FIA Launch Investigation into 'alleged events' at 2008 Singapore GP

Moneymaker

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62145952&postcount=86313

tbh

matty55

I always thought that briatore was a shaddy character!

frostie500

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Renault are heavily involved in GP2 and other series I cant see them being pushed out by the FIA.

I cant see them being forced out of F1 either, but I do see them looking for a way out of F1.

With Renault signed upto the new Concord agreement they are legally binded to F1 until 2012, as a result they would need to reach an agreement with the FIA to leave the sport.

BMW's entry for the 2010 season is dependant on the other 13 teams agreeing to BMW entering-or posibly some team decides to step aside for them...

Renault's reputation will be in taters after this and by not contesting the decisions of the FIA investigation they are admitting their guilt. I can't see any team not challenging a decision that could see them banned from the sport unless they reached an agreement prior to the case.....

stevenmu

Kersh wrote: »

He has a say in how much fuel he put in before the race, and 14 laps is very very low, considering it was a street circuit. why would such an experienced driver put in so little? He ought to leave the team now and save his reputation, cos mud sticks in that game.

In the transcript, Briatore talks with Alonso's engineer about bringing him in early, the engineer seems doubtful about it suggesting they can go further, so it seems like he had more than the 14 laps worth of fuel, and the engineer at least wasn't in on it.



edit: Sorry, was actually Symonds. From Ghost Trains post earlier

After Piquet is given the information, the discussion returns to the timing of Alonso’s first stop and Symonds makes his decision. “Right, I’m going to . . . I think we’re going to stop him just before we catch him [a reference to the Williams driver, Kazuki Nakajima, who was ahead of Alonso] and get him out of it, the reason being we’ve still got this worry on the fuel pump. It’s only a couple of laps short. We’re going to be stopping him early and we’re going to go to lap 40.”

This decision prompts a puzzled question from an engineer, who wants assurance from Symonds that a tactical option that would drop Alonso to last place it the right thing to do. “Pat, do you still not think that this is a bit too early?” he asks a few minutes later. “We only did six tenths that lap.”

Symonds replies: “No, no it’s going to be all right.”

“OK, OK, understood,” the engineer responds.

EvilMonkey

Delta Kilo wrote: »

The two of them were sacked by Renault.

Meaningless token punishments are what the FIA are good at. :pac:

frostie500 wrote: »

I cant see them being forced out of F1 either, but I do see them looking for a way out of F1.

That's why I said I cant see them being pushed out they could pull out themselves but I see the their action and statement as a confirmation of their commitment to F1.
It would look better for them in the long run if they are seen to remove the problem take the punishment on the chin and continue on and rebuild their reputation.
If they just quit it will always be known that they left because they were caught cheating.

frostie500

EvilMonkey wrote: »

That's why I said I cant see them being pushed out they could pull out themselves but I see the their action and statement as a confirmation of their commitment to F1.

Its a tough call as to how these actions show the commitment of Renault to F1, for any team to effectively throw themselves at the mercy of the FIA after all but admitting that they fixed the result of a race that had a very material influence on the result of a world championship is exceptionally risky and fool hardy

mickdw

What about piquet now, how is he going to come out of this I wonder?
It makes Piquet senior look v bad imo. He is an older experienced man and if it can be shown that he knew about it from the time of the incident and kept quiet a long as his son kept the job, well he is as bad as the rest.

EvilMonkey

frostie500 wrote: »

Its a tough call as to how these actions show the commitment of Renault to F1, for any team to effectively throw themselves at the mercy of the FIA after all but admitting that they fixed the result of a race that had a very material influence on the result of a world championship is exceptionally risky and fool hardy

Not really it worked for them in spygate, compare their punishment to McLaren who first denied and then confessed.

Iron Hide

Ghost Train wrote: »

Well its says they left... which could mean they walked but would imagine they were sacked

probably important for symonds to get a ban as he might be a target for another team looking to gain some info about the technology or engineering of the renault f1 cars

In fairness, i doubt anyone would want info on this years renault cars, they'd be better off with data from a nissan micra....

frostie500

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Not really it worked for them in spygate, compare their punishment to McLaren who first denied and then confessed.

