Steven Howard from The Sun

[paulmason]

Bernie, you need to get glasses, I am not "rewriting history to suit my own purposes", I am quoting what Steven Howard said, if you can be bothered to read it that is.

[ScottJones]

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.

i think he's quoting (edit sorry just saw the post above). As for resigning i dont think anyone ever said whether he had resigned or quit.

[Bernie's Barnet]

Bernie, you need to get glasses, I am not "rewriting history to suit my own purposes", I am quoting what Steven Howard said, if you can be bothered to read it that is.

This is quoting someone:

Steven Howard said he didn't even contest the charges

That's not what you said. And as Bluehoop has already correctly said, Steven Howard article is inaccurate (The Sun in factually incorrect article shocker -who'd believe it eh?), it was Renault who said they would not contest the charges.

[Bluehoop]

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 ?

My opinion?
The FIA ruling was so easily Appealable on the grounds before the court and I'm surprised it took the time it did for a decision to be handed down. If he had used this Appeal to address issues other than the legal enforceablity of the FIA's decision the matter could and would have run on for a lot longer and the decision would have been far less clear cut, in terms of it being overturned in the future.
The FIA do have leave to Appeal this decision but in truth the chances are very remote because, to be successful, they must show that the Judge has erred on a point of law. It appears he has not, particularly given that the crux of the case was the legality or otherwise of the original sanctions.

The merits of whether Briatore was involved and/or is implicated in crashgate itself is so far removed from the simplistic nature of this Appeal that it would have been wrong to merge the two.
The evidential aspects of that argument alone will take a long time to resolve and I expect work is underway on that behind the scenes for both parties. In the meantime, Briatore is free to carry on with his life, including running (losely termed) QPR and working with his drivers to earn money if he so choses. Obviously, he cannot do the latter for a minimum of 14 days, pending any Appeal by the FIA, and for any subsequent period if the Appeal goes ahead.

Another issue to be considered is the financial aspect of the 2 arguments. I can't say why FB sought such significant damages, presumably for lost income/profit during the life of his ban? But the level of potential damages in any future claim to clear his name will be far greater than the amount involved here and it would be a very messy task to seek 2 separate sets of damages in the one claim, particularly givin the totally different genres of the proceedings - just a thought!

[Bernie's Barnet]

My opinion?
The FIA ruling was so easily Appealable on the grounds before the court and I'm surprised it took the time it did for a decision to be handed down. If he had used this Appeal to address issues other than the legal enforceablity of the FIA's decision the matter could and would have run on for a lot longer and the decision would have been far less clear cut, in terms of it being overturned in the future.
The FIA do have leave to Appeal this decision but in truth the chances are very remote because, to be successful, they must show that the Judge has erred on a point of law. It appears he has not, particularly given that the crux of the case was the legality or otherwise of the original sanctions.

The merits of whether Briatore was involved and/or is implicated in crashgate itself is so far removed from the simplistic nature of this Appeal that it would have been wrong to merge the two.
The evidential aspects of that argument alone will take a long time to resolve and I expect work is underway on that behind the scenes for both parties. In the meantime, Briatore is free to carry on with his life, including running (losely termed) QPR and working with his drivers to earn money if he so choses. Obviously, he cannot do the latter for a minimum of 14 days, pending any Appeal by the FIA, and for any subsequent period if the Appeal goes ahead.

Another issue to be considered is the financial aspect of the 2 arguments. I can't say why FB sought such significant damages, presumably for lost income/profit during the life of his ban? But the level of potential damages in any future claim to clear his name will be far greater than the amount involved here and it would be a very messy task to seek 2 separate sets of damages in the one claim, particularly givin the totally different genres of the proceedings - just a thought!

To add to this good summary, I would imagine that the FIA could, if they so wished, convene and conduct an enquiry into Crashgate, and provide results and punishments (if appropriate) which would be legally enforceable.

I'd be willing to bet that they could NOT come up with a legally enforceable outcome which concludes that Briatore was solely responsible, or even responsible at all, for the crash which occurred. And I'd also be willing to bet that despite a bit of sabre rattling from FIA, this whole matter will now be put very quietly to bed.

