Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Briatore will 'probably' sue Piquet
Topic Started: Jan 6 2010, 06:20 PM (309 Views)
Steelstallions
Member Avatar
Driver
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=47601

Quote:
 
Flavio Briatore plans to take legal action against the Piquet family for alleging that he hatched the ‘Crashgate’ race-fixing plot.

Nelson Piquet Jr triggered the events that led to Briatore being handed a lifetime ban from motor racing by the FIA when he claimed his then team boss had ordered him to crash deliberately in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix to help Fernando Alonso win the race.

After his ban was overturned by the French civil courts on Tuesday, Briatore claimed his name had been cleared but said he was still minded to sue the Piquets.

“Very probably,” he told La Gazzetta dello Sport.

“I won’t forget the pain I’ve suffered just like that.”

Briatore said he was convinced that former FIA president Max Mosley had been determined to pin the blame on him because of their past conflicts.

“It was a case of vengeance by Mosley, who has always run the FIA and the World Council as if it was his private property,” he said.


He wounded a very rich and very aggressive man, Piquet might get his backside.........better stop there Flabio said <roflmao>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
this is all part of last years nastiness... hopefully this will be the extent on any such court dramas this season
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJHSaints
Member Avatar
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brave_Lee_Flea
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
RJHSaints,Jan 6 2010
08:18 PM
I thought it was accepted that Briatore had been behind crashgate.....why else would he have not fought the case in the first place?


This was discussed recently here

sportsman,Jan 5 2010
07:37 PM
Maybe this had something to do with it

"I would also have been glad to hear Mr Mosley explain that he expressed to me over the phone on September 19th 2009, that my presence at the hearing of the World Council of 21st September was neither necessary nor desirable, in the context of a difficult session for Renault, while since such hearing may, in any event, not result into any decision against myself."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80620


yours hopefully helpfully,
Petra
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flood1
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. <cool>


Quote:
 
"As regards Mr. Briatore, the allegations from NPJ and both the comments and the refusal to answer questions at interview by Mr. Symonds appear to the Stewards to indicate that there may have been some discussion in Mr. Briatore's presence of the possibility of causing a deliberate crash to benefit the team. However, in light of Mr. briatore's vehement denial of any knowledge of a plan to crash deliberately, the Stewards do not consider that they are in a position to draw any definitive conclusion regarding Mr. Briatore's knowledge or involvement."


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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
RJHSaints,Jan 6 2010
08:18 PM
I thought it was accepted that Briatore had been behind crashgate.....why else would he have not fought the case in the first place?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyW76
Member Avatar
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).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Red Andy
Member Avatar

Moderator
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sportsman
Member Avatar
Chief Engineer
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Petra Lead,Jan 6 2010
10:29 PM
RJHSaints,Jan 6 2010
08:18 PM
I thought it was accepted that Briatore had been behind crashgate.....why else would he have not fought the case in the first place?


This was discussed recently here

sportsman,Jan 5 2010
07:37 PM
Maybe this had something to do with it

"I would also have been glad to hear Mr Mosley explain that he expressed to me over the phone on September 19th 2009, that my presence at the hearing of the World Council of 21st September was neither necessary nor desirable, in the context of a difficult session for Renault, while since such hearing may, in any event, not result into any decision against myself."

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80620


yours hopefully helpfully,
Petra

It has
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyW76
Member Avatar
Team Boss
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Red Andy,Jan 7 2010
12:44 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Formula 1 · Next Topic »
Add Reply