Steven Howard from The Sun

[paulmason]

He clearly does not like him. The ruling does not mean Briatore and Symonds are innocent, as the told the FIA they would not contest the charge, its about the punishment being illegally imposed.

STEVEN HOWARD

FLAVIO BRIATORE'S F1 lifetime ban may have been overturned - but he remains one of sport's most odious characters. The multi-millionaire former Renault boss is still a 22-carat cheat.

Diego Maradona may have famously punched the ball into the net - but he never put anyone's life at risk.

By conspiring with Nelson Piquet Jnr for the Brazilian to drive into a wall at the Singapore Grand Prix in 2008, Briatore threatened the lives of spectators, race officials, other drivers and Piquet himself.

The result was the employment of the safety car which, in turn, allowed Piquet's team-mate Fernando Alonso to win the race.

Eventually, Piquet blew the whistle on his boss after being dropped by Renault.

This prompted a hastily-arranged FIA inquiry at which Briatore was banned for life from any involvement with F1.

This also threatened his position as co-owner of QPR football club.

Yesterday, though, three judges at the FIA HQ in Paris upheld the Italian's appeal and ruled the punishment had been illegally imposed. He was even awarded 15,000 - £13,500 - in compensation. Then again, he had been demanding £1MILLION.

Briatore and his co-accused - Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds - never admitted any role in the crash but they eventually informed the FIA they would not be contesting the allegations.

So Briatore is not only able to continue in English football... but he is free to return to F1.

This is a staggering outcome, considering the seriousness of Crashgate.

That a man who has never denied both rigging a race and putting lives at risk is able to return to the scene of the crime is unbelievable.

Luckily, his reputation lies so deeply buried in the gutter no one, surely, within F1 would even entertain the thought of bringing him on board.

I use the conditional word 'surely' as anything is possible in F1's murky world, where scandal is either breaking or bubbling below the surface.

Where compromise is the middle word and where ringmaster Bernie Ecclestone even voted AGAINST Briatore's ban.

Over the last two years we have had Spygate - where McLaren were fined £50m for industrial espionage.

Then there was Liegate - where McLaren 'sporting' director Dan Ryan was fired and team principal Ron Dennis resigned.

And then Crashgate.

With a recent crime sheet like this, the very thought of Briatore being able to get back in is reprehensible.

The big question is how Briatore won his appeal.

These days the rule of law is firmly with the accused. Briatore claimed he was summoned to the hearing via email only three days earlier and had no time to prepare a defence.

He also inferred ex-FIA president Max Mosley, an old foe, was out to get him and presided over a kangeroo court. M'learned friend in Paris agreed.

Briatore may feel he has won. But history will view him as a premeditating cheat who went to unpardonable levels to succeed.

Whether F1 learns anything from all this is another matter entirely.

[ScottJones]

Well you cant disagree with any of that.

[deepseahoop]

no but its written by a sun journo hardly the pinnacle of whats good and right in the world.

[ScottJones]

no but its written by a sun journo hardly the pinnacle of whats good and right in the world.

As an ex-mirror man i can say..this is certainly true

[paulmason]

no but its written by a sun journo hardly the pinnacle of whats good and right in the world.

Am i right is saying that it does not matter who wrote it as it would not alter the facts that Briatore does not dispute he is guilty as charged, he even told the FIA he would not contest the charge. Its the punishment the ruling found illegal, nothing else.

[ScottJones]

Am i right is saying that it does not matter who wrote it as it would not alter the facts that Briatore does not dispute he is guilty as charged, he even told the FIA he would not contest the charge. Its the punishment the ruling illegal, nothing else.

You are right..he (and Piquet) is still 100% a cheat..and he has admitted that by his actions.

[qprdad]

Erm... think you'll find that both FB and Pat Symmonds have denied the allegations!

Team Renault conducted an internal enquiry, at the end of which FB and PS stood down, but did not admit guilt!

[paulmason]

Erm... think you'll find that both FB and Pat Symmonds have denied the allegations!

Team Renault conducted an internal enquiry, at the end of which FB and PS stood down, but did not admit guilt!

"Briatore and his co-accused - Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds - never admitted any role in the crash but they eventually informed the FIA they would not be contesting the allegations"

Why would they not contest the allegation if they were innocent ? and also, the court case was not about the guilt, it was about the punishment.

[Bluehoop]

Well you cant disagree with any of that.

Actually Scott, you can and I am stunned he has been able to publish the Article!

The multi-millionaire former Renault boss is still a 22-carat cheat - not proven and no evidence to support the statement as fact.

By conspiring with Nelson Piquet Jnr for the Brazilian to drive into a wall at the Singapore Grand Prix in 2008, Briatore threatened the lives of spectators, race officials, other drivers and Piquet himself - Not proven and the only evidence to suggest he conspired in the act came from Piquet under duress and with the promise from Mosely that he would be exempt from any sanctions (irrespective of what he said). The only other "evidence" and I use that word losely came from Witness X - someone who was never identified, even to the Tribunal that reached the decision, and whose evidence was discredited when the mystery person could not be identified and/or cross examined and/or their evidence corroborated by the French Court. Net effect = Witness X is a non-entity therefore the "evidence" is a sham. We can only speculate where this witnesses evidence came from, who typed the letter and who this unknown person is.

