[F1] F1 nieuwtjes topic deel 54; Waar Fisi z'n kans krijgt

quote:

Op donderdag 10 september 2009 16:15 schreef Stiggie het volgende:

[..]

Nelson neemt wraak.

Ouch...

quote:

Nederland steunt Ari Vatanen als FIA-president

Een groep van veertien FIA-leden, waaronder Nederland, heeft de steun uitgesproken voor Ari Vatanen, die een gooi doet naar het FIA-presidentschap later dit jaar. Vatanen neemt het dan op tegen oud-Ferrari-teambaas Jean Todt, die ook de gepensioneerde Max Mosley wil vervangen.

De veertien landen die Vatanen in zijn campagne voor het FIA-presidentschap steunen zijn: Australie, Duitsland, Finland, Canada, Oeganda, Jamaica, Nederland, Zweden, Zuid-Afrika, Ierland, Jordanie, Peru, Zwitserland en Turkije. Deze landen hebben een brief geschreven naar de andere leden van de FIA, waarin ze hun steun aan Vatanen geven en de leden adviseren om snel te volgen.

"We denken dat de FIA behoefte heeft aan een president die de capaciteiten en mogelijkheden heeft om met respect en enthousiasme over alle verschillende onderdelen te spreken van de sport," staat in de brief. "De unieke achtergrond van Vatanen bevat onder andere een carriere in het Europese parlement. Tijdens zijn succesvolle carriere in de rallysport werd hij ook nog eens wereldkampioen."

"Als een woordvoerder voor de FIA, waar media-aandacht en diplomatiek erg belangrijk bij zijn tegenwoordig, komt Ari als een zeer geschikte kandidaat naar boven. Hij kan in de toekomst een sport creeren, waar eerlijkheid hoog in het vaandel zal staan."

quote:

Op donderdag 10 september 2009 17:55 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Kun je wel laten zien dat je loyaal bent aan je team maar je laat tegelijk zien dat je schijt hebt aan de sport en daar dus ook niet genoeg liefde voor hebt.

En is het wel loyaliteit? Zou Nelson bijvoorbeeld ook Alonso de baan af gecrashed hebben in opdracht van Ferrari of McLaren met de belofte dattie daar volgend jaar kon rijden? Kennelijk heeft Nelson er heel veel voor over om een stoeltje te krijgen.

quote:

Op donderdag 10 september 2009 18:43 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Kweet 't niet ... meeste van die gasten komen de F1 binnen alsof het heilig is.
Maargoed ... als de FIA Nelson immuniteit wil geven zoals die Brazo-bron zegt dan zal er inderdaad wel meer achter steken ... bovendien zijn de team-eigenaren wat dat betreft verantwoordelijk, vinnik.

quote:

Op donderdag 10 september 2009 18:54 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:


Flavio-gate, here we come!

quote:

Op donderdag 10 september 2009 16:58 schreef bodylotion het volgende:

[..]

quote:

The Renault team and its boss Flavio Briatore have begun criminal proceedings against Nelson Piquet Junior and Nelson Piquet Senior following an attempt "to blackmail" the French squad.

"The ING Renault F1 Team and its Managing Director Flavio Briatore personally, wish to state that they have commenced criminal proceedings against Nelson Piquet Junior and Nelson Piquet Senior in France concerning the making of false allegations and a related attempt to blackmail the team into allowing Mr Piquet Jnr to drive for the remainder of the 2009 season," said Renault in a statement on Friday.

"The matter will also be referred to the Police in the UK."

More to follow.

quote:

Q. Would you still like to see Michael Schumacher back one day?

LDM: I told him last night and this morning in my office in Maranello to be careful with his motorcycle racing – you are going too far and you have to be fit sooner or later to be back in F1.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 12:39 schreef Fluffy_Augurk het volgende:
Leuke uitspraak van Luca Di Montezemolo:
[..]

Volledige Q&A hier:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78462

quote:

BMW Sauber, Lotus and Epsilon Euskadi are the three teams that are being evaluated for the final grid slot in Formula 1 next year.

The FIA has narrowed down its selection for the 13th place on the grid, and is expected to decide in the next few days which of the outfits has been successful.

BMW Sauber is currently looking for a buyer, while Lotus' plans, revealed by AUTOSPORT last week, are believed to be backed by the Malaysian government.

Epsilon has funding in place after missing out on the first round of new team entries.

FIA president Max Mosley said on Friday that he expected an announcement about which team had got the place shortly after this weekend's Italian Grand Prix.

"Finally last night we got the final offers from the three most serious teams and in the next day or two, together with the due diligence people we'll assess them and then we'll pick one of them," said Mosley at Monza on Friday.

"I expect something early next week."

Mosley said that BMW Sauber had asked for more time than originally planned to present its plans for 2010.

"BMW Sauber are one of the three but of course they are now effectively a new team because they didn't sign the Concorde Agreement," he explained. "We were asked to give them another week to produce their documentation and answer further questions which they have done."

Mosley said he had no doubts that the three new teams - Manor Grand Prix, Campos Grand Prix and Team US F1 – were all on course with their plans to be on the grid in 2010.

"They seem fine," he explained. "I think the Cosworth engine may surprise a few people as well."

When asked specifically about US F1, amid speculation that the team may be behind schedule to get its car ready, Mosley said: "This is the rumour. We sent some people over there and it's not quite what it sounds. Someone is going over again at the beginning of October.

"There's all sorts of rumours about them but they say they are very serious, so we have to take them at face value."

quote:

Q. In 2007 you said that McLaren had polluted the world championship in the spy case. Now, with Renault, there are suggestions that if guilty they changed the outcome of a race and the world title battle. How serious is the FIA treating the matter, and what sort of punishment will be handed out if they are guilty?

Max Mosley: Well, if, and it is a very big if, they are guilty, obviously it is very serious indeed. But we are in a situation at the moment where we have heard one side of the story and have investigated to the best of our ability. Now we are waiting for Renault's side of the story, and it is only when we have got both sides, and both of them have been heard, that one can actually reach a conclusion. So, in most places, you assume someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. And that is the situation we are in at the moment.

Q. Do you think there is more evidence to come to light then? We have seen a lot of documents get leaked over the past 48 hours?

MM: Yes, that is actually very unfortunate because it is just one side of the story. We are quite genuinely curious as to how that happened. Next time, when we send out to 20 or 30 people, we will probably arrange it in such a way that we can tell who is leaking stuff. We don't know how it happened. But none of that means anything. What means something is when we get their defence, which will not be until next week.

Q. If they are found guilty, will it be as severe for you as the McLaren spy case?

MM: Well, it is not really for me to say - it would be for the World Motor Sport Council. On the one side, one of the bad things about McLaren was that they did not tell the truth, so that went against them. But on the other hand, what is alleged to have been done here, is probably more serious. But to assess that, it is a matter for the world council, it is not really for me to say.

Q. You say that Renault's side of their case will come out at the hearing, but in the documents that have been leaked there are interviews with Pat Symonds and comments from Flavio Briatore, who were questioned by investigators at Spa. Is that not enough from their side?

MM: I think that one must expect there to be more. We originally gave them until [last] Monday to put in all the documents, and then they have asked for more time, which they have been given until the middle of next week. And, we have got no idea what they will produce. But in the nature of things, there are always two sides to a story.

Q. In the documents that have been leaked, can you confirm that they are authentic?

MM: I haven't seen anything which I believe to be a forgery.

Q. In the McLaren case in 2007 after the Hungary incident and Fernando Alonso contacting you, you sent a letter to the drivers promising immunity if they provided evidence. Has any promise be made to Nelson Piquet on a similar basis for his co-operation?

MM: Yes. We have said to him that, and I don't know exactly how it was phrased, but he has been told that if he tells us the truth then he will not be proceeded against individually. It is exactly the same as it was for Alonso.

