Briatore gets banned, Renault given suspended sentence and the fallout begins!

Hun200kmh
My opinion: 99% chances of him being Alonso.
Click to expand...

That would indeed makes sense. But on the same time it would imply he made a false statement at the WMSC.:confused: (why would the FIA request his presence at the earing and ask him to confirm he knew nothing about it?)
 
tibiquera
They got a 2 year suspended sentence. Believe it or not, this is an actual punishment. That's the kind of sentence I'd like Piquet to get too.
Click to expand...

Gee, a suspended sentence. So the punishment is actually a threat of punishment...That'll teach 'em...

You couldn't put together enough clowns and comedians to make this joke...oh wait, they're already sitting in the WMSC. :rolleyes:
 
tibiquera
They got a 2 year suspended sentence. Believe it or not, this is an actual punishment. That's the kind of sentence I'd like Piquet to get too.
Click to expand...

I rather hope he doesn't get another drive in F1 again. I agree with Brundle's thoughts that Piquet should be held just as accountable.
He shouldn't be given another chance.
 
Soundtrack
That would indeed makes sense. But on the same time it would imply he made a false statement at the WMSC.:confused: (why would the FIA request his presence at the earing and ask him to confirm he knew nothing about it?)
Click to expand...


Because, besides him being WITNESS X, he had to be cleared. If you check any other F1 forum (but not this one) the most heated discussions revolve around "what did Alonso know". They are quite comical because fanboyism is relenteless.

Anyway, what gives it away (for me) is this part:



64 - In light of Mr Alonso's experience as a racing driver, it was widely rumoured that Mr Alonso must have known of the crash plan. It was alleged by commentators (though not by Mr Piquet Jnr, Mr Symonds, Mr Briatore or any current Renault employee), that the strategy for Mr Alonso's car (of fuelling light from the back of 18 the grid on a street circuit) was so unusual that he would have been bound to have questioned the strategy and only accepted it if he had been told in advance about the crash plan.

65 - Mr Alonso was invited to appear at the WMSC meeting of 21 September 2009 for two main reasons. First, at the time of the investigation, the FIA's investigations were continuing (particularly with regard to Witness X). As such, it was not clear whether any additional allegations would be made regarding Mr Alonso. Second, the FIA considered that, in light of the nature of the rumours regarding Mr Alonso's state of knowledge regarding the conspiracy, it would be of assistance to the WMSC and Mr Alonso for him to appear and answer any questions the WMSC may have.

66 - Consistent with his remarks at interview on 27 August 2009, Mr Alonso denied having had any knowledge of the crash plan. The WMSC has not been presented with any evidence whatsoever suggesting that Mr Alonso knew of the crash plan or knowingly assisted in its execution and the WMSC accepts Mr Alonso’s evidence.
Click to expand...

That's it (about Alonso). Now, tell me what did WITNESS X say about all this? We don't know.

And, if you look carefully to #64, you'll notice that something's missing here:

... (though not by Mr Piquet Jnr, Mr Symonds, Mr Briatore or any current Renault employee) ...
Click to expand...

If WITNESS X testified, and if WITNESS X was also saying that Alonso wasn't involved, why didn't they write it like this?

... (though not by Mr Piquet Jnr, Mr Symonds, Mr Briatore, Witness X or any current Renault employee) ...
Click to expand...

Well, the only possible explanation (as I view this) is that it wouldn't make sense if indeed Witness X was the person they are talking about = Alonso.

I'm no Hercule Poirot, but this is what I conclude: X is Alonso.
 
Ardius
I rather hope he doesn't get another drive in F1 again. I agree with Brundle's thoughts that Piquet should be held just as accountable.
He shouldn't be given another chance.
Click to expand...

No doubt, nobody would want to work with him after this. If he kept it to himself and all this didn't happen he might have gotten another chance with another team if he could out qualify the other drivers in testing. Would anyone even invite him now for a test drive?
 
Last edited:
So, I just catch bits and pieces of F1 news (love how Jordan has changed the forum description to the F1 circus though). I really think F1 could form their own society. You've got the FIA as the police, all of the head guys as the politicians, and those guys and some members of the teams start in soap operas by night...So there's your law and entertainment/economy...Certainly no other racing series like it. :lol:
 
Ardius
I don't think he should have kept quiet, he just plain shouldn't have done it.
Click to expand...

I'm no Piquet fan, but I'm somewhat sympathetic to his position.

Had Piquet refused the order, given the intimidating atmosphere at Renault, he almost certainly felt he was vulnerable to being ousted. Had he been fired, would anyone at the FIA or WMSC believed him had he revealed the race fixing scheme then? Would he have had a chance of landing another drive in F1? He was caught between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Of course, he may have gone along with it, knowing that his participation gave him some leverage in negotiations with the team going forward. Not enough to salvage a flagging F1 career, but enough to buy him some more seat time to establish himself in the sport.

