"The fact that we put a plan for blackmail [action] against the two Piquets, means I think we are very confident that the truth will come out," said Briatore.
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
At today's World Motorsport Council at Paris, the judges have decided to put Renault on probatation until the end of 2011, during which no further offences must be found. Former Renault F1 heads Briatore and Symonds are both punished severely and banned of FIA events.
"The fact that we put a plan for blackmail [action] against the two Piquets, means I think we are very confident that the truth will come out," said Briatore.
Yes, but you'd think Flavio would be crying libel, not blackmail.donskar wrote:There IS another side to this case:
"The fact that we put a plan for blackmail [action] against the two Piquets, means I think we are very confident that the truth will come out," said Briatore.
Indeed. Really sad.timbo wrote:Fact is it can't NOT be dirty. From the moment the word from Piquet made into the public domain --- did hit the fan.jddh1 wrote:I see how dirty this entire mess is. It's a shame.
True. Blackmail means that what he's saying is true, but he's using what he knows to get a drive. If he sued for libel then there would've been hope that he was lying.Pup wrote:Yes, but you'd think Flavio would be crying libel, not blackmail.donskar wrote:There IS another side to this case:
"The fact that we put a plan for blackmail [action] against the two Piquets, means I think we are very confident that the truth will come out," said Briatore.
The FIA must have this because it is so easily verifiable... so why would Max let it out? What is his motivation? To prove that the FIA's treatment of Mac was warranted and proportionate? Reluctantly I, gcdugas, Max's biggest fan, think Max was placing the Renault issue in context and paving the way for whatever result comes about. I think Max was actually being fair minded and restrained. Since these Mac accusations are so easily verifiable, I take them to be true and by extension I must therefore applaud Max and the FIA for not trumpeting them when they first came to light in December. RD's head on a platter likely had much more to do with this than it had to do with Lie-gate. It seems the FIA actually acted professionally in handling this. And it also seems that the FIA acted professionally in the crash-gate by not making a splash of it in July when NP came to them.Q. The world has changed since the McLaren case. There is not a team who could swallow a 100 million dollar fine now, which would see Renault walk away...
MM: To put that in context, the halfway stage was the September meeting when we had the emails and we were able to prove clearly that people other than the one man within McLaren had knowledge.
So first of all they turned up at the first meeting and didn't tell the truth, and secondly, they had made use of this material. We didn't know to what extent. Now the normal thing to have done would have been to exclude them from the 2007 championship.
If we'd done that, nobody anywhere in the world would have criticised. On top of that, we learned when we fully investigated in December, information that it was available to the people doing the 2008 car. We've an email from the chief engineer on the '07 car and the chief engineer on the '08 car referring to their mole in Ferrari. It's there. We found it.
We also found an email saying that Ron had given instructions not to use quick shift until the FIA aggro is over, so it was right deep in the company.
It appears I was a bit hasty. It appears that Quest, which certainly has integrity, has been on this case for six weeks before the story broke at Spa. And it only broke because there were so many people interviewed by then at the Spa race that it could no longer be contained. I applaud the FIA for being discrete and professional. I applaud them for sitting on the Mac aggro December thing too. Now I challenge them to find the leaker in their midst, who is acting against the interest of the FIA, of F1, of Renault and of other involved parties.OK, the FIA should look into it but do they have to do so in such an indiscreet fashion? If asked by the press, the FIA should just say that they are aware of charges and accusations and leave it at that. They should not even acknowledge they are conducting an investigation. This works both ways, it protects the reputation of the innocently accused and at times it helps investigators gather evidence that might otherwise be destroyed because the investigative actions could tip someone off. Police often execute simultaneous search warrants and arrests to this end. Don't even let the guilty know there is an investigation going on if at all possible. Question key people simultaneously to preserve evidence and prevent them from colluding in their cover stories. Is it too much to ask? Be discrete.
If that piece was released by someone within the FIA, then the FIA must identify the leaker and make sure he isn't sitting in judgement of the matter as the person clearly acted in a biased manner and could not be trusted to render a fair verdict.The World Council dossier went out a week ago and the first information about the case began to appear earlier this week. It is fairly clear that the leaks are coming from one of the members of the council, but the important question is why it is happening and who is gaining from it.
Oops, the rattan for Flavio? I bet Max would love to have that done.Pup wrote:It's entirely possible. The only thing that might change that would be the threat of criminal prosecution - in Singapore of all places.