Briartore.. Will Claim 1 Million Pound Damages

[m_cooper]

he should just **** off

[Bernie's Barnet]

Just type into google 'briatore resigns' and about 1,000,000 web pages appear with information how he quit. I can imagine the first question in the French high court.

Man in wig: Mr Briatore, if you were not guilty of ordering Nelson Piquet Jr. to crash in Singapore, why did yo resign ?

Briatore: Erm, well, hhmm.............

Wednesday, 16 September 2009

Renault says managing director Flavio Briatore and engineering chief executive Pat Symonds are leaving the Formula One team, and that it will not dispute charges that Nelson Piquet Jr. was ordered to crash in a race.

Renault says managing director Flavio Briatore and engineering chief executive Pat Symonds are leaving the Formula One team, and that it will not dispute charges that Nelson Piquet Jr. was ordered to crash in a race.

Renault has been summoned to Paris by governing body FIA to answer a charge that Piquet Jr. was told to crash at last year's Singapore Grand Prix to improve teammate Fernando Alonso's chances of victory. The Spaniard won the race.

Renault today said it "will not dispute the recent allegations made by the FIA concerning the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix."



I don't give to hoots if he wins or loses his appeal, it means nothing to me, but a guiding rule in life is if you cant do the time, don't do the crime.

If you read the basis of his appeal, the fact he was or was not involved in Crashgate is not the issue, it is the ban he is contesting. Renault accepted the charge, so no investigation was needed and as far as the fair trial bit is concerned, he would have had one, if he had no quit.

"Briatore's claim states that "the excessive and abusive power clearly exercised by both the World Council, in particular, and the FIA, in general" and "the breach by the World Council of the most basic rules of procedure and the rights to a fair trial" should annul their original decision.

In addition, Briatore says that Mosley breached rules concerning fair trials that are laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights: "The decisions to carry out an investigation and to submit it to the World Council were taken by the same person, Max Mosley, the FIA president... [Mosley] assumed the roles of complainant, investigator, prosecutor and judge". The former Renault man implicitly suggests that animosity between him and the FIA president over the future of the sport had led to the sanction."

Hmmm...Flav launches a claim for £1m damages, and the first question will be "Why did you resign". Christ, I bet he never thought they'd ask that.

There is clearly no love lost between Mosley and Flav. Has anyone thought whether it's possible that it is Flav who has actually set up Mosley here? Personally I'd say unlikely, although with the way things are playing out, not impossible.

As far as Flav doing the time, if anyone can find a quote from him on Google or anywhere else that he solely came up with the idea of ordering little Piquet to crash, and ordered him to crash without any level of consent from, or consultation with, Piquet himself, perhaps they can post it up on here. Another little saying that may be more relevant here is "Innocent until proven guilty", and I don't believe there is anything in the transcript from the original FIA hearing that would support holding him solely responsible for all this in a court of law.

People of course make of statements what they will, but I'd be highly surprised if the statements made by Renault (referred to above) were simply thrown out into the public domain without being carefully vetted and agreed by their legal advisors. You'll notice for example, they do not say:

"Managing Director Flavio Briatore and engineering Chief Executive Pat Symonds are leaving the Formula One team because they admitted ordering Nelson Piquet Jr. to crash in a race. We therefore will not dispute charges that Nelson Piquet Jr. was ordered to crash in a race."

Some will choose to interpret their actual statement as meaning the one I've just put together above. Well, try telling a court of law that they can interpret it that way, and see where you'll get. Thrown out of court with no case to answer actually. Still, it's difficult for people sometimes to admit they've made p.rats of themselves by half reading something and making it fit what they'd like to believe.

[paulmason]

Bernie - If Briatore had not resigned, he would have had his day at the hearing fighting his corner, but he thought quitting was smart and that would be the end of it (as many others did on here). Regarding you phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" I thought he was APPEALING, as he had already been found guilty by the governing body.

He is trying to overturn the ban which if successful, he can continue his business dealings and if not, he is finished in the world of sport.

[Bernie's Barnet]

Bernie - If Briatore had not resigned, he would have had his day at the hearing fighting his corner, but he thought quitting was smart and that would be the end of it (as many others did on here). Regarding you phrase "Innocent until proven guilty" I thought he was APPEALING, as he had already been found guilty by the governing body.

He is trying to overturn the ban which if successful, he can continue his business dealings and if not, he is finished in the world of sport.

Like I said, being found guilty in your absence by a quango who have given all other parties involved immunity as long as they dish the dirt, and being found guilty using the same evidence in a court of law are poles apart. As I think Max Mosley may find out if Flav launches his claim for damages.

