FIA crash-gate documents published!

http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Documents/wmsc_decision.pdf

http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Documents/wmsc_dossier_210909.pdf

JOSE

I have looked to the documents and urge you to read, on pages 90 and
91 of the dossier, Pat Symonds letter to FIA.

Also, it seems that Renault could NOT prove Briatore's participation
in the events.

It is really a long read and I have just glanced it, so perhaps I am
wrong.

Regards,

JOSE

EB5AGV <jose.gavila@gmail.com> wrote:

http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Documents/wmsc_decision.pdf

http://fialive.fiacommunications.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2009/Documents/wmsc_dossier_210909.pdf

Interesting. Reading the dossier puts a different light on the process
than the press release gives:

- Far from instantly being open and accepting the allegations,
Pierre de Coninck makes clear (18/09/2009) he thinks Renault are
not cooperating fully and is evading answering the FIA's concerns;
- The response from Andrew Ford of Withers is interesting as it is
even more clear that the FIA is reliant on Renault's own testamony
as to its own innocence.
- I thought it was particularly telling that, despite making a play
of being a large company of over 700 people (item 17 of Renaults'
submission of 21/09/2009), they have concluded that the conspiracy
didn't go to the heart of the team but was restricted to "...the
actions of 2 or 3 people." on the basis of interviews with 11
people (Ford's letter to Coninck 18/09/2009).

"EB5AGV" <jose.gavila@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2df32881-2339-4ea0-adb0-b0619b6e7230@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I have looked to the documents and urge you to read, on pages 90 and
91 of the dossier, Pat Symonds letter to FIA.

Also, it seems that Renault could NOT prove Briatore's participation
in the events.

It is really a long read and I have just glanced it, so perhaps I am
wrong.

Regards,

JOSE

I saw a link a while ago

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/fia-issues-details-of-court-case/

and have read both documents. After the meeting between Nelson, Symonds and
Briatore at which Nelson says they asked him to crash and Symonds says he
suggested it to them, after Nelson had left the room Symonds and Briatore
then called in another team member (the whistleblower) and asked him what he
thought of the idea. He rejected it and tried to distance himself from it
and played no further part. He testified however that while not personally
knowing who had first suggested the idea, although Symonds told him it was
Nelson, he could confirm that Briatore was present and fully complicit.

Briatore had already denied any involvement on initial questioning and after
the whistleblower came forward he continued to deny it. I suggest his
lifetime ban is because he refused to admit any guilt and Symonds 5 year one
is because he did.

As for who really did suggest the idea I find it very unlikely that Nelson
would come up with all this on his own and risk immediate dismissal when his
position was already very shaky for suggesting cheating of this magnitude.
It would have made the perfect excuse for Flav to get rid of him. However
we'll probably never know.

So anyway it looks like Flav hung himself by involving a fourth party
without whom his complicity would never have been proven.
--
Dave Baker

On Sep 22, 8:470pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
"EB5AGV" <jose.gav...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2df32881-2339-4ea0-adb0-b0619b6e7230@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...

>I have looked to the documents and urge you to read, on pages 90 and
> 91 of the dossier, Pat Symonds letter to FIA.

> Also, it seems that Renault could NOT prove Briatore's participation
> in the events.

> It is really a long read and I have just glanced it, so perhaps I am
> wrong.

> Regards,

> JOSE

I saw a link a while ago

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/fia-issues-details-of-court...

and have read both documents. After the meeting between Nelson, Symonds a=
nd
Briatore at which Nelson says they asked him to crash and Symonds says he
suggested it to them, after Nelson had left the room Symonds and Briatore
then called in another team member (the whistleblower) and asked him what=
he
thought of the idea. He rejected it and tried to distance himself from it
and played no further part. He testified however that while not personall=
y
knowing who had first suggested the idea, although Symonds told him it wa=
s
Nelson, he could confirm that Briatore was present and fully complicit.

Briatore had already denied any involvement on initial questioning and af=
ter
the whistleblower came forward he continued to deny it. I suggest his
lifetime ban is because he refused to admit any guilt and Symonds 5 year =
one
is because he did.

As for who really did suggest the idea I find it very unlikely that Nelso=
n
would come up with all this on his own and risk immediate dismissal when =
his
position was already very shaky for suggesting cheating of this magnitude=
.
It would have made the perfect excuse for Flav to get rid of him. However
we'll probably never know.

So anyway it looks like Flav hung himself by involving a fourth party
without whom his complicity would never have been proven.