Q. You said before that the bad thing about McLaren was that they did not tell the truth, so can we conclude from that that it would be better for Renault to tell the truth about what has happened, as the circumstances seem to point out that the story of Nelson is true?

MM: I would not go quite that far. Certainly they should tell the truth, but what that is, I would not speculate. It may be completely different to what we've heard so far, we just don't know.

Q. Are you of the belief that Fernando Alonso is an innocent party in all this, and that he was not aware of what was going on?

MM: We have no evidence to suggest that Alonso knew what was going on.

Q. You mentioned that you have granted Nelson immunity in the matter, but if you come down on the side of Renault then will Nelson be pursued for not telling the truth?

MM: No. There is also a situation where if you were not sure, then you would have to give the benefit of the doubt to Renault. I think. It depends what the World Council thinks. But there are a whole succession of things – the World Council will decide whatever it decides, and then they will have the right of appeal to that to the FIA International Court of Appeal. And if we did something outrageous they could go to a civil court. There are a lot of things we could do, we will just try and do it absolutely fairly and balanced. You can never come to a conclusion until you have heard both sides to a story.

Q. You have talked about the truth and lies of a driver – but Piquet after the crash denied that he had done it on purpose. So, did he not lie?

MM: Sure. The thing is that, one of the things that they will say is that he is not telling the truth. It is obvious. They have to say that. But then you have got to look at all the circumstances.

Q. But it is not too late after 12 months to discover something that people suspected at the time?

MM: It is like, in the real world, fraud goes on forever. If you cheat the tax man normally, if you don't declare your money, it is three or six years – there is a limitation. But if you are fraudulent, it goes on forever. What we cannot do is we cannot interfere with the results of the championship, or indeed of that race, because of Article 179B of the International Sporting Code. On the 30th November the championship is finished, whatever. But of course if someone has done something they should not do, they can still get a penalty. So it is open.

Q. Did the FIA suspect that there was something strange at the time?

MM: No. We had no reason to believe that. There was a lot of speculation on the web but there is always speculation about all sorts of things. We cannot launch an inquiry just on the basis of speculation – but when somebody comes and gives us a sworn statement then obviously we have got to investigate it. The other side of it is, that if the driver comes and give you this story, you can't just say, 'no we'll ignore that, it's 12 months ago, let's forget it.' It goes to the root of motorsport.

Q. Do you think race-fixing is on a similar par to doping in cycling?

MM: We try very hard to demonstrate that if there is something it comes out. The effort we made with McLaren was extreme. People will say it was done as a vendetta or for personal reasons. It's completely untrue.

You are put in a position where you've some information, and you have to pursue it. You can't just forget it. This was the situation with McLaren, and it was very annoying. It wasted an enormous amount of time and money, and Renault is taking a lot of time and money as well which is annoying. But if you want the sport to run properly you have to investigate. What comes out in the end is another matter, but there has to be a proper investigation."

Q. There was a story two days after Belgium saying the FIA had unearthed other incidents outside the Singapore case. Is that the case?

MM: I don't know where that came from. But for us, we've looked at all the surrounding circumstances, put that in a dossier and sent it to Renault and the World Council, and now we're waiting for them to answer. Until that happens, no conclusion can be drawn.

Q. What do you make of the defence of Renault saying that this investigation is wanted by the FIA?

MM: I suppose they have to say something, but it is fundamentally implausible. Number one, we get a report from the driver. We have to investigate. When we investigate we find there are certain individual bits of evidence, so we do a very serious investigation.

If they are innocent, they will have a complete answer, so there is no point in us pursuing them if we thought they had done nothing , if it was some sort of conspiracy because it would be demonstrated and we would look stupid.

The only reason we've done it is because these things have been put on the table, and for me personally it's really quite annoying because it's wasting time which I would rather spend doing something else and I've other things to do. Looking at it from the other side, if we just said we would ignore it then the whole would turn around and say Formula 1 is not a sport, it's a business – that because this is a big car company they're not going to do anything; because Bernie's friends with Flavio and they've got a football club, they're not going to do anything. The world would see us as corrupt.

Q. So therefore any penalty, should you find Renault guilty, would have to be severe to prove you are fair?

MM: Depending again on all the circumstances, probably. If you look at any other sport, if somebody fixes the result then it's usually taken seriously.

Fixing is one degree worse than cheating, like if you're a cyclist and you take dope, that's cheating. If you bribe the other cyclists, or you get somebody to have a crash in the peloton so the yellow jersey guy crashes, that's more serious.

Then if it puts human life at risk, whether it's the spectators, the marshals or the drivers, then it's more serious again. The moment we talk about that, we sort of imply they are guilty, but we don't know. Until they put their defence in, we've got to assume they're innocent.

Q. The world has changed since the McLaren case. There is not a team who could swallow a 100 million dollar fine now, which would see Renault walk away...

MM: To put that in context, the halfway stage was the September meeting when we had the emails and we were able to prove clearly that people other than the one man within McLaren had knowledge.

So first of all they turned up at the first meeting and didn't tell the truth, and secondly, they had made use of this material. We didn't know to what extent. Now the normal thing to have done would have been to exclude them from the 2007 championship.

If we'd done that, nobody anywhere in the world would have criticised. On top of that, we learned when we fully investigated in December, information that it was available to the people doing the 2008 car. We've an email from the chief engineer on the '07 car and the chief engineer on the '08 car referring to their mole in Ferrari. It's there. We found it.

We also found an email saying that Ron had given instructions not to use quick shift until the FIA aggro is over, so it was right deep in the company.

So you had to not only exclude them from 2007, you would have had to have exclude them from 2008 because they had information that could have been used for the 2008 cars.

If we'd excluded McLaren from 2007 and 2008, the business was finished. Shut down. 1,400 people lose their jobs. There's no way they could have survived that.

Probably if we had excluded them from 2007 just, not even 2008, that would have, if not shut down the business, had an enormously damaging effect on their sponsors, Mercedes and everything else. So the truth of the matter was that the 100 million, although it's a huge amount of money and sounds a huge amount of money, was actually a very light penalty because we didn't exclude them.

Then you've got people in the paddock and a lot of the commentators, literally half-witted, saying this is such a serious penalty when those same people, if we'd excluded them from the championship in 2007 and probably put them out of business, would have not criticised the sporting penalty because you couldn't. It was just the 100 million, as it were.

And actually the 100 million was much less than the penalty of excluding them from the championship. The trouble is that we've got a collection of people who speak in the paddock without thinking, without understanding, who are very stupid and superficial. So they keep going on and on about this massive fine when in fact it was the least we could do, and it demonstrably did not interfere with McLaren's business - witness the fact that they won the drivers' championship the following year.

It was a nasty blow for them, which it needed to be, but it was not like excluding them even in 2007, never mind both years. It's a constant source of annoyance to me when they say 'this outrageous fine'. It's always the really stupid people who haven't thought the thing through.

Q. Would the same principle apply to Renault? 695 people could potentially suffer, who didn't know about the plot?

MM: That's the difficult bit but in the end, again, Renault have to decide. First of all they have got to make their case for the defence and secondly it's very much up to them. It's up to Renault, the ball is in their court. They must decide what they want to do.

Q. What could be the penalty if they guilty?

MM: It could be anything up to disqualification. Because that's what's set out in the code. Disqualification means you are out, finished.

Q. From the 2008 championship?

MM: Out. Total. Exclusion forever, gone, finished. That's the worst that could happen, but don't for a moment get the impression I'm saying that would happen or will happen. That is the worst that could happen.

Q. But that could be a consequence of the penalty, they could walk away…

MM: When Toyota were caught in 1995 or 1996 with the dodgy air inlet, we excluded them for a year. Then they voluntarily excluded themselves for a further year and then they came back. It was a very Japanese sort of mea culpa. So you don't know.

I shouldn't really speculate about it all because we just don't know. All I can officially say at this point is that we haven't had the defence and until we have a hearing we've got to presume they are innocent.

