Hello again

[cosicave]

Ok Genji ! Although choosing the least negative is not a positive; I've voted.

As for the rest of the discussion in the thread, I see nothing new coming from it, other than some revealing comments which demonstrate opinion as the product of preferences a priori. After all, it can be very difficult to acknowledge the failings of a favourite, since it tends to impinge upon one's self-image.

What keeps us going is essentially within the ego, and to be confronted with a truth which does not conform to previously held beliefs threatens to undermine the structure of one's very existence, unless it can be brushed aside as non-truth.

This is one of the most interesting things about fora; places where we can measure our realities against a perceived norm.

 

[genjigonzales]

This is why we need our own off-topic board. Good luck with the rest of your exams, lads.

You all realise this is a multiple choice poll, right?

Although having just read through the declaration you linked to, I'm now swaying back to supporting him a bit. That statement would have to have been given on oath, and maybe he delayed it to the end of the season in case it meant he kept his seat?

That's pretty much what he did. There were rumours that the FIA (Max Mosley) had been informed during the 2008 Brazilian GP (allegedly by Piquet Sr) but because it was only hearsay (and probably because Mosley was yet to have the public spat with Briatore, whom he called a looney) it wasn't investigated.

Piquet Jr was only dropped by Renault following the 2009 Hungarian GP - it was announced at the beginning of August. The FIA investigation was reported at the end of August and Renault were charged on 4 September. Piquet's statement was made on 10 September after he had been given immunity from punishment. Keeping shtum and holding onto his drive were clearly connected in Piquet Jr's mind and when one evaporated so did any reason for the other. His statement may have been given under oath but I wonder what value the word of a man like that actually has?

With regards crash-gate, an interesting aside is whether Alonso was aware of the plan or not? He was short fuelled compared to everyone else, which to an experienced driver like him would not have seemed like the optimum strategy to start the race with, so did he suspect something was orchestrated when Piquet crashed, or did he know?

That's pretty much what Piquet said when questioned. He didn't accuse Alonso of being in on it but he wondered aloud why Alonso would accept unquestioningly such a bizarre fuel strategy. His father was less doubtful.

Alonso may not have been in on it but with a very strange fuel strategy he must surely have guessed as soon as he was told why the safety car was out. I doubt he asked any questions after the race either. On balance I think we can say Alonso wasn't involved even if he guessed what had gone on, especially if we accept that Witness X wasn't involved even though he knew what was going on.

The weirdest thing about Alonso is his indefatigable loyalty to Briatore, and his dedication following his 2009 Singapore podium.

As for the rest of the discussion in the thread, I see nothing new coming from it, other than some revealing comments which demonstrate opinion as the product of preferences a priori. After all, it can be very difficult to acknowledge the failings of a favourite, since it tends to impinge upon one's self-image.

I don't think we're going to hear any new evidence now and so, naturally, there is nothing new to reveal but opinions may change... I have a slight hope Pat Symonds might be more honest in his autobiography when he retires - it should be if his apology was genuine. I still think it's interesting to hear people's opinions on this and it seems apposite now with the return to the sport of such individuals.

What keeps us going is essentially within the ego, and to be confronted with a truth which does not conform to previously held beliefs threatens to undermine the structure of one's very existence, unless it can be brushed aside as non-truth.

The problem with that is that the "truth" is simply a matter of perspective. If Pat Symonds or Mike Coughlan (or even Briatore) is allowed to work in F1 again, having paid some kind of temporal dues in the form of a temporary exile, then perhaps the truth now is not what I perceived it to be at the time they were punished. Perhaps they weren't as bad as they appeared to be.

 

[cosicave]

I don't think we're going to hear any new evidence now and so, naturally, there is nothing new to reveal but opinions may change... I have a slight hope Pat Symonds might be more honest in his autobiography when he retires - it should be if his apology was genuine. I still think it's interesting to hear people's opinions on this and it seems apposite now with the return to the sport of such individuals.

Yes, I agree. My comment was a reference to what I've seen in this thread which has revealed a certain adherence to previously held beliefs, which is only to be expected.

The problem with that is that the "truth" is simply a matter of perspective. If Pat Symonds or Mike Coughlan (or even Briatore) is allowed to work in F1 again, having paid some kind of temporal dues in the form of a temporary exile, then perhaps the truth now is not what I perceived it to be at the time they were punished. Perhaps they weren't as bad as they appeared to be.

Yes, 'the truth' is merely a matter of perspective. That is exactly what I am saying! As I have said already, I agree that perspectives can change, particularly when faced with new evidence but my point is that there is a psychological reluctance to do this for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.

I do hope I've not given the impression that I see no validity in this thread. - Not at all. These things can be interesting because of the possibility of new evidence, regardless of whether or not they actually change opinion.

 

[genjigonzales]

Yes, 'the truth' is merely a matter of perspective. That is exactly what I am saying! As I have said already, I agree that perspectives can change, particularly when faced with new evidence but my point is that there is a psychological reluctance to do this for the reasons outlined in my previous comment.

Right - gotcha. I should have considered what you wrote for a bit longer. I need time to catch up sometimes.

