Found this letter to Nelson Sr.

[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.

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.

I'm not getting personal. I'm just letting you know what I feel reading your insinuations. Schumacher made a grave mistake by deliberately colliding and was punished for unsporting behavior. Todt had nothing to do with it. Comparing that with criminal intent is unjustified and unworthy. I'm not going to take this any further as we obviously don't share the same categories of judging such incidents. I'm out of this debate as far as you are concerned.

[SZ]

Oh you're unusually good comedy value today.

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

There is no evidence any Weapons of Mass Destruction were found at Singapore 08 (NP aside and that was neatly looked over) but this doesn't make things better... what's your point?

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

It's reasonable to assume you're blind (the FIA ruled otherwise) and deaf (Schumacher's admitted to it not being his finest hour a number of times).

Villeneuve didn't remember it being a 'light collision' nor would be be arguing about how 'premeditated' a 'deliberate' attack on his monocoque may or may not have been.

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.

You're right, intentionally turning a race car at speed into another driver is the pinnacle of safety. NP risked his own life and potential collateral damage unknown to him at the time, MS had the good grace to focus his attentions explicitly on someone else.

For the purposes of sanction he was driving the right coloured car though, smart guy.

I find your kind of smearing of Todt and Schumacher disgusting.

I find your brand of logic amusing and conflicted.

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.

Could you translate 'I deliberately crashed into you to take you out of the race! My bad.' into German for us all?

On your insistence it'd seem to be a well-received phrase there.

It is not equal with criminal race fixing which has clearly happened in the Crashgate case.

You're right, it's not nearly as funny - one guy crashes into a wall because he really, really believes he was told to and his team manager gets life, the other guy points his car at another race driver in a deliberate manner (Max's words, not mine) because he's his a vindictive prick and he gets a wrist slap and his team nothing at all when they were told beforehand by the FIA to keep their driver on his best behaviour.

Worst case we'd have had two the blood of two Villeneuves on two red cars, hey? You're right, nothing serious at all (shush now, I can hear Enzo rolling in his grave...)

You should review your own moral categories instead of unreflectedly repeating garbage posted by the Schumacher haters.

What I'd give for Schumacher's morality...

[myurr]

I find your kind of smearing of Todt and Schumacher disgusting.

Clearly not a personal statement at all. My kind of smearing... disgusting... hmmm.

I'm not getting personal. I'm just letting you know what I feel reading your insinuations. Schumacher made a grave mistake by deliberately colliding and was punished for unsporting behavior. Todt had nothing to do with it. Comparing that with criminal intent is unjustified and unworthy. I'm not going to take this any further as we obviously don't share the same categories of judging such incidents. I'm out of this debate as far as you are concerned.

You're right, we don't share the same view point. I like to deal with facts and look at the actions of individuals, with individual responsibility. I find the way Max ran the FIA and this investigation in particular to be disgusting - it was his dictatorship and ultimately his conduct that led to the court defeat of the FIA and the result that no-one has been punished for rigging the race.

The stupid thing is that I agree with you - Todt wasn't to blame for Jerez 97. However I don't hate Flavio enough to believe that he was any more responsible for Symmonds and Piquets behavior, unless someone can prove he knew in advance. What you are arguing however is that because he was team principle then it was his responsibility regardless of whether he knew or not - a standard that no human is capable of living up to and that they are not expected to in any other vocation.

[SZ]

Bull, neither you nor I do know exactly the flow of papers over Briatore's desk until he retired.

Do you listen to anything other than your own voice on this particular issue?

The evidence used to indict him - Witness X - had his piece less than a week before trial, after Flav stopped working at RF1, and wasn't even made available to RF1's own lawyer.

It's in the WMSC transcript.

Some 'flow of papers'.

Take your pick - either team principles are guilty for their charges and we've got someone who should be out of the sport running the show, or they're not, and Flav's in.

[WhiteBlue]

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.

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.

The case is really very much simpler than you make people believe. The additional witness X was never the pivotal point in the case. Already the Silverstone testimony (which was leaked weeks before the Briatore/Symmonds retirement) established the conspiracy. At that point Briatore should have established that fact by his own in house investigation and suspended Symmonds. He didn't. The rest is just embroidery on the case.

