CT : Briatore is innocent

[SuperAguri]

Like most people I've been following the Renault crashgate saga and I've come to the conclusion that Briatore is innocent, in fact I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that Symonds is innocent.

At the end of the season last year Piqeut goes to Charlie Whitting and says he crashed. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=495

I still feel that Piquet was still unsure at the end of the season if he would be retained, I am sure he had zero offers on the table from other teams so he used this to blackmail briatore into keeping him at renault as unless he wrote a sworn statement the FIA couldn't do anything about it. He signs a performance related contract, which he fails on his side and is fired.

After he is sacked he goes to the FIA and cries wolf. The FIA seeing a chance to get rid of Flav say to renault we are going to punish you hard unless you admit to the charges. Renault seeing that that they could lose all their motorsport activities end up firing the two chief suspects. Bernie is happy as he can easily take control of GP2. The FIA are happy as they have one of the ringleaders of FOTA out the way... wonder if Frank Williams is next...

Symonds is told that unless he admits to the charge he will be banned for life. Symonds like a prisoner under torture signs a document saying he did it.

Briatore seems to be charged under the word of someone who has already in the press called him nasty names and mystery employee X who could be no one, or it could be someone that Briatore didn't give a raise too, if I didn't like my boss and could get him the boot without any comebacks then maybe I would go to the FIA and state bollocks...

All the other evidence seems suspect, the radio transmission doesn't really show Briatore in a bad light as he calls Piquet (and quite rightly) not a f*cking driver and my f*cking discrase.

The crash was probably done by piqeut under his own steam after being shot down by Symonds but after the race he probably tells Symonds and Briatore that he'll cry wolf to the FIA if he doesn't get his way. Symonds was probably told by a lawyer not to answer the FIAs questions.

So I do believe Briatore is innocent and was just a blackmail victim twice.

Briatore is still suing the piquets and the FIA and I really hope he does win.

(I know this might not make me the most popular man in the forums, but I do think Briatore did liven up F1 during the 90s and beyond and as a Minardi fan you have to thank him for helping Minardi out during the mid 90s when they could have easily gone to the wall.)

[rffp]

I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion, specially for such a murky case as the Crashgate.
But sorry, this plot is even more paranoid than Fox Mulder's regular ideas, in my opinion. Actually it would suit well a JJ Abrams series better.

[Captain Hammer]

Like most people I've been following the Renault crashgate saga and I've come to the conclusion that Briatore is innocent, in fact I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that Symonds is innocent.

Sorry mate, but he was found guilty. The testimony of Witness X - an un-named an impartial outsider - is what nailed Briatore. He's guilty as sin, and Formula One is better off without him. Good riddance; he should have been out years ago.

[Bort]

I actually do hope that Briatore is innocent, because then his lifetime ban is even more amusing.

[Ridge Racer]

It would seem that Flavio The Terrible was hung by his own petard.

He's got no one to blame but himself.

[SuperAguri]

Sorry mate, but he was found guilty. The testimony of Witness X - an un-named an impartial outsider - is what nailed Briatore.

Renault employee, impartial outsider? I think not... There are many possibilities of why Witness X said what he did, including...

1 - He was aware of it and Briatore was not, so lied to save his own skin.
2 - He had a axe to grind against Briatore, like the Piqeut family did so lied to get rid of Briatore.

As he is annoymous and knows he won't be identified, so what does he have to lose? Did anyone ask, does the whistleblower have an axe to grind, has he been passed up on promotion or salary increases in the past?

He's guilty as sin

I think not... in the original report the stewards said they couldn't draw a conculsion on if Briatore knew about the planned crash, even after the extra evidence it changed to 'Briatore was possibily aware of the crash plan (page 148, section 2d of the official dossier which you can download from the FIA media centre webpage)

and Formula One is better off without him. Good riddance; he should have been out years ago.

Yes, that's what we like to see, good balanced opinions. I'm sure if you were one of the stewards you'd have found him guilty even in Nelson Piqeut Jr said 'Mr Briatore knew nothing.'

[Jordan192]

Briatore could potentially be innocent of involvement in the crash plan, but if he is, he's guilty of gross negligence as a result.

If Piquet was acting enitrly on his own, this would have been incredibly easy for Braitore/Symonds to defend. If Piquet suggests a deliberate safety car, you order him not to do it, but he still goes ahead - you sack him instantly and let the FIA know what's going on.

