FIA investigating deliberate crash to promote Alonso to race win
09-17-2009, 08:16 PM
#226
I think I have to download and watch ALL the races from about 95 on.
09-17-2009, 08:18 PM
#227
09-17-2009, 09:09 PM
#228
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
09-17-2009, 09:51 PM
#229
Rennlist Member
News flash, ladies: despite the shrill "but...but...but...SCHUMACHER" rants, he is retired, and has been for several years.
GET OVER IT!
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
GET OVER IT!
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
09-17-2009, 09:55 PM
#230
Alonso's character flaws on track (read Hungary 2007 or Crashgate) seem to be in keeping with many multiple (or future multiple) world champions. Some have it worse than others, but it's his behavior within the team that is the most concerning.
Part of what made the Montezemolo/Todt/Brawn/Byrne/Schumacher so good is that much of the Ferrari politics (within the team) had been eliminated. Everyone was of the understanding that Michael is the faster of the two drivers, the better tester, and so anything that can help him win, the team is going to do. No Enzo Ferrari drama involved.
F1 Magazine published an article where they interviewed different people at Ferrari in different capacities and the underlying comment was that they all had a passion for the brand, that they had the best driver in F1 (at least at the time), and that he was willing to do anything to win, and vice versa. Alonso's speed is very good, maybe not currently the absolute fastest (thinking mainly of Hamilton here), but he's up there, and his consistency is almost second to none. He's also been reputed to be very good at technical feedback and setup. What concerns me is in any F1 team, Ferrari in particular because they have had a penchant for falling victim to drama, you don't need someone harming the motivation of others, so do you risk bringing him in? I say no because they need someone who's a team player (Massa) or an apolicital driver (like Raikkonen).
Part of what made the Montezemolo/Todt/Brawn/Byrne/Schumacher so good is that much of the Ferrari politics (within the team) had been eliminated. Everyone was of the understanding that Michael is the faster of the two drivers, the better tester, and so anything that can help him win, the team is going to do. No Enzo Ferrari drama involved.
F1 Magazine published an article where they interviewed different people at Ferrari in different capacities and the underlying comment was that they all had a passion for the brand, that they had the best driver in F1 (at least at the time), and that he was willing to do anything to win, and vice versa. Alonso's speed is very good, maybe not currently the absolute fastest (thinking mainly of Hamilton here), but he's up there, and his consistency is almost second to none. He's also been reputed to be very good at technical feedback and setup. What concerns me is in any F1 team, Ferrari in particular because they have had a penchant for falling victim to drama, you don't need someone harming the motivation of others, so do you risk bringing him in? I say no because they need someone who's a team player (Massa) or an apolicital driver (like Raikkonen).
09-17-2009, 10:43 PM
#231
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
#1
Both careers have a lot of parallels and with this level of deception it is impossible not to compare ...and consider the Source of such button pushers ..
See : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1T29WEjMpM&NR=1
#2
Yep 
#3
ahh, hmmm , I'm afraid to answer ... see no 1 ............... 
#4
Careful Amigos don't handle this fact very well .......... 
#5
Do you have to be so offensive all the time .................
#6
So good shhh see no 1 , ......
F1 since the late 90's has always been about race fixing and manipulation, see with practice you can pretend you won , then pretend you didn't ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbjrLorp84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_eRTg-vhyU
Alonso to Ferrari to destroy the myth
..........and currently the only 2 WWF F1 WDC champion on his way to 7 ... Hmmm Now where is that copy of Barrichello's Ferrari contract , damn Fizzy has it .......
Why does it seem as though every F1 discussion in which you participate always ends up with a reference to Schumacher?
I start a topical yet seemingly innocuous thread regarding the sudden emergence of Mercedes teams like F1India (and the performance of the Brawn and recent McLaren) and even THAT thread requires a Schumacher reference?
I now see why there are so many reported posts and PM's sent regarding this constant F1 equivalent of "It's Bush's Fault" in this forum.
Frankly, I expect it in the P&C "forum", but not here.
Enough already.
