Renault Dismiss Flav and Pat or Oh dear… Here comes trouble

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

Maybe so, but when people are calling for life bans on the basis that the lives of competitors, marshals and spectators were put at risk, it makes me roll my eyes. Does anyone truly believe that Piquet's accident carried greater risk than the incident at Suzuka involving Ayrton Senna?

BTW: Prost's shunt over Piquet in Zandvoort 1983 was also intentional? Or just an error?

[Mekola]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Yeah, I think that good old mate Livio has hit the sport there...
One can't be sure, but Briatore might get out of this unscathed


If I was Junior, I would do a "Pedro Diniz", go back home, get hold of one of Dad's millionaire business and spend with lots of "wannabe models" that are available everywhere in that country... you never can get enough of that. And forget about F1 for good.

If I was Junior, also would think to support the careers of Felipe Nasr (boyfriend of Julia) and Pedro Piquet.

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by Mekola

BTW: Prost's shunt over Piquet in Zandvoort 1983 was also intentional? Or just an error?

Prost had his mind on other things that day. He had been caught in flagrante with the wife of a quite high-up at Renault that weekend.

[jab]

Interesting article here detailing the various events, including stuff from the team wall on the night and Symonds' questioning at Spa, where he dodges answering key questions

At this rate, Symonds is definitely done for but Flavio might get away with it, as there's not enough evidence to prove he was involved

[duke_toaster]

It's not exactly good that Pat Symonds appears to have been answering most questions a permutation on "No comment". Not good. I don't like calling these things, but he might well be toast. Flav? Let's see if the FIA know something we don't in that regard ...

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

It's not exactly good that Pat Symonds appears to have been answering most questions a permutation on "No comment". Not good. I don't like calling these things, but he might well be toast. Flav? Let's see if the FIA know something we don't in that regard ...

'No comment' is surely mainly because of the legal advice Renault will have been given. Symond's can't really say anything (neither could Fernando) that the opposing lawyer's could in any way see as assisting the oppositions case.

[duke_toaster]

Patrick Head wants a no nonsense approach : James Allen approves.

[Marbot]

Piquet Snr also goes for the "no nonsense" approach,and says that Alonso knew everything.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...ays-piquet-sr/

Brundle says that Piquet is now "unemployable" and that Flav could step away from F1,even before the hearing.

http://f1.gpupdate.net/en/news/2009/...-says-brundle/

[duke_toaster]

If Flav goes, I think we'll see Renault going ... let's hope it doesn't become Piquet Sports!

[VIVA GT]

But didn't Fernando initially deny all knowledge when the McLaren (er) stuff hit the fan a couple of years ago?

[jab]

I doubt Alonso would've known. NPS says that Alonso must've known for them to take an aggressive strategy, as he wouldn't have knowingly decided on that. Now, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure the fuel loads were/are decided right after qualifying before the cars go into parc ferme, even for those who don't make the top 10. Briatore and Symonds didn't ask NPJ to crash (according to what NPJ said) until the following day. So unless FB and PS made up their minds straight away, presuming NPJ would agree, and told Alonso before him, I can't see how Alonso would've known, so his theory is nonsense. Alonso himself said after the race that he didn't consider such a strategy that risky, so I think they just went for the aggressive strategy and worked around that after

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

If Flav goes, I think we'll see Renault going ... let's hope it doesn't become Piquet Sports!

Don't you mean 'Piqued Sports'.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by jab

I doubt Alonso would've known.

It was a big PR weekend for ING and Renault IIRC,and maybe the plot was hatched long before the meeting with Piquet ? In fact the meeting with Piquet was a bit on the late side for a well organised plot I would have thought.

[strider]

Anything we may say before next Monday, or probably a couple of days after that, is pure conjecture and it's a very complicated issue.

I'm happy to read anything other people might want to say, but I'm going to make no further comment on the subject until then.

[duke_toaster]

I think that next Monday will only be the end of the beginning - perhaps we won't see Renault in F1 next year ...

[Bononi]

I agree with you totally.

[paddy]

I have to say that when Max was interviewed at the weekend he kept stressing the point that there were two sides to every story and nothing had been proven. It was a very different vibe to his press conferences before "spygate". He seemed to be going out of his way to be conciliatory which makes me think Renault may get away with it.

[ghinzani]

Originally Posted by ensign14

Prost had his mind on other things that day. He had been caught in flagrante with the wife of a quite high-up at Renault that weekend.

Which is why he got the sack from Renault, not the losing of the WDC to the cheating Piquet and his illagally BASF fueled Brabham. Prost didnt have the best of records here did he? Didnt he also bone his good friend Laffites wife, ruining their friendship and both their marriages? Hardly seems worth it in hindsight.

[raindog]

Apparently Symonds, like Piquet jnr, has been offered immunity by the FIA if he comes clean and tells all. All they need to do now is offer it to Flav, and we can forget the whole thing. But doesn't this now look as if Max is after Flav's blood alone, similiar to the way Ron Dennis was singled out and hounded down?
Just a thought.

[Racer 35]

Well, having read the transcript of the FIA's interview with Pat Symonds yesterday at http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/78647 I can only draw the conclusion that the Renault team did indedd have a plan for the crash to happen. Symonds refused to answer any questions regarding the details of the incident, but admits that the meeting took place.
If he takes the immunity offered by the FIA and comes clean, I guess it's goodbye Renault and arrivaderci Flavio for ever.

[foreversideways]

It does look indeed like Moseley's last fling.

[GTRMagic]

Immunity for evidence

Mr Symonds still likes his job I presume?

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Racer 35

If he takes the immunity offered by the FIA and comes clean, I guess it's goodbye Renault and arrivaderci Flavio for ever.

I don't think that he's being offered immunity there.

You can't give everyone immunity otherwise there would be no one left to prosecute.

Piquet is the 'whistle-blower' here and has the immunity,and immunity isn't granted to someone just because they signed a statement and backed it up with telemetery evidence,because those two things are merely damning himself.You have to have more than that.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

Immunity for evidence

Mr Symonds still likes his job I presume?

Now it seems that he has!

So who are/is the 'big fish' they are trying to catch then?

[ensign14]

Originally Posted by ghinzani

Which is why he got the sack from Renault, not the losing of the WDC to the cheating Piquet and his illagally BASF fueled Brabham. Prost didnt have the best of records here did he? Didnt he also bone his good friend Laffites wife, ruining their friendship and both their marriages? Hardly seems worth it in hindsight.

And doubtless Renault would have won the title regardless without M'sieu's nocturnal wanderings, there must have been some shutoff in development and spendings.