Q. Did you have a chance to talk to Carlos Ghosn about the matter?

MM: Not about this issue. I last met him in July, before this happened. I haven't spoken to him and I haven't spoken about this to Bernard Rey. I've had a couple of conversations with Flavio.

Q. How would you imagine Ghosn would react to a big penalty?

MM: I don't think it would be so much how he would react if there was a big penalty to us. If he thought the team had done it he would probably be unhappy but we don't know, we haven't heard their defence.

Q. The telemetry data appears rather damning though?

MM: This is true but we don't know. They might turn up at the hearing with 13 examples of where he has spun off and the telemetry shows he kept his foot on it the whole time. Then the whole picture changes. We just don't know.

quote:

FIA president Max Mosley says that race fix claims surrounding Renault are being viewed as more serious than outright cheating by the governing body, after revealing on Friday that Nelson Piquet has been granted immunity.

Renault has been called to appear before the FIA's World Motor Sport Council on September 21 to answer charges that it deliberately told Nelson Piquet to crash in last year's Singapore Grand Prix to help Fernando Alonso win the race.

Those claims have been denied by the team, which has begun criminal action against Piquet and his father Nelson for alleged blackmail over the suggestions.

Mosley said the FIA had no choice but to launch a proper investigation into the matter after Piquet had informed the governing body of the events, and he made it clear on Friday about how grave he deemed race-fixing to be.

"If you look at any other sport, if somebody fixes the result then it's usually taken seriously," said Mosley, speaking to selected media including AUTOSPORT in his office at the Monza circuit. "Fixing is one degree worse than cheating.

"If you're a cyclist and you take dope, that's cheating. If you bribe the other cyclists, or you get somebody to have a crash in the peloton so the yellow jersey guy crashes, that's more serious.

"Then if it puts human life at risk, whether it's the spectators, the marshals or the drivers, then it's more serious again. The moment we talk about that, we sort of imply they (Renault) are guilty, but we don't know. Until they put their defence in, we've got to assume they're innocent."

Mosley said it was too early to make a judgement, as the governing body was still waiting for Renault to provide its defence submissions.

"We originally gave them until [last] Monday to put in all the documents, and then they have asked for more time, which they have been given until the middle of next week. And, we have got no idea what they will produce. But in the nature of things, there are always two sides to a story."

He added: "Well, if, and it is a very big if, they are guilty, obviously it is very serious indeed. But we are in a situation at the moment where we have heard one side of the story and have investigated to the best of our ability.

"Now we are waiting for Renault's side of the story, and it is only when we have got both sides, and both of them have been heard, that one can actually reach a conclusion. So, in most places, you assume someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. And that is the situation we are in at the moment."

Mosley has confirmed that Piquet himself has been promised immunity from being punished over the matter, as part of the deal for him providing evidence.

"We have said to him that, and I don't know exactly how it was phrased, but he has been told that if he tells us the truth then he will not be proceeded against individually," he said. "It is exactly the same as it was for Alonso [in the McLaren case in 2007]."

Mosley has also expressed regret that documents relating to the Renault trial were leaked this week - and says that action will be taken in the future to ensure that it does not happen again.

"That is actually very unfortunate because it is just one side of the story," he said. "We are quite genuinely curious at to how that happened. Next time, when we send out to 20 or 30 people, we will probably arrange it in such a way that we can tell who is leaking stuff.

"We don't know how it happened. But none of that means anything. What means something is when we get their defence, which will not be until next week."

Mosley confirmed that the most severe penalty of total exclusion from the world championship was a possibility if Renault was found guilty, and he clarified that it was now too late for the result of last year's Singapore Grand Prix or world championship to be changed.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 14:53 schreef Tarado het volgende:
Mosley: Race-fixing worse than cheating

By Jonathan Noble Friday, September 11th 2009, 11:55 GMT
[..]

Mosley has confirmed that Piquet himself has been promised immunity from being punished over the matter, as part of the deal for him providing evidence.

Vind ik wel bedenkelijk dit

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 15:44 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Niet anders als met De La Rosa en Alonso 2 jaar geleden in het spionageschandaal met McLaren. Daar waren ze actief bij betrokken en kregen ook immuniteit als ze hun verhaal vertelden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 15:49 schreef Tarado het volgende:

[..]

Ja maar Alonso heeft niet een auto tijdens een race opzettelijk in de muur gereden en daarbij zowel het publiek, stewards en andere coureurs in gevaar gebracht, is niet te vergelijken.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 15:57 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Klopt, maar dan nog is het de enige manier om de echte schuldigen (Briatore, Symonds) te pakken, anders had Piquet nooit zijn verhaal verteld.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 14:50 schreef Tarado het volgende:
Q & A with Max Mosley

By Jonathan Noble Friday, September 11th 2009, 12:36 GMT
In 2007 you said that McLaren had polluted the world championship in the spy case.

quote:

En dat is precies de reden waarom Hamilton 'per ongeluk' op het verkeerde knopje drukte en het kampioenschap liet schieten.

quote:

Renault boss Flavio Briatore has insisted that his team has done nothing wrong amid the Singapore Grand Prix race-fix controversy - after boldly predicting the truth of the matter will come out in public soon.

The flamboyant Italian broke his silence about the accusations made against him at Monza on Friday, as he told a select group of media that his decision to take criminal action against the Piquets was proof about how sure he was his team is innocent of the claims made by Nelson Piquet.

"The fact that we put a plan for blackmail [action] against the two Piquets, means I think we are very confident that the truth will come out," said Briatore.

Renault is to face the FIA's World Motor Sport Council in Paris on September 21 to answer charges that it deliberately caused a crash in last year's Singapore Grand Prix to help Fernando Alonso win.

Speaking about the looming WMSC action, Briatore said: "You know what? Whatever happens, if someone goes against the rules, they go against the rules. If I tell you to go rob a bank – afterwards, you decide whether to rob the bank or not.

"I don't feel I have any responsibility, and we don't feel we have done absolutely anything [wrong]. In the case of Piquet we go to the World Council. But the fact already that we have put a criminal plan to Piquet is because we have enough confidence to be successful - the team and myself."

The matter appears to revolve around an alleged pre-race meeting that took place in Briatore's office hours before that race – where Piquet claims that he was asked to crash early in the race to bring out a safety car.

Briatore declined to comment on the specifics of the events that took place that day, but said he had never known of any occasion where a driver had been asked to crash on purpose to help a team.

"No. Never. Fernando only won the race because Massa had a problem, Kubica had a problem," he said. "There were six or seven problems.

"I think Barrichello stopped in the same place as Piquet. What is possible on lap 14, with 40 laps to go, to determine somebody winning the race? There was another pitstop, another safety car. On lap 14, how is it possible to know what is going to happen?"

Briatore also hit out at the way that details of the evidence against Renault had been leaked to the media – something which he thinks has been damaging for his team and the sport. The FIA has already begun an investigation into identifying who distributed the confidential information.

"The bad press I think was completely unfair - some leaks in the press to accuse somebody before they had the possibility to defend themselves," he said.

"I think this is really not honest, this is really damaging and this really takes the sport in dispute [sic]. We probably don't know where it's coming from, but this takes the sport in dispute [sic] because at the moment it is the accusation about Renault with no possibility for us to defend ourselves, because we respect our word to the FIA.

"We don't want to do any comment and all the comment is around you guys, seeing what is leaked in the press. I don't want to put any comment. I just put, this is making damage for Renault and puts the image of Formula 1 and the sport in dispute.

"All these things, if there is an allegation then you go to the World Council and you discuss in the World Council. You don't need to discuss in front of the public opinion and put 500 people working for the team in this kind of danger."

Briatore also offered some words on how he felt about Piquet, as he said that all he had wanted was for the Brazilian to deliver performance when he raced for the team.

