Renault "crash-gate"

[BoyFerrari]

A race ban is only an effective punishment for contestants who are still eager to participate in the contest. But we are talking about a company who only gave a reprieve to its F1 operations. Obviously, FIA has to balance the punishment versus the sporting business of keeping the fanbase intact to generate income for the sport. Renault is happy to quit F1 at the slightest provocation.

Moral issue considering that it was only the evil work of 3 rogue employees (4, if you include the puppy dog innocent look of Alonso). Renault was not aware of this cheating. And I'm sure not everyone in Renault paddock was aware of it either. I don't even think the pit crew had any idea why on earth Flavio pulled Alonso for an early pitstop despite being 15th on the grid.

Perhaps the fine can be negotiated in the future. Renault can even ask FIA to convert the 2-year ban into an equivalent fine later on, when the economy has improved.

[CVT]

McLaren's "spy-gate" gave them a competitive advantage in the field, while Renault's "crash-gate" just gave them the win in one race (although it endangered NP's life and probably the others,- but IMO, that is a 'calculated move').... There's the difference.....

8701:soccer:

[fourtheboys96]

Oo nga naman IMO mas mabigat ang crash gate kaysa spy gate. One is just espionage this one really put people's life in danger! Something is wrong with the justice system in the FIA.

spygate involved the whole mclaren team. they did it (and probably would have continued) if they were not caught.

crashgate involved 3 persons in one race although i think the act was really dangerous.

one thing that baffles me is that why would briatore and symonds implement something like that when statistics will show them that piquet jr will crash his car on his own.

[niky]

spygate involved the whole mclaren team. they did it (and probably would have continued) if they were not caught.

crashgate involved 3 persons in one race although i think the act was really dangerous.

one thing that baffles me is that why would briatore and symonds implement something like that when statistics will show them that piquet jr will crash his car on his own.

Meep. Wrong.

Spygate involved one ex-Ferrari engineer. The circumstantial evidence used against McLaren was the conversations between Alonso and Pedrossa where they were talking about how that engineer knew when Kimi was going to pit... because he had detailed knowledge of the car.

The FIA investigation was never able to show that anyone else on the team had knowledge of the Ferrari technical documents, (which the guy kept at his house) though they knew or suspected the guy knew something, and that the McLaren did not include any technology or design stolen from Ferarri.

The original fine and punishment for SpyGate was the same as this one. Slap on the wrist. Suspended sentence. Only after Ferrari protested did the FIA slap McLaren with the huge 100 million pound fine.

Renault, on the other hand... had McLaren's technical drawings and data... two years' worth, on their servers... there was evidence that they attempted to copy McLaren's J-Dampers... but since they "cooperated" and they "didn't benefit from the design" and they "willingly erased the data"... they were let off completely scot-free.

(you can find the details on both investigations online... both had the same result)

-

This one is an entirely different kettle of fish. It's not the cheating... per se... it's all about safety. Banning a team for at least a few races would be mandatory due to the huge safety violation of: 1. Causing a debris field on track, which could wreck other cars. 2. Causing flying debris, which could injure other drivers and other spectators, and 3. Causing a driver to risk his life for race advantage.

For that... rightfully, Briatore has been kicked out of the FIA... for life. Symond's five year sentence seems kind of weak, but then again... five years where a race engineer gets to do no work, and at the end of that, he's a pariah? That's justice. But that the team doesn't get punished? Complete BS. If this was just about cheating, Briatore would have been allowed to resign with no punishment, like Ron Dennis in "lie-gate"... but it isn't, so Briatore's punishment is severe. In "lie-gate", at least, McLaren was docked points (though they should've had at least a one-race ban)... here... Renault gets... nothing?

It isn't the rest of the team's fault, but the owners of the team are responsible for whatever actions their employees perform in the line of duty. If the lollipop man messes up... the entire team takes a hit... (race ban or points penalty) if the fuel rig guy messes up... the entire team takes a hit (points penalty... dangerous situation). This is no different... and in fact, worse.

I can understand the FIA don't want to force Renault to quit F1... which they most definitely would if they got a two-year ban... but no punishment? That's absolutely ridiculous.

[overdrayv]

Meep. Wrong.

The FIA investigation was never able to show that anyone else on the team had knowledge of the Ferrari technical documents, (which the guy kept at his house) though they knew or suspected the guy knew something, and that the McLaren did not include any technology or design stolen from Ferarri.

