Found this letter to Nelson Sr.

[myurr]

I think autogyro is on to the point that this is not a gov, as as such, it does not have to act as one.

They answer to "us the sport" not "we the people".

If you come to my front door and ask to come in, and I invite you in, there is already a lot happening in good faith.

If you try to ogle my wife, or steal my silverware, I kick you out the front door, and I don't need to answer your lawyers or your accusations.

It's my house, and you are no longer welcome. Flavio was no longer able to be there in good faith.

Fair or not, he brought this on himself, and if you perform unprecedented actions you better expect unprecedented repercussions.

Actually if you use physical force to remove me from your house then you are breach of UK law. Likewise with the way the FIA handled the Briatore case they were found to be in breach of French law. Due to the nature of the FIA they are in fact bound by certain laws, laws which they seem to have thought they were above.

As such Max's word isn't good enough to convict Briatore, and until someone, anyone, can produce evidence that he was involved then none of us should judge him as guilty. Despicable, horrible man may be, but not (edit: insert the word "proven" here) guilty of involvement in that particular plot.

[myurr]

2.1 All drivers, competitors and officials participating in the Championship undertake, on behalf of themselves, their employees, agents and suppliers, to observe all the provisions as supplemented or amended of the International Sporting Code (the Code), the Formula One Technical Regulations (the Technical Regulations) and the present Sporting Regulations together referred to as “the Regulations”.

3.1 It is the competitor's responsibility to ensure that all persons concerned by his entry observe all the requirements of the Regulations. If a competitor is unable to be present in person at the Event he must nominate his representative in writing. The person having charge of an entered car during any part of an Event is responsible jointly and severally with the competitor for ensuring that the requirements are observed.

4.1 All drivers, competitors and officials participating in the Championship must hold a FIA Super Licence.
Applications for Super Licences must be made annually to the FIA through the applicant's ASN.

As 3.1 stipulates the team principal represents the competitor and is a super licensee of the FiA. As such he must answer to charges or suffer if he selects not to answer. By retiring from the position of team principal a person cannot avoid the responsibility for infringements that happened prior to the retirement. The retirement under current FiA statues and regulations reduces the scope of the FiA to punish a retired licensee. This is the issue currently still under dispute.

Regardless of whether Briatore should have defended himself or not - although I believe he should have done, I ask again how can someone defend themselves when their accuser and their evidence are kept secret? - the French courts found that the FIA had not followed correct procedures in ensuring a fair trial and invalidated their verdict. They haven't proven Briatore innocent, but likewise they have ruled that Max did not prove him guilty.

Horrid person that he is, I will not hold him guilty of that particular offense until there is clear evidence that he was involved. Max's word that someone secretly told him it was so just isn't good enough, doubly so with Max's history of lies, manipulation and personal vendetta.

[manchild]

Actually, F1 went to hell because Briatore, Brawn and Schumacher didn't get life time ban for fixing whole 1994 season, including proven illegal devices, and deliberate, life endangering crash with Damon Hill.

Once such a criminal season was blessed by the FIA, nothing could prevent further outrageous acts to go without being severely sanctioned - 1997. Jerez, Todt blackmailing Peter Sauber to block JV with his cars or loose Ferrari engines, repeated life endangering by MS Ferrari race fixing last lap in Zeltweg, barge boards irregularities, "impeding", Monaco parking, third deliberate life endangering by MS, DDD scandal ect.

Once a country becomes corrupted banana republic, it never recovers, never. Same thing happened to F1 since 1994. That is we got 5 MS titles in a row - because fairness was overshadowed by politics and race fixing. What we have since 1994 is banana F1.

[WhiteBlue]

..how can someone defend themselves when their accuser and their evidence are kept secret?

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal. He then argued he did not receive it in his private role as a retired team principal and non licensee again. It is nothing but a loop hole that he exploits. Regarding the role of a prosecutor this is BS as well. A WMSC meeting on cheating is always run as a hearing just like a senat commission or any parlimentary commission. The balance of power in this kind of hearings is achieved by publishing the issue and hearing date well in advance to the meeting. Any damaged party or otherwise involved on the issue usually comes forward and gets the opportunity to make their point. Prosecutor in the spygate case for instance was Ferrari. In the Crashgate case the FiA as an institution naturally must act as prosecutor because it is their obligation to promote and supervise safety. As the WMSC consists also from members not involved with the FiA (promoter/constructors) there is sufficient neutrality for a sports tribunal.

