Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[nipo]

Why all this Flav cult worship and sympathy?

+1

This is the hardest to understand.

[WhiteBlue]

Ciro, I accept your criticism for not checking the FIA web site for the transcript. I had my eyes off the ball because I needed to fix my RAID system badly (effing junk went down again) before spending time in forums and chats.

Regarding the WMSC musings:

1. Anonymous witnesses are ok with me as Renault actually accepted Mr.X's evidence. The person must be known and reliable. It has been said in other bloggs that normally three conspirators (driver, principal, tech director) cannot get away with an unusual strategy without having at least another person on board. It could have been Alonso's race engineer.

2. Briatore is still toast quite rightly because the buck stops at his desk. Even a wisp of a smell of this kind of thing and you are off to stop it. If you don't you are toast. So now he is. Quite ok in my book.

[WhiteBlue]

On a different note I cannot fail to recognise that full transcripts of the WMSC session were published. I remember that some distinguished members opined the opposite outcome.

[Michiba]

Why all this Flav cult worship and sympathy?

+1

This is the hardest to understand.

This has ntohing to do with Flav worship. I think I'm trying to look at it objectively, whereas you've already assume guilt, and based your views around that.

You have already taken the testimony of one NPjr as fact (and now it seems a mr X has chimed in). These testimonies have yet to be cross examined. And that's not being legal, just that you have assumed that these are true. You have totally miss PS's testimony in that NPjr actually brought up the idea.

My main point is that NPjr was the perpetrator here, and has gotten off scott free, and underlying that is how the FIA (ie Max) deals with F1, which I do not agree with.

[gcdugas]

Witness X... only in tyrannical regimes or in Bush's Amerika, or do I repeat myself, are you denied the right to face your accuser. Hats off to Max for taking another page out of Oswald's N@z! playbook.

[WhiteBlue]

How comes it is allways gcdugas, who invokes Godwin's law? Don't you know your intellectual capacity is called into question when you are found to be the perp on that that law?

If Renault are happy with Mr. X's testimony we should be as well.

[gcdugas]

How comes it is allways gcdugas, who invokes Godwin's law? Don't you know your intellectual capacity is called into question when you are found to be the perp on that that law?

If Renault are happy with Mr. X's testimony we should be as well.

Renault may be happy... they essentially got off. PS or FB might not be so happy.

[xpensive]

Witness X... only in tyrannical regimes or in Bush's Amerika, or do I repeat myself, are you denied the right to face your accuser. Hats off to Max for taking another page out of Oswald's N@z! playbook.

When a judicial system starts relying on anonymous witnesses, it's simply not a judicial system anymore.
I would think that much should be obvious to anyone but Joseph McCarthy perhaps.

[vall]

Witness X... only in tyrannical regimes or in Bush's Amerika, or do I repeat myself, are you denied the right to face your accuser. Hats off to Max for taking another page out of Oswald's N@z! playbook.

When a judicial system starts relying on anonymous witnesses, it's simply not a judicial system anymore.
I would think that much should be obvious to anyone but Joseph McCarthy perhaps.

If you read the report, they say " the evidence provided by Mr. X, bla-bla". What evidence? s/he said Flav knew? Is that evidence? And people are right, no possibility to diffence, no cross-check of the testimonies? What a justice system, indeed!

[SZ]

Sigh... You guys are still mixing things up...

Yes, the penalty dealt to Flav is because Max wants him OUT.
Yes, it's severity was pre-agreed. Flav didn't even get a chance to defend himself.
Yes, you are correct that Max had all this planned. (It's like the 5th time I've had to say this)

However all this is completely unrelated to our own objective assessment of whether Flav is guilty. Without regarding to the WMSC verdict, we CAN (and I DID, check back a few pages) logically establish that it is highly unlikely for Flav to not have a part in the race-fixing.

In a nutshell: You cannot conclude that Flav is innocent just because Max is manipulating this at the back.

So much for logic... As for sentiment: I am curious why you guys are standing on Flav's side so much. Isn't he as much an a-hole as Max with all his cheating/crime history?

nipo;

I'll come back to what I stated earlier.

Flav's guilt/knowledge/complicity in this matter - none of which is yet proven - It's a matter of relevance, not truth nor fact. It's completely irrelevant. Flav may well be guilty - and as I've stated there's a good chance he may well be guilty - but aside from it being far from proven, the only evidence supplied thus far is circumstantial. And the only evidence supplied thus far only puts him in the same room as those discussing the plan - it doesn't place him in an active role in its execution whatsoever.

We stand on his side at the punishment is obviously unreasonable, and modern society errs on the assumption of innocence before any conclusive proof of guilt... and here there's as good as none!

This is very different to assuming he's innocent- which is an accusation only you and another are throwing about. I don't think anyone here's said Flav is innocent. Many have said the evidence is far from conclusive and the penalty - on the evidence alone and relative to other more serious affairs in F1 - is unduly severe. These are both fair points but they do not assume Flav is innocent of knowing of a suggestion of such a plan, let alone of being an active part in executing it (what circumstantial evidence there is implicates the latter charge very weakly if at all). That Renault let him go is not proof of anything aside from his being let go in a timeframe consistent with that of a scandal the team was involved in at the time. It tells you nothing about his being jumped or pushed, nor under what motivations.