Eventually, Piquet blew the whistle on his boss after being dropped by Renault. - Motive for Piquet to act as he did, with the promise of exemption for his actions.

Briatore and his co-accused - Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds - never admitted any role in the crash but they eventually informed the FIA they would not be contesting the allegations. - Wrong in so many ways. Symonds did in fact admit, not only to a role, but to being the instigator of the act - he did this in open correspondence and made an unreserved apology for his actions. He did not, in any way implicate FB at any time. Briatore obviously never admitted any role and indeed did the complete opposite by unreservedly denying any role. The FIA were advised by Renault that they would not be contesting the allegations, which was taken as Mr Briatore making that statement as Renault Chief - however, he of course resigned his position before this point and the implied statement was wrongly construed as being made on his behalf. The reasons for his resignation are open to speculation and the majority have obviously speculated and assessed FB as being guilty of giving the order, thus resulting in his resignation. There are several equally meritorious reasons for his resignation which do not implicate him, but they obviously don't make a case against the accused!

That a man who has never denied both rigging a race and putting lives at risk is able to return to the scene of the crime is unbelievable. - Yes he has, unreservedly.

He also inferred ex-FIA president Max Mosley, an old foe, was out to get him and presided over a kangeroo court. M'learned friend in Paris agreed. - Interesting that a Judge in possession of all the facts arrived at that decision methinks.

The big question is how Briatore won his appeal. - To me, the strangest coment in the article as there was never ANY doubt he would win this ruling. The bigger questions are how do the FIA believe they can successfully Appeal the decision and When will FB commence proceedings and against whom, to re-dress the position as it stands.

He has overturned an illegal ruling with draconian sanctions which, in all truth, is the thin end of the wedge. What remains is for the allegations to be prosecuted through the proper due process which I very much expect FB will do, in due course, in order to clear his name. If he does, journalists such as Mr Howard may need to contact their Insurers, if they are fortunate to have funders prepared to defend them for such bold statements without a shred of factual proof.

You may know better than me if there is a code or rule which protects journalists from prosecution in these circumstances?

Let me just finish by saying that these comments are based upon the factual matters known at this point. I do not opine to Mr Briatore's innocence or guilty or cast any opinion, factual or otherwise on anything outside of the public domain.
Equally, these comments do not in any way allude to my feelings towards Mr Briatore in the only capacity which concerns me at all - as Chairman or Co-Owner of the football club we all love with a passion he sadly doesn't seem to understand.

[paulmason]

Actually Scott, you can and I am stunned he has been able to publish the Article!

The multi-millionaire former Renault boss is still a 22-carat cheat - not proven and no evidence to support the statement as fact.

By conspiring with Nelson Piquet Jnr for the Brazilian to drive into a wall at the Singapore Grand Prix in 2008, Briatore threatened the lives of spectators, race officials, other drivers and Piquet himself - Not proven and the only evidence to suggest he conspired in the act came from Piquet under duress and with the promise from Mosely that he would be exempt from any sanctions (irrespective of what he said). The only other "evidence" and I use that word losely came from Witness X - someone who was never identified, even to the Tribunal that reached the decision, and whose evidence was discredited when the mystery person could not be identified and/or cross examined and/or their evidence corroborated by the French Court. Net effect = Witness X is a non-entity therefore the "evidence" is a sham. We can only speculate where this witnesses evidence came from, who typed the letter and who this unknown person is.

Eventually, Piquet blew the whistle on his boss after being dropped by Renault. - Motive for Piquet to act as he did, with the promise of exemption for his actions.

Briatore and his co-accused - Renault director of engineering Pat Symonds - never admitted any role in the crash but they eventually informed the FIA they would not be contesting the allegations. - Wrong in so many ways. Symonds did in fact admit, not only to a role, but to being the instigator of the act - he did this in open correspondence and made an unreserved apology for his actions. He did not, in any way implicate FB at any time. Briatore obviously never admitted any role and indeed did the complete opposite by unreservedly denying any role. The FIA were advised by Renault that they would not be contesting the allegations, which was taken as Mr Briatore making that statement as Renault Chief - however, he of course resigned his position before this point and the implied statement was wrongly construed as being made on his behalf. The reasons for his resignation are open to speculation and the majority have obviously speculated and assessed FB as being guilty of giving the order, thus resulting in his resignation. There are several equally meritorious reasons for his resignation which do not implicate him, but they obviously don't make a case against the accused!

That a man who has never denied both rigging a race and putting lives at risk is able to return to the scene of the crime is unbelievable. - Yes he has, unreservedly.

He also inferred ex-FIA president Max Mosley, an old foe, was out to get him and presided over a kangeroo court. M'learned friend in Paris agreed. - Interesting that a Judge in possession of all the facts arrived at that decision methinks.