"I feel Nelsinho is a very spoiled guy," he said. "Every time he is racing it is because he owns the team as well. He is very fragile. We tried everything. What you want is only performance."

quote:

Q. Is this the biggest crisis you have been involved in in your whole life, because there are huge allegations at stake here - some of which have been aimed at your personally?

Flavio Briatore: I hope it is not against me personally, because the fact is that we put a plan today in the criminal court in Paris against the two Piquets. The fact that we put a plan for blackmail [action] against the two Piquets, means I think we are very confident that the truth will come out.

Q. But blackmail is a very serious charge to make against somebody?

FB: We have enough confidence, and our lawyers – myself and Renault – we have confidence about this happening.

Q. Can you confirm the nature of the blackmail – is it true that Piquet Sr. approached you that he would go to the FIA with evidence if you did not reward his son with a new contract?

FB: You know what. I don't think it is correct today to confirm what is the plan to be put against the Piquets. I think it is enough, I tell you, if myself and Renault decide to put the criminal plans to the two Piquets in the high court of Paris, I think that is enough. I don't want to comment why – or prove it. If we have done it, it is because we have enough confidence – about 80 percent of confidence.

Q. So why have you only started speaking publicly about the matter today, which is a fortnight since the allegations were first aired?

FB: When we have this inquisition from the FIA, they asked for us not to speak to anybody. We sent a statement that we are working with our solicitors, and lawyers, for all the evidence we have. It is not simple as Renault to put plans against blackmail for somebody. We had a meeting with Renault, we saw all the evidence we had and after we decide, after three or four days, we were ready. I think what we tried to do was to be ready with those plans.

We are sure that we have enough evidence to put the plans to the two Piquets in the criminal court. We also needed the authorisation as well of Renault, as they are not a little company. You need to go through there, maybe somebody was not there as they were travelling. We tried to do everything that was possible to achieve the solution. Now we have done it.

Q. Can we talk about some of the specifics? Nelson had said there was a meeting on the Sunday of Singapore with you and Pat Symonds where you discussed a deliberate safety car, that Pat took him to one side to show him where to crash on the circuit, and that after the race you said 'thank you' to him. Can you talk about that? Did he just make this all up?

FB: If, if, we put the plans for blackmail [action] against somebody then it is because I don't want to talk about the specifics. The fact that we put the criminal plans to the Piquets is because I don't want to go into the specifics as it is part of the World Motor Sport Council.

If you see my statement, and I don't think it is out already! I don't think it is out, but if you read my statement it is very clear that I answered all the questions. I don't know if it will be out tomorrow, I don't know if it is coming out! I don't think my statement will be leaked.

Q. Did a meeting take place?

FB: I have put everything into my statement.

Q. Did that meeting occur?

FB: I have answered all these questions. I was very clear in Spa. The FIA have my statement, and it's quite clear.

Q. Will this case go through the courts before the FIA WMSC meeting?

FB: I'm not sure about that. I don't know the speed of the criminal court.

Q. Are you confident you will win the case on September 21?

FB: It's not a question of confidence, it's a question of presenting our case, our defence. I feel really upset, really sad. What you have seen with the leak, everything was against Renault. Wherever it has come, it has caused big damage to Renault, and the members of Renault.

It's not just me and the drivers, it's the 500 to 600 people working for Renault, and making Renault think of not being part of this world any more.

Q. Why do you think Nelson Piquet crashed deliberately?

FB: Nelson has crashed 17 times.

Q. Why did you give him a drive for another year if he was so bad?

FB: I didn't have anybody else. I had an option to take Nelson after the 30th of September, and I didn't take it.

Q. What are your feelings towards Nelson and his father at the moment?

FB: I feel Nelsinho is a very spoiled guy. Every time he is racing it is because he owns the team as well. He is very fragile. We tried everything. What you want is only performance.

Q. But if he is so spoiled, why did you take him on as his manager?

FB: Nelson's father asked me to take him. It was quite simple, and he had had a good season in GP2. Him and Hamilton were pretty much together.

If you look at his first year, he was second in Germany, and he was all right in his first year. But I know only in Brazil, that Fernando was ready for us because we were still negotiating between Ferrari, etc, etc. I had in mind to put Romain in the car, but I believed he was too young. This is no secret.

In 2008 Nelson was making 1.5 million dollars a year. I renewed the contract at one million. I put the clause in the contract that if he is not performing he would be out in Germany. If somebody had done me a favour I would have done something different.

Q. During these difficult times for the team, has there been any moment when you have thought about resigning?

FB: We already had a difficult time after the race in Budapest. We didn't believe it was fair what the stewards did to us because it was a normal accident. It happens all the time.

So what happened in Budapest was really hard for us. We wouldn't have let the driver go if the tyre was not on properly. To be disqualified for the race in Spain, there was a lot of bad press for Renault. It was already very hard for Renault. We spent all of August preparing to defend ourselves for the appeal. We won the appeal, but it was very unfair what happened to Renault.

Q. Have you ever heard of a team issuing an instruction to a driver to crash?

FB: No. Never. Fernando only won the race because Massa had a problem, Kubica had a problem. There were six or seven problems.

I think Barrichello stopped in the same place as Piquet. What is possible on lap 14, with 40 laps to go, to determine somebody winning the race. There was another pit stop, another safety car. On lap 14, how is it possible to know what is going to happen? What is possible that on lap 14 you know what is going on?.

Q. The stakes here are very high though, aren't they. You could be banned from F1 because of this?

FB: You know what, I don't need to look for a new job. I am pretty much happy for what I am and I'm not looking for a salary.

Q. But you've got big ambitions in F1?

FB: I don't think so that I have that big ambitions. What I decide to do in Formula 1 is try with FOTA to put straight Formula 1 and make sure everything is clear, everything is correct. The deal that we signed with FOTA...

Q. Are you worried that they might throw you out?

FB: This is not happening....I don't want to do any comment about that because let's see what happens. I think you see my statement. I know already what the judgement of the stewards in this situation that we have already, what is my position.

Q. How much is bad press damaging the reputation of Renault and affecting the team going forward?

FB: The bad press I think was completely unfair - some leaks in the press to accuse somebody before they had the possibility to defend themselves. I think this is really not honest, this is really damaging and this really takes the sport in dispute [sic]. We probably don't know where it's coming from, but this takes the sport in dispute [sic] because at the moment it is the accusation about Renault with no possibility for us to defend ourselves, because we respect our word to the FIA.

We don't want to do any comment and all the comment is around you guys, seeing what is leaked in the press. I don't want to put any comment. I just put, this is making damage for Renault and puts the image of Formula 1 and the sport in dispute [sic].

All these things, if there is an allegation then you go to the World Council and you discuss in the World Council. You don't need to discuss in front of the public opinion and put 500 people working for the team in this kind of danger.

Q. Do you think someone is trying to discredit you?

FB: You know what? Whatever happens, if someone goes against the rules, they go against the rules. If I tell you to go rob a bank – afterwards, you decide whether to rob the bank or not. I don't feel I have any responsibility, and we don't feel we have done absolutely anything [wrong]. In the case of Piquet we go to the World Council. But the fact already that we have put a criminal plan to Piquet is because we have enough confidence to be successful - the team and myself.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 16:34 schreef vosss het volgende:

[..]

Onzin. Toen hij per ongeluk de speed limiter aanzette had McLaren die straf al lang en breed gekregen en betaald en was de case al closed.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 19:06 schreef Tarabass het volgende:

[..]

Niet helemaal waar. Want later bleek (en kan de bron niet meer vinden helaas ) er meer aan de hand te zijn dan waar ze straf voor hadden, en Ferrari was daarvan op de hoogte. Als McLaren kampioen geworden was had Ferrari dit zeker gebruikt om toch het kampioenschap naar zich toe te trekken. Maar nu was hiermee de kous af, hun tijd zou nog wel komen. Wat ook klopte. Maar goed, als je dit toen riep was het een conspiracy maar ook het ongeluk van Piquet was een conspiracy.