[myurr]

The case is really very much simpler than you make people believe. The additional witness X was never the pivotal point in the case. Already the Silverstone testimony (which was leaked weeks before the Briatore/Symmonds retirement) established the conspiracy. At that point Briatore should have established that fact by his own in house investigation and suspended Symmonds. He didn't. The rest is just embroidery on the case.

That's absolute rubbish. Flav wasn't convicted by the FIA of failing to deal with Symmonds, he was convicted of being directly involved in the plot thanks to Max's dodgy evidence.

Where the hell did you get that tripe from?

[SZ]

The additional witness X was never the pivotal point in the case.

Max's (explicit) words at the WMSC meeting, not mine. You really are comedy value.

[WhiteBlue]

Oh you're unusually good comedy value today.

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

There is no evidence any Weapons of Mass Destruction were found at Singapore 08 (NP aside and that was neatly looked over) but this doesn't make things better... what's your point?

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

It's reasonable to assume you're blind (the FIA ruled otherwise) and deaf (Schumacher's admitted to it not being his finest hour a number of times).

Villeneuve didn't remember it being a 'light collision' nor would be be arguing about how 'premeditated' a 'deliberate' attack on his monocoque may or may not have been.

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.

You're right, intentionally turning a race car at speed into another driver is the pinnacle of safety. NP risked his own life and potential collateral damage unknown to him at the time, MS had the good grace to focus his attentions explicitly on someone else.

For the purposes of sanction he was driving the right coloured car though, smart guy.

I find your kind of smearing of Todt and Schumacher disgusting.

I find your brand of logic amusing and conflicted.

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.

Could you translate 'I deliberately crashed into you to take you out of the race! My bad.' into German for us all?

On your insistence it'd seem to be a well-received phrase there.

It is not equal with criminal race fixing which has clearly happened in the Crashgate case.

You're right, it's not nearly as funny - one guy crashes into a wall because he really, really believes he was told to and his team manager gets life, the other guy points his car at another race driver in a deliberate manner (Max's words, not mine) because he's his a vindictive prick and he gets a wrist slap and his team nothing at all when they were told beforehand by the FIA to keep their driver on his best behaviour.

Worst case we'd have had two the blood of two Villeneuves on two red cars, hey? You're right, nothing serious at all (shush now, I can hear Enzo rolling in his grave...)

You should review your own moral categories instead of unreflectedly repeating garbage posted by the Schumacher haters.

What I'd give for Schumacher's morality...

Thats it for me. I have no time for this. This has left the boundaries of reasonable argument and has become an exercise of parody from your side (weapons of mass destruction/ blood on red cars). I'm not arguing with someone on that basis. Have a nice day.

[SZ]

Dang, I was looking forward to that German translation.

You're pulling the 'left the bounds of reason' card in an anti-Flav pro-Schu rant of yours?! Pure comedy - I'll have a great day! See ya! Let me know when next you want to play.

[manchild]

WB, even Schumacher himself admitted the crime.

http://www.crash.net/F1/news/154568/1/s ... could.html

[myurr]

WB, even Schumacher himself admitted the crime.

http://www.crash.net/F1/news/154568/1/s ... could.html

Ah, but Witness X says that he didn't mean it. Max told me so it must be true.

[xpensive]

Perhaps he meant regretting he didn't do it properly? Just thinking outloud...

[myurr]

Perhaps he meant regretting he didn't do it properly? Just thinking outloud...

Or maybe he should have struck a deal with Max so that he escaped sanction but Todt would have been banned for life.

[Giblet]

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.

Semantics of UK law maybe, but I can kick you out of MY house for ANY reason I want. If you won't leave, and attack me, I can defend myself and property and family with lethal force. It wouldn't likely come to that, as I can call the police and have you removed for trespassing.

To say that I can walk into your house, and stay as long as I want is rubbish, to coin a UK word.

[myurr]

Semantics of UK law maybe, but I can kick you out of MY house for ANY reason I want. If you won't leave, and attack me, I can defend myself and property and family with lethal force. It wouldn't likely come to that, as I can call the police and have you removed for trespassing.

To say that I can walk into your house, and stay as long as I want is rubbish, to coin a UK word.

Not true at all - in your scenario if you remove the "and attack me" bit then there is nothing you or the police can do. They have to apply for a court order to remove someone.

If you are attacked THEN you can use reasonable force, but if the other person is peacefully squatting then there isn't a whole lot you can do without the courts.