The penalty for McLaren was $100 million, I cant imagine the Renault board would view this as an acceptable cost of racing in F1 when they have in the past said that they will only race while it provides economic viability to the company

With ING announcing that they were ending their sponsership at the end of the season and no alternatives have been openly discussed Renault may have to finance the team to a greater extent and their board would not stump up for the cost of racing as well as the fine.

Thats why I view it that some sort of agreement was made between Renault and the FIA. BMW taking their slot seems like a fairly plausible explanation that would be suitable for all parties-FIA get a team that they want in the championship and Renault wont be banned from next season, and receive the negative publicity that would hurt the share value of the company, but rather that they would be allowed to leave F1 even though they are legally obliged to compete under the terms of the Concord agreement.

matty55

Who is the next in comand 2 lead renault for the rest of the season after briatore and symonds are gone??

vectra

matty55 wrote: »

Who is the next in comand 2 lead renault for the rest of the season after briatore and symonds are gone??

David Richards has been mentioned

EvilMonkey

Ficus wrote: »

if its from within the team, it will probably be bob bell.

Yeah I would say it will be him for the rest of the season at least.

@frostie500 we should find out on Monday anyway.

Slutmonkey57b

If there is a deal being struck, I would imagine it is for Renault to be allowed to keep its engine supply business going, along with Formula Renault and the like. If the team is allowed to stay on the grid for the remainder of the year and next year, then it will be a disgrace to the sport.

vectra

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If there is a deal being struck, I would imagine it is for Renault to be allowed to keep its engine supply business going, along with Formula Renault and the like. If the team is allowed to stay on the grid for the remainder of the year and next year, then it will be a disgrace to the sport.

Why throw away a box of apples when there were only a handfull of them bad ?

Slutmonkey57b

Why allow a team to get away with cheating, race fixing, covering it up for a year, endagering drivers, endangering marshals, endangering spectators, and bringing the sport into massive disrepute, given that the two people they've admitted are involved have "left" and conveniently can't be chased after by the FIA?

They also got away with Spygate don't forget.

vectra

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Why allow a team to get away with cheating, race fixing, covering it up for a year, endagering drivers, endangering marshals, endangering spectators, and bringing the sport into massive disrepute, given that the two people they've admitted are involved have "left" and conveniently can't be chased after by the FIA?

They also got away with Spygate don't forget.

Did Renault know about this race fixing before now?
I think not,

So why punish them?
I dont see any reason for it.

The two culprits can't be chased by the FIA ?

Of course they can,
They are not going to walk away scot free.

Read This

Slutmonkey57b

Since the two are no longer "employed by a license holder" the FIA has no power over them.

Top Dog

That wouldn't stop the authorities in Singapore launching proceedings to have the 2 extradited over there to face charges!

vectra

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Since the two are no longer "employed by a license holder" the FIA has no power over them.

Not really.
They were "employed by the licence holder" when they broke the rules so can be punished.

EvilMonkey

Is Briatore still Piquet's manager? Who else, Alonso?

thebman

Irvine talks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8260448.stm

Renault talks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8261004.stm

Slap on the wrist for Renault I imagine.

vectra

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Is Briatore still Piquet's manager? Who else, Alonso?

Yes
and Yes
Plus
Frank Montagney
Possibly others as well
But I guess they will all have a get out of jail free card after this

amacachi

Just listened to Irvine and he's dead right.

Top Dog

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Is Briatore still Piquet's manager? Who else, Alonso?

Yes, but Piquet Snr is talking about taking Briatore to court depending on the outcome of Monday's meeting in order to nullify the contract between Nelson Jnr and FFBB

I'd imagine other drivers might consider similar action if Briatore is found guilty.

Plus, if he gets a lifetime ban from F1 (which has been suggested) then he'd have to break all the contracts anyway - wouldn't he?

EvilMonkey

amacachi wrote: »

Just listened to Irvine and he's dead right.

Yeah, i herd it the other day and agree with him.

Top Dog wrote: »

Yes, but Piquet Snr is talking about taking Briatore to court depending on the outcome of Monday's meeting in order to nullify the contract between Nelson Jnr and FFBB

I'd imagine other drivers might consider similar action if Briatore is found guilty.