If there is no reason to bring Schumacher into a discussion, please don't, otherwise that post will be deleted.
I start a topical yet seemingly innocuous thread regarding the sudden emergence of Mercedes teams like F1India (and the performance of the Brawn and recent McLaren) and even THAT thread requires a Schumacher reference?
I now see why there are so many reported posts and PM's sent regarding this constant F1 equivalent of "It's Bush's Fault" in this forum.
Frankly, I expect it in the P&C "forum", but not here.
Enough already.
If there is no reason to bring Schumacher into a discussion, please don't, otherwise that post will be deleted.
See : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1T29WEjMpM&NR=1
#2
Any driver with ambition would have done what Piquet Jr did. you only get one shot at F1.
Getting back in is nearly impossible. And the fact that this scam was being run my Briatore and Symonds no less and your OWN manager to boot, who have at least four championships between the both of them, was a test even seasoned veteran would have had a hard time passing. I can see where the kids confidence and ego was just oblitterated after watching Alonso celebrate the sham he just enabled. Had it been Schumacher he would have kept on driving/winning like it were nothing.
p.s.
Regarding litle miss sunshine, there are maybe five drivers in the world who were capable of pulling off two championships against Schumacher/boot licking team mate/Ferrari with an experienced top drawer Renault team mate no less.
The guy is a head case for sure but he might well be one of the most consistent drivers since at least Senna. Which is what I found so astounding about Hamilton's pace and composure against him.
Getting back in is nearly impossible. And the fact that this scam was being run my Briatore and Symonds no less and your OWN manager to boot, who have at least four championships between the both of them, was a test even seasoned veteran would have had a hard time passing. I can see where the kids confidence and ego was just oblitterated after watching Alonso celebrate the sham he just enabled. Had it been Schumacher he would have kept on driving/winning like it were nothing.
p.s.
Regarding litle miss sunshine, there are maybe five drivers in the world who were capable of pulling off two championships against Schumacher/boot licking team mate/Ferrari with an experienced top drawer Renault team mate no less.
The guy is a head case for sure but he might well be one of the most consistent drivers since at least Senna. Which is what I found so astounding about Hamilton's pace and composure against him.
#3
p.s. p.s.
I think your statement above should also be placed into context (re: Bridgestone vs Michelin and the change in tire rules, the mass damper, and the general overall efficiencies/peformance and reliability of both cars at the time).
Were it not for the rule change (generally acknowledged to have favored Michelin at the time, based on tyre performance and longevity) and the very out of character Ferrari engine failure at Suzuka, it would have been a very different view.
While I agree that LMS is one of the worlds' top drivers (it is F1 afterall), what I have seen in her 'team building' character does provide one for a severe moment of pause.
If, as you say, she is one of the top 5, then perhaps one of the other 4 could produce similar (WDC) results with a bit less "collateral damage" to those around her.
What I never saw from LMS was something that Schumacher and Brawn (the master of in race strategy changes IMHO) could seemingly do at will....gap the field by tenths of second per lap (and sometimes more), as needed, in order to make a strategy 'work'. A truly impressive feat of driving and strategy combined.
I think your statement above should also be placed into context (re: Bridgestone vs Michelin and the change in tire rules, the mass damper, and the general overall efficiencies/peformance and reliability of both cars at the time).
Were it not for the rule change (generally acknowledged to have favored Michelin at the time, based on tyre performance and longevity) and the very out of character Ferrari engine failure at Suzuka, it would have been a very different view.
While I agree that LMS is one of the worlds' top drivers (it is F1 afterall), what I have seen in her 'team building' character does provide one for a severe moment of pause.
If, as you say, she is one of the top 5, then perhaps one of the other 4 could produce similar (WDC) results with a bit less "collateral damage" to those around her.
What I never saw from LMS was something that Schumacher and Brawn (the master of in race strategy changes IMHO) could seemingly do at will....gap the field by tenths of second per lap (and sometimes more), as needed, in order to make a strategy 'work'. A truly impressive feat of driving and strategy combined.
#4
Careful Amigos don't handle this fact very well .......... #5
Do you have to be so offensive all the time .................
