They got away with it then

JDOD · Post by **JDOD** » 21 Sep 2009, 13:20

Well Renault did anyway, gotta say though, a suspended ban makes the FIA look very inconsistent, considering that the "crime" is far more serious than the spying drama.

Looks like Briatore isn't allowed any contact with motorsport at all in any respect ever then ha ha ha, 5 years for symonds

Ulfuls · Post by **Ulfuls** » 21 Sep 2009, 13:31

Yeah, the Council bottled it to a certain extent. Difficult to see what else they could have done, taking the commercial realities into account. I guess Renault made it clear that any hefty fine and/or exclusion from last/this/next year's championship would mean the wind-up of their F1 team and the end of the customer engine program.

Doesn't exactly send a stern message, though, does it? "Do whatever you want, and as long as you offer up a sacrifice of the person who was ostensibly responsible, and promise not to do it again, all will be forgiven."

I wonder if we'll see Pat Symonds at (non-FIA-sanctioned) LeMans for the next five years?

JDOD · Post by **JDOD** » 21 Sep 2009, 14:05

What it looks like to me is that the FIA, just take people for whatever they think they can realistically get. They knew McLaren could afford the 100,000,000 Euros so they spanked them with it. If McLaren was a team in a similar situation to Renault, they would have been hit with it.

Also notice that, even though this is more serious, and Max is apparently a very safety concious guy, he hasn't been coming out and saying all sorts of stuff about how they should be banned etc, like he was about McLaren over the Spying fiasco.

Also, it was never really explained how Ferrari were less guilty than McLaren in that whole affair.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 21 Sep 2009, 14:22

If this 2-year suspended ban had been in place earlier in the year, does this mean that Renault would have been suspended after Alonso's wheel came off in Hungary? And if so, considering that this ban came about as a result of an event that occured before then, does this mean that Renault ought to serve the ban anyway? Nothing against Renault, I want Williams to recreate their mid-1990's success with Renault again...

Tealy · Post by **Tealy** » 21 Sep 2009, 14:27

dr-baker wrote:If this 2-year suspended ban had been in place earlier in the year, does this mean that Renault would have been suspended after Alonso's wheel came off in Hungary? And if so, considering that this ban came about as a result of an event that occured before then, does this mean that Renault ought to serve the ban anyway? Nothing against Renault, I want Williams to recreate their mid-1990's success with Renault again...

I don't think so as that was an entirely different style of offense. But it would have been interesting to see what would happen if the events in Hungary were about race-fixing.

Back to the punishment, my opinion it is that it is the liegate scandal punishment was too tough, rather than crashgate too lenient. But I know what you mean, if Renault were in a stronger financial position I could imagine the FIA giving a harsher sentence.

muttley · Post by **muttley** » 21 Sep 2009, 15:08

JDOD wrote:Also, it was never really explained how Ferrari were less guilty than McLaren in that whole affair.

Because it's self-evident that if someone steals from you, you shouldn't be arrested by the police.

Paul Hayes · Post by **Paul Hayes** » 21 Sep 2009, 15:45

I agree with Murray Walker's comments, on the whole:

"I believe the scullduggery was confined to just the three people, Flavio Briatore, Pat Symonds and Nelson Piquet. And there are some 600 extremely competent and worthy people at Enstone, working on the Renault Formula One facility, who were in no way culpable."

Stewart · Post by **Stewart** » 21 Sep 2009, 15:52

JDOD wrote:What it looks like to me is that the FIA, just take people for whatever they think they can realistically get. They knew McLaren could afford the 100,000,000 Euros so they spanked them with it. If McLaren was a team in a similar situation to Renault, they would have been hit with it.

Also notice that, even though this is more serious, and Max is apparently a very safety concious guy, he hasn't been coming out and saying all sorts of stuff about how they should be banned etc, like he was about McLaren over the Spying fiasco.

