Renault race-fixing at Singapore 2008

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, but the subject was fishy from the start.

I quote Joe Saward:

There were some cynics (there always are) who reckoned that the team's strategy was to have Nelson crash soon after Fernando had completed his stop and thus create a situation in which Fernando gained an advantage over the rest of the field. One can see this argument, but one likes to believe that no team would ever be so desperate as to have a driver throw his car at a wall. In all probability Piquet just screwed up - he has done that a lot this year. If not, he must have been offered something worth having because he needs to impress in the few remaining races as this has been a very poor season.

It will be interesting to see whether he gets a new contract for 2009.

September, 2008, http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr800.html

I can also quote Reginaldo Leme, at Globo TV (brazilian channel):

Ele bateu de uma forma muito estranha. Recentemente, conversando com o Felipe Massa, ele me chamou a atenção disso. E o Felipe foi ao Briatore e disse: "Essa batida não está certa, aconteceu porque vocês quiseram". Outros pilotos levantaram esta hipótese na época e agora isso vem à tona por causa da investigação que a FIA está fazendo.

He crashed in a very strange way. I was talking recently with Felipe Massa, he called my attention to that. Then Felipe had gone to Briatore and said, 'This crash was not right, it happened because you wanted it to'. Other drivers raised the hypothesis at the time and now it seems reasonable because of the investigation FIA is doing

August, 2009

... and you have to think Felipe was winning that race until the crash and that he lost WDC to Hamilton by 1 point.

Which takes me to my last point: what about Glock crash in Brazil?

[Ray]

I thought Glock was just massively slow on slicks like his teammate last year in Brazil? I would attribute that to pure circumstance. He gambled and very very nearly got a huge payoff. Luckily for Lewis it went wrong and he snatched the title in the last few hundred yards.

[Ciro Pabón]

How lucky.

[Ray]

How lucky.

I don't mean it in a malicious way. He was there at the right place, and the right time. A win is a win, and he very much earned that championship, lucky or not that Glock couldn't keep it straight.

[PNSD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKLwyu_u ... re=related

For any doubters.

Glock went from being one of the quickest with Trulli, to then one of the slowest, again with Trulli. A gamble that like said so very very nearly paid off.

[ISLAMATRON]

It did pay off, they finished higher than the positions they were in when every body pitted for rain tires.

[Big JS]

the amount of corruption in this sport makes me sick, once bernie gets over the fact he isnt a god the SPORT may progress, until then its just a pissing competition between the nazi and Mr x

[SZ]

SZ, as you have agreed with the culpability of Briatore by being the responsible person and knowing of the plan I don't see much point to go into the detail of your essay.

I don't agree with the culpability of Briatore. I read what you wrote, be a little honourable and read what I wrote.

Let me just say that I see his down fall mainly being caused by two points.

His boss decided after receiving Mr.X's testimony to abandon the defense (he previously took legal action together with Briatore against the Piquets) and fire both his highest directors.

Wrong. Listen again.

Renault F1's own lawyer admitted that their decision to not contest the accusation was made the Saturday morning of the Monza weekend - that's the 12th September.

X's testimony was taken into account by Renault on the 16/17th. Their investigation, to the 16th, does not mention X at all.

Renault only withdrew their case a day later on the 18th. This is a formality after letting the two go.

That points to a very substantial and credible testimony or Bernard Rey would not have made such a sharp U-turn. All the sudden Renault took the opposite stance from before. I find it completely credible that they were running their own investigation and finally found a person who had known the dirt all along but was too much afraid to talk. The contact with Renault's investigator must have convinced him that he would be protected against Briatore, hence the late coming forward of that witness. I find it much less credible that the FIA suddenly increased the pressure on Renault and that this should have caused the rethink.

Were you listening? Renault's own investigation couldn't blame Flavio until the FIA literally sent it back saying 'find the third person' on the 16th. That isn't pressure? X did not exist until this point, and X's testimony does not implicate Flavio any more then NP's.

Yet X is used to 'frame' Flavio - Max states his testimony is 'central' to 'implicating Mr Briatore'. So until the 20th - when the FIA interviewed X, they didn't have enough?

Why should Mosley do such a thing in the last minute? He had all the time of the world to squeeze Rey for three weeks and Ray did not budge. It is much more likely that Rey was under pressure from Goshn all the time who did not want the negative PR. So when he finally came across an independant person who wasn't implicated and was likely to tell the truth without an agenda he changed his mind.

Max would as an X was required. Conveniently X is 'discovered' on the day - and according to Renault, X alerts Renault's lawyers, they take a statement and then this is in turn conveyed to whoever is running Renault's investigation- all in a 24 hours period, and it's all news as an investigation running for at least a week at this point failed to mention X at all. Let alone PS's own admissions.