The big question is how Briatore won his appeal. - To me, the strangest coment in the article as there was never ANY doubt he would win this ruling. The bigger questions are how do the FIA believe they can successfully Appeal the decision and When will FB commence proceedings and against whom, to re-dress the position as it stands.

He has overturned an illegal ruling with draconian sanctions which, in all truth, is the thin end of the wedge. What remains is for the allegations to be prosecuted through the proper due process which I very much expect FB will do, in due course, in order to clear his name. If he does, journalists such as Mr Howard may need to contact their Insurers, if they are fortunate to have funders prepared to defend them for such bold statements without a shred of factual proof.

You may know better than me if there is a code or rule which protects journalists from prosecution in these circumstances?

Let me just finish by saying that these comments are based upon the factual matters known at this point. I do not opine to Mr Briatore's innocence or guilty or cast any opinion, factual or otherwise on anything outside of the public domain.
Equally, these comments do not in any way allude to my feelings towards Mr Briatore in the only capacity which concerns me at all - as Chairman or Co-Owner of the football club we all love with a passion he sadly doesn't seem to understand.

This appeal was not about if he was involved in crashgate or not, because the accepted he was by informing the FIA they will not contest the charge. It was about the punishment which was illegally imposed, nothing else.

[ScottJones]

Good post bluehoop.

For me it was certainly a witch hunt by molesley and it went wrong...if he'd have done things properly FB would still be banned.

I believe they actually knew about the allegations when Piquet was still there but it only became public later on (this was in an interview with mm on the bbc)

Renault never actually contested the allegations which for me is an admission of guilt whatever symonds and/or briatore said afterwards. The crash happened and it was done by Piquet and sanctioned/thought up by Symonds and Briatore.

It certainly was a form of cheating and much worse than what Ferrari or Mclaren have done in recent years.

Even Ecclestone voted against Briatore.

[Bluehoop]

This appeal was not about if he was involved in crashgate or not, because the accepted he was by informing the FIA they will not contest the charge. It was about the punishment which was illegally imposed, nothing else.

"They" informed the FIA they were not going to contest = Renault. There was no doubt the act took place and Renault couldn't really challenge that fact which is why (in part) they did not challenge - they merely got a suspended ban and carried on with their lives. FB had resigned from Renault by this time, in part to disassociate himself from Renault so that they didn't receive the wrath of Mosely in his witch hunt against FB.
FB, at this point had no notion of the nature of the sanctions the FIA were going to impose on him and he never said that HE would not contest the charges against HIM because none were pleaded at that time. The facts, as found by the French Court, are that FB was notified of the charges against him 3 days before the circus, sorry, hearing held in his absence.

I am well aware of the fact that yesterday's decision concerned only the legality of the ruling of the FIA, my response to Scott was addressing Mr Howard's article in the Sun rather than anything else.

[Bluehoop]

Good post bluehoop.

For me it was certainly a witch hunt by molesley and it went wrong...if he'd have done things properly FB would still be banned.

I believe they actually knew about the allegations when Piquet was still there but it only became public later on (this was in an interview with mm on the bbc)

Renault never actually contested the allegations which for me is an admission of guilt whatever symonds and/or briatore said afterwards. The crash happened and it was done by Piquet and sanctioned/thought up by Symonds and Briatore.

It certainly was a form of cheating and much worse than what Ferrari or Mclaren have done in recent years.

Even Ecclestone voted against Briatore.

Cheers Scott - you have hit the nail on the head - Renault never contested the allegations and yes that is an admission of guilt - the act took place and Renault, by association, are implicated. Their admission of that fact opened the door to them receiving a paltry sanction by way of a suspended sentence - part of Mosely's offer of relief to various bodies to aid his war on Briatore.
The rest of your post is opinion and conjecture and of course I accept you may have it spot on, only time will tell because I have little doubt FB will seek to clear his name in due course.
Then matters will get interesting!

[paulmason]

I am well aware of the fact that yesterday's decision concerned only the legality of the ruling of the FIA, my response to Scott was addressing Mr Howard's article in the Sun rather than anything else.

Bluehoop - One question: Why did Briatore not appeal the fact he was innocent and had nothing to do with crashgate, as when the court found that he had no involvement, it would have had the same affect on the punishment handed out by the FIA ?

[Bernie's Barnet]

Am i right is saying that it does not matter who wrote it as it would not alter the facts that Briatore does not dispute he is guilty as charged, he even told the FIA he would not contest the charge. Its the punishment the ruling found illegal, nothing else.

Wondered when you'd surface on this subject. Worse than ****** Pete, rewriting history to suit your own purposes.

"he even told the FIA he would not contest the charge."

He never said any such thing, find me one single instance where he is quoted as saying that. He simply resigned from Renault, which is NOT an admission of guilt on anything.

Being charged and found guilty by a kangaroo court doesn't stand up as proof of anything in the civilised world. Like I said before, you might not want him at QPR, I don't particularly like the way he operates, but using an illegal ruling made in another corrupt sport to get him out of our hair isn't on.