Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[myurr]

I dont understand the 'trying to fix the race so early' statement of a few posters
all the teams spend huge effort in qualifying to give their drivers the best start possible, effectively trying to fix the race before it starts, so to speak

a race is hugely variable as it unfolds and if one was going to attempt a fix it, it would be best to do it early as it is (slightly) more predicable. little point in getting your No 2 driver to pre arrange a crash on lap 40 only if x, y or z has happened first. NPj is not exactly a thinking on his feet type driver like schumy, prost, senna etc

Was just about to post along the same lines. Alonso had genuine pace that weekend and was really upset about his qualifying problems. I don't believe that the intention was to guarantee a win for Alonso, races are too unpredictable and the incident planned for too early in the race for that to happen.

Instead this was all about help Alonso get back in the hunt, back near the front, so that he could use his pace to achieve a solid result. Effectively they were just trying to undo the poor qualifying result, getting Alonso back somewhere near where he should have qualified. The win was just a bonus made possible by that strategy.

[timbo]

A source quoting Mosley saying that Piquet will have immunity as Alonso had in Stepneygate if it turns out he told the truth. He also confirms that he sees race fixing as more severe than cheating. He makes a reservation this being his personal opinion. The WMSC will have the last word.

Max's words speak a lot.
First, there's difference between Piquet's situation in this scandal and Alonso's in spygate. Alonso was companion in crime while Piquet was the sole executor. His role and responsibility is even greater than Hamilton's in liegate.
Also, fixing single race fixing more important than using other people's data to create a winning car? Well, it is maybe more blatant crime but more serious?
Besides there's still no conclusive evidences of race fixing.

[Rob W]

Symonds has the legal right to not answer etc.

See, this is where I think people get side-tracked and bogged down in common law thinking which has little to do with the regulations of motorsport.

Symonds may actually have no 'legal' right at all to not answer. Formula 1 is a sport you choose to take part in and by doing so agree to the regulation of the sport. It is not like general living where people exists and have inalienable civil and legal rights (which differ country to country mind you).

I can't see any reason why the rules of the F1 can't say explicitly that any 'no comment' given in the process of investigations will automatically be regarded as tacit admission of guilt. Moreso, refusal to answer question alone can be grounds for suspension/banning. What other means do they really have to compel people to answer?

Treating a closed set of regulations of a sporting pursuit voluntarily entered into as if they were somehow automatically similar in nature to common law (as in the legal notion of "common law") should not even be an issue in this scenario.

It should be: You want to play F1? Here are the rules? If you don't agree with them - then don't play.

[timbo]

It should be: You want to play F1? Here are the rules? If you don't agree with them - then don't play.

Really?
And what if your boss say something similar to you at work? You'd happily oblige?

[Rob W]

It should be: You want to play F1? Here are the rules? If you don't agree with them - then don't play.

Really?
And what if your boss say something similar to you at work? You'd happily oblige?

That's an easily distinguished exampled though. Sport is a voluntary pursuit which completely self-governs in terms of the sporting regulations (the commercial and employment aspects may well be covered by various local laws).

Normal business however is not - it is well covered by hundreds of laws - whether codified or common. They are also often bound by professional industry-body regulations (accountant's code of practice for example)

Moreso - we're talking about the team as an entity participating in the sport. Individuals within teams vary greatly in their level of capabilities, ethics etc but the the individual actions affect the team whether they be beneficial (a great new idea from an aerodynamicist, a cost-saving by the caterer, or a good day on the track by the driver) or detrimental (espionage, putting the wrong tires on or forgetting to book flights). The overall performance is the result of the sum of the successes and the failures.

The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems aimed at preventing the abuse of power or the vulnerable being coerced into confessions etc. There is no reason at all F1 should offer a similar allowance. As I said above the governing body should, at any time, be within their complete rights to speak to any member of any team without delay or right to silence.

[timbo]

The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems aimed at preventing the abuse of power or the vulnerable being coerced into confessions etc. There is no reason at all F1 should offer a similar allowance.

So, abuse of power is something unheard in F1?
Besides, race fixing (as technical espionage) may well be within formal law jurisdiction.
With a WMSC hearing ahead of him I think he has all the rights to comment or not comment anything.

[Motornic]

Exactly. Truth is subjective and fact is subject to interpretation.

My main concern with this from the start is that It SHOULD be hard for the governing body to prove an accusation like this, because then people could just make up anything and throw out some selective telemetry and say "pay up."

If their main witness and source of information is a driver with a history of crashing who openly holds a grudge and has by his own admission been, emotionally fragile, then the entire affair is suspect.