Plus, if he gets a lifetime ban from F1 (which has been suggested) then he'd have to break all the contracts anyway - wouldn't he?

Yeah that's why I asked his Alonso deal must be worth a few quid, how he gets drivers to sign for him I don't know they all seem to get a crap deal, i guess there desperate to get into F1.

thebman

Yeah agree with Irvine too.

Will the drivers be able to break Flavio's contracts now?

Surely they could argue he is damaging their reputation?

Slutmonkey57b

vectra wrote: »

Not really.
They were "employed by the licence holder" when they broke the rules so can be punished.

How? This isn't a court of law. The FIA's fines and punishment can only be meted out by those who choose to accept them. Renault will have to take it because they're a licence holder, ie they've agreed to pretend that the FIA's hearing is legally binding. Flav and Simonds no longer have any connection with the FIA (unless Flav's other businesses count which I would be suprised by) so the FIA can't call them before a hearing, or impose any punishment.

vectra

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

How? This isn't a court of law. The FIA's fines and punishment can only be meted out by those who choose to accept them. Renault will have to take it because they're a licence holder, ie they've agreed to pretend that the FIA's hearing is legally binding. Flav and Simonds no longer have any connection with the FIA (unless Flav's other businesses count which I would be suprised by) so the FIA can't call them before a hearing, or impose any punishment.

They are possibly facing a lifetime ban from the FIA
That in turn would destroy Flavios FFBB.
Which in turn would find him excluded from the Soccor team he part owns ( QPR ? )

Not sure about what could happen to Pat though.

Ghost Train

thebman wrote: »

Irvine talks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8260448.stm

Renault talks:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8261004.stm

Slap on the wrist for Renault I imagine.

i like irvine, but to be honest its a load of crap to compare this to anything thats happened before. Just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder about being schumachers bitch

life time bans for the two involved would probably send the right message from the fia, and maybe after a few years when the memory fades a bit they could reverse that to show they have a compasionate side

Maybe big fine for renault too, however since they aren't high up in the championship the fine might scaled to match competition money they would have been due, just like the mclaren fine which was "$100 million, less the FOM income lost as a result of the points deduction"... $25million dollers or something and maybe a few racebans to make it look better

Or maybe renault would like to sit out the sport for a year while times are tough, so the fia could ban them for a year with a bit of a smile and wink and everybody is happy

Top Dog

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

How? This isn't a court of law. The FIA's fines and punishment can only be meted out by those who choose to accept them. Renault will have to take it because they're a licence holder, ie they've agreed to pretend that the FIA's hearing is legally binding. Flav and Simonds no longer have any connection with the FIA (unless Flav's other businesses count which I would be suprised by) so the FIA can't call them before a hearing, or impose any punishment.

If the FIA give them a lifetime ban then its not going to matter much whether they're working for a licencee at the moment or not. A ban is a ban - and hence the punishment can be imposed.

The FA, while they haven't commented so far, are also watching things closely due to Flav's association with QPR - so for him at least this could have far greater reaching implications.

kaizersoze

Ghost Train wrote: »

i like irvine, but to be honest its a load of crap to compare this to anything thats happened before.

Spot on. He's talking through his ar$e for alot of that. Each time he's pressed he just repeats the same crap again about years ago.
According to him F1 should be a free for all without any rules at all.
Renault should be banned, for at least the rest of the season, but it won't happen.

amacachi

kaizersoze wrote: »

Spot on. He's talking through his ar$e for alot of that. Each time he's pressed he just repeats the same crap again about years ago.
According to him F1 should be a free for all without any rules at all.
Renault should be banned, for at least the rest of the season, but it won't happen.

I don't think he's suggesting teams should be allowed shoot each other or anything, just that it's time to get real and not pretend that it's only now that "dirty tricks" are being used.
And he was dead right to call bull**** on the massive exaggerations of how dangerous it was that are flying around.

Top Dog

amacachi wrote: »

And he was dead right to call bull**** on the massive exaggerations of how dangerous it was that are flying around.