As for thinking quitting was a way of getting out of it all, Flav clearly would not be that naive given that he still acted as manager for a number of different racing drivers in F1. It's still not beyond the bounds of possibility that it is Flav who has outmanoeuvred Mosley in this whole thing. The mistake you and others make is wanting to believe that there is a good guy/bad guy scenario here, without recognising that if you're in F1, you signed away your rights to your good guy badge the minute you entered the circus. It's a cut throat business, and to make your way in that world, you simply have to be prepared to be more ruthless than everyone else.

Edit: And finally - finished in the world of sport? Don't make me laugh. The FL have shown they don't have the regulations or the balls to throw him out. It won't happen, whatever the outcome in the F1 world.

[paulmason]

Like I said, being found guilty in your absence by a quango who have given all other parties involved immunity as long as they dish the dirt, and being found guilty using the same evidence in a court of law are poles apart. As I think Max Mosley may find out if Flav launches his claim for damages.

I think real courts of law do as well, with the person telling tales, receiving immunity from prosecution. Also, as you are not disputing that Briatore was involved in ordering Piquet to crash his car in Singapore, what would you say the appropriate punishment should have been ?

[wicksta]

I think real courts of law do as well, with the person telling tales, receiving immunity from prosecution.

No, they don't. It would be like 3 people being accused of gang rape and the court openly saying "Listen you 2, we know you raped the victim as well but if you say it was all the 3rd person that did it we'll let you off scot free!". It would never happen.

I'm afraid you have a very naive view of this whole case, partly because of your dislike of Flavio and partly due to your lack of F1 related knowledge.

[paulmason]

Wicksta - Yes it does happen, and I agree it would not happen in the shambles of an example you use.

"Principles
A specified prosecutor may be asked by an investigator or by legal representatives of an offender to consider making a formal agreement with an offender in order to secure evidence in the prosecution of others, or to obtain other information vital for protecting the public interest"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/victims_and_witnesses_-_witness_immunities_and_undertakings/

As I asked Bernie, if you are not disputing that Briatore was involved in ordering Piquet to crash his car in Singapore, what would you say the appropriate punishment should have been, because his appeal in based on the punishment he received and not if he did it or not.

[brightonr]

I think real courts of law do as well, with the person telling tales, receiving immunity from prosecution. Also, as you are not disputing that Briatore was involved in ordering Piquet to crash his car in Singapore, what would you say the appropriate punishment should have been ?

Paul,

I think you will find he is disputing exactly that. As is Briatore. As is Symonds.
You and Piquet appear to be in a very small minority that doesn't.
I am sure Mosley knows full well that he did not order the crash either, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it, other than the word of the one person who cannot be trusted, who has admitted to cheating, who incidentally was the only one NOT punished. Strange that, don't you think ?

[wicksta]

Wicksta - Yes it does happen, and I agree it would not happen in the shambles of an example you use.

"Principles
A specified prosecutor may be asked by an investigator or by legal representatives of an offender to consider making a formal agreement with an offender in order to secure evidence in the prosecution of others, or to obtain other information vital for protecting the public interest"
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/v_to_z/v..._undertakings/

Where does that mention complete immunity anywhere? Give me a comparable example of where say 3 people are accused of a major crime like murder and where 2 were let off scot free for saying the other one did it after the court even suggested to them to do so. You won't find such an example and you are comparing apples to oranges.

As I asked Bernie, if you are not disputing that Briatore was involved in ordering Piquet to crash his car in Singapore, what would you say the appropriate punishment should have been, because his appeal in based on the punishment he received and not if he did it or not.

Brightonr answered this perfectly so I don't need to. ;D

[paulmason]

Paul,

I think you will find he is disputing exactly that. As is Briatore. As is Symonds.
You and Piquet appear to be in a very small minority that doesn't.
I am sure Mosley knows full well that he did not order the crash either, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it, other than the word of the one person who cannot be trusted, who has admitted to cheating, who incidentally was the only one NOT punished. Strange that, don't you think ?

Brighton I accept that point but if that's the case, why did Renault accept it happened and Simmonds and Briatore resign. Surely if you knew you had nothing to do with something you had been accused of, you would say no, I'm not quitting sack me and I am going to defend myself.

Also, if he was a patsy, he would be suing the FIA, Renault for loss of earnings current and future, defamation of character and every paper who libelled him.

[wicksta]

What paper libeled him?

Why would he sue Renault?

You might notice that he is suing the FIA, thats what the thread you are posting in is about.

This is getting even more amusing now.