It doesn't matter what you believe, it should only matter what you can prove. This concept of dictatorial justice belongs in the dark ages. Besides, F1 has always been known as the "F1 Circus." I can think of several examples of semantics with regard to interpretation of rules:

Why didn't Toyota pay up for stealing Ferrari's car schematics?
Was Ferrari banned for allowing Massa to pass Raikkonen in Brazil last year?
Did Bourdais deserve the penalty for spinning Massa?
Why wasn't Renault punished for having McLaren engineering data?
Why was the Mass Damper ruled legal then illegal?
Why was the McLaren second brake pedal ruled illegal when it was driver operated?
Why wasn't the Senna/Prost crash fest as big a deal as fixing the outcome of a race?

F1 is a show and people make a lot of noise, but at the end of the day, just like in NASCAR, they will make the decision with the most commercial sense at the time.

[Ray]

That's an easily distinguished exampled though. Sport is a voluntary pursuit which completely self-governs in terms of the sporting regulations (the commercial and employment aspects may well be covered by various local laws).

Normal business however is not - it is well covered by hundreds of laws - whether codified or common. They are also often bound by professional industry-body regulations (accountant's code of practice for example)

Moreso - we're talking about the team as an entity participating in the sport. Individuals within teams vary greatly in their level of capabilities, ethics etc but the the individual actions affect the team whether they be beneficial (a great new idea from an aerodynamicist, a cost-saving by the caterer, or a good day on the track by the driver) or detrimental (espionage, putting the wrong tires on or forgetting to book flights). The overall performance is the result of the sum of the successes and the failures.

The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems aimed at preventing the abuse of power or the vulnerable being coerced into confessions etc. There is no reason at all F1 should offer a similar allowance. As I said above the governing body should, at any time, be within their complete rights to speak to any member of any team without delay or right to silence.

You obviously are way off base. Yes it's a sport, yes you don't have to participate. But with your totally backwards way of looking at it, not commenting would make you immediately guilty. Can you not see how that would affect every other facet of your life? I sure hope you aren't serious. That's expressly why it should be allowed in F1. Because the powers of F1 could very easily coerce someone into a false confession. They are a governing body. No different from a government of a country or township or whatever. They can totally ruin someone with mere allegations.

WTF is with you people? Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the majority around here. I don't know why I let myself read this topic again, but now I'm officially done. There alot of bullshit flying around here and stupid attitudes. Have fun in the fantasy world of law.

[Pup]

WTF is with you people? Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the majority around here.

I agree with you, but certainly experience would tell you to expect just that. So forgive me if I snicker a bit at your feigned incredulity.

*snicker*

FWIW, I think the amount of emotion here and elsewhere on this topic is far less than it was during the McLaren/Ferrari ordeal. And if there's a greater tendency to assume guilt this time around, I think it's only because the evidence that we've seen is fairly damning. In contrast, we never saw any direct evidence that challenged what McLaren said, even if the conclusions were, to some, quite clear. In fact, we've only just learned that the FIA didn't have any direct evidence (that McLaren executives might have been involved) until months after the sentence had been handed down.

Also, I think there's a difference between an assumption of guilt and a reasonable expectation of a guilty verdict. One is prejudice; the other, resignation. It's fair game to draw conclusions from what we know and our experience of what FIA hearings are like.

As for the whole 'no comment' question, the previous discussion assumes the hypothetical existence of some FIA rule, the existence of which I think would be pretty bizarre. What isn't hypothetical is the fact that if someone does refuse to answer, they invariably leave the impression of guilt. And that impression will affect the jury's decision. The larger question is really what, in this case, represents proof of wrongdoing. But there are no hard and fast guidelines as to what constitutes proof, or reasonable doubt. That line is drawn anew by each and every jury.

It's also a fair point to be made that guilt 'within F1' isn't completely parallel to guilt outside of the sport. The entrants do indeed accept that the WMSC has full authority in these matters, and they accept the rules by which the WMSC operates. McLaren, to continue the example, had no recourse to double jeopardy when the WMSC decided to try them twice for the same crime.

Anyway, to me Symonds' problem isn't so much the questions he didn't answer, as it is the ones he did. But the two combined really make him look a bit foolish. For his sake, I hope he has more to say at the hearing.

[donskar]

The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems aimed at preventing the abuse of power or the vulnerable being coerced into confessions etc. There is no reason at all F1 should offer a similar allowance. As I said above the governing body should, at any time, be within their complete rights to speak to any member of any team without delay or right to silence.

Pardon me for injecting a bit of reality (assuming I understand your point). I consulted a practicing US corporate-level attorney (who happens to be my daughter ). I learned that any agreement to surrender any legal rights is invalid, IF those rights are granted by the country in which the agreement is made. In other words, you can not be forced to give up your, shall we say "public rights," through any "private agreement." I did not ask the question, but as you stated above "The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems"

I have personal bias -- burn 'em all.

[gcdugas]

I did not ask the question, but as you stated above "The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems"

I have personal bias -- burn 'em all.