Ultimately, the real rats in this situation were Briatore and Symonds, and so it's fitting that they received the brunt of the punishment in this scandal.
 
Yes, the FIA would have believed him, they already believed Piquet Sr at the time.
Its been clear that someone had it in for Briatore and was waiting for an opportunity like this. Perhaps if Nelson hadn't done it, we wouldn't have had so much evidence, but it seems the thing that made it proven was this mister X.
 
My guess: someone Briatore would have overlooked. If it were Alonso, he'd have no reason to keep things a secret, and if he knew of it, he probably would have given up his win voluntarily.

So my thoughts are that it could be someone like a mechanic or a PR representative, someone Briatore would cosider minor and not at all essential to the organisation. Their desire for anonymity is what I'm basing my hypothesis on: they are someone who values their job, but who Briatore would move to silence if he found out Witness X knew about it. As Renault co-operated with the FIA, Witness X had no need to remain anyonymous. But as long as Briatore was in charge, his identity had to remain secret. I'm guessing he found out about the conspiracy by overhearing it or if Piquet let something slip to him. The only way he would have had any credibility as a witness was if he had found out directly from one of the parties involved.
 
witness X had a meeting with Symonds and Briatore immediately after qualifying, the meeting where the "plan" was conceived.
 
A-ha! I've just worked it out:

Monaco%20F1%20Grand%20Prix%20EfvqLyTIyw0l.jpg


Nicole Shirtsinger.









Oooh, wait. I misread that one. I thought it said "Witless Ex", not "Witness X".

False alarm.
 
Could witness X be the same engineer that queried the crash and telemetry at the time - whom Piquet told that it was just an accident?

I don't think Piquet should've been punished further - his reputation is in tatters already - so I doubt we'll see him back in F1 for a while unless he can proove himself - the best he will get is a test driver position I would've thought... that is of course if he can escape the clutches of Briatore Management!!!!

C.
 
The good news in all of this: Renault aren't going anywhere.
Renault will stay in F1 despite scandal

By Jonathan Noble - Wednesday, September 23rd 2009, 08:51 GMT

Renault has told the FIA that it will remain in Formula 1, despite the fall-out caused by the Singapore race-fix controversy.

Although there had been widespread suggestions that the matter, which has resulted in a two-year suspended ban from F1, could see the French car manufacturer exit the sport, it has emerged the team informed the governing body this week that it was keen to remain in the world championship.

In a statement it submitted to the FIA at Monday's World Motor Sport Council hearing in Paris, Renault stated: "Renault F1 and its parent company have given serious consideration as to whether it should remain in the sport following the prejudice caused to its corporate image by the conspiracy, in addition to the existing background of financial pressures that have caused car manufacturers to withdraw.

"But it has concluded that it would like to remain in Formula 1 and continue to make an important contribution to the sport."

Renault also promised to introduce a new team structure in light of the events of last year's Singapore Grand Prix to ensure there can never be a repeat of what occurred. Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds - who both face bans from involvement in F1 - have also resigned from the team.

The Enstone-based outfit admitted to the conspiracy - and stated it could never have believed its staff would have acted in such a manner. Its statement came after internal investigations within the team revealed that there had been a conspiracy for Nelson Piquet to deliberately crash in last year's Singapore event.

"Renault F1 had no reason to believe that the conspirators were capable of this kind of behaviour. Clearly the conspirators acted against the interests of Renault F1 and the sport generally," said the statement.

"If they had applied their minds to their actions, they could not have thought that their actions benefited Renault F1. The acts of the conspirators were so outside what they were employed to do and so contrary to Renault F1's interests, they ought not to be attributed to Renault F1. This is truly a case where the conspirators were on a frolic of their own."

It added: "Renault F1 will introduce a new structure within the team and will review its internal procedures in an effort to ensure that this type of incident will never happen again."
Click to expand...
 
Autosport
'Everyone wanted Renault to stay'
Wednesday 23rd September 2009

Mohammed ben Sulayem, FIA vice-president and United Arab Emirates' automobile club president, has shed some light on the decision to hand Renault a suspended two-year ban for race-fixing.


Some pundits have greeted the ruling with outrage, but ben Sulayem - who suggested that negotiations were done before Monday's World Motor Sport Council hearing - feels the verdict is good for everyone involved in motorsport.


"It is a fair verdict," ben Sulayem told The National. "It's good for the FIA, the World Council and motorsport in general.


"We are not here to hang teams, we did our negotiations before and everybody is happy with the result.


"Everybody wants harmony and teams behaving - hopefully we have encouraged that."


Ben Sulayem says "everyone" wanted Renault to stay on the sport.


"I had to be loyal to my country as well as motorsport," he said.


"Protecting the investments Abu Dhabi has made into Formula One is my duty; it is a big show and it needs teams. But this is the pinnacle of motorsport and it needs teams to follow the rules.


