Found this letter to Nelson Sr.

[Giblet]

If you want to compare it to a crime, then the two things are different. I will avoid a tit tat breakdown of every sentence.

There is a reason that if you kill someone, there is 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, 3rd Degree Murder, and Manslaughter.

What Piquet did, if the crash had been fatal to a spectator or marshall, was 2nd degree. You are mostly at fault, but coerced possibly against your will. Flav and company would be 3rd degree.

If Nelshino did it all himself, 1st degree.

What Schumacher did would have been manslaughter. Unintentional, and heat of the moment. If not, defintely not 1st degree murder.

This is why the premeditation is such a big factor, not just a word in a sentence like you put it.

[SZ]

If you want to compare it to a crime, then the two things are different. I will avoid a tit tat breakdown of every sentence.

There is a reason that if you kill someone, there is 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder, 3rd Degree Murder, and Manslaughter.

What Piquet did, if the crash had been fatal to a spectator or marshall, was 2nd degree. You are mostly at fault, but coerced possibly against your will. Flav and company would be 3rd degree.

If Nelshino did it all himself, 1st degree.

What Schumacher did would have been manslaughter. Unintentional, and heat of the moment. If not, defintely not 1st degree murder.

This is why the premeditation is such a big factor, not just a word in a sentence like you put it.

Giblet

Whilst you're partially true, you do need to kill someone to come under involuntary manslaughter or have the intention of doing so but failed in pulling it off to come under attempted manslaughter of any degree.

What would then happen is very different to what played out in the WMSC hearing.

NP Jnr would never, ever have been granted any sort of immunity. Ever.

There would have been an extensive, impartial investigation in the case.

If all the evidence that were brought to bear were that presented at the WMSC hearing, Flav would walk free.

I have never stated Flav might or might not be culpable. If there is sufficient evidence to bear that point to his being guilty, I'd have no problem supporting it. The sticking point is that there's been no such evidence brought to bear. His culpability hinges on a whistleblower that didn't exist until the team was asked to provide evidence implicating Flav, and he was not available for cross-examination nor was his testimony made accessible to the opposing team. Were this a criminal trial, it'd get laughed out of court.

FWIW - and in keeping consistent with law under most modern legal systems - had NP killed a marshal/spectator/driver and MS the driver he aimed for - the severity of MS's crime (the degree of manslaughter applicable) would exceed NP's.

[Giblet]

All true.

I just wanted to ring home the fact that what Schumi did was not nearly on the same level, simply because it was not premeditated.

Once you add premeditation, even though the outcome of each event could be the same, they are not on the same scale. What Schumi did had penalties all ready to go, but obviously for Nelson and Flav, removal of points would have been bordering on a wrist slap. Schumi's incident had precedent from the Senna Alesi days, but the Race Fixing was without precedent. Both of course have motive and opportunity, but Jerez 97 was not thought of until the moment of red mist came. Maybe it was in the back of his mind when the flag dropped, but that is pure conjecture and we will never know.

MS was shamed, and the punishment fit the crime.

Legal or right, I think Flav got what he deserved. Esoterically, you could even say Flav had some Karma ready to come back and bit his ass for the TC in the 94 Benny.

[SZ]

NP's premeditation was to bring out the safety car. MS's to inflict on one particular driver's car. Had NP killed a spectator, it'd be collateral damage. Had MS killed JV, the chain of consequence is considerably shorter. You'd have a hard time proving otherwise in court.

I can't stress it again, the FIA rules have no provision to measuring the magnitude of the severity of a transgression of the sporting regulations by a degree of premeditation. To say MS's actions weren't premeditated to a degree is bollocks. It's not as if he crossed the white line coming out of pit lane. A 'deliberate' action is inherently 'premeditated' and you'd have a hard time proving otherwise in court. Let's assume MS had killed JV but his intention was just to put him off the track, and the thought crossed his mind before the race. What you're suggesting is that if he argued that the idea occurred to him the split second before nerfing JV's car, he'd get a lesser sentence.

I'd love to see a legal precedent for that much.

A precedent, if anything, doesn't establish a punishment, it establishes a transgression. I fail to see how retrospective punishments bear any significant to a driver. MS lost his championship points for the year. Boo hoo.

Race fixing indeed has a precedent - Jerez 06. There are many others.

I'd add that the FIA regs have no provision for karma - if they did, Todt would be six feet under and MS would have died of spontaneous combustion some time ago.

The complete crackup for me is that given the chance to conduct their own independent investigations, the FIA put it on the team to 'find some' for Flav. If Max wanted him out and believed NP's testimony that badly, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that an organisation as resourced as the FIA couldn't have put up a convincing - fair - fight and really set an example.

As it played out, the only example they redefined was 'kangaroo court'.

[Rob W]

Whilst you're partially true, you do need to kill someone to come under involuntary manslaughter or have the intention of doing so but failed in pulling it off to come under attempted manslaughter of any degree.

Dear god can we please just by-pass all the back-yard legal comparisons? Each comparison is distinct in too many ways to be wholly valid here.

Manslaughter is unintentional killing. It can factor in varying degrees of other intent (killing someone when you just mean to beat them up for example) or negligence (being distracted while driving and killing someone) etc but the baseline definition remains: "no intent to kill".