McLaren got away with a similar suspended sentence at the first 'Spygate' hearing. They only got thrown out of the championship and fined the $100 million at the second hearing, when it turned out that they lied at the first hearing. Renault came clean and admitted the whole thing and ended up with just the suspended sentence. If it later turns out that more people in Renault knew about the fix, then I'd expect them to get the same treatment as McLaren.

dr-baker wrote:If this 2-year suspended ban had been in place earlier in the year, does this mean that Renault would have been suspended after Alonso's wheel came off in Hungary? And if so, considering that this ban came about as a result of an event that occured before then, does this mean that Renault ought to serve the ban anyway? Nothing against Renault, I want Williams to recreate their mid-1990's success with Renault again...

No, the suspended sentence only relates to 'comparable offences' or something like that. It would take another race-fix or serious disrepute charges for the permanent exclusion to come into force.

Bleu · Post by **Bleu** » 21 Sep 2009, 19:30

muttley wrote:
JDOD wrote:Also, it was never really explained how Ferrari were less guilty than McLaren in that whole affair.

Because it's self-evident that if someone steals from you, you shouldn't be arrested by the police.

McLaren didn't really steal them. It was Ferrari employee that gave the material to McLaren. Of course McLaren should have reported instantly about it and not use it.

muttley · Post by **muttley** » 21 Sep 2009, 19:45

Bleu wrote:
muttley wrote:
JDOD wrote:Also, it was never really explained how Ferrari were less guilty than McLaren in that whole affair.

Because it's self-evident that if someone steals from you, you shouldn't be arrested by the police.

McLaren didn't really steal them. It was Ferrari employee that gave the material to McLaren. Of course McLaren should have reported instantly about it and not use it.

I was debating the ridiculous notion that Ferrari should have been punished as well for Spygate.

LionZoo · Post by **LionZoo** » 21 Sep 2009, 20:38

Bleu wrote:
muttley wrote:
JDOD wrote:Also, it was never really explained how Ferrari were less guilty than McLaren in that whole affair.

Because it's self-evident that if someone steals from you, you shouldn't be arrested by the police.

McLaren didn't really steal them. It was Ferrari employee that gave the material to McLaren. Of course McLaren should have reported instantly about it and not use it.

And if you sold your company secrets to competitors should your company also be punished for industrial espionage? The notion that Ferrari was somehow culpable in Spygate and should be punished is one of the most ridiculous examples of anti-Ferrari sentiments, but for some reason quite a few people bought into it.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 21 Sep 2009, 22:37

Why should Rneault suffer for Briatore's crime?

Let's put it this way: say F1 Rejects is a stockbroking firm. And Carlos and I - sorry man, you're the only person I could think of - embzzle one hundred million dollars from our clients. Nobody else knows about it, and we get away with it for a year. But then we somehow get found out and we go to court. Who should be punished here: me and Carlos for committing the crime, or F1 Rejects for employing us?

As far as we know, only three people in Renault knw of the ploy to fix the race: Briatore, Symonds and Piquet. Realt's only crime was that they were guilty by association.

Popi_Larrauri · Post by **Popi_Larrauri** » 21 Sep 2009, 23:12

Captain Hammer wrote:Why should Rneault suffer for Briatore's crime?

Let's put it this way: say F1 Rejects is a stockbroking firm. And Carlos and I - sorry man, you're the only person I could think of - embzzle one hundred million dollars from our clients. Nobody else knows about it, and we get away with it for a year. But then we somehow get found out and we go to court. Who should be punished here: me and Carlos for committing the crime, or F1 Rejects for employing us?

As far as we know, only three people in Renault knw of the ploy to fix the race: Briatore, Symonds and Piquet. Realt's only crime was that they were guilty by association.

