FIA to launch probe on '08 Singapore GP

This has been lenient on Renault in one way, yes, but then again, if Flav and Pat orchestrated this between themselves and Nelsinho without the rest of the team knowing at all, then the Renault team itself deserves not to be punished at all. They'd already done the right thing by booting those two out.

As for Flav, good riddance. He's probably been pulling stunts as shady as this behind the scenes throughout his time in F1, and now it's finally come back to bite him on the ass. The indefinite ban is appropriate.

I'm glad Alonso is in the clear. Any punishment for him would've been unfair, given what we know.

As for Piquet, a shame he's been granted immunity from punishment, but that's just the standard procedure for a driver in circumstances like his.

---

What Piquet done was put other drivers in danger and the crowd plus track marshals.

We have seen in the past parts of car go through the fence, I agree with what people are saying and Piquet should be punished along with the other 2.

They could all still end up in court anyway.

Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does that indicate that you believed the initial
> stories? Than you were correct! Wow!
>
> [library.thinkquest.org]
> answer.gif

Haha!

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What Piquet done was put other drivers in danger
> and the crowd plus track marshals.
>
> We have seen in the past parts of car go through
> the fence, I agree with what people are saying and
> Piquet should be punished along with the other 2.
>
> They could all still end up in court anyway.


Schumacher also put himself, and other drivers in danger. Schumacher INTENTIONALLY put other drivers at risk with his moves.

Piquet did not. It is still inexcusable, but if Schumacher gets no ban for ramming people and possible causing dangerous collisions Piquet should not recieve a ban either.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2009 09:31PM by chet.

Is Flavio the first one to be indefinately banned from F1 or have there been others before him?

chet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marcl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What Piquet done was put other drivers in
> danger
> > and the crowd plus track marshals.
> >
> > We have seen in the past parts of car go
> through
> > the fence, I agree with what people are saying
> and
> > Piquet should be punished along with the other
> 2.
> >
> > They could all still end up in court anyway.
>
>
> Schumacher also put himself, and other drivers in
> danger. Schumacher INTENTIONALLY put other drivers
> at risk with his moves.
>
> Piquet did not. It is still inexcusable, but if
> Schumacher gets no ban for ramming people and
> possible causing dangerous collisions Piquet
> should not recieve a ban either.


so did many other drivers... the problem here is that Piquet started the race with the full intention of crashing

And Schumacher had intentions to crash into Hill and Jacques, at least Jacques is certain.

Whats the difference? Intentions were the same, whether or not they came later or before does matter. What matters is that in both Piquet's and Schumachers case they had intentions to crash, and they did.

Senna had intentions to go for the lead at Suzuka turn 1 whether Prost was there or not?

Its the same thing. Senna/Schumacher/Piquet.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2009 11:00PM by chet.

same intention different scenario...

i don't know... like when a soccer player is send out by his DT to break someone's leg on purpose to help his team...

we know it happens between players very often but in the same competition rage or somthing,. there's a psychology word for that

althou suzuka turn 1 is quite similar

So, should the FIA be given the power to investigate in cases like this? They said they couldn't act until Piquet came out with a statement, but he could only do that with immunity... so should the stewards be able to seize telemetry at the time of an incident?

Or does that make the FIA even more of a dangerous body than they are already?



RedSam
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)

Slash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> same intention different scenario...
>
> i don't know... like when a soccer player is send
> out by his DT to break someone's leg on purpose to
> help his team...
>
> we know it happens between players very often but
> in the same competition rage or somthing,. there's
> a psychology word for that
>
> althou suzuka turn 1 is quite similar

In Schumachers case that word was probably desperation!!!

If we think about it, same for Piquet, desperation for a drive and to please his boss.

Red Sam, I think the FIA should have complete access to full telemetry of all cars but only use it say if an incident occurs. Say, just an example when a team says Massa's qualifying lap was wrecked due to a 4 billion miles up the road Alonso. The FIA can then look upon that data themselves. Dont worry about the danger, with Max soon to go, and provided Todt doesnt get the role, we will probably finally have an FIA competent to make the basic decisions they normally get wrong.

btw - On this years singapore, the teams best pack umbrellas.

We're in for a washout!! !

Early predictions paint one picture! And its a wet one!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2009 02:33AM by chet.

in that case i hope Jenson seals the title bid to his favour... can't wait to hear Rubens excuses and explanaitions

I hope not, i would like rubens to get the title. He is an oldman in f1 afterall. Considering his ages their and for all the year he'd been through on his f1.

Slash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in that case i hope Jenson seals the title bid to
> his favour... can't wait to hear Rubens excuses
> and explanaitions


Though I would like that, in outright full wet conditions I dont think Jenson is a good as Rubens, Alonso, Lewis, or even Glock.

Changing conditions? Jense and Alonso will wipe the floor with anyone(!!!!) but full wet im not so sure.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

[www.autosport.com]

His last opinion was almost spot on, this one though....

"Briatore's (sanction) seems excessive to me, as there were no clear evidence to incriminate him and he didn't have the chance to defend himself,"

First of all, no clear evidence to incriminate him???!!! Was he following the same case as us?

Didnt have the chance to defend himself??

He CHOSE not to turn upto the hearing yesterday! That was made clear, he did not have to now that he was not a Renault employee, but he could still choose to if he wanted! If he was innocent he should have turned up yesterday and made his case!

"Moreover, I'm not ruling out that he decides to resort to regular justice, because he has been left without his means to earn a living."

hahahahahhahaha

No seriously, MEGA LOL!

The guy is a millionaire!!!!!!!!! Besides that, whats stopping him from getting a job at the local co-op if he wants to earn a living?

It also mentions flav is considering legal action against the FIA, so legal action against Mosley, perhaps the best lawyer money can buy! add that he must know once down he is not gonna aid his "image" by trying to fight a futile case? just let it be and drift off in your boat somewhere. Anyway, he mentions damage to his rep. Flavs image was wrecked, destroyed, unfixable once those pictures of him in a thong were shown in the tabloids!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

The thing that really makes me angry is the fact that Piquet is the one who was meant to have come up with the idea, so if thats the case he should get punished as well.

That's what Symonds is saying now anyways:

[f1.gpupdate.net]

Now I dunno, Piquet strikes me as a me-me-me type driver so I'm not sure I can understand why he would suggest he crash intentionally. Presumably, if it's the case, to save his drive.

The full dossier from the hearing can be accessed through this link.

The 4th person who we dont know the name of said it was Piquet's idea.

So if true Piquet lied on a signed statement.

If he did Flav as Team boss should have stepped in and said no.

Whether or not Piquet suggested it doesnt change circumstances. Except if true just makes him more the brat than we thought.

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

Yes Flav should have stepped in, what they should have done was fire him that night he suggested it. But if Piquet was the one to suggest to do it, then he should not have gotten immunity and should be punished for it.

BAN NELSION PIQUET JR. AND TAKE AWAY HIS SUPER LICENSE 4EVER! FOR RISKING OTHER'S REPUTATION!!! BECAUSE ITS HIM! IT IS HIS PLAN TO DO IT!!!

DAMN YOU SPOILED BRAT!