If you keep him on as result of blackmail threats, when questioned about the incident (after sacking him, after he's followed through on the threats and gone to the FIA, and therefore you no longer have to cover it up), you don't 'Reserve your position slightly', you co-operate. An allegation like this simply couldn't be carried purely on the basis of the word of a driver against the rest of the team. If Symonds had ordered Piquet not to crash, it's not exactly a legally risky position to say so when questioned. If Symonds didn't tell piquet the best places to do it, he'd have no qualms denying it.

The theory is based around the idea that a driver would attempt to deliberately set up a situation by which he could blackmail his team, which is a far larger leap of assumption than any of those required in the normal version of events. I'm sure that when the discussions about terminating him this year started up in earnest, he'd have started making threats about taking it to the authorities if they didn't keep him on, however, at Singapore last year he would have been so desperate to please (and stupid) that he'd do whatever he was asked to do.

As for the Charlie Whitiing thing - if the pushy dad of a second-rate driver who crashes a lot claims that on one of those occasions, he'd been ordered to do so, how seriously would you take it? In hindsight it's easy to say he certainly should have taken it seriously, but I think there are far more mundane motives for not doing so than 'They wanted to save it for later'.

[Ross Prawn]

OK. So Flav is as innocent as a new born babe and Max, the FIA, Pat Symonds, Mr X, Piquet, Piquet jr, Charlie Whiting, and the president of Renault are all lying.

And Max has concocted this thing so that he can be called an arse by all the worlds media.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Captain Hammer]

In other news, Lee Harvey Oswald was today exonerated of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after new evidence came to light proving he was killed by Jack the Ripper.

[muttley]

In other news, Lee Harvey Oswald was today exonerated of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after new evidence came to light proving he was killed by Jack the Ripper.

The evidence was provided by secret Witness X, who saw Jack the Ripper shoot from the grassy knoll.

[Captain Hammer]

In other news, Lee Harvey Oswald was today exonerated of the assassination of John F. Kennedy after new evidence came to light proving he was killed by Jack the Ripper.

The evidence was provided by secret Witness X, who saw Jack the Ripper shoot from the grassy knoll.

No. It wasn't Witness X, it was Deep Oesophagus. Plenty of credibility, right there.

In actual news, reports are surfacing that Alan Permane - the chief race engineer - is Witness X.

[Yannick]

It may well be possible that Briatore didn't decide to have Nelsinho crash and that all of this was just a scam by Piquet, his son and Max's FIA to get rid of another ringmaster of FOTA - and maybe Briatore even had a hand in making public ANTSMSW5PG.

But there is one fact that the original poster has gotten wrong: Frank Williams is NOT a ringmaster of FOTA.

With Ron Dennis gone, Briatore gone and Mario Theissen having been pulled out, there are just two FOTA bosses remaining: Luca Di Montezemolo and John Howett.

[Captain Hammer]

Read this and tell me in all seriousness that you still think he's innocent.

[Tealy]

Read this and tell me in all seriousness that you still think he's innocent.

Broken Link

[Captain Hammer]

Read this and tell me in all seriousness that you still think he's innocent.

Broken Link

Okay, try this one.

If that doesn't work, the article basically looks at some of Briatore's business dealings in the past, particularly with the Bennetton Group. Some of them are particualrly shady.

[SuperAguri]

Gosh that was a balanced piece of journalism, I think I've read more unbiased reports on Obama by right wing republicans, anything that starts with 'Good riddance' is probably not going to be impartial...

A lot of the article has too many vague comments followed by long rants... for example by the time the Benetton franchising started to get sour, Briatore had already left
the Franchising post...

Went on about Schumacher and the allegeded cheating of 94 (and probably 95), not like Schumacher didn't cheat when he was with Ferrari? And that a certain Ross Brawn was present at Benetton when Schumacher was accused of cheating...

The article does seem to have a few mistruths in it, as I don't remember renault sacking briatore, Benetton did once the results went bad but not Renault, Briatore was then employed by er Renault to sell the old Renault engines...

Funnily enough I am not going to convict a man on previous 'offences' as Mark Webber said 'He was a very good character for our sport, and I'm sure a lot of other people would agree.'