I guess there's a difference (or I didn't understand the example). In it, we are supposed to be in charge of giving somebody a service (stockbrokering a-la Madoff). If we are, us being co-owners (or partners) then we should be responsable for the loss and we are supposed to be subsidiary responsible (Societary Law, based on french one, is almost the same everywhere in the western world) and we should have taken actions, before, in order to assure the whole society is compliant with the law. Such measures goes from auditing or sindication, or internal controlling (I hope that i'm not messing in translation). We maybe will not be guilty of the criminal parts (as you should be) but would be responsable for the economical aspects (the debt).

In this case are employees that where supposed to be controled by their superiors (give them the name you want, President of Reanult F1, the governing body of it, or it's controllers, or the famous Toyota Comittee, for example). But it's supposed to be very difficult to prove that employees where acting without authorisation from bosses, so on them fall the duty to control them ir order clean thier own hands in the event that their are found doing something like this. Even more, even if they are controlling and can prove that they didn't authorise the criminal behaviour, then they are responsible for negligence in the act of controlling. For an act as such there must be a very strong evidence that they acted alone, against superior's will, and (most of everything) masquerading their actions in a way to intentionally avoid being detected by their superiors. Only them superiors can disengage for full responsability as a whole, if not, they are in.

I guess the second paragraph gives a better explanation, but maybe are still, both, nearer to metaphoric speech than a proper example. Taken as it, I think you are wrong for the reasons stated above. Even in the case of Briatore and Pat acting alone, (and being responsable for the economical (or civil law) aspects, and the criminal one (i.e. forcing or extorting someone to crash his car, possibly creating injuries, and material destruction)) Renault F1 governing body are responsable for controlling their actions.

As I read this, I found that, maybe, you may feel I am subestimating you or your example, I beg you not to understand that way.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 22 Sep 2009, 01:21

But that doesn't mean Renault are deserving of an exclusion or a ban. And a suspended sentence doesn't mean they got away with anything. It only means they're free from punishment unless they go ahead and fix another race. They are going to be watched very, very closely; just as closely as McLaren were at the beginning of the 2008 championship when they had to submit their car to prove that there was no Ferrari information in it or else they'd be exlcuded from te championship before it even began.

Renault haven't gotten away with anything. They're going to be very closely scrutinised for the next two years, and if there's anything remote suspect about their actions, I'm sure the FIA won't hesitate to take the matter further. They may have responsibility for the actions of their employees, but Renault co-operated with the FIA and distanced themselves from Briatore and Symonds. They've offered to pay the costs of the investigation and voluntarily increase their involvement in th FIA's road safety campaigns. The message is pretty clear: they don't condone this. Briatore acted of his own accord, and he was way out of line with what Renault deemed acceptable. They have offered a full apology, and so for all intents and purposes, they are almost entiely exonerated.

eytl · Post by **eytl** » 22 Sep 2009, 06:40

Ah, the joys of debating the law of vicarious liability ...

It's always a vexing question as to whether an entire entity should be made liable for the misdeeds of a few bad eggs. One issue that often arises is the difference between an act of negligence and an act of fraud, ie mistake or deliberate act. What Flav, Pat and NPJ did was more akin to fraud in the sense that it was a deliberate act.

I tend to agree with the Captain that I think the right penalty overall has probably been meted out. Inconsistent with McLaren's punishment over Spygate, sure, but I think that actually casts more of a question on the fairness of slapping McLaren with the $100M fine.

jonnyeol · Post by **jonnyeol** » 22 Sep 2009, 06:42

I half-expected them to be banned from the sport, but being given special dispensation to continue as an engine supplier.

Also interesting to note that they'll still hold the win in their records, but as the other post says, the results are set in stone, written in the history books.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 22 Sep 2009, 07:09

My issue with this thread is that people claim Renault got away with it when they barely did anything wrong. In fact, the most guilty people were given the strongest sentence, which I do believe falls under the definition of "justice".

eytl wrote:Inconsistent with McLaren's punishment over Spygate, sure, but I think that actually casts more of a question on the fairness of slapping McLaren with the $100M fine.