Your comment: "..attempted manslaughter" - It is impossible to attempt to unintentionally kill someone. If you had the mind to attempt something then by definition the end result of that aim cannot be deemed unintentional. (that said, there still may be other unforeseeable or unintended results though - like killing a bystander etc)

I'm not disputing your overall line of thinking but trying to relate it to degrees of murder, for example, which don't even exist in most legal systems outside of North America just clouds the line of argument not, as I'm guessing you were aiming, to clarify it.

[SZ]

Good pickup Rob, I've confused my degrees of manslaughter in attempting to apply what runs for degrees of murder. In doing so, I made the argument about as clear as mud.

What I meant to state was:

Manslaughter is either voluntary/non negligent (in the heat of the moment) or, to a lesser degree, involuntary and unplanned.

The point attempted to be made was that MS at Jerez came closer to the stronger definition of the two than NP, and that's an important distinction.

The definitions are common to most Western justice systems though strangely the FIA sought to see differently.

Rest as per stated

[autogyro]

So what?
The FIA found the evidence given as true.
NP crashed his car on purpose.
Briatore was the team principle and was responsible.
He was banned.

[SZ]

The FIA found the evidence given as true.

+

Briatore was the team principle and was responsible.
He was banned.

The FIA requested evidence on condition of expulsion from the championship.
The fabrication was used as the basis to get rid of Briatore.

If you're suggesting that what the FIA wanted, they got, I agree with you.

If you're suggesting the process was fair, well, that involves a brand of naivety I'm not familiar with.

[myurr]

So what?
The FIA found the evidence given as true.
NP crashed his car on purpose.
Briatore was the team principle and was responsible.
He was banned.

You forgot the final steps:

The French courts found that the FIA process was flawed and resulted in an unfair trial.
Hence we do not know if the evidence given was true or made up by Renault / Mosley.
He was unbanned.

There is no question that NP crashed the car. There is no question that Symmonds knew about it. However no one has been able to produce any evidence that Briatore had anything to do with the plot or could have stopped it.

[autogyro]

So what?
The FIA found the evidence given as true.
NP crashed his car on purpose.
Briatore was the team principle and was responsible.
He was banned.

You forgot the final steps:

The French courts found that the FIA process was flawed and resulted in an unfair trial.
Hence we do not know if the evidence given was true or made up by Renault / Mosley.
He was unbanned.

There is no question that NP crashed the car. There is no question that Symmonds knew about it. However no one has been able to produce any evidence that Briatore had anything to do with the plot or could have stopped it.

Briatore knowing of the plot makes no difference.
He signed up to work under FIA regulations.
He received his ban accordingly.
The French courts have overturned the ban but the FIA is to appeal this decision.
That appeal MUST succeed if FIA regulations are to continue with any credibility.
There is far more at play here than the comfort of an ageing latin playboy.

[mcdenife]

Briatore knowing of the plot makes no difference.

Actually it makes all the difference. He was banned for that very reason (ie that he was involved in the plot), not because he was boss of RF1 (read the transcript).

He signed up to work under FIA regulations.
He received his ban accordingly.

According to what exactly. If that is the case, then the FIA goofed big time (see 1st point above). But then what do you expect from power blinded incompetents.

That appeal MUST succeed if FIA regulations are to continue with any credibility.

It won't and I maintain there wont be one (unless the basis of case being appealled is changed, cant see that happening). oh, and btw, what credibility??

There is far more at play here than the comfort of an ageing latin playboy.

At play or at stake? And for who, said playboy or the collective incompetent dimwits known as the FIA?

[myurr]

Briatore knowing of the plot makes no difference.
He signed up to work under FIA regulations.
He received his ban accordingly.
The French courts have overturned the ban but the FIA is to appeal this decision.

As has been stated, Briatore was convicted by the FIA of being directly involved, not of being team principle and therefore it makes all the difference. The entire FIA case (and investigation for that matter) revolves around trying to prove that Briatore was involved.

The FIA will not appeal as they will lose. Hence all the talk of requiring team principles to be super-license holders so that they don't need to worry about little details like fair trials.

That appeal MUST succeed if FIA regulations are to continue with any credibility.
There is far more at play here than the comfort of an ageing latin playboy.

This has nothing to do with Flavio's comfort, and I'm certainly not defending him because of that - personally I hate the guy, but I believe in due process, free speech, right to a fair trial, etc. even when it means having to put up with people I dislike or disagree with.

In this instance Flavio was denied a fair trial. Max was accuser, investigator and judge and didn't even pretend to be impartial by withholding evidence from the court, instead giving his word that it existed.

Before the rot at the FIA can be removed, it must first be acknowledged and I sincerely hope that this court ruling is the first step of this process. Max has gone, although is still lurking in the shadows, and that is an important victory in and of itself.

I personally didn't hold out much hope when Todt took over, but in his defense he seems to be doing the right things so far so I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt. He should forget the appeal and concentrate on ensuring a fair process for all in the future. The FIA is nothing without its credibility, and the loss in the French court should be a warning that this is in jeopardy.

FIA fairness and impartiality has increasing become a joke on the internet and in private discussion over the last twenty years, to the point where it has been openly called into question even by drivers (Alonso's 'F1 is no longer a sport'). Hopefully Flavio's farcical trial and subsequent punishment will be the turning point and the FIA can renew itself and its reputation.