[Captain Hammer]

Gosh that was a balanced piece of journalism,

As opposed to blatantly defending him bcause there's some giant conspiracy to finger him for the blame. Let's see here: Nelson Piquet accused him of orchestrating the whole matter. Pat Symonds admitted that the meeting had taken place, but tha it was Piquet's idea. Witness X claims that the meting took place and that he was informed of the plan. That's three different people who all claim the meeting too place, whatever their motivations. Briatore, on the other hand, denied everything from the outset. If he was so innocent, why does he have three different people accusing him?

A lot of the article has too many vague comments followed by long rants... for example by the time the Benetton franchising started to get sour, Briatore had already left
the Franchising post...

That doesn't mean Briatore was in the clear. The franchising could have been bad for years before hand.

Went on about Schumacher and the allegeded cheating of 94 (and probably 95), not like Schumacher didn't cheat when he was with Ferrari? And that a certain Ross Brawn was present at Benetton when Schumacher was accused of cheating...

Brawn wasn't in any position to approve anything. He may have come up with the idea, but Briatore had to approve it. One of the major arguments against Renault getting such a light penalty was that even if Briatore was punished, he was acting on Renault's behalf and that Renault should suffer because they let him go his own way in running the team. If that is true, then it must be true that he takes resonsibility for the team's actions, even if he played no part in orchestrating them. It's his repsonsiblity to know what is happening within the team, and if he doesn't know, then he's clearly unfit to be running a team at any level at all.

[Stramala]

Gosh that was a balanced piece of journalism, I think I've read more unbiased reports on Obama by right wing republicans, anything that starts with 'Good riddance' is probably not going to be impartial...

A lot of the article has too many vague comments followed by long rants... for example by the time the Benetton franchising started to get sour, Briatore had already left
the Franchising post...

Went on about Schumacher and the allegeded cheating of 94 (and probably 95), not like Schumacher didn't cheat when he was with Ferrari? And that a certain Ross Brawn was present at Benetton when Schumacher was accused of cheating...

The article does seem to have a few mistruths in it, as I don't remember renault sacking briatore, Benetton did once the results went bad but not Renault, Briatore was then employed by er Renault to sell the old Renault engines...

Funnily enough I am not going to convict a man on previous 'offences' as Mark Webber said 'He was a very good character for our sport, and I'm sure a lot of other people would agree.'

+1

The whole dodgy franchising thing is bullsh*t. If the franchisee chooses to set up next to another franchisee of the same brand, its his own fault if the shop goes down the crapper. In Livingston, there are 3 McDonalds branches within a few hundred yards of each other. So does that mean there are dodgy dealings going on there? I think not.

I think I've read more unbiased reports on Obama by right wing Republicans

I actually have.

This guy is not a journalist. Heck, I hate Kyle Busch, but when I am doing a NASCAR article, I don't shout about it constantly in my writing. Well, unless its on my Twitter page of course...

[Captain Hammer]

The whole dodgy franchising thing is bullsh*t. If the franchisee chooses to set up next to another franchisee of the same brand, its his own fault if the shop goes down the crapper. In Livingston, there are 3 McDonalds branches within a few hundred yards of each other. So does that mean there are dodgy dealings going on there? I think not.

That's not the issue. The issue is that anyone looking to establish a Bennetton franchise had to establish one in a certain area of the town they wanted to get started in: the very heart of the CBD. Rent prices would have been through the roof, and this is a "brand-name" clothing outlet we're talking about. The franchise owners would have had to pay a lot to the Bennetton Group to acquire franchise rights, and then they were forced to establish themselves in an expensive part of town, selling a product that was essentially the same as the cheaper non-brand name alternatives. So they were behind from the very beginning. Bennetton would receive a good slab of income, while the franchise owners struggled from day one because of the way their contract with Bennetton existed.

Doesn't that sound in the least bit suspect to you?

[CarlosFerreira]

and Formula One is better off without him. Good riddance; he should have been out years ago.

Yes, that's what we like to see, good balanced opinions. I'm sure if you were one of the stewards you'd have found him guilty even in Nelson Piqeut Jr said 'Mr Briatore knew nothing.'

Chill out, guys, this is F1Rejects - not the Autosport forums.

How about this: we should all be happy to see Flab Flav's back (no pun intended) because now there will be no more photos of him in stupid-coloured shirts with wet armpits. Oh, and for the Heidi Klum affair. Good riddance indeed.