Two things stand out i my mind over this:

1) McLaren denied any wrongdoing from the outset, yet Alonso and de la Rosa openly discussed what they could do with the Ferrari data. And I'm a serious loss to come up with a reason as to how the McLaren could have been built with only a handful of people knowing about it. When you compare the punishment meted out to McLaren compared to that one given to Briatore - not Renault, as Briatore ws the most culpable - then I'd argue that Briatore got the heavier punishment. I don't think the WMSC has been inconsistent at all. Certainly not in the way people are describing it.

2) Up until the Stepney Affair, there hadn't really been any serious controversies in the sport. Yes, there were the allegations that Bennetton had used traction control in 1994, but that was fifteen years ago and there was never enough evidence to prove anything. Up until the incident, the most serious controversy the sport had been involved in was probably Jenson Button breaking his Williams contract. And then we've suddenly got a case of widespread industrial espionage going on between two of the biggest names in the sport. The WMSC didn't really have anything to refer to in terms of what the punishment should be, and they clearly felt that they had to make an example of McLaren. A lot of people are saying that the McLaren penalty was, in retrospect, too severe, but I have to sk this: what would have been more appropriate?

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 22 Sep 2009, 07:38

Captain Hammer wrote:Let's put it this way: say F1 Rejects is a stockbroking firm. And Carlos and I - sorry man, you're the only person I could think of - embzzle one hundred million dollars from our clients. Nobody else knows about it, and we get away with it for a year. But then we somehow get found out and we go to court. Who should be punished here: me and Carlos for committing the crime, or F1 Rejects for employing us?

You know, we might get caught and sent to jail one of these days, if you keep on discussing it openly on Internet forums.

The FIA verdict mentions some article that clearly states that car companies can't just claim they didn't know what their teams are doing, and are ultimately liable for what goes on. That's why Renault got the suspension. However, no one in their right state of mind will deny Formula One teams are pretty much separate entities, only loosely controlled by the manufacturer that supports them. Renault's was possibly the manufacturer less involved in whatever went on inside the F1 team. They just hired a wise guy (sorry, no pun intended here) and let him run the show on a tight-ish budget. In return for the tight budget, Renault allowed Briatore to go on as manager for the drivers of the team and other drivers in the paddock - which, of course, contributed to what happened.

An independent manager would have told his driver that no, he couldn't crash it, despite the risk to his career. Two important people are missing in the Renault equation, which ultimately led to the crashgate: the pilots' managers (who shouldn't be the team manager) and Renault's own inside man - you know, like Mercedes have Norbert Haug and BMW have Dr Mario Thyssen.

Renault is guilty of allowing an organizational structure that resulted in the crashgate and deserves to take the fall for it.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 22 Sep 2009, 07:45

But Renault have trusted Briatore to run their team for nine years. He has never fixed a race, and has never bee accused of anything like it. The only comparable sincident was fifteen years ago, when Bennetton - a completely different team - were accused of running traction control illegally. In his desperation, Briatore turned to cheating to win. If Renault are guilty of anything, it is complacency in allowing Briatore to run the team as he had been for the past eight years and misjudging character. There was no reason - and certainly no evidence - to suspect that a man who had been a team principal for the better part of twenty years would resort to such underhanded tactics.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 22 Sep 2009, 07:50

Captain Hammer wrote:If Renault are guilty of anything, it is complacency in allowing Briatore to run the team as he had been for the past eight years and misjudging character.

That makes them guilty. Renault wanted victory and good publicity in the cheap, and instead of paying Briatore to run the team, allowed him to make his money on the side, managing drivers. On top of it, they slapped their logo on what was essentially the Briatore F1Team, and didn't force one of their man there to oversee the operation.

The FIA is just as guilty of complacency. There should be clear boundaries to people's responsibilities. Briatore has accumulated so much power in his hands, he could actually get away with this.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 22 Sep 2009, 07:59

There is a difference between being complacent and being culpable. Renault is the former.