[ScottJones]

I think you are right Bernie and this will be the end of it. Flavio will go back to his main job of being an agent and kept out of the spotlight i think

[paulmason]

I think you are right Bernie and this will be the end of it. Flavio will go back to his main job of being an agent and kept out of the spotlight i think

And that is what the appeal was all about

[andover66]

As a motor Racing Official (Marshal) yes he did put the life of his driver and Marshals at risk. The man is a complete and utter disgrace. If he ever comes back to motor sport, he will not be very welcome by us Marshals.

[Bernie's Barnet]

And that is what the appeal was all about

The appeal - remember to a COURT OF LAW, not some kangaroo court - was to have a restraint of trade imposed ILLEGALLY overturned and removed. I'm sure you'd be wailing and whining if someone arbitrarily decided that they were going to prohibit you from earning a living because they didn't like you.

If the FIA think they have enough evidence to legally impose sanctions on Briatore, I'm sure they'll do it.

:boss: = Me. Not holding my breath.

[Bernie's Barnet]

As a motor Racing Official (Marshal) yes he did put the life of his driver and Marshals at risk. The man is a complete and utter disgrace. If he ever comes back to motor sport, he will not be very welcome by us Marshals.

If you have proof of that, you'd best scuttle along to FIA immediately and present it. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

[Bluehoop]

As a motor Racing Official (Marshal) yes he did put the life of his driver and Marshals at risk. The man is a complete and utter disgrace. If he ever comes back to motor sport, he will not be very welcome by us Marshals.

I agree whole heartedly with that statement: IF he did actually sanction the act or have any part in its sanctioning. Until, or unless any creditable evidence is produced in the appropriate forum, tried and contested and found to be factual, then I cannot accept the rest of your findings on a personal level, against a man that has not been found guilty in an appropriate forum of the alleged act, particularly given that the only credible and indisputable fact in camera is Mr Briatore's blanket denial of the allegations.

Until someone can present factual evidence to the contrary and have that evidence upheld through cross examination and legal verification, Statute and indeed the man's Human Right decrees his innocence and that is where I personally am duty bound to plant my flag.

[paulmason]

The appeal - remember to a COURT OF LAW, not some kangaroo court - was to have a restraint of trade imposed ILLEGALLY overturned and removed. I'm sure you'd be wailing and whining if someone arbitrarily decided that they were going to prohibit you from earning a living because they didn't like you.

If the FIA think they have enough evidence to legally impose sanctions on Briatore, I'm sure they'll do it.

:boss: = Me. Not holding my breath.

If I was accused of doing something and I had proof that had not, I would not quit and I would fight my corner accordingly.

[paulmason]

I agree whole heartedly with that statement: IF he did actually sanction the act or have any part in its sanctioning. Until, or unless any creditable evidence is produced in the appropriate forum, tried and contested and found to be factual, then I cannot accept the rest of your findings on a personal level, against a man that has not been found guilty in an appropriate forum of the alleged act, particularly given that the only credible and indisputable fact in camera is Mr Briatore's blanket denial of the allegations.

Until someone can present factual evidence to the contrary and have that evidence upheld through cross examination and legal verification, Statute and indeed the man's Human Right decrees his innocence and that is where I personally am duty bound to plant my flag.

This is the clux of the difference of opinion. He did not appeal about the fact he was innocent, he appealed about the punishment he received for being involved.

[ScottJones]

Found on QPRREPORT

interesting comment from Bernie....

Ecclestone, a member of the World Council which banned Briatore, said: "It's not over by a long way. Just because a ****** judge has said what he's said doesn't make any difference.

"The court said it was wrong, so the FIA can start all over again and it will go on and on."

Ecclestone, who spoke to Briatore yesterday, added: "He's happy he's won, of course. But I don't think he wants to be back. It's difficult for somebody who's been punished for doing something wrong to get back."

[qprdad]

"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.

That's missing the point.... I countered that the views that proceeded my post, was wholly inaccurate; both you and I agree, they've NEVER admitted guilt. They also did not represent themselves at the hearing, as there was no need.... as subsequently shown!