Funny enough, after listening to the interview I went and had a look on youtube for video's of the incident - and to be fair it was very tame and no-where near as dramatic and deadly as all the various press releases would have you believe. Practice spin on the formation lap, and then bang on lap 14. Sufficient damage to render the car immobile, but certainly not enough impact to have been a real danger to anyone (Piquet included).

EvilMonkey

Ghost Train wrote: »

i like irvine, but to be honest its a load of crap to compare this to anything thats happened before. Just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder about being schumachers bitch

Complete opposite for me seems like he knew exactly what his role was in the team was and can live with it unlike others.

thebman

Ghost Train wrote: »

i like irvine, but to be honest its a load of crap to compare this to anything thats happened before. Just sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder about being schumachers bitch

I don't think so. All he says is that its crap to act like this didn't happen before in F1 and that they are trying to clean it up for the sponsors so it can be more mainstream but this crap will still occur because its the nature of the sport.

Slutmonkey57b

Head of spanish motorsport talks sense: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78732. I'm guessing he's not in Todt's camp for the re-election.

As to the FIA "ban", no they can't ban them - just like they couldn't ban Nigel Stepney. They can "advise" teams to check him out before hiring him, but that's all.

Slutmonkey57b

Top Dog wrote: »

Funny enough, after listening to the interview I went and had a look on youtube for video's of the incident - and to be fair it was very tame and no-where near as dramatic and deadly as all the various press releases would have you believe. Practice spin on the formation lap, and then bang on lap 14. Sufficient damage to render the car immobile, but certainly not enough impact to have been a real danger to anyone (Piquet included).

What about shards of carbon fibre and hot engine parts shooting into the crowd, who were sitting all of a couple of feet behind a steel barrier?

What about another driver getting a puncture and losing control?

What about other drivers crashing trying to avoid the wreck and the debris?

What about Piquet having to run across the track, in what amounts to a walled corridor of death, around a blind corner, to get out?

What about the marshals who had to get the car off the track, and clean it up, in the narrow walled corridor of track, with no way of escaping should another car lose control and come towards them?

Just because Piquet might have been reasonably certain he could spin and not hurt himself or directly hit another driver, doesn't mean at all that the outcome of the crash could be predicted.

EvilMonkey

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

What about shards of carbon fibre and hot engine parts shooting into the crowd, who were sitting all of a couple of feet behind a steel barrier?

What about another driver getting a puncture and losing control?

What about other drivers crashing trying to avoid the wreck and the debris?

What about Piquet having to run across the track, in what amounts to a walled corridor of death, around a blind corner, to get out?

What about the marshals who had to get the car off the track, and clean it up, in the narrow walled corridor of track, with no way of escaping should another car lose control and come towards them?

Just because Piquet might have been reasonably certain he could spin and not hurt himself or directly hit another driver, doesn't mean at all that the outcome of the crash could be predicted.

Seriously if it was that dangerous the race should have been red flagged, Running across the track, the crowd a few feet behind the track, the marshals not being able to move the car with a crane quickly and the walled corridor of death are problems with the circuit.

Slutmonkey57b

They are, but that's why the cynical deliberate crash shouldn't be underestimated as "eh, low speed, no chance of hurting himself, nobody behind, what's the big deal".

Ghost Train

Once you decide to loose control of the car theres no predicting what will happen. There was a car behind him. As for Irvine he did well at Ferrari and played a team game, but can't compare it to what Piquet did... basically fixing the race with potentially dangerous planned crash. Political correctness... yes the FIA do some stupid things, but in this case don't really see how its relevant

Top Dog

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

What about shards of carbon fibre and hot engine parts shooting into the crowd, who were sitting all of a couple of feet behind a steel barrier?

What about another driver getting a puncture and losing control?

What about other drivers crashing trying to avoid the wreck and the debris?

What about Piquet having to run across the track, in what amounts to a walled corridor of death, around a blind corner, to get out?

What about the marshals who had to get the car off the track, and clean it up, in the narrow walled corridor of track, with no way of escaping should another car lose control and come towards them?

Just because Piquet might have been reasonably certain he could spin and not hurt himself or directly hit another driver, doesn't mean at all that the outcome of the crash could be predicted.

What about the fact that everything you've just posted is a "what if" that never happened. The way you're talking is if they were to have considered the consequences of the act before actually going through with it.

