WhiteBlue wrote:I have now listened to the whole audio transcript of the WMSC meeting
Me too.
WhiteBlue wrote:I have come to the conclusion that no reasonable person can have any doubt about the facts as they were put before the counsil. Many questions were asked and the proceedings were made public so if the findings of the counsil were wrong, we would have had a protest from the Renault team members, Briatore or Symmonds by now.
Not necessarily. The team can only lose by protesting so they haven't, Briatore and Symonds' only recourse is the FIA appeals board where they'll face largely the same people and processes. So it's a moot point.
WhiteBlue wrote:So my view is that we should take those submissions as fact until they are challenged by somebody in public.
I'll have a go. I think you've missed a few details.
(I've a summary of the transcript if anyone wants it and doesn't want to listen to the 70+ minutes of it.)
WhiteBlue wrote:To those who still think that Briatore was done harshly I say, get a grip. Read and listen to the testimonies and apply some common sense instead of prejudice.
Well I have listened, I've a good grip (ta) and a decent sense of prejudice. Here are the key points from the testimony that concern Flav.
In the first Steward's report, it's between NP and Symonds, and it's only discussed in Flav's presence. As a result of this, Renault was summoned to the WMSC.
Renault was given an opportunity to investigate, and in their submission - charges not disputed, responsibility accepted and unreserved apology, and reported that PS and Flav were (correctly) removed.
Renault accepted a conspiracy between PS and NP. A significant question remained of the degree of involvement of Flav. Renault F1
could not confirm that Flav was a direct conspirator. So on the 16th Sept, Renault states 'it does not matter whether it was a two or three person conspiracy', which is correct - for the purpose of sanction it really doesn't matter - Renault F1 got rid of who knew and did nothing, but couldn't link Flav to the same or greater degree of culpability as PS.
FIA studies this significantly
ON THE DAY -
disagreed with Renault that 'it did not matter whether it was a two or three person conspiracy'. So we have the first inklings of a direct disagreement with the FIA's own steward's report.
So on the 17th of September -
A DAY LATER - Renault makes
another submission to the FIA. At this point - and only at this point - Renault makes reference to another individual that whilst not a conspirator, was aware of the plan, and could confirm that Mr Briatore knew of the conspiracy beforehand. The investigative team - now knowing of witness X, not less than a week before the WMSC meeting - decides to interview him/her over the weekend (one and two days before the hearing). Renault is said to have cooperated fully with the FIA in providing X who was 'entirely forthcoming and entirely thruthful'. The FIA believes from X's testimony that Flav knew of the plan ahead of time and that X did,
but was not a conspirator. X rejected the conspiracy and sought to distance himself, and has no reason to believe that FA or anyone else at Renault knew about it.
At no point in the testimony is it mentioned when X contacted Renault F1's lawyers. If this happened before the 17th, Renault F1 is essentially dishonest - contrary to the basis their sentence was suspended - and should be punished for perverting justice. If on the 16th/17th, it's highly...
convenient.
During questioning of Renault F1's lawyer - Mr Malick - someone (inevitably) asks about X, that 'we didn't know anything about - has the FIA had any opportunity to question him'. Max confirms questioned on Saturday morning, and 'the whole story came out'. Someone else says 'well now, we know about X too: why isn't he prepared to be named and what's his role?'
Malick - Renault F1's own lawyer - actually hasn't spoken to X himself (!), but that it's really important that X isn't identified.
Actually suggests that there's some contention as to whether his contribution was necessary. X isn't 'high up in the echelons' (so how'd he come into the super secret plan?) Max goes on to say anonymity is the greatest encouragement for whistleblowers.
Max is pleased to say that he's actually forgotten X's name, and that his position isn't important... that of course his is the evidence that Briatore was involved'. The questioner presses on asking that the position of X is important as it establishes whether or not he was in a position to do somethin to avoid the plan. Malick doesn't answer here - Max takes over! - Max suggests that
X was told by Symonds of the plan, and that he should've come to the FIA first.
The FIA concludes from this that '
on the balance of probabilities there was a three person conspiracy between NP, Flav and PS'. Renault
subsequently agreed with this.