And this episode will likely prompt the FIA to review the powers of team principals and driver maagers. Flavio Briatore was said to be taking over twenty percent of a driver's income, an extortinate amount by any means.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 22 Sep 2009, 08:08

Captain Hammer wrote:There is a difference between being complacent and being culpable. Renault is the former.

Yes, I suppose there is indeed a difference, and Renault is clearly culpable. They didn't get away with in, in the end, but they may indeed have gotten away relatively lightly. But that's clearly another discussion.

JDOD · Post by **JDOD** » 22 Sep 2009, 09:09

Captain Hammer wrote:A lot of people are saying that the McLaren penalty was, in retrospect, too severe, but I have to sk this: what would have been more appropriate?

I think it was to severe. In the context of what happened to Renault, a punishment similar to the Briatore/Symonds punishment for the individuals involved; Stepney/Coughlan with a suspended ban for McLaren would have been more appropriate. Personally I think the 100M fine was only imposed 'cos they knew McLaren could just afford it. Had they given Renault a fine like that (for what was arguably a more severe crime) they know that Renault would have just walked away from the sport.

In hindsight, I didn't think through the title of the thread very well, as I think the punishments were probably fair and fit the crime (in fact, I think Flav/Pat, should probably end up in criminal court over this) what's annoyed me about it, is that it smacks of inconsistency in the Council.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 22 Sep 2009, 09:48

The FIA need Renault more than they need McLaren. That's not to say that they don't need McLaren at all, but rather that McLaren only race in Formula One. It's Mercedes who supply the engines. On the other hand, Renault race in Formula One, and supply engines not only to other teams, but to the GP2 and World Series grids as well, both of which are two of the principal feeder series into Formula One.

JDOD · Post by **JDOD** » 22 Sep 2009, 10:02

Captain Hammer wrote:The FIA need Renault more than they need McLaren.

That doesn't mean that Renault should be judged more favourably than McLaren

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 22 Sep 2009, 10:33

JDOD wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:The FIA need Renault more than they need McLaren.

That doesn't mean that Renault should be judged more favourably than McLaren

Of course it doesn't, but tit also doesn't mean that the politics of the situation cannot be ignored.

JDOD · Post by **JDOD** » 22 Sep 2009, 10:39

Captain Hammer wrote:
JDOD wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:The FIA need Renault more than they need McLaren.

That doesn't mean that Renault should be judged more favourably than McLaren

Of course it doesn't, but tit also doesn't mean that the politics of the situation cannot be ignored.

Personally I think the FIA underestimate how much they need McLaren. On the whole, fans wouldn't give a shite if Renault pulled out tomorrow. McLaren is one of the few teams that has its own fan following irrespective of drivers. Far more fans would walk away from the sport if we were to loose McLaren, as opposed to the half dozen frenchmen, who have a passing interest in the sport 'cos of Renaults involvement

Post by **DemocalypseNow** » 22 Sep 2009, 15:50

FIA is looking at this from a commercial point of view.
Yes, McLaren would have more impact in terms of fans loss, but McLaren aren't building engines...Renault on the other hand are supplying an indie team, possibly two from next year if they don't pull out. If they lose another engine builder, there could be hardly any engines left for non-works teams to buy.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 22 Sep 2009, 18:34

Renault bear some responsibility. Flavio was appointed by them to run the team, and they just can't wash their hands of responsibility for his actions. Also I suspect there was very heavy pressure on Flav to deliver some results at the time.

But having said that, it would have been tragic for a very able team of 600 people to have been closed down by this fiasco. So I think the decision is ok, though I would have preferred some sort of fine.

The thing is it reeks of backroom deals, rather than a judicial process. The sport still does not seem to be regulated in an even handed manner.