8.11 The WMSC therefore finds that a number of McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, or knew or should have known that other McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, highly confidential Ferrari technical information. In addition, the WMSC finds that there was an intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing.
8.12 The evidence leads the WMSC to conclude that some degree of sporting advantage was obtained, though it may forever be impossible to quantify that advantage in concrete terms.
8.13 These factors lead the WMSC to an appreciation of the gravity of McLaren’s breach which is materially different to the appreciation in the 26 July Decision. On this occasion the WMSC believes that a penalty is merited.

World Motor Sport Council Decision

Only after Ferrari protested did the FIA slap McLaren with the huge 100 million pound fine.

1st hearing: McLaren was found guilty but received no penalty due to lack of sufficient evidence.
the case was reopened following the emergence of new evidence (e-mail exchanges between de la Rosa and Alonso among others)
2nd hearing: McLaren was found guilty and was handed a 50 million pound fine.

[niky]

8.11 The WMSC therefore finds that a number of McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, or knew or should have known that other McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, highly confidential Ferrari technical information. In addition, the WMSC finds that there was an intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing.

Read the clause again... "should have known" is not the same as "known". Number = unspecified... with no proof of anyone else besides said engineer having direct knowledge of the data.

The e-mails between de la Rosa and Alonso were in discussion of the engineer's intimate knowledge of Ferrari strategy... not about what documents he possessed.

[overdrayv]

Read the clause again... "should have known" is not the same as "known".

before that phrase it states "or knew".

8.11 The WMSC therefore finds that a number of McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, or knew or should have known that other McLaren employees or agents were in unauthorised possession of, highly confidential Ferrari technical information. In addition, the WMSC finds that there was an intention on the part of a number of McLaren personnel to use some of the Ferrari confidential information in its own testing.

Number = unspecified... with no proof of anyone else besides said engineer having direct knowledge of the data.

from McLaren's apology

As a result of the investigations carried out by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile it has become clear that Ferrari information was more widely disseminated within McLaren than was previously communicated. McLaren greatly regrets that its own investigations did not identify this material and has written to the World Motor Sport Council to apologise for this.

McLaren confess: We used more Ferrari info

The e-mails between de la Rosa and Alonso were in discussion of the engineer's intimate knowledge of Ferrari strategy... not about what documents he possessed.

besides stopping strategy they also discussed weight distribution, flexible wing, aero balance, tire gas & braking system.

World Motor Sport Council Decision

[CVT]

Now, why in the world would a competitive team, who has that valuable information, would not use it to gain competitive advantage?... Just personal collection?........

8701:soccer:

[Monseratto]

Great discussion guys! At the rate of development in F1, any information gained last month is already considered obsolete.

[niky]

Still doesn't make McLaren's "crime" any worse than Renault's... except that Renault voluntarily came clean at the end of the season. Note: end, not middle... and not after studying one season's worth of data.

-

So... spying is still worse than intentionally endangering an entire F1 grid and exposing a driver to possible death or injury?

[Monseratto]

Hehehe... the repercussions is now being felt. At the this rate, Renault may have a blank white and yellow car...

Title sponsor ING axes Renault backing

Renault's title sponsor ING late on Thursday said it has terminated its contract with the French team "with immediate effect."

Mere hours after Spanish insurance backer Mutua Madrilena pulled its logos from the R29 for the same reason, the Dutch bank ING said it has also decided to end its association with Renault because of the Crashgate scandal.

It is believed that both sponsors cite a clear and serious breach of contract, due to clauses requiring the Enstone-based team to comply with FIA rules and regulations.

"ING is deeply disappointed at this turn of events, especially in the context of an otherwise successful sponsorship," a media statement issued late on Thursday read.

The statement went out to the world's media in the dead of the Singapore night, after team mechanics had throughout Thursday worked on the fully ING-branded cars in the pits of the Asian city-state's street circuit.

All team equipment as well as personnel and driver apparel also carried prominent ING branding as per usual on Thursday, the day before official practice for the weekend's Singapore Grand Prix begins.

Like Mutua Madrilena, ING had previously decided not to stay in Formula One beyond 2009.

© CAPSIS International
Source: GMM

[Monseratto]

Some of the drivers are not too pleased at Piquet's immunity...

Kubica perplexed by FIA's immunity decision

Robert Kubica admits he was shocked that Nelson Piquet Jr was given immunity by the FIA in Renault's race-fixing scandal, equating the Brazilian's actions to confessing to murder

"Normally if you go the police and you say you killed someone but you know someone else who killed three people, you will still go to jail," Kubica told reporters in Singapore.