#6
Alonso's character flaws on track (read Hungary 2007 or Crashgate) seem to be in keeping with many multiple (or future multiple) world champions. Some have it worse than others, but it's his behavior within the team that is the most concerning.
Part of what made the Montezemolo/Todt/Brawn/Byrne/Schumacher so good is that much of the Ferrari politics (within the team) had been eliminated. Everyone was of the understanding that Michael is the faster of the two drivers, the better tester, and so anything that can help him win, the team is going to do. No Enzo Ferrari drama involved.
.
Part of what made the Montezemolo/Todt/Brawn/Byrne/Schumacher so good is that much of the Ferrari politics (within the team) had been eliminated. Everyone was of the understanding that Michael is the faster of the two drivers, the better tester, and so anything that can help him win, the team is going to do. No Enzo Ferrari drama involved.
.
shhh see no 1 , ......F1 since the late 90's has always been about race fixing and manipulation, see with practice you can pretend you won , then pretend you didn't ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbjrLorp84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_eRTg-vhyU
Alonso to Ferrari to destroy the myth
..........and currently the only 2 WWF F1 WDC champion on his way to 7 ... Hmmm Now where is that copy of Barrichello's Ferrari contract , damn Fizzy has it .......
Last edited by A.Wayne; 09-17-2009 at 11:11 PM.
09-17-2009, 10:56 PM
#232
Toyota had to outspend Ferrari and McLaren because they had nothing in place. They had to buy every last pencil, spanner, and lug nut from scratch. Any idea what that will cost you? It would have been cheaper to buy ane exisiting team. But they decided not go that route. Ferrari and McLaren have long established operations. If they had to build their shops from ground up they'd a spent more than Toyota.
Re the point about changing the rules, if the rules constantly change (not good for the sport imo) it's a disadvantage to ALL the teams because they too have too have scrap the old plans. If anything the rule changing is harder on the lesser funded teams than Ferrari. It costs the smaller teams a lot more than a pound of flesh to make a mid season correction that Ferrari can just write off because they can dump half the parent parent company's revenues from selling road cars into the two little F1 cars.
Okay so Max is forcing you to come up with a new thing that sucks, but Renault and McLaren also have to pour tens of millions into wiping the slate clean. I fail to see how mixing up the deck of cards every other month ONLY disadvantaged Ferrari.
Re the point about changing the rules, if the rules constantly change (not good for the sport imo) it's a disadvantage to ALL the teams because they too have too have scrap the old plans. If anything the rule changing is harder on the lesser funded teams than Ferrari. It costs the smaller teams a lot more than a pound of flesh to make a mid season correction that Ferrari can just write off because they can dump half the parent parent company's revenues from selling road cars into the two little F1 cars.
Okay so Max is forcing you to come up with a new thing that sucks, but Renault and McLaren also have to pour tens of millions into wiping the slate clean. I fail to see how mixing up the deck of cards every other month ONLY disadvantaged Ferrari.
09-17-2009, 11:00 PM
#233
Rennlist Member
I see you are taking GED classes in irony and projection.
Your lady friend Fernanda Alonsette IS a turd. She has been at the very center of 2 of the biggest scandals in modern F1 history, and they have both occurred in the last 3 years.
When it looks like a ****, acts like a ****, and smells like a ****, it sure ain't Chanel....mon.
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
09-18-2009, 05:25 AM
#235
For the sake of entertainment, I've cited a few parts of Forza's interview with Eddie Irvine (issue 94).
First, please note the following comments:
Now the interview:
[QUOTE = Forza]
As a team, how did Ferrari compare to Jordan?
Jordan was a lot less political. Eddie Jordan, who owned the team, made all the final decisions. At Ferrari, Jean Todt did not own the team, but he was the boss and he did an amazing job. But at the end of the day he was still an employee, and that's a very difficult situation for someone in such a powerful, stressful job, where results are everything. I think Todt did an amazing job at achieving success, but I don't think he did as amazing a job from a sporting point of view. I think Todt was so focused on getting results, because that's what his job was, that sometimes the team was not as sporting as it should have been.