En inderdaad, waarom zat hij zolang in de limiter. Ze zeggen dat het de zenuwen waren, ik ben helaas niet zo goedgelovig omtrent de F1

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 19:11 schreef vosss het volgende:
Ehmz, ik heb geen idee waar je op doelt. Hoezo er was meer?

Volgens mij was er alleen maar Stepneygate en daar zijn zowel Stepney als McLaren voor bestraft.
Ik heb geen idee wat er meer geweest moet zijn en al helemaal niet iets waarmee Ferrari McLaren mee om de oren zou kunnen slaan mocht McLaren toen het kampioenschap gewonnen hebben.

Dus, zoek nog maar eens goed naar die bron zou ik zeggen

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 19:48 schreef Tarabass het volgende:

[..]

De straf was belachelijk laag, laten we zeggen; McLaren kwam er zeer goed vanaf. Dit terwijl meerdere partijen razend waren en het bewijs erg belastend was. Eigenlijk was het belachelijk dat ze hiermee zo goed wegkwamen. En toen drukte Hamilton per ongeluk de speed limiter in omdat hij olie op zijn visier had. En niet even, nee vrij lang bleef hij op die limiter hangen. Laten we zeggen, lang genoeg

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 18:47 schreef Tarado het volgende:
Dit is wel de leukste...

Q. Why do you think Nelson Piquet crashed deliberately?

FB: Nelson has crashed 17 times.

quote:

Q. Why did you give him a drive for another year if he was so bad?

FB: I didn't have anybody else. I had an option to take Nelson after the 30th of September, and I didn't take it.

quote:

Op vrijdag 11 september 2009 19:48 schreef Tarabass het volgende:

[..]

De straf was belachelijk laag, laten we zeggen; McLaren kwam er zeer goed vanaf. Dit terwijl meerdere partijen razend waren en het bewijs erg belastend was. Eigenlijk was het belachelijk dat ze hiermee zo goed wegkwamen. En toen drukte Hamilton per ongeluk de speed limiter in omdat hij olie op zijn visier had. En niet even, nee vrij lang bleef hij op die limiter hangen. Laten we zeggen, lang genoeg

quote:

Op zaterdag 12 september 2009 12:35 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

"I think appointing a third car to a young driver or to something new would be useful for the sport. Just look what Michael's return at Valencia would have meant. We must look ahead and try to do it."

quote:

Op donderdag 10 september 2009 16:58 schreef bodylotion het volgende:

[..]

quote:

All talk at Monza is dominated by the Renault Formula One team’s appearance before an extraordinary meeting of the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) on September 21 over allegations relating to last year’s Singapore Grand Prix. Giancarlo Fisichella’s appearance for Ferrari and the fascinating four-way battle for this year’s drivers’ championship are of secondary importance, and with good reason. If the allegations made by Nelson Piquet Jr are true, it will cause untold damage to Renault and F1.

Race fixing is even more serious than cheating with oversize engines or underweight cars in my view. The fabric and foundation of any sport is that the fans must believe that what they are witnessing is true and honest.

Piquet claims he was told to crash his car, handing victory in Singapore to his teammate, Fernando Alonso. If it turns out to be true, it is a grave matter. Coming on top of the spying, lying and sexual shenanigans of the past two years, it’s the last thing the sport needs.

We have to assume the FIA has some solid information to have called the hearing. Among all the “he said, she said” recriminations it seems that the initial trigger has come from Piquet and his father, former triple world champion Nelson Sr. Using the old adage that attack is the best form of defence, the Renault team are taking legal action against both Piquets for extortion and attempted blackmail — charges which they deny.

The balloon has gone up and one or more key people within the sport are about to take some major pain. To an extent the damage has already been done with the copious amounts of information that has been leaked ahead of the inquiry.

The Piquets have been given assurances that, as apparent whistleblowers, they would be protected against serious punishment. But that’s not the point. Piquet Jr is unemployable now. A driver who would willingly and intentionally crash his car? Unforgiveable.

His rationale is that his contractual option hadn’t been taken the previous month so he was stressed and wanted to please the team. Try waiting the whole winter to sign a race-by-race contract days before the first grand prix of the season — that’s stress, but still not enough to crash a car intentionally.

The task here will be to distance Renault from the alleged acts of its team personnel. The perception is that Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds, who deny the allegations, will be under pressure to depart F1 if it is proven that there was an intentional crash which could have caused serious injury and effectively fixed the result.

Many F1 insiders believe Briatore’s scalp is wanted. His team were in trouble in 2007 for being in possession of a rival’s team software, and again this year when a wheel fell off Alonso’s car and Renault were suspended from the European Grand Prix in Hungary — they were only reinstated after an appeal. Briatore was a ringleader in the recent breakaway threat of the teams’ association Fota, which threatened to set up its own series. I have worked with Briatore and Symonds and it would be a shame if they are excluded from F1, even though Briatore once fired me.

Talking with a group of eminent people, Niki Lauda asked: “Do you think it was an intentional crash?” I instinctively replied: “Yes.” He said: “I agree completely.” So that’s our guess for what it’s worth.

There are secondary implications. Felipe Massa, for example, could legitimately claim the incident cost him the 2008 world championship. He was on his way to victory before the safety car for Piquet’s accident triggered a sequence of events in the Ferrari pits which left him out of the points.

I am expecting a fascinating race today. Watching Fisichella, drafted into the injured Massa’s car, coping with the pressure of being an Italian Ferrari driver will be intriguing, especially after his very disappointing 14th place on the grid behind both Force Indias, the team he deserted.

Fisichella is old enough and wise enough to handle it. We know for sure that he will be better than former substitute Luca Badoer, my sympathy for whom totally evaporated when he blamed the media for losing him the temporary drive. His right foot and the stopwatch are to blame. Most, if not all, drivers would have jumped ship into the Ferrari in a heartbeat, as Fisichella did. Ferrari have used four drivers this season, the regulatory maximum allowed unless force majeure is demonstrated.

Most of the fans here will be clothed in Ferrari team gear but for Jenson Button the red cars are just one more potential complication in his laborious quest to win this world championship. He badly needs to turn it around today from sixth on the grid. With a solid fuel load and strategy he seems particularly happy though. He has decided to treat this as a five-race championship in which he has been given a 16-point head start.

I cannot see how Button’s teammate Rubens Barrichello is going to outscore him by three points per race in the remaining races, but it would only take a first-corner incident or a mechanical failure and it could all turn around. It is, however, still Button’s championship to lose.

HOW ONE ACCIDENT AT LAST YEAR'S SINGAPORE GRAND PRIX TRIGGERED A SCANDAL

Crash man

On lap 13 of last year's Singapore Grand Prix Nelson Piquet Jr crashes. His Renault car is out of reach of the cranes and a safety car is deployed while the mess is cleared up. A safety car at this moment in the race - after his teammate Fernando Alonso has pitted but before anyone else has - is perfect for Alonso....

The beneficiary

The bunching up of the field behind the safety car wipes out Alonso's 50 second deficit and when the cars ahead of him in the queue pit for their fuel (because at safety car speeds a pit stop loses you less time to the pack than when the pack is at racing speed) so Alonso, right, floats up to the front of the queue. When racing resumes he takes a comfortable victory.

The real loser

Felipe Massa, who was leading the race at the time of the crash, was forced into an under-pressure pit stop that went horribly wrong. From looking like a certain winner, he scores 0 points. The Brazilian later lost the world championship to Lewis Hamilton by one point. With hindsight, the outcome of the world championship was changed here.

quote:

Monday 14th September, Woking, UK: The Vodafone McLaren Mercedes Formula 1 team is delighted to announce an extension to its Corporate Partnership with Santander, with the high-profile Santander branding present on all four Vodafone McLaren Mercedes drivers.