"Maybe you will not have 100 per cent penalty, but you will still have problems. As I said, it's complex."

Piquet Jr's part in the scandal, though, has raised some doubts about whether he will ever race in Formula One again. However, Kubica says he would have no objections to his return, although he cannot fathom why the former Renault driver agreed to the plan in the first place.

"Whatever, I'm not his boss or his father, so he can come in, no problem as a driver," he said. "But you have to be really desperate to do something like this.

The Williams team's Nico Rosberg does not at all agree with the deal cut between Piquet and the FIA.

"The only thing I don't quite understand is (why) Nelson Piquet didn't get anything," the German told the Singapore daily Today.

"For me, he's just as involved as the others because he is the one who actually did it and agreed to it."

Rosberg finished second on the Asian city-state's floodlit streets last September, behind the victorious Alonso. But because all the results of the 2008 World Championship were set in stone last November, he cannot retrospectively be now declared the winner of the race.

[niky]

Well... there goes the monetary fine...

[Monseratto]

Yep... natangal nga agad.

[tidus1203]

With regards to immunity of course dapat meron if not then Piquet will not cooperate diba? Its as simple as that, right or wrong they have no choice but to give it!

As for Renault loosing its sponsor this just the start of their exit from the sport.

[overdrayv]

FIA must announce Briatore ban lift

The FIA has been ordered to tell the public and teams that the bans from motor sport imposed on Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds for their part in Formula 1's race-fix scandal have been lifted.

A French court ruled on Tuesday that the decision to ban the two Renault men had been "irregular" and overturned the FIA's decision, meaning both Briatore and Symonds can now return to work in Formula 1.

The court found that the FIA did not have the power to decree such a penalty - as neither men held any licences to compete.

"The FIA ... can sanction licence holders, leaders, members of the ASNs [national sporting authorities], but it cannot with respect to third parties, take measures equivalent to a sanction - in contravention of article 28 of its statutes," the verdict read.

"The World Council, by forbidding FIA members and licences to work with Messrs Briatore and Symonds, on the one hand added a negative condition – to not work with them – which is not provided for within the FIA statutes."

The verdict also suggested there was a conflict of interest in the ban, as former FIA president Max Mosley was already in dispute with Briatore – and he played a part in both the investigation of the matter and the handing down of the penalty.

The court judgement added: "The decision of the World Council was presided over by the FIA president, who was well known to be in conflict with Briatore, with Mr. Mosley having played a leading role in launching the enquiry and its investigation in violation of the principle of separation of the power of the bodies.

"The decision [of the FIA World Motor Sport Council] is not annulled but declared irregular, and rendered without effect in its provisions against Mr. Briatore and Mr. Symonds."

The court added that the FIA will be now forced to notify F1 teams and the public, through adverts in French newspapers, that both Briatore and Symonds's bans have been lifted.

"The FIA is consequently obliged to notify within two weeks it is lifting the provisions to its members and licence holders, particularly the 13 teams entered into the FIA Formula 1 world championship 2010," it added.

"This must be published in the French newspapers, of the choice of Mr. Briatore and Mr. Symonds – at the FIA's cost, up to a limited cost of 15,000 and 5,000 respectively."

The FIA is considering appealing the French court's ruling.

Autosport.com

[CVT]

Ang galing ng French Court....

9101:thatsit:

[overdrayv]

Tribunal de Grande Instance

The FIA notes the Decision of the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris in relation to Mr. Briatore and Mr. Symonds.

The Court has rejected the claims for damages made by Mr. Briatore and Mr. Symonds and their claim for an annulment of the FIA's decision. In particular, the Court did not examine the facts and has not reversed the FIA's finding that both Briatore and Symonds conspired to cause an intentional crash at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.

However, the Court did question the FIA's authority to impose bans upon Mr. Briatore and Mr. Symonds for procedural reasons and because they are not FIA licence holders and, according to the Court, are therefore not subject to any FIA rules. The FIA's ability to exclude those who intentionally put others' lives at risk has never before been put into doubt and the FIA is carefully considering its appeal options on this point.

The Court’s decision is not enforceable until the FIA's appeal options have been exhausted. Until then, the World Motor Sport Council’s decision continues to apply.

In addition, the FIA intends to consider appropriate actions to ensure that no persons who would engage, or who have engaged, in such dangerous activities or acts of intentional cheating will be allowed to participate in Formula One in the future.

www.FIA.com