Looks like Renault could be in the shit now..

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.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78647

I think the most interesting development was:

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.

I bet those shrewd fellows of the FIA will then proceed to give Flavio immunity and ta-da case closed.

Quote from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article6834557.ece :

A full transcript of the Renault pitwall radio transmissions that took place between Symonds, Briatore, various engineers and Piquet and Alonso covering the dramatic minutes leading up to and after Piquet’s crash during the race has been seen by The Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t ... mula_1/article6834552.ece

It's getting hooot in heeere.. so take off all your clotheees...

Sounds like a really damning set of evidence.

Quote from rc10racer :

Looks like Renault could be in the shit now..



http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78647

That is not good. He isn't even denying any direct accusations of his own behaviour. Why on earth would he do that??, unless his sole objective is to be able to say he "didn't lie" to the enquiry??

Quote from gezmoor :

That is not good. He isn't even denying any direct accusations of his own behaviour. Why on earth would he do that??, unless his sole objective is to be able to say he "didn't lie" to the enquiry??

Probably advice from his legal advisers.

The problem with this sort of enquiry is that Renault probably has no full access to the evidence that has been presented against them. Therefore, any kind of legal advice is going to be highly conservative to the extent that Symonds was probably advised to say nothing about the meeting or the conspiracy accusation.

The onus of proof lies in the accusers. The old trick, "it will be better for you if you tell us now rather than later", is rubbish. It's a cop trick used to elicit false confessions under duress.

I'm not suggesting that Symonds is definitely innocent, but he has the right to such a presumption unless proven otherwise. The problem with the WMSC or stewards' inquiry is that the FIA takes the role of both prosecutor and judge. There is no fairness in such a system.

The "anything you fail to say now but which you later rely on..." is peculiar to the version of the Miranda Rights used in the UK. We call them Miranda Rights these days, but it's an American term. It's worth noting that the European Court won't uphold that presumption of guilt based on silence or refusal to comment, and ruled against the UK government on the matter in 1996.

The right to remain silent existed in the UK from the 13th century until recently. You still have the right, but if you're being tried in the UK, your silence can be treated as if alluding to guilt. Atrocious really, how much of a beating our rights have taken in the last decade alone.

Fortunately for Symonds, this is going to play out in Europe, and away from this feckered up legal system.

Formula 1 racing is essentially dead now, the majority of the media are only interested in the scandals, the racing hasn't just taken the back seat, its actually in the boot, in a bag.

Quote from SamH :

The "anything you fail to say now but which you later rely on..." is peculiar to the version of the Miranda Rights used in the UK. We call them Miranda Rights these days, but it's an American term. It's worth noting that the European Court won't uphold that presumption of guilt based on silence or refusal to comment, and ruled against the UK government on the matter in 1996.

The right to remain silent existed in the UK from the 13th century until recently. You still have the right, but if you're being tried in the UK, your silence can be treated as if alluding to guilt. Atrocious really, how much of a beating our rights have taken in the last decade alone.

Fortunately for Americans, the Miranda warning is derived from their Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, the right against self-incrimination (Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)). Unfortunately for those in the UK and its former colonies, it is usually derived from common law. The government can quite easily quash it via legislative change, if they want (as the English did in 1994).

WOW. Renault just sacked Pat Symonds and Flavio Briatore. i guess the crash-gate is true then

Just heard on radio 5Live that Falvio and Symonds have left Renault and are not disputing the claims.

CLICKY HERE

That's unbelievable! That'll make a nice space for the Half-arsed BMW team next year.

oh no, it was going to be 28 cars on the grid

That doesn't necessarily mean that Renault is going to be kicked out of F1. Renault will probably claim they didn't know anything about this and Briatore, Symonds, Piquet were acting on their own (which imo could be true) and that they have sacked the guilty people. They might get away with a fine or a reduction of points in the constructors championship or something like that.

Quote from Kalev EST :

That doesn't necessarily mean that Renault is going to be kicked out of F1. Renault will probably claim they didn't know anything about this and Briatore, Symonds, Piquet were acting on their own (which imo could be true) and that they have sacked the guilty people. They might get away with a fine or a reduction of points in the constructors championship or something like that.

That is entirely possible, even probable.

Quote from Kalev EST :

That doesn't necessarily mean that Renault is going to be kicked out of F1.

Possibly not, but they still have to face the FIA hearing on monday (the charges were levelled against the team not any one individual).

As you say they may still get a fine or a suspension though. However, Renault have been considering leaving the sport for the last few years, perhaps this is just the excuse they need. They probably don't want to be forever associated with something of this magnitude.