Since the start of our winning relationship in 2007, Santander has seen its brand awareness rise in the UK from 20% to 82%, supported by Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and its drivers, including reigning World Champion Lewis Hamilton. This increase has coincided with the Santander Group’s move to bring together Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley to operate under the single Santander brand.

Martin Whitmarsh, Team Principal of Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, said: “We are extremely pleased to have extended our hugely successful global Partnership with Santander. As one of the world’s leading banks with a significant presence in Europe, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and the United States and other countries. Santander is a great ‘fit’ with Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and our triumphs on the global stage of Formula 1.

“The year 2009 marks Santander’s third season of association with our sport, and during this time they have successfully title-sponsored three of the most prestigious and historic races: the British, German and Italian Grands Prix. We are very proud of our relationship with Santander and to be part of their ever-expanding Formula 1 involvement. We welcome, and wish them well with, their other activities - including, but not limited to, the afore-mentioned race sponsorships.”

António Horta-Osório, Abbey’s Chief Executive, added: "Since its inauguration in 2007, our corporate partnership with Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has been extremely successful, especially in the UK, which is why we are delighted that we will continue to develop our alliance with the UK's number-one Formula 1 team for the benefit of our 20 million UK clients."

"The year 2010 will create a newly-refreshed scenario for Santander in terms of Formula 1 sponsorship. Our continuing partnership with Vodafone McLaren Mercedes - and especially with Lewis Hamilton - will fit very well with our ongoing development of the Santander brand, not only in the UK but globally too,” said Juan Manuel Cendoya, Senior Vice President of Communications, Corporate Marketing and Research.

Lewis Hamilton added: “Some of the most enjoyable activities I have ever done off track during my Formula 1 career have been with Santander. Everything we do together is always thinking outside of the box, and I am looking forward to continuing that work together with them and the team. Over the past couple of years we have filmed some great TV ads - one of them turned me into an Airfix kit and then in the other I got to play on a life-sized Scalextric set! The Santander people are very cool and push home the value and strength of teamwork. With Santander I have also had the opportunity to attend some events in Spain. I love racing in Spain, too - Spanish motorsport fans are always so enthusiastic.”

Heikki Kovalainen commented: “As with all our Partners, the work we do with Santander is put to very effective use across the world. For example, I was recently involved in a campaign in the German market. Santander are a real part of the McLaren Mercedes family, and we are obviously all very pleased that our relationship will continue. It demonstrates that Santander have achieved a superb return on their investment in our team.”

quote:

La Fórmula 1 vivirá a partir de hoy más pendiente de lo que pueda pasar el próximo día 21 en París que del emocionante final de temporada que nos prometen los pilotos de Brawn. Renault F1, que ha pedido más tiempo para presentar pruebas en aras a demostrar su inocencia, tiene que rebatir las imputaciones que juzgará el Consejo Mundial delante de la amenaza de graves sanciones.

La polémica, salpicada por multitud de filtraciones interesadas, se ha centrado mayoritariamente en un cruce de declaraciones entre Nelsinho Piquet y Flavio Briatore, de las que Fernando Alonso se quedó al margen. Sin embargo, Nelson Piquet padre parece dispuesto a dar mucho que hablar todavía y pretende inculpar también al asturiano. El brasileño ha asegurado que “Fernando lo sabía todo” en referencia a cómo su hijo provocó supuestamente su accidente para facilitar la victoria de Fernando el año pasado en Singapur. “Alonso no podía ignorarlo. Si eres el quince en la parrilla de un circuito urbano no tiene sentido salir con poca gasolina. Como mucho puedes pasar a tres coches. Después paras y te quedas último. Es una estrategia sin sentido”, ha asegurado Piquet a los comisarios que instruyeron el sumario.

Fernando Alonso, sin embargo, prefiere mantenerse al margen y ha evitado hacer declaraciones al respecto. La FIA, de momento, no le ha imputado. Quien si ha entrado en escena es Bernie Ecclestone, que ha comentado que “Nelson me dijo que hará todo lo que pueda para destruir a Briatore”. Flavio ya advirtió que el brasileño es un ‘artista’ en el juego sucio.

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 14:31 schreef Tarado het volgende:
Santander extends Partnership with Vodafone McLaren Mercedes
14th September 2009
[..]

http://www.mclaren.com/latestnews/mclaren-news.php?article=352

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 17:08 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Wees dan ook zo hoffelijk om iets van een vertaling erbij te plaatsen, joh. Of zal ik m'n nieuwsberichten voortaan in Papiamentu posten?

quote:

Fernando Alonso knew everything about the crash-gate and his denying is simply a lie, argues triple Formula One champion Nelson Piquet. Backing his son in the scandal that made the headlines around the world, Piquet Sr. argued that there's no way the Spaniard didn't know about the whole affair if one were to consider his race strategy.



Although constantly faster than most of the drivers in the field through the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix practice sessions, Alonso's R28 let him down during the Saturday qualifying, when an engine problem got him to start 15th on race day. As a result, he went for a low-fuel strategy on Sunday, which caught him on the track and refueled by the time Piquet had crashed.

From that point on, Alonso was to simply drive with the same number of pit stops remaining as the other drivers, only from the leading spot.

“Fernando knew everything. He couldn't ignore it. If you are 15th on the grid at a street circuit, there is no point going out with no fuel. At most you will pass three cars and after your last stop you stay where you are. It's a senseless strategy,” said Piquet, according to the Spanish newspaper Diario Sport.

Contradicting Piquet Sr. was, however, the very FIA president Max Mosley, who insisted that the ruling body has no proof whatsoever of Alonso's involvement in the whole scandal. More, as revealed by F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone himself, the man everybody in the Piquet family seems to be after at the moment is solely Flavio Briatore.

“Nelson told me that he is going to do everything he can to destroy Briatore,” reportedly told the 78-year old Brit reporters from the aforementioned publication.

Apart from being good friends, Ecclestone and Briatore are also business partners. The two are currently co-owning English Coca-Cola Championship football club Queens Park Rangers, purchased back in 2007.

quote:

Canada confirms 2010 calendar slot

Canadian Grand Prix organisers announced on Monday they have reached a settlement with Formula One Administration that will mean the Montreal race will return to the calendar next year.

The Canadian event was absent from this year's schedule for the first time since 1987, meaning there were no races in North America.

However, negotiations to bring the race back had been ongoing and the GP was already listed on a provisional 2010 calendar with a June 6 date.

On Monday, organisers confirmed a deal that will see Montreal back next year.

"I am very happy, and fully satisfied, with this outcome," said Normand Legault, CEO of Grand Prix F1 du Canada. "I have always been confident of being able to resolve the dispute, given the in-depth understanding I have had to develop of the Formula 1 racing situation in Canada.

"And I am especially pleased that an announcement is forthcoming to the effect that the Canadian Grand Prix will be back on the FIA calendar as of 2010. I never doubted that the Canadian race would regain its rightful place on the FIA schedule, and my discussions with F1 management led me to believe that the event would return soon.

"The race is important not only for Formula 1, but also for the teams, manufacturers and sponsors. I am also happy for the Canadian Grand Prix's many fans, because they are true F1 enthusiasts who appreciate the real value of the spectacle and the competition."

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 17:29 schreef Tarado het volgende:

[..]

...........en dat als je als 15e met weinig brandstof op een stratencircuit wordt weggestuurd je niet kan doen alsof je neus bloed, je kan misschien 3 auto's passeren maar dan houdt het wel op.
[..]

http://www.autoevolution.(...)lt-s-plan-10899.html

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 18:37 schreef ElmarO het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 18:37 schreef ElmarO het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 17:29 schreef Tarado het volgende:

[..]

OK, excuses

ik vond het wat lang om het hele stuk te vertalen en het belangrijkste heb ik in de kop gezet; dat volgens Piquet SR Alonso van hele strategie inclusief crash wist. en dat als je als 15e met weinig brandstof op een stratencircuit wordt weggestuurd je niet kan doen alsof je neus bloed, je kan misschien 3 auto's passeren maar dan houdt het wel op.