And its a very convenient outcome for the FIA. The main victim is Flav, who just happened to be one of Max and Bernie's main political rivals. In the same manner as lie-gate and Ron Dennis, it appears that the FIA will be lenient if given the sacrificial victim that they want. Thats politics, not justice. Symonds has got caught in the crossfire, and everyone else gets off scott free because Max has got his man.

I was watching the business news on CNN, which was scathing about the state of F1 and its regulation. Now CNN is not the most informed F1 news in the world, but it is watched by lots of corporate decision makers. Renault may still be in, but a lot of sponsors elsewhere are being put off.

Max has won this years championship, against all odds. I hope he retires soon.

shinji · Post by **shinji** » 22 Sep 2009, 18:56

Ross Prawn wrote:Thats politics, not justice.

Nail on the head. But you can't complain, why should F1 be run with a proper justice system? It's not Ancient Rome. To be honest, no sport that I can think of is even approaching fair in terms of it's disciplinary system (that is, if F1 is a sport...). So, all I can say about this whole fiasco is - WTF Flav?

LionZoo · Post by **LionZoo** » 22 Sep 2009, 20:03

Captain Hammer wrote:1) McLaren denied any wrongdoing from the outset, yet Alonso and de la Rosa openly discussed what they could do with the Ferrari data. And I'm a serious loss to come up with a reason as to how the McLaren could have been built with only a handful of people knowing about it. When you compare the punishment meted out to McLaren compared to that one given to Briatore - not Renault, as Briatore ws the most culpable - then I'd argue that Briatore got the heavier punishment. I don't think the WMSC has been inconsistent at all. Certainly not in the way people are describing it.

I think this point deserves further study. Not only did McLaren declare their innocence from the outset, unlike Renault, they also fought for it every step of the way. As more information came out, they still fought against it. First it was simply that Coughlan was a rouge employee, then it was some members of the team were rogue employees, and then it changed to say that the higher ups were not aware. Nowhere was there a point where they simply admitted their guilt and said "Okay, this is what happened, we are now taking this action." They were dragging their feet and fighting a PR war every step of the way. When you give the judge a hard time, he's going to give you a harsher sentence than if you simply admitted wrong doing and asked for mercy. This even has precedence in common criminal justice.

lostpin · Post by **lostpin** » 22 Sep 2009, 20:34

From my POV, the McLaren thing compared to the Renault affair seemed far more harshly punished. The circumstances were different, true, there wasn't any sign of economical crisis then, and the future of car manufacturers in F1 seemed quite certain (dull :mrgreen:

). Renault got away, for a far more severe breach, without any scars (almost, but the Britaore departure was a long-waited thing to happen anyway). They didn't have to pay any reprimands, they are still in the champnionship and they still fight for points.

Something stinks still, because this decision is so politically motivated. I find it very odd that Piquet didn't receive any punishment at all. I mean, even when he did spill the beans, he was still guilty of causing an intentional accident, hiding information, playing with information as he finds it suitable for his own needs, endangering his and other people lives, etc... Imagine someone killing somebody, reporting that to the police, and then again roaming free, simply because he told them what he did?

I hope that we hear some new info soon, this affair doesn't seem quite over yet...

Stewart · Post by **Stewart** » 22 Sep 2009, 23:56

lostpin wrote:Something stinks still, because this decision is so politically motivated. I find it very odd that Piquet didn't receive any punishment at all. I mean, even when he did spill the beans, he was still guilty of causing an intentional accident, hiding information, playing with information as he finds it suitable for his own needs, endangering his and other people lives, etc... Imagine someone killing somebody, reporting that to the police, and then again roaming free, simply because he told them what he did?

I hope that we hear some new info soon, this affair doesn't seem quite over yet...