[WhiteBlue]

Actually, F1 went to hell ....... What we have since 1994 is banana F1.

I have seldomly read so much nonsense in one heap.

[myurr]

..how can someone defend themselves when their accuser and their evidence are kept secret?

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal. He then argued he did not receive it in his private role as a retired team principal and non licensee again. It is nothing but a loop hole that he exploits. Regarding the role of a prosecutor this is BS as well. A WMSC meeting on cheating is always run as a hearing just like a senat commission or any parlimentary commission. The balance of power in this kind of hearings is achieved by publishing the issue and hearing date well in advance to the meeting. Any damaged party or otherwise involved on the issue usually comes forward and gets the opportunity to make their point. Prosecutor in the spygate case for instance was Ferrari. In the Crashgate case the FiA as an institution naturally must act as prosecutor because it is their obligation to promote and supervise safety. As the WMSC consists also from members not involved with the FiA (promoter/constructors) there is sufficient neutrality for a sports tribunal.

So you honestly believe that all the stories published regarding Max stating that he had confidential evidence that even the WMSC were not given the details of were made up? Or did Max see fit to inform Briatore of this evidence and his accuser whilst not informing the WMSC?

[WhiteBlue]

..how can someone defend themselves when their accuser and their evidence are kept secret?

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal. He then argued he did not receive it in his private role as a retired team principal and non licensee again. It is nothing but a loop hole that he exploits. Regarding the role of a prosecutor this is BS as well. A WMSC meeting on cheating is always run as a hearing just like a senat commission or any parlimentary commission. The balance of power in this kind of hearings is achieved by publishing the issue and hearing date well in advance to the meeting. Any damaged party or otherwise involved on the issue usually comes forward and gets the opportunity to make their point. Prosecutor in the spygate case for instance was Ferrari. In the Crashgate case the FiA as an institution naturally must act as prosecutor because it is their obligation to promote and supervise safety. As the WMSC consists also from members not involved with the FiA (promoter/constructors) there is sufficient neutrality for a sports tribunal.

So you honestly believe that all the stories published regarding Max stating that he had confidential evidence that even the WMSC were not given the details of were made up? Or did Max see fit to inform Briatore of this evidence and his accuser whilst not informing the WMSC?

That are side issues. The issue is the conspiracy that existed in Renault F1 (evidenced by Piquet and Symmonds) to crash Piquet to advantage Alonso which should have been prevented by the team principal. That prevention should have been done either by knowledge and taking action or by making sure all team members were acting in accordance with the regulations. So it is largely irrelevant how Briatore failed to prevent the conspiracy to go forward. He is responsible.

[myurr]

That are side issues. The issue is the conspiracy that existed in Renault F1 (evidenced by Piquet and Symmonds) to crash Piquet to advantage Alonso which should have been prevented by the team principal. That prevention should have been done either by knowledge and taking action or by making sure all team members were acting in accordance with the regulations. So it is largely irrelevant how Briatore failed to prevent the conspiracy to go forward. He is responsible.

Sorry but no human on this planet could possibly live up to that standard. It is 100% impossible for any single person to take on responsibility for each and every action of every one of their several hundred employees.

Edit: For example, if a bank teller steals £100 from their till, is that the responsibility of the chairman sat in his London office? Or is it a criminal act by the individual?

[WhiteBlue]

Edit: For example, if a bank teller steals £100 from their till, is that the responsibility of the chairman sat in his London office? Or is it a criminal act by the individual?

Read the rules and your question is answered. That is why I have posted the applicable §§ in this thread. Banks have other regulations. So they are not comparable.

On top Symmonds was a fellow director and not a small guy. A team principal is charged with keeping all team members and particularly directors and drivers in the rules. If he knows a bad apple he must kick him out immediately. Symmonds would not carry out a massive conspiracy if he positively knew his boss would fire him. So this indicates that Briatore in the opinion of his tech boss would condone the practise.

[myurr]

Edit: For example, if a bank teller steals £100 from their till, is that the responsibility of the chairman sat in his London office? Or is it a criminal act by the individual?

Read the rules and your question is answered. That is why I have posted the applicable §§ in this thread. Banks have other regulations. So they are not comparable.

