Singapore 2008 under investigation

There's nothing to prove that Alonso knew anything at all about the whole thing.
That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't know about it though...

In addtion to the other incidents at McLaren, he has already admitted to using stolen data from Ferrari and then attempted to Blackmail Ron Dennis/McLaren.

Is he capable of doing something like this?
I'll let everyone make their own mind up ;)
NP is now claiming he told the FIA about this at the end of last season.

Nelson Piquet Sr. has revealed that he first informed the FIA about the Singapore Grand Prix race fix claims at last year's race in Brazil - but no action could be taken until his son made an official statement about the matter.

As further details about the race-fixing case continue to emerge ahead of Monday's FIA World Council hearing into the matter, Piquet claimed that he first brought the case to the attention of F1 race director Charlie Whiting at Interlagos in 2008.

British newspaper The Daily Mirror published extracts of an interview that Piquet Sr. conducted with Martin Smith of investigators Quest on August 17 this year where he talked about bringing the matter to light.

"When this thing happened in Singapore I couldn't believe it. I'd done motor racing for all my life," Piquet was quoted as saying.

"I couldn't believe this thing. And after I called Nelson and Nelson said yes they asked me if I could help and this and that. I said 'but you could have hurt yourself and if you didn't hurt yourself you could have hurt somebody else' and he said 'yeah, I know it's wrong' but anyway.

"Anyway in Brazil I talk to Charlie."

He added: "I got him and I said 'look, what could happen to Nelson if I bring this up?' And I was afraid to screw up the career of Nelson."
Surely the FIA had a duty to at least ask a few questions and check some basic data?

I appreciate that they can't just go off rumour and allegation all the time but as soon as it happened, a lot of people were suspicious and questioned the incident.
Alarm bells must have been ringing when NP informed the FIA so it was at least worth looking in to?

The list of people who knew, were told or suspected something had gone on as long ago as last year seems to be growing all the time and yet it has taken until now for it to come to light?

[bg=#E3001A]Autosport[/bg] Piquet Sr. informed FIA last year
cider_and_toast said:
Having said that, it would seem that Alonso's race engineer had no idea from the transcripts how his drivers car was fueled given that he can be heard questioning the wisdom of brining Alonso in so early during the race. I presume that the race was already under way at this point??

I think the engineer says on the transcripts that Alonso has enough fuel to get to lap 13 and probably 14; Symonds decides to bring him in early on lap 12, although Fernando is not in traffic at that point (he's catching Nakajima, but only gradually). Pat claims it's to slot him back into a gap but we can probably surmise that he's worried about someone else making an early stop too and jinxing the plan.

I can't believe Alonso didn't query the wisdom of such a short refuelling strategy, but it's a question then of what the explanation was and whether he believed it. I suspect that he would defer to his strategist, especially because at that point he couldn't possibly have had any idea what the true motivation was.
I noticed something odd at the end of the race, actually. Alonso said in an interview that he always works out his celebrations with his friends in Oviedo. I thought it was slightly odd that Alonso had bothered to work out a victory celebration since he was in a car that was heading to the arse end of nowhere all year. Did he know something, or does he have unparalleled levels of self-belief?
Cheers GM, I read the transcript a few days ago and couldn't remember what it said.

I can't believe Alonso didn't query the wisdom of such a short refuelling strategy, but it's a question then of what the explanation was and whether he believed it. I suspect that he would defer to his strategist, especially because at that point he couldn't possibly have had any idea what the true motivation was.

This was the point I was making. I guess it was a case of "are you sure this is right?" "Trust me Fernando"

On another point I see Eddie Irvine has openend his mouth before engauging his brain (Again!!!)

His words were something along the lines of "Well I guess it's the wrong side of that cheating line sort of thing"

Well done Eddie :cheer: So there is a being on the right side of the cheating line then is there?

And another quote from the same interview (quoted on radio 5 today) - "This sort of thing went on all the time in my day"

Really Eddie?
Well, lets face it. Look at the situation:

  • Double World Champion in first car
  • Idiot not fit to lick shoes of said 2xWC in second car
  • Clear favouritism within team to first driver
  • Second driver rarely in any position to help first driver by letting him past etc.

Who are we describing? Piquet at Renault or Irvine in Ferrari.

Can anyone think of an incident where EI crashed deliberately to aid the Schu? If there is one, there may be trouble ahead!
Can anyone think of an incident where EI crashed deliberately to aid the Schu? If there is one, there may be trouble ahead!

Can't think of one where Eddie crashed and helped Schui but let's take a look at Silverstone 99 shall we. A greatful Schuey who had already won the WDC wanted to reward Eddie for seasons of hard work as his number 2 and so planted his car into the tyres at Silverstone helping Eddie to mount his own challenge on the WDC without having to worry about that pesky contract. Bet you never knew Schuey could be so kind.

I'm sure we could come up with all sorts of crap.