[paulmason]

Wicksta - He is fighting the FIA for the life time ban, nothing else and that is my point, if he really had nothing to do with it, he would be suing everyone associated with it including Renault for making him resign, and papers who went OTT referring to him as disgraced ect.

[Bluehoop]

Wicksta - He is fighting the FIA for the life time ban, nothing else and that is my point, if he really had nothing to do with it, he would be suing everyone associated with it including Renault for making him resign, and papers who went OTT referring to him as disgraced ect.

Renault did not make him resign - he chose to resign for reasons unknown to anyone else - and before the FIA made their "ruling" which was based on unbalanced and wholly biased evidence. As for suing the papers - they merely reported upon what the FIA ruling found and gave opinions on him based on that ruling. I believe FB's Appeal will seek to redress all such opinions and, at best, the press will be required to retract any such "opinions".

For what it's worth, I will repeat what I have said many times before - no single one of us outside of the directly interested parties actually knows who did what, said what to whom and why events took the course they did. And I very much doubt that will change upon the outcome of the Appeal, unless FB succeeds in his request for the decision to be "in camera" - in English, in open court.

[Bernie's Barnet]

Paul,

I think you will find he is disputing exactly that. As is Briatore. As is Symonds.
You and Piquet appear to be in a very small minority that doesn't.
I am sure Mosley knows full well that he did not order the crash either, as there is absolutely no evidence to support it, other than the word of the one person who cannot be trusted, who has admitted to cheating, who incidentally was the only one NOT punished. Strange that, don't you think ?

Sorry, brighton has answered my points for me in my absence. Paul, you don't know the circumstances behind what happened, nor do I, the only ones who know for sure are Briatore, Symonds and Piquet. You'd like to believe that Briatore bullied Piquet into crashing because you don't want Briatore at our club, and you are clutching at this straw in the hopes it will force him out.

As I tried to point out to you earlier, but you seemed not to understand, the Renault statement made two points:

1. Briatore and Symonds have resigned.
2. Renault will not contest the charges put to it.

NOWHERE in that statement does it say that Briatore resigned having admitted that he was guilty of the charges brought to Renault by the FIA. You may suspect it. You may infer it. But if you tried to use it as proof that Briatore admitted ordering Piquet to crash, you WOULD be laughed out of a court of law. 100% FACT.

And as I said earlier, if Mosley has used it as a justification for banning Briatore, he is most likely going to have to pay handsomely for his error.

[brightonr]

Brighton I accept that point but if that's the case, why did Renault accept it happened and Simmonds and Briatore resign. Surely if you knew you had nothing to do with something you had been accused of, you would say no, I'm not quitting sack me and I am going to defend myself.

Also, if he was a patsy, he would be suing the FIA, Renault for loss of earnings current and future, defamation of character and every paper who libelled him.

Paul,
Only guessing, but here is my view.

Renault accepted something untoward went on, ie Piquet crashing deliberatey, therefore they could not really defend the indefensible. Thus, they have avoided getting drawn into unsavoury bickering with regard to the exact details, limiting any damage to their reputation.

Briatore and Symonds resigning would, from their understanding at the time, prevent Renault incurring a ridiculously high fine, such as the 50 million that Maclaren suffered over the Ferrari incident. I can only assume that Renault were happy to avoid this and may well show their appreciation at some point.

No need to sue Renault, as they are blameless other than the fact their employees acted in a dishonourable manner. They did not force Briatore to resign.

I am not quite so naive as to think that Briatore and Symonds were not aware of the possibility of a deliberate crash, so am not saying that Briatore is whiter than white here. However, if one accepts Symonds statement that it was indeed Piquet's idea,(presumably as he hadn't offered many positives to the team until this point, he was hoping to buy more time), then Piquet's claim that he was ORDERED to crash by Briatore, falls apart right there.

His idea, his actions and despite the fact the plan should not have been entertained by his superiors, ultimately his responsibility.
To then try to lessen his own punishment by distorting the facts, whilst at the same time putting other people's reputations and careers in jeapardy, is not only more dishonourable than the team allowing it to happen,(on the basis that most teams appear to have no problem in stretching the rules to whatever limits they think they can get away with), but cowardly in the extreme.

FB is no doubt a ruthless individual, has made certain mistakes as far as Rangers go, unpopular with those who think he is arrogant and full of self importance. However, with regard to the accusation that he "odered Piquet to crash", I happen to believe that he is innocent. I just hope that he wins his case and gets back to the really important business as far as we are concerned, of ensuring that we continue to improve and get out of this division. I cannot take much more of watching teams like Palace and Sheffield United. On that point, I hope you will agree.