marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is they can not prove that they did
> not give the order, and they can not prove Piquet
> had the idea.
>
> Its a bit like the MS thing at Monaco when he
> parked the car, he says he did not and everyone
> said he did. How could he prove he did not? he
> could not so was put to the back of the grid.
>
> Please tell me what the difference is here? had MS
> got away with it he would have been on pole and
> probably won the race. MS tried to change the
> result of quali so should he have just got away
> with being put to the back of the grid?
>
> With the renualt they will never be able to prove
> Piquet did not crash on purpose, or whos idea it
> was.
i completely see what you're saying and in a court of law i think you'd be 100% correct. infact i was saying something similar to a friend yesterday,
they aren't contesting the charges but also they haven't said 'we did it' so it would be up to the WMSC to examine the evidence from the stewards and piquet and see if there was enough there to decide what happened.
however, having thought about it, the WMSC isn't a court of law and doesn't require any where near that level of proof. so i think the events of this week coupled with the stewards report is going to be more than enough to convict them.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2009 11:24AM by marwood82.