Not to mention that X isn't 'in the higher echelons', Renault's representing lawyer hasn't interviewed X at all, and X's name - given to Max two days prior - he can't remember at the hearing.

Briatore did not confess and did not show up in Paris. If he were innocent against all evidence of Symmonds, Piquet and Mr.X and the victim of a conspiracy against him, he would surely use such an opportunity to protect his name and reject the accusations.

This must have convinced most people to punish Breatore as they did.

Did you listen to the transcript at all?

Briatore's sole basis for 'extended' punishment was that he was judged, on probability, to be as culpable as Symonds but had not been contrite in his public persona concerning the matter. Yet the evidence that's supposed to prove he's as complicit at Symonds only shows he did as much as X - knew about it and did nothing - it doesn't linking to hatching or executing the plan.

If his only appeal is the FIA appeals board, why would you bother? You'd sooner go to French court.

[SZ]

SZ - That is by far the best summary of the evidence I've seen, so thank you for taking the time to write that up. I too think that whilst Flav is no doubt a dodgy piece of work, this whole case has been all about Max, his personal vendettas and politics.

Thanks... I pretty much agree. I hope that F1 gets back to being just a sport too.

I've a longer transcript summary I can PM you if you like.

[gcdugas]

... and you have to think Felipe was winning that race until the crash and that he lost WDC to Hamilton by 1 point.

You really can't have these type of "what if" arguments. As anyone who has watched science fiction, pondered time travel etc. knows that if you change the slightest thing a whole new series of eventualities happens.

For instance... say Felipe won Singapore last year but when they are spraying the champaign he tragically slips and fatally cracks his skull on the podium steps. You say that is far fetched... well look at all the freak things that happen in life... like driving away with the fuel hose still attached. All you has to do is change one little thing and everything subsequent to that event/incident will be altered unrecognizably. Hitler's mom was late for a train and never met the man who she would have married and fathered Adolph by. The whole history of humanity would be changed.

And if you don't accept that... then accept that Lewis had his Spa victory stolen from him by a bogus and biased after the fact ruling. And that should be enough to satisfy those who said Felipe somehow deserved the title. Felipe did well to silence the critics who said Kimi would dust him and that Ferrari were foolish for keeping him which was the conventional wisdom when Schumi retired. Now the sentiment has turned 180 degrees and people are saying that it is Kimi who is looking for a new ride. Felipe has no reason to hang his head. He has silenced all the critics and won the respect of the entire F1 community. Accept the way history unfolded.

[Ciro Pabón]

I fail to see why I did not accept history with such a comment... I was trying to think how Felipinho felt after the race. I thought of the (possible) inner rage he had to feel for him to go to Briatore and make Such A Comment, with capital letters.

And, if true (IF true), believe me, I honestly think it doesn't provoke in me "a problem" with Hamilton, nor Alonso, it's a problem I'd have with Briatore.

That's the kind of "history" that remains in my mind after the whole affair.

I support the WDC no matter what, as much for his driving abilities as for his spirit of competition, not to mention his bravery, no matter if I think he's a complete moron when other abilities, different from driving, competitive spirit or courage are involved.

That's why I normally reserve for myself my opinion, either of praise or of criticism, about any champion in any sporting activity. Just because you are the best at, I don't know, tennis, it doesn't mean you're infallible when you interact with other people. If you are the best at something but you drink, you womanize, or whatever, that doesn't give a license to envious people to fixate themselves in any defect or chance you had for failure.

So I happily make comments as the one above without thinking for a minute that my opinion can take away the smallest bit of his glory as champions. I apologize if it seems that's what my comment is trying to do.

Cheating and lying, when proved, it's an entirely different matter. I feel that, being that the case at hand, I can criticize Briatore. Heck, I have to.

I would like the forum to notice that I barely expressed my opinion until a veredict was announced and proofs were presented. Check this thread if you don't believe me.

I also apologize to gcdugas for the long (and perhaps unnecessary) explanation I just gave, I'm not ranting here.

I simply think this forum would be a sad place the day mods start to show some bias against a carmaker or to denigrate of a particular champion. There are other forums for that. I rant happily elsewhere, but not here. I'm one of the mods here.

I think Tomba shows the same restraint, and, even if it's noticeable his enthusiasm for Renault or my support to JPM, we simply cannot allow ourselves (as hard as we can) to hate any person involved in F1 nor to denigrate them or make comments that show you have envy of them. We try ourselves to be motivated and to motivate, not to demotivate all of you...

[WhiteBlue]

SZ, as you have agreed with the culpability of Briatore by being the responsible person and knowing of the plan I don't see much point to go into the detail of your essay.