 

[genjigonzales]

The rumour about animal Flavio Briatore replacing Stefano Domenicali may have been "bullshit" according to Luca Colajanni but it's been replaced with a new shiny one about partner-in-crime Pat Symonds joining the team in a senior role (probably something like crane location specialist or similar).

 

[El_Bando]

flabby flav flav should move on from F1. oh right he cant because he is banned by all sports governing organisations. So why is he sniffing about??

 

[Big Ern]

where is the 'none of them' choice? Althugh I do agree with Genji, they're all at it (spying), it's nothing new, if it didn't happen the cars would all look different.

 

[chelsea'snewmanager]

i think if anyone wanted piquet then he should be allowed back in. He crashed into a wall rather than another car and was pressured into it with the prospect of future races. IMO briatore was at fault for that and shouldn't be forgiven for making a young driver ruin his F1 career

 

[Julius Caesar]

I've actually always felt a little sorry for Piquet. Must have been horrendous to be second driver in a Flav team. Piquet had never drivern outside of his dads teams and i think he was talented, but he was never mentally ready for the pressure and criticism he would get from Briatore.

 

[WestCoastBoogaloo]

Although I believe in the concept of forgiveness (provided those involved are truly repentant), I would not let any of the 'crashgate crew' back into F1. Every driver (and team) who is entrusted with a car is in a privileged but, in certain circumstances, also severely dangerous position. It doesn't matter if Piquet crashed because he couldn't stand up to Flav. It doesn't matter that he crashed into a wall and not another driver. It doesn't even matter that it was relatively slowly.

What matters is that he took something which is capable, in terrible circumstances, of killing many people and decided to risk crashing it anyway.

What if a wheel or piece of body work had been thrown into the crowd or at a marshal? What if another driver had killed themselves by losing it on the corner and smashing into his stricken vehicle? What if the crash had gone completely wrong and caused a huge pile up?

It shows a complete lack of respect for not only the sport, but also the trust that everybody involved in a race places with the drivers of the cars.

I can believe that Piquet and perhaps Symonds are utterly repentant for what happened, but I would never let them be involved in a race again.

 

[Julius Caesar]

And Senna? He crashed into another car. Schumacher as well. The Piquet crash was never going to hurt anyone. Worse accidents happen about twice per race.

 

[WestCoastBoogaloo]

And Senna? He crashed into another car. Schumacher as well. The Piquet crash was never going to hurt anyone. Worse accidents happen about twice per race.

This thread isn't about Senna or Shumacher, hence why I didn't mention them.

It's also very easy to say that Piquets crash was harmless after the event.

 

[Julius Caesar]

This thread isn't about Senna or Shumacher, hence why I didn't mention them.

It's also very easy to say that Piquets crash was harmless after the event.

Surely your principles aply to them too is all im saying. The crash was slow and into a high wall as Piquet intended. The absolute worse thing that could have happened is the debris punturing a tyre.

 

[DHCanary]

Surely your principles aply to them too is all im saying. The crash was slow and into a high wall as Piquet intended. The absolute worse thing that could have happened is the debris punturing a tyre.

....which could have then sent another car into a high spin crash. I get both points of view though. Piquet chose (or was told) the safest place to crash with the desired effect, to minimise risk, but there is always a risk when you're sending a car made of very sharp carbon fibre, into a wall. If anything had happened to seriously endanger anyone else, it would have been a freak accident, but the blame would have been laid squarely with Briatore and Piquet for it being deliberate.

 

[WestCoastBoogaloo]

Surely your principles aply to them too is all im saying. The crash was slow and into a high wall as Piquet intended. The absolute worse thing that could have happened is the debris punturing a tyre.

Yes, I do think that any driver should be banned for deliberately crashing.

I also agree that the crash was slow and went as intended. However, that doesn't mean that there was no chance that something different could have happened. So much of Grand Prix racing is out of a drivers hands, such the strategy of other drivers and so forth, that there were things outside of Piquets control that could have affected this stunt in a bad way.

 

[Julius Caesar]

Was quite a slow corner for a dangerous spin crash, but yeah i understand that there is always a small risk.

 

[cosicave]

And Senna? He crashed into another car. Schumacher as well. The Piquet crash was never going to hurt anyone. Worse accidents happen about twice per race.

All crashes are potentially dangerous; even if they are controlled stunts with stunt drivers.

Perhaps you are right to mention Senna and Schumacher who also caused deliberate collisions, and both have been judged at some point or other as having made pre-meditated, calculating decisions.

However, no amount of dragging through the past reduces the responsibility of doing it again. Worse still, no other 'accident(?-!)' in the history of motor-racing has been proven to have been the result of pre-meditated calculation by a team of people. Senna and Schumacher appear to have made personal choices. With Senna I have very little doubt about this. With Schumacher, there is more scope for the possibility of some discussion beforehand, particularly when at Benneton with a boss called Briatore…

But no other such incident has been proven to be the result of a team effort, except for Piquet's career ending crash; possibly the most stupid thing any driver has been proven to have done in the history of Grand Prix driving, albeit as a result of an obnoxious presence he could not withstand.