I'm pointing out the reality - no-one was hurt, no tyres were punctured, Piquet didn't get knocked down running across the track, the car was removed without any marshall injury.

Ohhhh it could have been this and it could have been that - but it simply wasn't. Yes, it could have potentially been a whole lot more serious, I'm not arguing that at all. All I'm saying is that the ACTUAL event was no-where near as dramatic as everyone would have you believe.

Slutmonkey57b

The "what if's" are precisely why the FIA needs to treat this harshly. Renault chose to ignore all the potentially horrible consequences of this beacuse they could get a one-race benefit. The fact that they got away with no injuries is no mitigation for what they did.

EvilMonkey

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The "what if's" are precisely why the FIA needs to treat this harshly. Renault chose to ignore all the potentially horrible consequences of this beacuse they could get a one-race benefit. The fact that they got away with no injuries is no mitigation for what they did.

The marshals at the race deemed it safe enough to only require a safety car and not a red flag, so you cant now say it was way more serious.

I agree Renault and Piquet should be banned, but I cant see it happening.

The FIA are already shown for what they are by giving Piquet, the person that benefited most(2009 contract), and has only come forward now after attempting to blackmail Flavio and his gain from the crash is over immunity, just so Max can get revenge. Now it turns out they knew about this since last year.

If Piquet can get away with it then I cant see Renault getting race bans.

If this was any other sport they would already be gone pending a fair hearing. :pac:

By the way your man Carlos Gracia, he's Todt's no 2 :P

Slutmonkey57b

You can always rely on F1's powers that be to do the worse I suppose. We'll know this time tomorrow.

Vanaten made the point that Bernie and Luca shouldn't be on the WMSC panel - proving he's a man full of good ideas, common sense, and no chance of winning.

Ghost Train

I think the FIA are right to go easy on Piquet. He should never have been put in the position he was by the team. If he hadn't come forward and this was uncovered some other way then yes he should be punished. But in this case even though his motives for coming forward aren't the best I don't think he should be banned... not that he has a drive anyway

EvilMonkey

Ghost Train wrote: »

I think the FIA are right to go easy on Piquet. He should never have been put in the position he was by the team. If he hadn't come forward and this was uncovered some other way then yes he should be punished. But in this case even though his motives for coming forward aren't the best I don't think he should be banned... not that he has a drive anyway

But he only came forward because he was sacked, not because of a sudden feeling of guilt. If he was still driving he would never have come forward.

Top Dog

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The "what if's" are precisely why the FIA needs to treat this harshly. Renault chose to ignore all the potentially horrible consequences of this beacuse they could get a one-race benefit. The fact that they got away with no injuries is no mitigation for what they did.

You see, my problem with all this is that Renault didn't choose to do anything - Flavio and Pat did. Renault have acknowledged (by not launching a defence to the charges) that the 2 boys did wrong and have parted ways with them.

By your logic, if Wayne Rooney decided in liason with Alex Ferguson to throw a game - then Man Utd should be banned from the FA because of the decisions of 2 bad apples. Personally I think thats just extreme when the rest of the team knew nothing about it.

EvilMonkey wrote: »

But he only came forward because he was sacked, not because of a sudden feeling of guilt. If he was still driving he would never have come forward.

Sad but true. I can't see how its fair to grant him immunity when his motive for revenge is so clear - but then many of the decisions made by the FIA baffle me.

Ghost Train

EvilMonkey wrote: »

But he only came forward because he was sacked, not because of a sudden feeling of guilt. If he was still driving he would never have come forward.

The whole situation doesn't reflect well on Piquet but the team are responsible for giving Piquet as safe a car as they can and are responsible for his safety, by asking/telling him to crash they put his life at risk. His position in team was taken advantage of (1st year in the sport he'll do what he's told to do) and the team let him down. A driver shouldn't be blackmailing a team for a drive but they fecked him over when they asked him to crash

Slutmonkey57b

Piquet isn't some impressionable 13 year old, he's a professional racing driver with a multi-championship winning father. Like Hamilton in liegate, if these guys are old enough and clever enough to drive these machines, they're perfectly capable of saying "no".