What is it with Texans? Didn't George W. Bush burn enough of our rights? Now you want to burn 'em all?

[Ray]

Pardon me for injecting a bit of reality (assuming I understand your point). I consulted a practicing US corporate-level attorney (who happens to be my daughter ). I learned that any agreement to surrender any legal rights is invalid, IF those rights are granted by the country in which the agreement is made. In other words, you can not be forced to give up your, shall we say "public rights," through any "private agreement." I did not ask the question, but as you stated above "The right to remain silent is a human rights concept in most Western legal systems"

I have personal bias -- burn 'em all.

Never been in the US military have you?

[megz]

Briatore: Piquets' actions not a surprise

Renault boss Flavio Briatore says it has been tough for his team to cope with the accusations levelled at them by former driver Nelson Piquet and his father - but he is not totally surprised at the way things have turned out.

Briatore believes that the race-fix claims levelled at him and his team, which he has denied and is taking legal action against the Piquets over, follows a pattern of besmirching that Piquet Sr carried throughout his F1 career.

One of his most famous outbursts came in a magazine interview when he was still driving, when the three-time champion accused Ayrton Senna of being gay and said that Nigel Mansell's wife was 'ugly'. Those remarks caused outrage at the time.

"We know Nelson's story, he's always run down everyone," explained Briatore at Monza. "Nelson drove for me and... Nelson is blackmailing, and that's what we have brought.

"It's very tough for Renault to have had these put downs from Nelsinho and from Piquet Sr, but then we know Piquet Sr. He has always denigrated everyone - starting from [Ayrton] Senna, to Mansell's wife, to everyone. That's what Piquet Sr has always done. I know him well because he raced for us, I know Sr better than Jr."

Briatore has also said that the complaints from Piquet Jr extended beyond pure racing terms - as he revealed he was also accused by the Brazilian of wrecking friendships he had.

"He [Nelsinho] has also heavily accused me of breaking his relationship with a friend of his. I don't want to be accused unfairly, so I want to say that I did it because Nelsinho's father asked me to," explained Briatore.

"Nelsinho used to live with this gentleman: the nature of their relationship is unknown. His father was very worried about the relationship Nelsinho used to have with this 50-year-old man. They used to live together, and his father asked me to intervene.

"I made this gentleman not come to races anymore, and I made Nelsinho move from Oxford to London in a building where I live, in order to keep him under control.

"I was asked to by his father, and now Nelsinho accuses me of having even taken his friends away from him - I don't know what kind of friends these are, but he accuses me of that."

Briatore's claims about Piquet come amid the surfacing of fresh details about the events of the day at Singapore and how he crashed his car on purpose.

In a second statement that Piquet supplied to the FIA at the office of investigative agency Quest in London on August 15, Piquet reveals that he was summoned into Briatore's office for the alleged meeting where the crash plan was discussed between 4pm and 5pm on race day.

He says the meeting did not last very long - and he was asked not to speak about what was discussed.

"In the course of the meeting, Briatore said very little," claimed Piquet in his FIA statement, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT. "As the meeting drew to a close, Mr. Symonds told me that I should not speak about the plan with anyone else and said that he would give me further instructions shortly. I believe the meeting in Mr Briatore's office lasted no more than ten minutes."

After claiming that Symonds later told him where to crash on the track, Piquet provided further evidence about how he deliberately caused the accident.

"After ensuring I was on the designated lap of the race, I deliberately lost control of my car on the exit to turn 17. I did this by pressing hard and early on the throttle.

"As I felt the back end of the car drifting out, I continued to press hard on the throttle, in the knowledge that this would lead to my car making heavy contact with the concrete wall on the far side of the track and thereby cause a crash necessitating the deployment of the safety car."

He added: "Once the back end of the car had begun to drift out, the only way of recovering control of the car and avoiding a contact with the concrete wall would have been to back off on the throttle.

"However, I did not back off the throttle to any material extent. Rather, I pressed hard on the throttle beyond the moment at which the back end started to drift out and, indeed, right up to and beyond the point of impact with the concrete wall."

Piquet's claims about how he caused the crash have been backed up by telemetry data of the incident, which forms part of the evidence against the Renault team at the World Motor Sport Council hearing that takes place in Paris on September 21.

Source: Autosport.com

[Confused_Andy]

So Piquet is granted immunity? What does that mean, he's basiclly admitted that he put his own life, other drivers life's and the spectators in jeopardy as something off of that car could have killed someone.

Why is he not getting a bollocking for that? He is the one who should be in the --- not the team...

This case is so stupid, does this man no have a brain of his own or any dignity? I for sure wouldnt jump if someone said jump.

[WhiteBlue]

So Flabby repays the compliments by insinuating that junior is gay. priceless