[CarlosFerreira]

The whole dodgy franchising thing is bullsh*t. If the franchisee chooses to set up next to another franchisee of the same brand, its his own fault if the shop goes down the crapper. In Livingston, there are 3 McDonalds branches within a few hundred yards of each other. So does that mean there are dodgy dealings going on there? I think not.

That's not the issue. The issue is that anyone looking to establish a Bennetton franchise had to establish one in a certain area of the town they wanted to get started in: the very heart of the CBD. Rent prices would have been through the roof, and this is a "brand-name" clothing outlet we're talking about. The franchise owners would have had to pay a lot to the Bennetton Group to acquire franchise rights, and then they were forced to establish themselves in an expensive part of town, selling a product that was essentially the same as the cheaper non-brand name alternatives. So they were behind from the very beginning. Bennetton would receive a good slab of income, while the franchise owners struggled from day one because of the way their contract with Bennetton existed.

Doesn't that sound in the least bit suspect to you?

Suspect? Not at all. That's business. Buying a franchise is big trouble. I find it dodgy and maybe even a bit immoral, but not suspect at all.

[shinji]

It's bluntness time!

This theory = EPIC FAIL.

[CarlosFerreira]

Read this and tell me in all seriousness that you still think he's innocent.

Broken Link

Okay, try this one.

If that doesn't work, the article basically looks at some of Briatore's business dealings in the past, particularly with the Bennetton Group. Some of them are particualrly shady.

In all reasonableness, let me point out the pitpass article referred is quite strong on words, touches a lot of past and present rumours and supplies little in the way if facts. This is OK - it's an opinion piece. Mind you, going around publicly pointing your finger to a man and saying he is or has been connected to the Cosa Nostra is heavy, hardcore stuff and can land you in court unless you have proof of what you're on about.

It also glosses over Renault's responsibility. Renault decided to let Flav keep his dodgy driver management business instead of paying him the real dosh a team manager should get. Williams, Dennis, Ferrari, Brawn, Thyssen - none of them manages or managed drivers while managing a team.

Finally, a word on Pat Symmonds' defence: he was offered immunity, refused it, and then came clean and apologised. He took what was coming to him. For better or for worse, he was on a very competitive environment, under heavy pressure, and did make one (maybe more) extremely awful split-second decision.

[SuperAguri]

Gosh that was a balanced piece of journalism,

As opposed to blatantly defending him bcause there's some giant conspiracy to finger him for the blame. Let's see here: Nelson Piquet accused him of orchestrating the whole matter. Pat Symonds admitted that the meeting had taken place, but tha it was Piquet's idea. Witness X claims that the meting took place and that he was informed of the plan. That's three different people who all claim the meeting too place, whatever their motivations. Briatore, on the other hand, denied everything from the outset. If he was so innocent, why does he have three different people accusing him?

Symonds admitted that Piquet had come to him with the idea (where Piquet probably trying to deflect the blame says Symonds did) and that a meeting took place with Briatore.

However the point is that Symonds never says (unless someone can show me otherwise) what the meeting was about, Briatore says it was to tell Piquet to not worry about his contract and race properly but Piqeut says otherwise. It's Whistleblower X that says that Briatore knew about the race fixing but we aren't told how he knew, as he wasn't at the meeting as no one mentioned a 4th person...

How about this: we should all be happy to see Flab Flav's back (no pun intended) because now there will be no more photos of him in stupid-coloured shirts with wet armpits. Oh, and for the Heidi Klum affair. Good riddance indeed.

However Briatore was one of the more colourful characters in the pitlane, with him gone all the team principals are just dull and boring...

[lostpin]

Briatore? Innocent? These two words simply don't mix together..

[Jordan192]

However the point is that Symonds never says... what the meeting was about,

While this is true, if the meeting was simply to reassure Piquet, what reason would he have to not provide that answer to the investigators? He was directly asked if he had arranged to crash with Piquet, and refused to answer. That is massively significant.

Accepting that arguments like "He didn't answer, so he must be hiding something" are lazy assumption, the basic fact remains that an allegation was made, and Symonds didn't deny it. It wasn't Piquet's word against Symonds' - it was Piquet's statement standing unopposed.

[Stramala]

In reality, there have been worse things going on in F1, that never went punished, because it was never put to the FIA. For instance, Arrows knowingly running broken axles (I think) in 1996.