Scuderia Ferrari was built around Michael Schumacher. Was his number-one status something codified in contract, or was it just understood that's how things worked?
The contract did not say that he would be number one, but it said that I would obey all team orders, which was accepted. I would have loved to have been at Ferrari without Schumacher there, because I think I could have beaten Gerhard Berger or Jean Alesi: I'm pretty sure of that. It would have been nice to have been in an era where I wasn't up against the greatest Formula 1 driver that's ever been.
Did you feel like you had an honest chance to win races, or would you be waved aside if you were leading Schumacher?
I had to let Michael pass a few times but, to be honest, Michael was faster than me, there was no doubt about that. I tried my best to be as fast as him, but I was not. The fastest driver normally wins and he was the fastest driver. He probably still is.[/QUOTE]
What can we draw from this?
Michael enjoyed number one status because he was faster than his teammates. He also worked with Brawn/Byrne at Bennetton and had cited that during the development of those cars in the early years that he could see the potential the duo had. He has been rumored to have worked to convice Jean Todt to bring the two over to Ferrari.
In contrast, Alonso wins the championship twice with the same team and then runs from a proven package and from his manager to what he considers to be a better opportunity (see Alain Prost). He then finished behind Hamilton in the 2007 championship even after doing most of the testing and then failed match him in qualifying. If you cite the amount of simulator time Hamilton put in, which Prost himself feels to be one of the reasons Hamilton got off to the start he did, why didn't Alonso exercise his power to at least get equal time?
If he was that much better, he may have become Mclaren's number one. Coulthard has cited in his book that the car development and setup were built around Mika so we know that Mclaren do this too (they've also used new experimental parts on Hamilton's car first this season at the exclusion of Heiki).
Point is that Schumacher acted out in ways against others on the track, not against his team. He made the most of the opportunities he got and, more importantly, created for himself. Isn't that what makes a great F1 driver? I can think of a few guys who I consider to not have been the best drivers on the grid but who made the most of the opportunity given the equiptment on misfortune of others.
If one argues that Schumacher acted out against Barichello by not affording him the opportunity to be free of team orders, then you could always come back to the past examples where very similarly talented teammates have had equal treatment.
1. Mansell and Piquest - in 1986, had one not taken points from the other, Prost would not have been World Champion. And of course, the two have such a great relationship after their experience at Williams.
2. Senna and Prost - Need I say more?
3. Montoya and Raikkonen - Montoya doesn't like the way the car handles, Raikkonen, doesn't mind, Montoya loses motivation the next year after not coming in and having a shot at the championship and leaves.
4.. Alonso and Hamilton - Spygate? Childish on track tactics that cost each driver points.
In my opinion, the only such duo that worked well for the time they spent together were Lauda and Prost in 84 and 85. Schumacher knew what he was doing, as did Jean, Ross, and Luca and they had good motivation for doing it. Sheesh, we all know what goes on in F1, it's part of the sport.
Noted for future reference.
First, please note the following comments:
F1 since the late 90's has always been about race fixing and manipulation, see with practice you can pretend you won , then pretend you didn't ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbjrLorp84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_eRTg-vhyU
Alonso to Ferrari to destroy the myth..........and currently the only 2 WWF F1 WDC champion on his way to 7 ... Hmmm Now where is that copy of Barrichello's Ferrari contract , damn Fizzy has it .......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbjrLorp84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_eRTg-vhyU
Alonso to Ferrari to destroy the myth
..........and currently the only 2 WWF F1 WDC champion on his way to 7 ... Hmmm Now where is that copy of Barrichello's Ferrari contract , damn Fizzy has it .......
[QUOTE = Forza]
As a team, how did Ferrari compare to Jordan?
Jordan was a lot less political. Eddie Jordan, who owned the team, made all the final decisions. At Ferrari, Jean Todt did not own the team, but he was the boss and he did an amazing job. But at the end of the day he was still an employee, and that's a very difficult situation for someone in such a powerful, stressful job, where results are everything. I think Todt did an amazing job at achieving success, but I don't think he did as amazing a job from a sporting point of view. I think Todt was so focused on getting results, because that's what his job was, that sometimes the team was not as sporting as it should have been.