Yep, it seems that without the whistle blower Renault, and in turn the
FIA, didn't have anything to pin this on Flav.

--
Dave Baker

"Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:w62dnVQ9r7Z3xyTXnZ2dnUVZ8nudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...

"mower man" <nospam@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:LrudnWaNcI8j2STXnZ2dnUVZ8nRi4p2d@pipex.net...
Dave Baker wrote:
"EB5AGV" <jose.gavila@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2df32881-2339-4ea0-adb0-b0619b6e7230@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I have looked to the documents and urge you to read, on pages 90 and
91 of the dossier, Pat Symonds letter to FIA.

Also, it seems that Renault could NOT prove Briatore's participation
in the events.

It is really a long read and I have just glanced it, so perhaps I am
wrong.

Regards,

JOSE

I saw a link a while ago

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/fia-issues-details-of-court-case/

and have read both documents. After the meeting between Nelson, Symonds
and Briatore at which Nelson says they asked him to crash and Symonds
says he suggested it to them, after Nelson had left the room Symonds and
Briatore then called in another team member (the whistleblower) and asked
him what he thought of the idea. He rejected it and tried to distance
himself from it and played no further part. He testified however that
while not personally knowing who had first suggested the idea, although
Symonds told him it was Nelson, he could confirm that Briatore was
present and fully complicit.

Briatore had already denied any involvement on initial questioning and
after the whistleblower came forward he continued to deny it. I suggest
his lifetime ban is because he refused to admit any guilt and Symonds 5
year one is because he did.

As for who really did suggest the idea I find it very unlikely that
Nelson would come up with all this on his own and risk immediate
dismissal when his position was already very shaky for suggesting
cheating of this magnitude. It would have made the perfect excuse for
Flav to get rid of him. However we'll probably never know.

Agreed. In fact I think a racing driver would be unlikely to begin to
think of such a strategy without prompting.

Without wanting to be overly harsh on them most racing drivers aren't that
smart [1], and even fewer altruistic enough to volunteer for this.

[1] Strategy wise, I think they are wired differently. I was at uni with a
formula ford champion, remarkable car control with no effort but was always
late handing in assignments as he didn't start them till the evening before
the due date.

Actually "aren't that smart" is a bit unfair, they don't think that way is
probably kinder.

EB5AGV <jose.gavila@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2df32881-2339-4ea0-adb0-b0619b6e7230@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:

I have looked to the documents and urge you to read, on pages 90 and
91 of the dossier, Pat Symonds letter to FIA.

Also, it seems that Renault could NOT prove Briatore's participation
in the events.

Why would they even *care* to? that's what the FIA was supposed to do and
didn't. Not trolling mind you, just pointing out yet another absurdity of
it all.

They concluded that he must have known (page 139, item (5)(b)) on the
basis of Piquet's admission, Symond's responses and evidence from the
whistleblower.

I smell court cases in the air, though. Unless there's firmer evidence,
I don't see how they can conclusively pin this on Briatore.

If Flave takes this to court it would be a civil case not a criminal
case. in a civil case the burden of proof is much less and only needs to
be proved on "the balance of probabilities".

IMHO the Balance of probability is such that Flav had been aware of what
had happened & as I have stated earlier it doesn't really matter who
suggested the idea, either Flave suggested it & is guilty or he did not
put a stop to the plan in which case he is still guilty.

Alister <alister@nospam.com> wrote:

They concluded that he must have known (page 139, item (5)(b)) on the
basis of Piquet's admission, Symond's responses and evidence from the
whistleblower.

I smell court cases in the air, though. Unless there's firmer evidence,
I don't see how they can conclusively pin this on Briatore.

If Flave takes this to court it would be a civil case not a criminal
case. in a civil case the burden of proof is much less and only needs to
be proved on "the balance of probabilities".

IMHO the Balance of probability is such that Flav had been aware of what
had happened & as I have stated earlier it doesn't really matter who
suggested the idea, either Flave suggested it & is guilty or he did not
put a stop to the plan in which case he is still guilty.

If Flavio sues in the English courts on the basis of libel, he doesn't
have to prove probabilities, he simply has to demonstrate that they have
no independent evidence to back up their claims. The English libel laws
are stupid.

If they rely on witnesses who, because of various deals can be portrayed
as less than disinterested, I would give him a better than even chance
of winning a case.

Of course, I'd expect him to pick an easier target than Mosley. Piquet
perhaps.

Winning *one* case, though, would be sufficient for him to go around
claiming he had been proven innocent...which is not what a libel win
shows.