The FIA is conscious that the Flav denies knowing. The FIA is confident that it's investigations have been thorough.
Until the 20th - two days before the council - there's no direct submission in record to the FIA that Flav was involved - but it's clear the FIA was trying - against Renault's own initial findings and prior to being prompted to 'find' whether or not Flav was complicit - to implicate him. Beyond this, a last-minute mystery witness that Flav or his representatives have no recourse to cross examine.
NP's submissions were not sufficient to get Flav.
The FIA distances Flav from PS as the latter expresses remorse/regret and that he was complicit,
though Pat's letter doesn't mention Flav's involvement at all, nor does he acknowledge the existence of X - legally, anything supporting X being present and privy to this knowledge is pretty sketchy, yet according to Max he's the star witness linking Flav to complicity - but he's not offered anything about Flav's involvement that NP didn't! Just that Flav was present as Symonds was busy hatching a plan.
So on those grounds, if Flav is complicit, so is X - who is X and why aren't they punished? I'm not going to entertain that X doesn't run the team and that Flav does and that as such there's responsibility inherent in leveraging a more severe penalty on Flav - because whilst I'd agree with that much (were complicity conclusively proven), the WMSC's findings
don't give this as a reason justifying the severe differences in penalties between Flav and PS, and the logic used to indict Flav serves X's involvement nearly as well. It doesn't justify X not having been penalised or even reprimanded, nor was X offered immunity for testimony. You'd think in knowing about a plan that wrecks at least one very expensive F1 car, could have potentially halted a race and puts lives in danger would require immediate disclosure to the FIA that there's sufficient culpability in not having 'fessed up (what if a driver/marshal/spectator had died? Does the standard change?). But no. The view is selective.
X is good enough to convict Flav (on who knows what new grounds), but his role in not assisting to avert some potentially very significant consequences for the sport are neatly skipped. There's a word that describes that, and it's 'bullsh*t'.
Pat and Flav were invited, didn't turn up. They're invited to the FIA court of appeal if they like. However it's common, in court, to let both sides examine evidence. What Flav was supposed to do about X - who he had no access to cross examine, nor any means to formally identify, let alone prepare a defense against when the evidence was taken two days before the WMSC meeting - X is irrefutable only as X is not accessible to Flav. This would quite seriously get laughed out of court, or at the very least adjourned.
- So, WhiteBlue -
As I've stated before - it's more likely Flav was involved than not. It's far more likely he treated NP like sh*t in his time at Renault F1 - the pressures put on NP by Flav are in all probability very real and very sad, and I think he deserves a better shot in F1 and that he's more capable than his outings thus far show (I've posted on this before to much disagreement from many of you). It's well known Flav's an excitable media personality that's prone to a bit of foot in mouth disease at times and partial to weird swimwear. It's known he'd rather tell Max to publicly get stuffed than to write an open letter of contrition.
But it's only his involvement, and the degree of his complicity, that was actually on trial at the WMSC.
And as such it's also very clear from the evidence that he was only - at best - aware of the plan being hatched (allegedly by either NP or PS), and that there's no link to his being a part of it's execution.
Aside from the timing of the super-secret witness appearing being split-second on Renault F1 literally being asked to find something implicating the the third person - highly dubious in itself - Flav gets life on basis of being a general --- compared to five years for PS, who's assumed to have schemed and executed the plan, but wrote a rather nice letter.
To this end, the lowest an intelligent person can say of Flav right now is that his penmanship should have been more astute.
F1 has had more than enough of scandal. As a fan I'm not really interested in whether Flav is innocent or guilty. I want to support the sport generally, and I want to see it just get on with the racing. But this is about as smelly as it gets. X needs to come out with a reliable, irrefutable version of his testimony made public. The fans deserve to see that this sentence is justified, free of politicking and not just another chess game on the FIA's part.
If we get that, and it justifies the actions of the WMSC on Monday, I'll be first in line to say my opinions were incorrect.
Please. The FIA is headhunting, and they've only started lopping them off. This had nothing to do with race fixing, cheating, or anything other than the FIA taking out people that threatened their totalitarian powers.