I don't agree with the culpability of Briatore. I read what you wrote, be a little honourable and read what I wrote.

Let me just say that I see his down fall mainly being caused by two points.

His boss decided after receiving Mr.X's testimony to abandon the defense (he previously took legal action together with Briatore against the Piquets) and fire both his highest directors.

Wrong. Listen again.

Renault F1's own lawyer admitted that their decision to not contest the accusation was made the Saturday morning of the Monza weekend - that's the 12th September.

X's testimony was taken into account by Renault on the 16/17th. Their investigation, to the 16th, does not mention X at all.

Renault only withdrew their case a day later on the 18th. This is a formality after letting the two go.

That points to a very substantial and credible testimony or Bernard Rey would not have made such a sharp U-turn. All the sudden Renault took the opposite stance from before. I find it completely credible that they were running their own investigation and finally found a person who had known the dirt all along but was too much afraid to talk. The contact with Renault's investigator must have convinced him that he would be protected against Briatore, hence the late coming forward of that witness. I find it much less credible that the FIA suddenly increased the pressure on Renault and that this should have caused the rethink.

Were you listening? Renault's own investigation couldn't blame Flavio until the FIA literally sent it back saying 'find the third person' on the 16th. That isn't pressure? X did not exist until this point, and X's testimony does not implicate Flavio any more then NP's.

Yet X is used to 'frame' Flavio - Max states his testimony is 'central' to 'implicating Mr Briatore'. So until the 20th - when the FIA interviewed X, they didn't have enough?

Why should Mosley do such a thing in the last minute? He had all the time of the world to squeeze Rey for three weeks and Ray did not budge. It is much more likely that Rey was under pressure from Goshn all the time who did not want the negative PR. So when he finally came across an independant person who wasn't implicated and was likely to tell the truth without an agenda he changed his mind.

Max would as an X was required. Conveniently X is 'discovered' on the day - and according to Renault, X alerts Renault's lawyers, they take a statement and then this is in turn conveyed to whoever is running Renault's investigation- all in a 24 hours period, and it's all news as an investigation running for at least a week at this point failed to mention X at all. Let alone PS's own admissions.

Not to mention that X isn't 'in the higher echelons', Renault's representing lawyer hasn't interviewed X at all, and X's name - given to Max two days prior - he can't remember at the hearing.

Briatore did not confess and did not show up in Paris. If he were innocent against all evidence of Symmonds, Piquet and Mr.X and the victim of a conspiracy against him, he would surely use such an opportunity to protect his name and reject the accusations.

This must have convinced most people to punish Breatore as they did.

Did you listen to the transcript at all?

Briatore's sole basis for 'extended' punishment was that he was judged, on probability, to be as culpable as Symonds but had not been contrite in his public persona concerning the matter. Yet the evidence that's supposed to prove he's as complicit at Symonds only shows he did as much as X - knew about it and did nothing - it doesn't linking to hatching or executing the plan.

If his only appeal is the FIA appeals board, why would you bother? You'd sooner go to French court.

Forgive me for not going to split hairs with you. It is much too tyering. I give up, you win. Keep your opinion of Briatore. You will not convince me that he is an honorable man. Sleezeball comes to mind.

[SZ]

Dude, take a chill pill. At no point have I said he's 'honourable' (I've written quite the opposite), and I'm certainly not trying to convince you he is. Our differences of opinion lie elsewhere.

Are you interested in free, open debate or did you come just to impose your opinion?

Such a thing would, of course, be unreasonable...

[Michiba]

I don't think anyone is saying Flav is honorable, far from it. However, it appears that many in this forum have strong opinions of him, and as such, have a strong prejudice to the debate at hand.

Now, if Nakajima were to be fired from Williams midway through the season, and makes the same claims, with the same indirect evidence that has been brought to light, and has implicated Patrick Head and Frank Williams, I think we'd all be much more united our opinions because no one would assume that Frank would do something like that.

However, in this case, it's Flavio, and for whatever reason, people see him in a rather poor light.

Much like the actual case that has been brought to the wmsc, the case that has been brought against Flavio seems to have started with the assumption of guilt on his behalf, and they've worked their way backwards, much like the debate in this forum.

[Richard]

Briatore's sole basis for 'extended' punishment was that he was judged, on probability, to be as culpable as Symonds but had not been contrite in his public persona concerning the matter. Yet the evidence that's supposed to prove he's as complicit at Symonds only shows he did as much as X - knew about it and did nothing - it doesn't linking to hatching or executing the plan.

The difference is that Flav was the boss. He was part of the conversation, he let it happen, that conversation had his approval. That makes him as culpable as having his hands on Nelson's steering wheel when he crashed.

Whereas it would appear that X was a bystander.