the fact that Briatore's strategy was obviously from the beginning to get the FIA involved in procedural conflicts. Normally all interested parties are eager to be represented at a disciplinary hearing. Briatore apparently thought that the FIA couldn't discipline him after he had resigned as an executive director of Renault F1 and made no effort to show up or submit materials to the FIA prior to the meeting.

Someone wiser than I once wrote something to the effect that:
'People who change their views, after acquiring new info command more respect, in his view, than those who continue to cling to views previously held. The world changes, ideologues and zealots dont.'

I personally share that view and also believe in the basic concept that a person, any person regardless of the why's or wherefores of his life, is innocent until proven guilty.

[WhiteBlue]

I personally .... believe in basic concept that a person any person, regardless of the why's or wherefores of his life, is innocent until proven guilty.

That is understandable and I can agree with that. I just happen to accept the 19.September 2009 WMSC meeting's finding that Briatore was guilty. The procedural conflicts shown in the Paris court ruling do not negate that finding for me. I conclude that most of the procedural shortcomings were the result of Briatore's obstruction of justice. Cleverly done but not a legal concern for me.

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
I conclude that most of the procedural shortcomings were the result of Briatore's obstruction of justice.

Even after reading this:

-not proving that Flavio was guilty, save by using an anonimous and secret witness to whom Flavio's lawyers were not given access

or this:

-asking Briatore to appear only by email on the Friday preceeding the Monday''s hearing of the MSWC, without explaining ti him the charges, the possible consequences of the hearing or providing the available evidences that may be used against him

??

Well, says everything doesnt it.

[WhiteBlue]

-asking Briatore to appear only by email on the Friday preceeding the Monday''s hearing of the MSWC, without explaining ti him the charges, the possible consequences of the hearing or providing the available evidences that may be used against him

??

This claim is obviously constructed. Briatore knew weeks before the meeting that the Singapore race fixing was on the agenda and his actions or non actions as Renault F1 team principal would be subject to the hearing. He was in fact at that time personifying the accused party and he was well aware that by not participating and answering to the counsil his reputation would seriously suffer. He was also aware that his legal status had changed short term by his resignation and that Renault would firmly put the blame to him. There is no justification to denie the FIA WMSC cooperation with the hearing. Resigning from the post of director would not invalidate his responsibility in the cheating that was the subject of the hearing. All the requests to Renault had obviously passed his desk. So claiming a lack of invitation or preparation is nothing but using a legal technicality as a pretense.

-not proving that Flavio was guilty, save by using an anonimous and secret witness to whom Flavio's lawyers were not given access

If Briatore had participated in the meeting and the preparation of the meeting that defect would probably not have occurred.

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
This claim is obviously constructed.

The courts disagree. Regardless

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

Your words

[WhiteBlue]

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

Your words

This is quoted out of context. You do yourself no honor by distorting previous posts.

[vall]

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?

@WB You still have not commented out on the SZ' 'chronology of events' post.Very curious to hear you opinion on that....

[mcdenife]

WB wrote:
That is understandable and I can agree with that.

as long as that person is not Flavio Briatore.

WB wrote:
This is quoted out of context. You do yourself no honor by distorting previous posts.

And you have none

[WhiteBlue]

WB wrote:
This is quoted out of context. You do yourself no honor by distorting previous posts.

And you have none

attack the post, not the poster!

[WhiteBlue]

@WB You still have not commented out on the SZ' 'chronology of events' post.Very curious to hear you opinion on that....

That post is not an original source. I don't feel the need to comment on all opinion pieces posted here. Since you are asking I feel it is badly written. If you want to compare it with a good blog I would recommend Joe Saward's various entries to his blog at http://joesaward.wordpress.com/ . Joe is an excellent F1 journalist who writes very good articles and his opinion on Briatore is pretty much identical with my view.

[Richard]

the onus is now on the FIA to plug the loop holes that allowed him to trick them.

Which can only be a good thing so we don't see repeats of previous fiascos.