This is the way I understand it:

Piquet Sr told Charlie Whiting at the 2008 Brazilian GP that Piquet Jr was told to crash deliberately. However, the FIA were unable to act on this information without a sworn statement from Piquet Jr, which he didn't provide at the time.
If Piquet Jr made the statement without immunity then he would have effectively volunteered himself to be banned from F1; the only way the FIA could bring charges against Renault was for them to get the statement from Piquet Jr, and the only way to get that was to offer him immunity.

Yes, it's unsatisfactory that Piquet Jr can walk away with no punishment, but if the FIA hadn't offered him immunity, I don't think any of the three would have been punished.

I should point out that I haven't had time this evening to read all the information the FIA has put out, so feel free to abuse me if I've said something incorrect

.

lostpin · Post by **lostpin** » 23 Sep 2009, 00:17

Stewart wrote:Yes, it's unsatisfactory that Piquet Jr can walk away with no punishment, but if the FIA hadn't offered him immunity, I don't think any of the three would have been punished.

Yes, that seems to make more sense then. Recently I was reading an article from my local newspaper, where Nelson Jr. was portrayed as an innocent victim that was caught in the claws of the sodomizing-virgin-destroyer-of-worlds Briatore :evil:

... and also that Flav is preparing himself to sue the FIA. It will be Interesting to observe where these events are headed... :lol:

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 23 Sep 2009, 01:23

lostpin wrote:Flav is preparing himself to sue the FIA.

"I'll sue you in England!"

Ulfuls · Post by **Ulfuls** » 24 Sep 2009, 00:31

Looks like it really was just a commercial decision -- interesting piece in the Grauniad about comments from the UAE delegate to the world council: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/se ... action-fia

I quote:

Mohammed Ben Sulayem, the United Arab Emirates' automobile club president and an FIA vice-president, gave further insight into the World Motor Sport Council's decision to give Renault only a suspended ban. Speaking to his local newspaper, The National, Ben Sulayem said: "We did our negotiations before and everybody is happy with the result. The verdict is fair and everyone is a winner."

Apart from appearing to suggest the matter had been settled before the court sat yesterday, Ben Sulayem also hints that wider considerations than Briatore's role in fixing last year's Singapore race played a part. "I had to be loyal to my country as well as motor sport," said Ben Sulayem, whose country hosts its first grand prix on 1 November. "Protecting the investments Abu Dhabi has made into Formula One is my duty; it is a big show and it needs teams. We all want to see Renault [in Formula One]. This is the result everyone wanted."

So much for the world council acting in a fair and even-handed manner to protect the credibility of the sport, then. Everybody wins! Abu Dhabi gets Renault at its race, Max gets to shank Flav, "everybody is happy with the result"! O, except millions of motor racing fans, but who cares about them anyway?

Popi_Larrauri · Post by **Popi_Larrauri** » 24 Sep 2009, 01:49

Ulfuls wrote:Looks like it really was just a commercial decision -- interesting piece in the Grauniad about comments from the UAE delegate to the world council: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/se ... action-fia

I quote:

Mohammed Ben Sulayem, the United Arab Emirates' automobile club president and an FIA vice-president, gave further insight into the World Motor Sport Council's decision to give Renault only a suspended ban. Speaking to his local newspaper, The National, Ben Sulayem said: "We did our negotiations before and everybody is happy with the result. The verdict is fair and everyone is a winner."

Apart from appearing to suggest the matter had been settled before the court sat yesterday, Ben Sulayem also hints that wider considerations than Briatore's role in fixing last year's Singapore race played a part. "I had to be loyal to my country as well as motor sport," said Ben Sulayem, whose country hosts its first grand prix on 1 November. "Protecting the investments Abu Dhabi has made into Formula One is my duty; it is a big show and it needs teams. We all want to see Renault [in Formula One]. This is the result everyone wanted."

So much for the world council acting in a fair and even-handed manner to protect the credibility of the sport, then. Everybody wins! Abu Dhabi gets Renault at its race, Max gets to shank Flav, "everybody is happy with the result"! O, except millions of motor racing fans, but who cares about them anyway?