On top Symmonds was a fellow director and not a small guy. A team principal is charged with keeping all team members and particularly directors and drivers in the rules. If he knows a bad apple he must kick him out immediately. Symmonds would not carry out a massive conspiracy if he positively knew his boss would fire him. So this indicates that Briatore in the opinion of his tech boss would condone the practise.

Symmonds clearly knew there would be sanctions, from Briatore or the wider FIA, should he be discovered. So you cannot conclude that he thought Briatore wouldn't punish him.

Do you hold Todt responsible for MSc's Jerez 97 incident, as his team principle, and how do you feel that sits with him now being head of the FIA? MSc clearly felt that Ferrari wouldn't punish him, which is a reflection on Todt is it not?

[timbo]

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal. He then argued he did not receive it in his private role as a retired team principal and non licensee again. It is nothing but a loop hole that he exploits.

That is simply not true.
Briatore resigned at September 16th (or 15th) and no info on witness X was available before that. Also, Renault report to FIA sent on September 17th indicated that it found no evidence on involvement of Briatore.
So, obviously, the were ALOT of relevant info that appeared after Flavio's resignation.

[SZ]

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal. He then argued he did not receive it in his private role as a retired team principal and non licensee again. It is nothing but a loop hole that he exploits. Regarding the role of a prosecutor this is BS as well. A WMSC meeting on cheating is always run as a hearing just like a senat commission or any parlimentary commission. The balance of power in this kind of hearings is achieved by publishing the issue and hearing date well in advance to the meeting. Any damaged party or otherwise involved on the issue usually comes forward and gets the opportunity to make their point. Prosecutor in the spygate case for instance was Ferrari. In the Crashgate case the FiA as an institution naturally must act as prosecutor because it is their obligation to promote and supervise safety. As the WMSC consists also from members not involved with the FiA (promoter/constructors) there is sufficient neutrality for a sports tribunal.

Still at it, kid?

Flav's a bit pissed off that witness X's testimony was used to indict him (Max's words at the hearing, not mine).

That witness X materialised in the less than 24 hours between the FIA telling RF1 that they needed evidence to nail Flav and their handing in a 'revised draft' of a two week investigation that previously didn't include any mention of this pivotal fellow (RF1's own lawyer).

That RF1's own lawyer didn't meet witness X, nor had he read the transcript of his testimony the Saturday before the hearing (his words, not mine).

That Max (a lawyer with a keen knack for details) couldn't remember the name of witness X - he'd 'already forgotten it' less than a week after supposedly meeting this individual that formed the entire basis of his most serious conviction (Max's words, not mine).

Don't know how the prosecution works in 'WhiteBlue' country but in the rest of the civilised world, key evidence is a little more accessible.

Are you NP Junior (really?) or just unnaturally obsessed with Flav's demise? Somewhere on a global warming pie chart there's surely a small slice representing the entropy you've expended to maintaining, near daily, an internet campaign painting Flav as the devil.

Either way, move on with life. You're taking bytes out of my internet bandwidth.

The FIA were given evidence to show that a Renault car was crashed on purpose to gain an unfair advantage and which endangered lives.

As the team principle, Briatore was responsible for this action, even if he did not order it to take place.

It was Briatore hmself who elected not to defend his position.
In the circumstances the FIA had no choice but to ban him.

(When you're off the holier-than-thou soapbox...)

Not quite, listen to the transcript yourself. The FIA 'asked' RF1 for evidence when what they'd provided after an exhaustive internal investigation nailed PS to a fateful chat with NP. The evidence requested makes explicit mention of needing to involve Flav in a conviction. RF1's investigation came back initially saying sorry, we can't place him there, and for the purposes of banning the team or otherwise, it's not important - which is true. RF1 said 'this is what happened, regrettably we've broken rules as a team, and these are the people involved'. The FIA undertook no investigations of its own other than to judge what information was presented and to request proof of the complicity of a certain individual.

That last bit isn't even in their rulebook which seems to get quoted a bit by the same people around here. One can only imagine whether or not you'd have seen RF1 at all this year had they not... complied. Doesn't take a great deal of intelligence to work out what the FIA, or whoever ran that show, was after. You'd need a supreme degree of naivety to assume otherwise.

On top Symmonds was a fellow director and not a small guy. A team principal is charged with keeping all team members and particularly directors and drivers in the rules. If he knows a bad apple he must kick him out immediately. Symmonds would not carry out a massive conspiracy if he positively knew his boss would fire him. So this indicates that Briatore in the opinion of his tech boss would condone the practise.