"In the current crisis, you cannot go around hitting people and causing severe damage.


"Everyone needed to come to their senses, and I am happy. Max [Mosley] handled it in the best way. I'm sorry if people have personal issues [with him], but we all want to see Renault [in F1]. This is the result everyone wanted."
Click to expand...

Lesson: If you're gonna cheat, cheat during a global recession.
 
SUPER NUMBBER
Lesson: If you're gonna cheat, cheat during a global recession.
Click to expand...

..and make sure you're a manufacturer of engines. and you employ someone Max Mosley hates. and make sure other manufacturers have already left, making you more valuable.
etc
 
It was apparent from the beginning, that they would hand out a punishment that would make Renault stay. So large fines and exclusion from this season/future seasons were ruled out almost from the get go.
 
Bell to be Renault boss for rest of '09

Autosport
Renault has appointed Bob Bell as its new stand-in team principal in the wake of the departure of Flavio Briatore for his involvement in the Singapore Grand Prix race-fix controversy.

Bell, who was the team's technical director, will take charge in the temporary restructure that will remain in place until the end of the season. He will also be the outfit's chief technical officer.

As part of the reshuffle forced about by the events of recent weeks, Jean-François Caubet, currently director of marketing and communications, will become the team's managing director.

A statement issued by Renault said about Bell and Caubet: "They will both report to Bernard Rey, President of the Renault F1 Team.

"Bob Bell will attend all the remaining races of the season and will be the team's spokesperson on all sporting and technical matters.

"The Renault F1 Team is now ready to concentrate on the future and wishes to stress that no further comments or statements will be issued relating to the events of Singapore 2008."

Bell, who started out in the aviation industry before arriving in Formula 1 with McLaren in 1982, first joined Renault when it was still known as Benetton in 1997.

Following a brief period with Jordan, he returned to the now Renault factory squad as technical director in 2002, overseeing the team's world championship triumphs of 2005 and 2006, and working under engineering director Pat Symonds, who like Briatore departed last week due to the Singapore scandal.
Click to expand...

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78807
 
You know, the funny thing about this is that Briatore can only know who witness X is if indeed that meeting existed.

So, if he says he knows who he is X he must also confess that such a meeting took place.
 
I actually wished Prost would get the job. I'd love to see him back and disagree with the people who think he wasn't competent when he had his own team (the first two years his car was much better than Stewart).
 
tibiquera
I actually wished Prost would get the job. I'd love to see him back and disagree with the people who think he wasn't competent when he had his own team (the first two years his car was much better than Stewart).
Click to expand...

Hmm, well lets see here, the first year (1997) he basically just had a Ligier chassis and Mugen Honda engine which was one of the better engines that year.
The following year he had his own chassis thanks to the large rules change and they finished behind Stewart in the constructors.....
Not to mention those gutless Peugeot engines, there's a reason why McLaren and Jordan ditched them the years before and took on Mercedes and Mugen Honda power respectively.

He was a rubbish driver manager too, he ended up turning friendships into very bad relationships! (Jean Alesi)

Hmm, and which team out of Stewart and Prost went on to to win races? Stewart was a brand new team, Prost was not, it was just continuation of Ligier. So its not surprising Prost started better.
 
Well, it isn't as if Ligier was the best team on the grid (yeah they did win the Monaco race in 96, but only 4 cars finished the race). The Peugeot engine had some bad years, but in 97 it was very good (the year Jordan got its first victory).

I believe Stewart finished in front in 99, not 98. In 98 I believe Barrichello scored 4 points only, and I can't remember if the second driver scored any. In 99 Stewart had a very good but unreliable Ford engine, which helped the team go to the top.

But I have to admit I'm not 100% percent aware of Prost's management and definitely don't feel like starting an argument. I just wished I could see someone in the background who I actually like.
 
Well you can read a lot of it on F1Rejects, they cover the 2000 and 2001 seasons in detail and there are a few submitted articles which cover it a bit.

In 98 Stewart did finish in front, you're thinking of 97, which was their first season.
Having an established team of personnel and a decent engine helps a lot, Ligier weren't backenders either and that Mugen Honda was a great engine. Stewart had progressed from F3000 and were using the underpowered Fords.
My point was more that it wasn't really impressive for Prost to beat Stewart in 1997 because 1. they just continued a fairly decent chassis 2. you're comparing a new team to an established team.

It says a lot when Stewart's first season was full of retirements, which is perfectly normal for a new team who are still working out the issues with the car and getting to grips with F1.
The fact that Prost and Stewart swapped positions the following year says enough really about where they were heading.

If I remember right, Prost was the infamous team to run super low fuel in practice and testing in order to capture the headlines and then come the first race they were miles off the pace. Arrows did this as well but at least they had decent aero and from time to time did show some decent pace.
 

Latest Posts

Back