Agree with everything except for the part of motorfans. Indeed, motorfans will, also, want to have more teams running, if possible doing prequalifiyng. Problem is nobody really cared too much about justice, IMO, a couple of "eternally regreted and in total shame" confessions builded up a case and all of the sudden, they got exactly what they were looking for right from the outset. As far as 23.09.2009 (and as far as I know) everything stated as evidence was no more than confessions made from interested parties (only after they haven't received the proper compensation for it as it was settled), and telemetry that someone had convinced me that proves no more than what actually had happened, that Piquet crashed and that a mistake was needed in order to do that.

A bastard was axed (and in the end, real motorfans wanted that too), but the precedent is a nefarious one. Anybody can scream "He made me crash" and he gets a case (and inmunity in the process)..

Wow, I suddenly find that Sato, De Cesaris and Verstappen could actually wipe out any form of motorsport from earth if they wouldwant to. :lol:

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 24 Sep 2009, 16:06

According to Symonds testimony the origional idea came from Piquet jnr. And I tend to believe Symonds, who had little left to lose by the time he made his statement.

This does not let Flavio and Pat off the hook of course, they were the team mangers and should have thrown the idea out.

But it does help to explain why they were daft enough to include Piquet in such a plot, in the full knowledge that they would probably have to sack him one day.

It puts the FIA decision to give Piquet immunity in an even worse light. Piquet comes up with an idea for cheating, he agrees it with Flav, he does the deed, he subequently tries to blackmail Renault to keep his position, and then he shops everybody (allegedly!). Doesn't seem very innocent to me.

Fandangio · Post by **Fandangio** » 24 Sep 2009, 19:59

Ulfuls wrote:Looks like it really was just a commercial decision -- interesting piece in the Grauniad about comments from the UAE delegate to the world council: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/se ... action-fia

I quote:

Mohammed Ben Sulayem, the United Arab Emirates' automobile club president and an FIA vice-president, gave further insight into the World Motor Sport Council's decision to give Renault only a suspended ban. Speaking to his local newspaper, The National, Ben Sulayem said: "We did our negotiations before and everybody is happy with the result. The verdict is fair and everyone is a winner."

Apart from appearing to suggest the matter had been settled before the court sat yesterday, Ben Sulayem also hints that wider considerations than Briatore's role in fixing last year's Singapore race played a part. "I had to be loyal to my country as well as motor sport," said Ben Sulayem, whose country hosts its first grand prix on 1 November. "Protecting the investments Abu Dhabi has made into Formula One is my duty; it is a big show and it needs teams. We all want to see Renault [in Formula One]. This is the result everyone wanted."

So much for the world council acting in a fair and even-handed manner to protect the credibility of the sport, then. Everybody wins! Abu Dhabi gets Renault at its race, Max gets to shank Flav, "everybody is happy with the result"! O, except millions of motor racing fans, but who cares about them anyway?

As always in these situations I think the fans real crisis with the FIA is that in no way could you describe the proceedings as FAIR and UNBIASED. The whole thing stinks of high heaven of kickback. The sport has been run by incompetent bufoons for years and now we have one trying to sway the associations on who his successor should be. WTF, he's out of office it's not like JT is part of the MM party.

I've seriously had enough of this toss, it's not as though the bloody racings any good. BTCC last weekend was miles more entertaining. Still I stick with it, each year hoping for something better and only getting something worse. I'm sick and tired of BS penalties (worst example being LH outbreaking himself into T1 at Fuji on lap one and getting a drive thru) applied inconsistently and unfailrly.

This season, yes it's been great to have different teams at the top of the tables but this is as artificial as reversed grids ffs. I hate to think of the long term impact of these continual changes... From a sponsors point of view would you pay top notch or comit to more than one seasons sponsorship knowing a currently good team might be crap next year?

Sorry for the rant people, FIA for reject of the millenia? Anyone???