There's a highly technical term used to describe the above theory.... horseshit.

Conspiracies at all levels in any business are carried out by those that believe, for whatever reason, they'll get away with it (and many more by idiots not even thinking that far ahead). You'd need to be a special kind of prat to tell yourself "I'm going to do something that endangers my career of 30+ years because it breaks many rules and risks lives, but I'm comforted by the notion that my manager, who doesn't know about this monumentally stupid undertaking I'm about to embark on, would probably think it's OK. It's good. Let's throw it all away now."

Really, don't take up law anytime soon.

As for everyone else... what's so new about this letter? Came out about the time the scandal broke. There's probably a few others just like it. Piquets vs world is a well known battle in the motorsports world.

[WhiteBlue]

Do you hold Todt responsible for MSc's Jerez 97 incident, as his team principle, and how do you feel that sits with him now being head of the FIA? MSc clearly felt that Ferrari wouldn't punish him, which is a reflection on Todt is it not?

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that anybody but he drivers were involved in Jerez 97.

2. It is reasonable to assume that the light collision of the two cars was the result of an impulse act and not premeditated.

3. The parameters of the 97 Jerez collision were well outside the dangers of deliberately crashing a car into a concrete wall and making sure the wreckage was distributed all over the track in a way that a safety car was needed.

I find your kind of smearing of Todt and Schumacher disgusting. Drivers can make mistakes in races in the heat of a championship going to the wire which includes acts that lack sportsmanship. That has happened before and has happened afterwards. It is not equal with criminal race fixing which has clearly happened in the Crashgate case. You should review your own moral categories instead of unreflectedly repeating garbage posted by the Schumacher haters.

[myurr]

Do you hold Todt responsible for MSc's Jerez 97 incident, as his team principle, and how do you feel that sits with him now being head of the FIA? MSc clearly felt that Ferrari wouldn't punish him, which is a reflection on Todt is it not?

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that anybody but he drivers were involved in Jerez 97.

2. It is reasonable to assume that the light collision of the two cars was the result of an impulse act and not premeditated.

3. The parameters of the 97 Jerez collision were well outside the dangers of deliberately crashing a car into a concrete wall and making sure the wreckage was distributed all over the track in a way that a safety car was needed.

I find your kind of smearing of Todt and Schumacher disgusting. Drivers can make mistakes in races in the heat of a championship going to the wire which includes acts that lack sportsmanship. That has happened before and has happened afterwards. It is not equal with criminal race fixing which has clearly happened in the Crashgate case. You should review your own moral categories instead of unreflectedly repeating garbage posted by the Schumacher haters.

Now you're getting personal - please try not to.

Schumacher was convicted by the FIA and banned from the 97 championship - up till then that was one of, if not the, biggest punishment ever handed out by the FIA. Todt had no more knowledge or control over that action than Flavio did over Piquet and Symmonds (presuming that he was not directly aware and involved, something that has not been proven).

And it's not like Schumacher does not have form - he did similar in 94, parked the car in Monaco etc. So don't try and paint me as disgusting when, in my view at least, you are standing up for corruption and malpractice. Even the French courts ruled against the FIA showing that there must have been significant breech of due process, but you carry on defending the ruling out of personal hatred rather than reason.

[WhiteBlue]

You should not believe cheap propaganda. All the paperwork was sent to Briatore in his role as the team principal. He then argued he did not receive it in his private role as a retired team principal and non licensee again. It is nothing but a loop hole that he exploits.

That is simply not true.
Briatore resigned at September 16th (or 15th) and no info on witness X was available before that. Also, Renault report to FIA sent on September 17th indicated that it found no evidence on involvement of Briatore.
So, obviously, the were ALOT of relevant info that appeared after Flavio's resignation.

Bull, neither you nor I do know exactly the flow of papers over Briatore's desk until he retired. Fact is there were several weeks between the decision to prosecute Renault and the retirement decision. In that time absolutely every piece of external and internal communication on the issue must have crossed his desk including the protocols of the Silverstone FiA interviews. At that point in time Briatore should have established by himself that there was a conspiracy and fired Symmonds (if he was innocent himself). He didn't and later resigned because Renault did right what Briatore did wrong.