The race-fix case of Briatore and Symonds versus the FIA

[vall]

http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/n ... 1955.shtml

oh well, what about all FIA leaks related to the Renault investigation (and many others) that clearly served the FIA and MrM purposed? Now FIA is complaining

[WhiteBlue]

Flabby deserves his sentence in my view. The buck stops at his desk. He takes the fall. Simple and appropriate. They did not put him in Jail, they just made sure he cannot do it again. Stop complaining Flabby. You have made enough money and and we do not get to see you as Bernie's successor which in my view would be a catastrophy for F1.

[Rob W]

Regardless of Briatore's culpability the FIA routinely show a pretty insane level of self-serving hypocrisy. They are clearly an organisation which is run - with regards to F1 at least - like a senile dictatorship and hence will only choose a successor to Mosely who thinks along the same lines. Todt will be just that man.

I guarantee, in a couple of years we'll be here talking about it.

[Ciro Pabón]

What did the documents say?

[xpensive]

Regardless of "culpability", I think a lifetime ban is way xessive, in particular when some of us are old enough to remember how both Briatore (Benetton) and Ferrari got away with cheating in the past without any punishment whatsoever.

[WhiteBlue]

In the past Briatore was clever enough to confess and throw himself at the mercy of the WMSC. He did not do it this time. He did not appear at the meeting and challenged the sporting authority of the federation. Ever heard of having some poor sod executioned for the encouragement of the others? It's been happening for centuries and realistically life time in Flavio's case may not be terribly long considering his health and looks lately.

[Chaparral]

In the past Briatore was clever enough to confess and throw himself at the mercy of the WMSC. He did not do it this time. He did not appear at the meeting and challenged the sporting authority of the federation. Ever heard of having some poor sod executioned for the encouragement of the others? It's been happening for centuries and realistically life time in Flavio's case may not be terribly long considering his health and looks lately.

This adjudication wasnt in a court of law - it was some council deciding that someone had transgressed the 'law' in their own self defined (star chamber) court (give me a break the FIA under Mosely's stewardship was the most corrupt of all) - they adjudged that Briatore had either sanctioned or ordered PK Jr to crash for the benefit of the team - PK admitted he did it but they NEVER proved Briatore either sanctioned or ordered the fix - thats a fact - and to be honest I dont care a whole lot about Briatore but I dont like Kangaroo courts either which is what happened to Briatore

[Fil]

tell ya what, if Flav wins his case, and in the course of that effectively proves himself innocent, NPjr will effectively have lied in his statement.. rendering his immunity void. The FIA will have to revisit the case and punish him.




i can dream can't i..

[WhiteBlue]

Both previous posts make no sense to me.

The FIA has jurisdiction over sporting matters and that includes race fixing allegations. If Flav did elect not to show up its his fault.

I bet he will not win this. The claims sound bogus in the first place. This is not about the actual transgression. It is about inappropriately heavy punishment. Did anybody notice the amount of money? 1 mil € is peanuts for five years of F1 earnings in Flav's case.

Since the actual findings of the case are not challenged by new facts, the decision to punish Flav and the amnesty to Piquet should stand. Perhaps there is a small chance that life time gets criticised. Personally I like it for Flav. He got away with too much much too long.

[mcdenife]

These are the claims:
The FIA's deliberate breach of the rights of the defence FIA including

- the delay in the issue of the summons;

- the failure to state the charges in advance;

- the lack of access provided to prosecution documents and to the key witness;

Breach of the rules of natural justice including

- the lack of impartiality of the body passing judgment;

- the secret negotiation of the decision content before the hearing; and

- the granting of selective immunities in order to build the prosecution's case;

The FIA's manifest excess and abuse of power including

- the penalty imposed on a non-licensee of the FIA;

- the disproportionate and illegal nature of an indefinite boycott decision; and

- the threat to refuse to renew the FIA licence in breach of the Federation's regulations and of the International Sporting Code.

And here is a challenge:
Show, with facts and proof from the actual case, which of these claims are bogus. Show also when and what Briatore was charged with. His claims challenge the finding by implication because he cannot directly challenge the findings. Regardless, perhaps you can enlighten or remind us as to what the findings were against Briatore personally, to warrant his punishment.

[WhiteBlue]

And here is a challenge:

Show, with facts and proof from the actual case, which of these claims are bogus. Show also when and what Briatore was charged with. His claims challenge the finding by implication because he cannot directly challenge the findings.

This was never a criminal case of attempted man slaughter but about a breach of the sporting code with some vicious details thrown in. So the rules of criminal trial simply are not applicable. That should nicely do away with most of these bogus claims.

Regardless, perhaps you can enlighten or remind us as to what the findings were against Briatore personally, to warrant his punishment.

The findings were that he knew about the plan to gain an advantage for driver Alonso by ordering driver Piquet crash. He was responsible for all actions of the team (team principal implies this ancient looking type of personal responsibility). His penalty would have seen mitigating circumstances if he had cooperated truthfully. He did not. Hence the big punishment.

[Fil]

Thing is, those charges were brought against Renault F1 Team. The involvement of Symmonds and Briatore was only officially introduced during the hearing by way of Piquet Jr's statement. Briatore was not a part of this hearing so all evidence was based on one person who had many ulterior motives to lay blame on Flav.

There was no chance of a defence by Briatore, and no attempt made by the council to hear the other side of the story by the two other alleged participants in the meeting.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to claim that Flav or Pat are innocent angels in this case, they obviously aren't. But as Chaparral mentioned, this was a Kangaroo Court, and that is what disturbs me (and all others) so greatly.

The FIA has potentially messed this up if Flav wins his legal case. Another opportunity for FIA to show its professionalism blinded & thwarted by their obvious vendetta.

[Chaparral]

The findings were that he knew about the plan to gain an advantage for driver Alonso by ordering driver Piquet crash. He was responsible for all actions of the team (team principal implies this ancient looking type of personal responsibility). His penalty would have seen mitigating circumstances if he had cooperated truthfully. He did not. Hence the big punishment.

So in your eyes the guy is guilty as charged your honour by the Star Chamber court - geez Im glad I dont live in your world ace. So what happens should the French courts find he has no charge to answer will you be gracious enough to eat your shorts here - no I didnt think so

[mcdenife]

I dont agree with your take on the findings, but lets put that to one side.
1.

The findings were that he knew about the plan to gain an advantage for driver Alonso by ordering driver Piquet crash.

The challenge (since this is the basis of finding): - the lack of access provided to prosecution documents and to the key witness;

He was responsible for all actions of the team (team principal implies this ancient looking type of personal responsibility).

Fair enough. But this did not even come into any of the deliberations.

His penalty would have seen mitigating circumstances if he had cooperated truthfully. He did not. Hence the big punishment.

Where is your proof (or the FIA's for that matter) that he did not cooperate truthfully? His involvement was never proved. The finding was actually that on balancce of probability, he knew.

I have twice listened to the proceeding in its entirety and the only word that came to mind was "Kangaroo". And yes, Max did assume the roles of complainant, investigator, prosecutor and judge.

[quidam]

It's a public matter :

http://fr.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate ... l&lp=fr_en

http://fr.f1-live.com/f1/fr/infos/actua ... 1807.shtml

Sorry it's in french.