Verder zegt Piquet SR dat hij alles in het werk zal stellen om Briatore te vernietigen

ik heb een stukje van dezelfde strekking in het engels gevonden voor meer leesgemak

quote:

Op maandag 14 september 2009 22:03 schreef beantherio het volgende:

[..]

Wat een rattenbende, die Piquet-familie. Zelfs als het waar zou zijn dat die crash in scene gezet is dan vind ik het ongehoord dat ie ook nog eens Alonso erbij probeert te slepen. Als ik SR was dan zou ik me maar meer druk maken om het feit dat zoonlief het soort zondagsrijder is die zich leent voor dat soort oplichterij.

quote:

FIA adviser: In your own words Mr. Symonds what do you recall being said to Nelson Piquet Jnr at that meeting? This is shortly before the race.

Symonds: I don't really remember it.

FIA adviser: You don't remember?

Symonds: No.

FIA adviser: Nelson Piquet Jnr says that he was asked by you to cause a deliberate crash. Is that true?

Symonds: Nelson had spoken to me the day before and suggested that. That's all I'd really like to say.

(...)

FIA adviser: Mr Symonds were you aware that there was going to be crash at Lap 14?

Symonds: I don't want to answer that question.

(...)

FIA adviser: There is just one thing that I ought to ask you and put it to you so you can think about it at least. Mr. Piquet Jnr says that having had the initial meeting with you and Flavio Briatore you then met him individually with the map of the circuit. Do you remember that?

Symonds: I won't answer, rather not answer that. I don't recall it but it sounds like Nelson's talked a lot more about it.

FIA adviser: Mr. Piquet Jnr also says at that meeting you pointed out a specific place on the circuit where he was to have the accident and said it was because it was the furthest away from any of the safety or lifting equipment and gave the most likely chance of a safety car being deployed.

Symonds: I don't, I don't want to answer that question.

FIA adviser: [Referring to the pre-race meeting] Was it you that did the talking at that meeting Mr. Symonds?

Symonds: I'm sure it would have been both of us but I don't know for sure. Sorry that's a contradiction. I would imagine it would be both of us that would be normal. Actually probably more often it's Flavio that does the talking himself. I wouldn't necessarily always agree with what he's saying but the majority.

FIA adviser: Because just to be absolutely clear here what Nelson Piquet Jnr has said is that at that meeting it was you that asked him to have a crash deliberately?

Symonds: I can't answer you.

FIA adviser: Can I say that if Mr. Symonds you'd been put in the position where you were made to ask Mr. Piquet Jnr to crash it's much better, it would be much better for you in the long term to tell these stewards to hear that today?

Symonds: I fully understand that.

FIA adviser: Yes.

Symonds: I have no intention of lying to you. I have not lied to you but I have reserved my position just a little.

FIA adviser: And you're aware that the stewards may draw conclusions from your unwillingness to assist them in relation to what went on in that meeting?

Symonds: I would expect them to. I would absolutely expect that.

FIA adviser: I think I haven't got any further questions.

quote:

Briatore out, Prost in?

It is rumoured that Flavio Briatore will be forced to leave the Renault F1 Team as the managers of the constructor are not satisfied with the way he has been handling the Piquet-situation. This weekend Briatore declared in an interview that he was forced by Piquet Sr. to break-up the relationship of Nelsinho and his 50-year-old friend. The Renault top believes it is not justified that Briatore talks about the personal life of Piquet Jr. despite the whole mud throwing in the race-fix scandal.

It is rumoured that Renault already made contact with Alain Prost to take over from Flavio Briatore who has been on board with the team since the Benetton-days.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 09:47 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Wordt Briatore opgeofferd, om een (grote) straf te voorkomen?

_{net zoals Walkinshaw in 1994 bij Benetton}

quote:

Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds has been offered immunity from punishment by the FIA if he offers full disclosure of the facts surrounding last year's Singapore Grand Prix race-fix allegations.

With less than one week to go before Renault faces the FIA World Motor Sport Council to answer charges that it asked Nelson Piquet to crash deliberately to help Fernando Alonso win, sources have confirmed to AUTOSPORT that Symonds has been given the chance of an amnesty.

The development comes on the back of interviews between Symonds, FIA representatives and members from the Quest agency at the Belgian Grand Prix where it was deemed his evidence was 'central' to finding answers to what happened in Singapore.

In the stewards' report about that interview, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, Symonds confirms that the race-day meeting between himself, Briatore and Piquet did take place.

The stewards reports added: "Mr. Symonds accepted that he had discussed with NPJ (Piquet) the possibility of a deliberate crash at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, although he said the suggestion was raised by NPJ."

However, Symonds then refused to answer questions about specific allegations about the events that took place that day (see separate story).

It is understood, however, that the reason to offer Symonds immunity has come from the fact that he indicated at the time that he may have further useful information.

The stewards report stated: "Mr. Symonds suggested at his interview on 27 August that he might wish to revert to the Stewards with further information, including information responsive to the various questions he had declined to answer.

"However, no such further information was provided on 27 August. On 28 August, Mr Symonds was summoned back before the Stewards to be asked if he wanted to give further information on the questions he had declined to answer. Mr Symonds again declined to answer the questions."

It is not clear if Symonds has accepted the immunity from punishment offer, but should he do so it means only Renault boss Flavio Briatore will face the FIA's WMSC without any such deal in place. FIA president Max Mosley confirmed at the Italian Grand Prix that Piquet would be exempt too.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 10:10 schreef Tarado het volgende:

knip

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 10:16 schreef Peterselieman het volgende:
Mja, het 14e team is een wassen neus, want het mag dan alleen meedoen als er een plaatsje op de grid vrij is

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 10:17 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Nee, de FIA wil actief kijken of het mogelijk is om het veld op te rekken naar 14 teams volgend jaar (en dan 28 auto's op de grid) zoals ik het lees.

quote:

BMW has announced that the Qadbak Investments company has agreed to purchase the Formula 1 team based in Hinwil.

The German company had revealed earlier this year that it will quit Formula 1 at the end of the season, and had been in talks with interested parties since then.

On Tuesday, BMW said it had signed the contract to sell the team to Qadbak, a Swiss-based foundation which represents the interests of certain Middle East and European-based families.

"A strong investor has therefore been found for the Hinwil-based team," BMW said in a statement.

"Qadbak's interest in the team will be represented by Lionel Fischer, a Swiss national. BMW wishes Qadbak and the Sauber Team every success for the 2010 season and beyond."

The sale of the team coincides with the FIA having announced the 13th entry for the 2010 championship went to the Lotus outfit, with BMW as a possible 14th entry in case a current team fails to race next year.

The FIA also said it would talk to the teams about the possibility of increasing the grid size to 28 cars to allow the Hinwil squad to race next year.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 13:29 schreef Atreidez het volgende:
28 auto's

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 13:48 schreef Peterselieman het volgende:
In mijn ogen kan de FIA bijna niet anders dan 28 auto's op de grid zetten, omdat ze mogelijk net Lotus gekozen hadden toen het nieuws rond BMW Sauber bekend werd. Dat team schop je niet zomaar van de grid af en ze hadden mogelijk ook al een garantie voor 2010. Daarom zal er nog veel gepraat moeten worden om het voor elkaar te krijgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 13:50 schreef Tarado het volgende:

[..]

In principe is Sauber cs het enige van de "nieuwe" teams die ook daadwerkelijk een auto hebben. Ik zie er nog wel 1 afvallen

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 13:48 schreef Peterselieman het volgende:
In mijn ogen kan de FIA bijna niet anders dan 28 auto's op de grid zetten, omdat ze mogelijk net Lotus gekozen hadden toen het nieuws rond BMW Sauber bekend werd. Dat team schop je niet zomaar van de grid af en ze hadden mogelijk ook al een garantie voor 2010. Daarom zal er nog veel gepraat moeten worden om het voor elkaar te krijgen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 15:00 schreef sasquatsch het volgende:

[..]