  • How Eddie Jordan's paddock spies threatened Mika Hakkinen at Monza 1999
  • How Jos Verstappen's team-mate role with Schumi in 1994 ended with him up Montoya's rear wing in 2001
  • How Brett Lunger, desparate to not have the most GPs without a point, tampered with Luca Badoer's gearbox at the Nurburgring in 1999
  • How the Valencia docks authority bribed Bernie Ecclestone to gain publicity
  • How, desparate for a World title, John Surtees got access to Jim Clark's car across 1964 to retire him from most races
  • How Michelin pulled out of the 2005 USGP to spite Ricardo Zonta
  • And how McLaren copied the Ferrari car from a secret dossier found in a photocop... (wait, that one's real, isn't it?)
One quick thought, as Renault are not contesting the FIA charge and therefore admitting responsibility what chance of criminal prosecution against Renault, Briatore, Symonds and Piquet. I'm sure there must be some bookmakers smarting about this strange result so if the authorities don't take action maybe some private prosecutions?

The only comparison I can think of to this is the Italian Football fixing scandal in 2006. I don't think anyone went to prison but many people ended up with quite large fines and banned from the sport for a number of years.

I love to see Flabio try and get a designer prison uniform LOL
I was also wondering about that but from the point of view of endangering lives, etc.

I expect there are lots of lawyers waiting to see what the FIA decides on Monday.
The bloke at the top at Renault is getting his defence in first, presumably to avoid any serious sanction from the WMSC on Monday.

Renault director general Patrick Pelata said: "Flavio Briatore considered he was morally responsible and resigned," Pelata told French radio station RTL. "We don't want a fault by two people to reflect upon the whole company and the entire Formula 1 team."


There's also the quotes from that ejit Irvine and a link to the 5Live interview for those who haven't heard it.
Ari Vatanen speaks up with some not so subtle comments criticising Max Mosley and the FIA under his presidency.

Former World Rally Champion Vatanen believes there are too many vested interests in the world council and that punishing Renault by expulsion would be "disproportionate."

He said: "Renault has got more or less their punishment in terms of image and having lost their top brass and we have to see the bigger context here. Don't just focus on this incident and look at what we can do about FIA and about the sport.

"If Renault is thrown out it wouldn't have been a result of an independent justice. That's what we must get right - an absolutely independent justice otherwise people will always have a question. What was behind it?"

Vatanen, who will stand in next month's election when Moseley stands down, insists, however, Piquet Jnr must take responsibility for actually crashing the car in Singapore.

Piquet Jnr has been given immunity after revealing the scandal weeks after being sacked by Briatore.

Vatanen said: "The immunity system is very dangerous. I think all people should face results of their actions. The final decision was for him to do it or not to do it and he can't escape that responsibility."
Source: Ari: Renault shouldn't be banned

The Telegraph 'Vested interests' will keep full truth of Renault race-fixing scandal hidden
Ari Vatanen is, in a sense, right about the WMSC and the vested interests of the current FIA judicial system.

However, he is wrong to say Renault should not be expelled from the Championship, if only for a one or two race ban. If F1 is to clear up its act it must be seen to punish the offender.

It is a pity that Briatore and Symonds will not be facing justice, and with a bit of luck the Football League will still look at Briatore's position at QPR. However, someone must be punished! That someone should be the Renault F1 team, who should not be racing at the next 2 Grand Prix at the very least.
For once I don't agree with Ari, I think Piquet being given immunity is only right in this case. What would have happened to him if he hadn't done as his team asked? Would he have lost his seat before the next race? At times like that, it is self-preservation that is helping your thinking, not what is right and wrong.

The people who should be punished still (even though they've resigned) are Flab and Pat. Renault themselves should get punished simply for employing someone so morally reprehensible as Flab, but also for the fact of not invesigating the incident themselves when it looked so much like a staged crash and then sacking Flab and putting themselves up to the FIA for punishment. They are the ones who had a moral responsibility to find out what had happened and they were the only ones who had all the data.
Oh let's be honest - who thinks Flavio should be crucified in the middle of the Arc de Triomphe?

Renault should get the corporate equivalent of a slapped wrist, I would be happy with an official warning which effectively gives them a $50M suspended fine for the next decade.

Pat Symonds, not a controlling mind, but banned from all FIA motorsport for life - shame, but deserved, should not have let the Italian control him once he achieved that level!

Then, Piquet isn't driving for the rest of the season and has immunity, so that problem's gone. I think Fernando has a duty to provide a written notice that he was not involved and detailing his take on the concept behind his strategy.

Done deal!
I'm in two minds over Pat and it all depends on whose idea it was. I think they should throw the book at Flav, since ultimately as Team Principle he carries the can, whether it was his idea or not. If we assume that it was Flav that came up with the idea of having NP Jun crash, then it would have been difficult for Pat to say he wanted no part of it, since Flav was his boss (I know, the defence of only carrying out orders is no defence, but it's hard to say no to your manager).
There's a rumour that Renault have been given a 2 year suspended ban.
No confirmation yet though so not really worth discussing it.

In fact, why did I even bother posting this? :D
Top Bottom