| Welcome to The Pit Lane. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Briatore will 'probably' sue Piquet | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 6 2010, 06:20 PM (309 Views) | |
| Steelstallions | Jan 6 2010, 06:20 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Driver
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=47601
He wounded a very rich and very aggressive man, Piquet might get his backside.........better stop there Flabio said
|
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 6 2010, 07:55 PM Post #2 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
this is all part of last years nastiness... hopefully this will be the extent on any such court dramas this season |
![]() |
|
| RJHSaints | Jan 6 2010, 08:18 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I thought it was accepted that Briatore had been behind crashgate.....why else would he have not fought the case in the first place? |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 6 2010, 08:26 PM Post #4 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe because as was ultimately proved Flavio knew Max had made up his (and the FIA's) mind long before they went to court. |
![]() |
|
| John | Jan 6 2010, 08:30 PM Post #5 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
... but I should say I think he was involved, or at least I find it very hard to accept he knew nothing... my only support for him is over his case against the severity of the original FIA sanction... had Max left the WMSC to conduct and try the case without interference then he would be punished along with Piquet Jr. and it would be over now. |
![]() |
|
| Brave_Lee_Flea | Jan 6 2010, 10:29 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This was discussed recently here
yours hopefully helpfully, Petra |
![]() |
|
| flood1 | Jan 6 2010, 11:01 PM Post #7 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This is the total evidence from the WMSC. I have chosen to post a particular section and the emphasis is mine. If one is not too lazy to read the 99 pages, perhaps one will find evidence to refute my point of view.
This is on the FIA document page 97/98 and on the PDF file page 24/25. What I am saying is that the FIA, by their own admission (see above quote) do not have any LEGAL evidence that is admisable. Instead they choose to apply their own "club" rules. Problem was, they did not follow their own rules. FB did know, but it is not provable. Symonds and Jr. admitted their involvement. That is the real difference of fact. Admission in the case of two players, and inference in the case of the other. That might work in the "boys club" but not in a real court of law. |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Jan 7 2010, 12:08 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
One point I don't think has been highlighted yet. Briatore says that Max contacted him a few days before the hearing and told him his presence would not be necessary; in Flav's absence he got his life ban handed down by the WMSC. However, shortly after the hearing it was revealed that the outcome of the case (Renault's suspended penalty, etc) had been agreed in advance. Is it therefore possible that Flavio's absence was desirable for things to run smoothly? Had he been there, protesting his innocence, the whole cleverly worked-out verdict might have needed to be reconsidered. Just a thought. |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Jan 7 2010, 12:40 PM Post #9 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Is it me or did the FIA make a lot of pretial judgements during Max's administration. As much as mcLaren were guilty in spygate, the second hearing did seem contrived and decisions looked like they had been made long before (like Max going for a second bite of the cherry when he didn't get the initial judgement that he wanted). |
![]() |
|
| Red Andy | Jan 7 2010, 12:44 PM Post #10 |
![]()
|
There was additional evidence (emails) that was available in the second Spygate hearing that wasn't available in the first. If you remember, the WMSC originally concluded that McLaren had Ferrari data but there was no evidence it had been used; the emails proved that the data had been used and therefore the second hearing was called. Also Max has stated that he wanted McLaren banned after Spygate but the WMSC disagreed. I think Spygate showed that the FIA were more concerned with McLaren's refusal to cooperate with them than with the severity of the offence. |
![]() |
|
| sportsman | Jan 7 2010, 12:47 PM Post #11 |
|
Chief Engineer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It has |
![]() |
|
| AndyW76 | Jan 7 2010, 12:54 PM Post #12 |
|
Team Boss
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is beside the by, it was evident after the first hearing that he wanted more and knew more than he was letting on. I suspect that if Max had persued any team as hard as he persued McLaren, he would have found something to pin on them. As I understand it, much of the e-mail evidence was circumstantial and could have been explained away, though, in reality, there was obviously something going on. My only beef with spygate was that McLaren were singled out over things that half the grid were most likely doing. Industrial espionage has been well acknowledged in F1 since the late 80s, so any case brought by the FIA would likely bring a guilty verdict. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:49 AM Jul 11