I'd be highly suspicious of the mystery witness. What, someone knew of the plan, didn't do anything to stop it at the time but says something about it now? That's a highly convenient mystery witness! And they've still got their job at Renault? Flav essentially was fired and banned for life for being assumed to have known about a plan to throw a race - here's someone who claims they definitely knew, did fck all and still is allowed to work in F1 by the FIA - let alone by Renault?

NP snr reported it to Max very early on - before the start of the year - nothing acted upon until conveniently until NP lost the drive, but according to the FIA it's a matter of highly significant severity. Or convenience. Whatever.

Brilliantly, the mystery witness appears only in Renault documentation submitted to the FIA concerning an 'internal investigation' about a meeting that until this point was known to have taken place between three people (the mystery witness apparently has hearing qualities matching the CIA's best espionage equipment, and was conveniently listening in on such a conversation). So this mystery witness doesn't testify to the FIA, they appear in the written submission only, and a judgement is made on behalf of a story on paper. So the key witness in the FIA's trial doesn't testify - but judgements pivotal to their (circumstantial) evidence are made regardless! Pat and Flav are out of the company at this stage, are not invited to appear at the WMSC meeting - but are sentenced and have no recourse. The 'Mr X leak' infers immediately that NP's testimony alone (as many here pointed out) wasn't anywhere near substantial enough to convict anything with... This whole charade wouldn't get past spitballing in an actual court of law! You'd be laughed out of court. Provide the witness or case dismissed.

...So now the million questions. Did Renault's investigation question Pat and Flav? There's no mention of their being aware of Mr X, X's movements on the day, how they came to know of this super secret information, why they did nothing with it until now, is the FIA offering this person immunity too or are they to be punished/fined/whatever/a la McLaren team/spygate for 'knowing but not acting', who did this person tell and why have they said nothing, why didn't this person speak to the FIA and only to Renault, or if they did speak to the FIA when did they do so, was it before or after NP snr did, why was nothing done on either occasion, will the Piquet's now sue 'those that knew' at RF1 for doing nothing and the consequent loss of reputation to NP and the effect on his racing career (they would certainly have the right to), who conducted Renault's internal investigation, were they qualified to do so, was there rigourous cross-checking of facts, did they accused have any recourse, why - if X's testimony supports Symonds in that the idea was NP's not his, was NP's testimony not questioned and his immunity challenged, why - if X's testimony paints Symonds as orchestrating the plan is his penalty not more severe than Flav's - who would appear to be only 'aware' of it, why is Renault F1's desire to 'prevent other whistleblowers coming forward' being protected (it's illegal), why is X being completely protected for knowing of the plan before the race and saying nothing - the same thing Flav is allegedly guilty of etc...

The mystery witness is about as real as any conclusive proof that justifies what Flav's been handed.

Some of you don't know a good story when you're being fed it.

There'll be more leaked about this story... as it's created!

('FIA meeting - Agenda - Item 1 - Find suitable Renault F1 team member to attribute Mr X to, pad out background story and fill bank account...')

[xpensive]

Last thing I heard on the subject was that "mr X" is actually a poor diguise for MrM's personal psychic, believe it or not.

[gcdugas]

Last thing I heard on the subject was that "mr X" is actually a poor diguise for MrM's personal psychic, believe it or not.

Madame X has a dungeon doesn't she?

[timbo]

Funny chap this Mister X - at his evidences it was apparent he was at the meeting where all three protogonists of the story were present. But on the hearing when Nelson was asked whether there was somebody else present at the meeting and denied it, it was asked at what meeting witness X was present. You could hear whispers "qualifying.... qualifying...." and when FIA lawyer stated "witness X was present at meeting at Saturday right after the qualifying".
Funny, ain't it?

[Miguel]

Funny chap this Mister X - at his evidences it was apparent he was at the meeting where all three protogonists of the story were present. But on the hearing when Nelson was asked whether there was somebody else present at the meeting and denied it, it was asked at what meeting witness X was present. You could hear whispers "qualifying.... qualifying...." and when FIA lawyer stated "witness X was present at meeting at Saturday right after the qualifying".
Funny, ain't it?

Actually, it seems that Mr X wasn't present on the historical meeting. From what I've read, I understand that Symonds told Mr. X all this stuff after the meeting. In any case, of the witnesses, two of them (Symonds and X) say that it was Piquet who instigated this, while Piquet blames Symonds. At least one of them is lying.

Let's adopt democracy for a moment. If two people are "more right" than one, then Piquet proposed to crash deliberately in order to manipulate the race, then he crashed deliberately, he then tells the FIA about it when he is sacked and, accordingly, is given immunity. Brilliant!

BTW: There was another witness in the WMSC... it was Fernando Alonso. Could he be Mr. X?

[mcdenife]

SZ, that was brilliant. As mentioned previously, this is far from over and also not only does NP's statement not constitute evidence, it is now questionable. This is not about a Flav cult worship or otherwise. Because I hate someone guts or think s/he of questionable character, is no reason to standby, say nothing, but worse, cheer while injustice is visited on them. I have never thought much of the FIA, but this is the most blatant, obvious, thinly disguised witch-hunt I have ever witnessed. Having read the transcripts, statements, currently available info etc, I cannot believe we are still discussing Flav's guilt or innocence rather than this blatant misuse of power, miscarriage of justice and incompetence.