Scuderia Ferrari was built around Michael Schumacher. Was his number-one status something codified in contract, or was it just understood that's how things worked?
The contract did not say that he would be number one, but it said that I would obey all team orders, which was accepted. I would have loved to have been at Ferrari without Schumacher there, because I think I could have beaten Gerhard Berger or Jean Alesi: I'm pretty sure of that. It would have been nice to have been in an era where I wasn't up against the greatest Formula 1 driver that's ever been.
Did you feel like you had an honest chance to win races, or would you be waved aside if you were leading Schumacher?
I had to let Michael pass a few times but, to be honest, Michael was faster than me, there was no doubt about that. I tried my best to be as fast as him, but I was not. The fastest driver normally wins and he was the fastest driver. He probably still is.[/QUOTE]
What can we draw from this?
Michael enjoyed number one status because he was faster than his teammates. He also worked with Brawn/Byrne at Bennetton and had cited that during the development of those cars in the early years that he could see the potential the duo had. He has been rumored to have worked to convice Jean Todt to bring the two over to Ferrari.
In contrast, Alonso wins the championship twice with the same team and then runs from a proven package and from his manager to what he considers to be a better opportunity (see Alain Prost). He then finished behind Hamilton in the 2007 championship even after doing most of the testing and then failed match him in qualifying. If you cite the amount of simulator time Hamilton put in, which Prost himself feels to be one of the reasons Hamilton got off to the start he did, why didn't Alonso exercise his power to at least get equal time?
If he was that much better, he may have become Mclaren's number one. Coulthard has cited in his book that the car development and setup were built around Mika so we know that Mclaren do this too (they've also used new experimental parts on Hamilton's car first this season at the exclusion of Heiki).
Point is that Schumacher acted out in ways against others on the track, not against his team. He made the most of the opportunities he got and, more importantly, created for himself. Isn't that what makes a great F1 driver? I can think of a few guys who I consider to not have been the best drivers on the grid but who made the most of the opportunity given the equiptment on misfortune of others.
If one argues that Schumacher acted out against Barichello by not affording him the opportunity to be free of team orders, then you could always come back to the past examples where very similarly talented teammates have had equal treatment.
1. Mansell and Piquest - in 1986, had one not taken points from the other, Prost would not have been World Champion. And of course, the two have such a great relationship after their experience at Williams.
2. Senna and Prost - Need I say more?
3. Montoya and Raikkonen - Montoya doesn't like the way the car handles, Raikkonen, doesn't mind, Montoya loses motivation the next year after not coming in and having a shot at the championship and leaves.
4.. Alonso and Hamilton - Spygate? Childish on track tactics that cost each driver points.
In my opinion, the only such duo that worked well for the time they spent together were Lauda and Prost in 84 and 85. Schumacher knew what he was doing, as did Jean, Ross, and Luca and they had good motivation for doing it. Sheesh, we all know what goes on in F1, it's part of the sport.
Alonso to Ferrari to destroy the myth ..........and currently the only 2 WWF F1 WDC champion on his way to 7
..........and currently the only 2 WWF F1 WDC champion on his way to 7
09-18-2009, 08:02 AM
#236
Rennlist Member
09-18-2009, 09:29 AM
#237
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
For the sake of entertainment, I've cited a few parts of Forza's interview with Eddie Irvine (issue 94).
First, please note the following comments:
Now the interview:
[QUOTE = Forza]
As a team, how did Ferrari compare to Jordan?
Jordan was a lot less political. Eddie Jordan, who owned the team, made all the final decisions. At Ferrari, Jean Todt did not own the team, but he was the boss and he did an amazing job. But at the end of the day he was still an employee, and that's a very difficult situation for someone in such a powerful, stressful job, where results are everything. I think Todt did an amazing job at achieving success, but I don't think he did as amazing a job from a sporting point of view. I think Todt was so focused on getting results, because that's what his job was, that sometimes the team was not as sporting as it should have been.
