richard_leeds wrote: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.
Careful Richard. I'd agree with you that he deserves something more severe than X were those the grounds on which his penalty was judged (I'd even add that as NP's manager, not just the team manager, there's additional responsibility), but pay attention to the WMSC's ruling - it mentions nothing about his seniority.
Specifically, it states that Flav is as complicit as Symonds - despite the two witnesses and Renault's own investigation contending otherwise - however Symonds gets a lighter penalty as he's shown contrition in public (Max's words, not mine). That's
not something the FIA's quite fit to rule on. Nor would anyone suggest that the one guy you can pin down definitively gets five years, the one you can't should get life, and the guy that pulled the trigger gets off totally (do you really think the FIA would be as amenable to Pat and NP if a driver/spectator/marshal had died? Me neither.)
His seniority isn't a part of the ruling, nor did it change before X's evidence - so why does Max state that X's evidence was the determining element in establishing Flav's culpability? What changed?
I'm not defending Flav, I'm interested in a right to a fair and open process. Which this hasn't been.
(One almost hears the FIA's lawyers furiously typing out X's supposed testimony with the killer blow that renders Flav complicit and culpable beyond any legal recourse, ready to be 'leaked' ASAP...)