Omdat BMW het Concorde Agreement niet heeft getekend, had het geen garantie voor 2010 meer. Het op te kopen team zou als een nieuwe inschrijving beschouwd worden en evenveel rechten hebben als de andere inschrijvingen. Dat had de FIA al aangegeven. Alleen spijtig voor BMW dat op dezelfde dag als dat BMW verkocht wordt, ook het nieuwe team bekend gemaakt wordt. Anders hadden ze nog een goede kans gehad denk ik.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 16:11 schreef sanger het volgende:

[..]

BMW heeft wel degelijk de Concorde Agreement ondertekend en zich ingeschreven voor 2010. De FIA heeft de inschrijving volgens mij alleen geweigerd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 16:11 schreef sanger het volgende:

[..]

BMW heeft wel degelijk de Concorde Agreement ondertekend en zich ingeschreven voor 2010. De FIA heeft de inschrijving volgens mij alleen geweigerd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 18:21 schreef Tarado het volgende:

[..]

Ze waren gewoon te laat voor de deadline (6 augustus) en hebben zich daarna (20 augustus) alleen als 13e team ingeschreven, maar er waren meer gegadigden

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 18:38 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Piquet crash details [PDF]
[ [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00614/graphic585_614118a.jpg]afbeelding ][/url]
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 19:14 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Nou ... er waren maar twee mensen + Piquet die er potentieel vanaf wisten, he. De rest van het team reageert natuurlijk verbaasd en bezorgd.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 19:23 schreef nils7 het volgende:

[..]

Ja maar er wordt niet gesproken van "Ey Piquet nog 3 rondjes en dan d'r tegen aan he"

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 09:50 schreef Tarado het volgende:

[..]

Het lijkt nu alleen nog maar om Flavio's kop te gaan, die moet echt in een strop....

Symonds offered race-fix immunity

By Jonathan Noble Tuesday, September 15th 2009, 06:42 GMT
[..]

autosport.com

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 18:38 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:
Piquet crash details [PDF]
[ [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00614/graphic585_614118a.jpg]afbeelding ][/url]
[..]

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 19:26 schreef ElmarO het volgende:

[..]

Als ze echt van plan waren te crashen, dan hebben ze ongetwijfeld voor de race een codewoord afgesproken die niet al veel zou opvallen. Dus dat je het niet in de transmissie terug ziet/hoort vind ik niet zo heel raar. Zeker niet aangezien de FIA die kan terugluisteren.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 19:35 schreef nils7 het volgende:

[..]

Jah alleen dan is er vrij weinig bewijs buiten dat Piquet roept dat het zo is gegaan en de rest roept dat het niet zo is gegaan!

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 19:34 schreef ArcticBlizzard het volgende:

[..]

Jammer dat ze niet de telemetrie van de ronde(s) ervoor als vergelijking in de grafiek hebben gezet.

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 21:35 schreef Googolplexian het volgende:

[..]

Een jaar van tevoren?

quote:

’m interested in the rights and wrongs of the FIA offering immunity from prosecution to Nelson Piquet and Pat Symonds – but not to Flavio Briatore – in the Singapore crash investigation.
I spoke to a London litigation lawyer this evening and he said that the key points here are that 1) this is not a case in the civil or criminal courts, where, in the UK at least, plea bargaining is not really done. It is subject to the rules of the FIA. I don’t know what it says in the rules on disciplinary hearings and whether it says in there that the FIA has the right to offer plea bargains, but I will look into it; 2) were the FIA onto something anyway when Piquet gave his evidence, in other words did he go to them or did they quiz him first? The history we’ve seen so far seems to suggest that the Piquets started this, in other words the FIA was not on to them. As for offering Symonds immunity, is his offer of immunity to get at the truth generally or specifically to incriminate Briatore, in other words on what terms has Pat been given this immunity?
Offering immunity worked in the case of the Harlequins rugby player who was ordered to fake a blood injury in order to get a specialist kicker onto the pitch. The FIA will have taken note of this.
Earlier today I asked one of our regular readers, Harveyeight, who is an ex CID policeman, to give me his views on the whys and wherefores of granting immunity from prosecution in the Renault case to Nelson Piquet and Pat Symonds.
He has been involved in a lot of investigations and interviews of suspects in the real world and, as someone who has that experience, but is also clearly passionate about F1, I was interested in his view. Here it is:
“My instinct is to say that if you can’t trust anyone to tell the truth without inducements you can’t trust them to tell the truth.
The FIA do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as explained by Werewolf. So we have the threshold of the balance of probabilities. It you can’t reach that without some kind of prepayment then your case must be pretty weak.
Further, the FIA has protection against a duff decision built-in to the law. To go into pope mode and grant forgiveness of sins without repentance seems an abuse of the protection.
The penalty for Flav, the sponsors, Renault itself and, as you pointed out, the Renault workers, is severe. The decision must be 100% certain. Anything else is a betrayal of the FIA’s responsibility. The innocent victims in all of this cannot be seen as collateral damage.
Further, and this is a personal moral stance I know, ignoring all the political implications which the FIA must have cognisance of, if three people have conspired then they should all be punished.
I had a hero, a detective sergeant who criticised me for my long interviews in order to obtain confessions. He said: If you can’t prove it without a cough, you shouldn’t try and prove it with. It was easy for him because he was a real thieftaker. But the premise is a good one.
Many people have suffered in this matter already. Heaven knows what is going through the minds of the team workers and their families. How will they feel after, perhaps, losing their houses, their kids education, their holidays and their security to see Piquet walk free and back to his life of indulgent luxury? SBS CEO anyone?
I know life is not fair but the FIA have treated Piquet as some kind of hero for, if he is to be believed, keeping stum about the incident for 12 months and then, when galvanised into action by his sacking, eventually got daddy to go to the FIA. Some hero. But some reward, eh?
My personal experience of those offered some kind of deal – never immunity at my level – is that they remain selective in their memory. Informants are one thing, co-conspirators are another. My belief always was that they started lying for their mates and ended up lying against them. Either way, not to be trusted.
You suggest in your question that they are being given immunity for the truth. That’s not quite correct. They are being given immunity for saying what the prosecution wants to hear. A difference, and not a subtle one. Piquet is not an insider, giving evidence against those for whom he worked. This is against, if he is to be believed, those who conspired with him.
So to be rather Micawberish, in short I don’t trust evidence gained by absolution. But, as importantly, if Piquet and Pat have conspired, they should be punished. And severely.”

quote:

Op dinsdag 15 september 2009 22:36 schreef Atreidez het volgende:
Die data van de telemetry heb je niks aan als je ook niet de data hebt van een snelle ronde waarin hij niet crashed

quote:

Op woensdag 16 september 2009 10:15 schreef Fluffy_Augurk het volgende:

[..]

Zeker wel. Kijk er eens goed naar. Wat doe je als coureur als je achterkant uitbreekt? Je laat gas los, of je trapt op je rem. Hij laat eerst instinctief 5% gas los maar trapt hem daarna weer vol in. Het rempedaal raakt hij niet eens aan. Overduidelijk. Overigens staat ongeveer al vast dat hij de crash opzettelijk heeft gedaan (gezien de verklaringen van Symonds). Het gaat er nu meer om wie er allemaal bij betrokken zijn en van wisten.

quote:

Op woensdag 16 september 2009 10:22 schreef Glijdt_licht het volgende:

[..]

Als hij het rempedaal had aangeraakt was hij met blokkerende wielen rechtdoor de vangrail ingegaan. Als hij gas los had gelaten hadden de achterwielen mogelijk geblokkeerd (omdat hij in een lage versnelling reed) waardoor een slip in de muur ook niet te vermijden was.