Interesting times in F1, interesting times...

p.s, have to say i'm pleased to see the back of Briatore, but it's sad to loose such a stalwart as Pat Symonds. I never would have thought he would be party to something like this, but, i guess you can never tell what really goes on behind closed doors.

I'm at least glad to see the back of Flavio.

Piquet is still a scheming little bastard though, no matter who gets sacked. A driver who will be forever remembered for what he did off track, which isn't right.

Quote from 5haz :

Piquet is still a scheming little bastard though, no matter who gets sacked. A driver who will be forever remembered for what he did off track, which isn't right.

So you rather have a cheating scum still stay in charge of a f1 team so he could do it again in the future, i am on Piquet side here because it is still wrong to throw your car into a wall to fix a race result but atleast he went to the FIA to say what has happened instead of letting him stay incharge of a f1 team to cause more trouble.

Quote from rc10racer :

So you rather have a cheating scum still stay in charge of a f1 team so he could do it again in the future, i am on Piquet side here because it is still wrong to throw your car into a wall to fix a race result but atleast he went to the FIA to say what has happened instead of letting him stay incharge of a f1 team to cause more trouble.

Nah man if your team boss tries to make you do something like that, you say no, what you don't do is carry the deed out, keep your lips sealed and then squeal when it suddenly becomes conveniant to, thats just bastardly.

If I was in such a position I would said no and if I felt the need to be such a grass I would've done it straight away, regardless of wether it threatened my position within the team, if they sacked me there and then at least I would be respected for blowing the whistle on some dirty deeds that needed to be stopped. Rather than simply using it as a pathetic personal vendetta long after it even matters any more.

This is the point, Piquet dosent give a stuff about clearing up corruption in F1 (he was part of it!), its all about getting his own back on people who sacked him because he was essentially not a good enough driver.

Everyone seems to think of Piquet as being quite innocent in this, he has his own brain and morals, he carried out the act even though he should have known it was wrong, he was one of the men in on the plan and has absolutely no excuse, so he deserves as much punishment as anyone else. Just because he squealed to the FIA dosen't make him any more holy, especially as he did it only for personal reasons.

I'm interested to see what the evidence against Symonds and Flav is that caused them to bolt without a fight. The full transcripts of radio conversations are released and show absolutely nothing so.. shrug

Anyway, bye Flav!

Quote from mythdat :

I'm interested to see what the evidence against Symonds and Flav is that caused them to bolt without a fight. The full transcripts of radio conversations are released and show absolutely nothing so.. shrug

The "word on the street" is the head honchos at Renault were'nt convinced of Flav and Pats innocence so give them a hefty shove towards resignation. They're probably expecting a huge fine (or worse) so they're obviously hoping this sacrifice will go some way to lessening the blow.

Quote from 5haz :

Nah man if your team boss tries to make you do something like that, you say no, what you don't do is carry the deed out, keep your lips sealed and then squeal when it suddenly becomes conveniant to, thats just bastardly.

If I was in such a position I would said no and if I felt the need to be such a grass I would've done it straight away, regardless of wether it threatened my position within the team, if they sacked me there and then at least I would be respected for blowing the whistle on some dirty deeds that needed to be stopped. Rather than simply using it as a pathetic personal vendetta long after it even matters any more.

This is the point, Piquet dosent give a stuff about clearing up corruption in F1 (he was part of it!), its all about getting his own back on people who sacked him because he was essentially not a good enough driver.

Everyone seems to think of Piquet as being quite innocent in this, he has his own brain and morals, he carried out the act even though he should have known it was wrong, he was one of the men in on the plan and has absolutely no excuse, so he deserves as much punishment as anyone else. Just because he squealed to the FIA dosen't make him any more holy, especially as he did it only for personal reasons.

Yeah, it appears that everyone on these forums is holier than thou, would always do the right thing, and never ever make mistakes.

You couldn't say what you would do, because you've not been put in that situation. Money makes people go crazy (imagine Nelson's bonus and Flav's bonus through the team scoring a win). It's all very well sitting there spouting the law, what is right and wrong, and what you would do, but all that goes out the window when someone is promising big dollar signs.

Just because thats the way it is, dosen't mean its right.

All I want to say is that Piquet should be viewed in the same light as Flavio, they have both shown themselves to be corrupt. Regardless of wether Piquet was under the influence of big dollar signs, he should not act, or be viewed as being some kind of saint.

Crap, and I liked Flavio's interviews, all the other scumbags around aren't half as amusing as he is. Now let's see how long it takes him to get back in the circus.