Scuderia Ferrari was built around Michael Schumacher. Was his number-one status something codified in contract, or was it just understood that's how things worked?
The contract did not say that he would be number one, but it said that I would obey all team orders, which was accepted. I would have loved to have been at Ferrari without Schumacher there, because I think I could have beaten Gerhard Berger or Jean Alesi: I'm pretty sure of that. It would have been nice to have been in an era where I wasn't up against the greatest Formula 1 driver that's ever been.
Did you feel like you had an honest chance to win races, or would you be waved aside if you were leading Schumacher?
I had to let Michael pass a few times but, to be honest, Michael was faster than me, there was no doubt about that. I tried my best to be as fast as him, but I was not. The fastest driver normally wins and he was the fastest driver. He probably still is.
First, please note the following comments:
Now the interview:
[QUOTE = Forza]
As a team, how did Ferrari compare to Jordan?
Jordan was a lot less political. Eddie Jordan, who owned the team, made all the final decisions. At Ferrari, Jean Todt did not own the team, but he was the boss and he did an amazing job. But at the end of the day he was still an employee, and that's a very difficult situation for someone in such a powerful, stressful job, where results are everything. I think Todt did an amazing job at achieving success, but I don't think he did as amazing a job from a sporting point of view. I think Todt was so focused on getting results, because that's what his job was, that sometimes the team was not as sporting as it should have been.
Scuderia Ferrari was built around Michael Schumacher. Was his number-one status something codified in contract, or was it just understood that's how things worked?
The contract did not say that he would be number one, but it said that I would obey all team orders, which was accepted. I would have loved to have been at Ferrari without Schumacher there, because I think I could have beaten Gerhard Berger or Jean Alesi: I'm pretty sure of that. It would have been nice to have been in an era where I wasn't up against the greatest Formula 1 driver that's ever been.
Did you feel like you had an honest chance to win races, or would you be waved aside if you were leading Schumacher?
I had to let Michael pass a few times but, to be honest, Michael was faster than me, there was no doubt about that. I tried my best to be as fast as him, but I was not. The fastest driver normally wins and he was the fastest driver. He probably still is.
Michael enjoyed number one status because he was faster than his teammates. He also worked with Brawn/Byrne at Bennetton and had cited that during the development of those cars in the early years that he could see the potential the duo had. He has been rumored to have worked to convice Jean Todt to bring the two over to Ferrari.
In contrast, Alonso wins the championship twice with the same team and then runs from a proven package and from his manager to what he considers to be a better opportunity (see Alain Prost). He then finished behind Hamilton in the 2007 championship even after doing most of the testing and then failed match him in qualifying. If you cite the amount of simulator time Hamilton put in, which Prost himself feels to be one of the reasons Hamilton got off to the start he did, why didn't Alonso exercise his power to at least get equal time?
If he was that much better, he may have become Mclaren's number one. Coulthard has cited in his book that the car development and setup were built around Mika so we know that Mclaren do this too (they've also used new experimental parts on Hamilton's car first this season at the exclusion of Heiki).
Point is that Schumacher acted out in ways against others on the track, not against his team. He made the most of the opportunities he got and, more importantly, created for himself. Isn't that what makes a great F1 driver? I can think of a few guys who I consider to not have been the best drivers on the grid but who made the most of the opportunity given the equiptment on misfortune of others.
If one argues that Schumacher acted out against Barichello by not affording him the opportunity to be free of team orders, then you could always come back to the past examples where very similarly talented teammates have had equal treatment.
1. Mansell and Piquest - in 1986, had one not taken points from the other, Prost would not have been World Champion. And of course, the two have such a great relationship after their experience at Williams.
2. Senna and Prost - Need I say more?
3. Montoya and Raikkonen - Montoya doesn't like the way the car handles, Raikkonen, doesn't mind, Montoya loses motivation the next year after not coming in and having a shot at the championship and leaves.
4.. Alonso and Hamilton - Spygate? Childish on track tactics that cost each driver points.
In my opinion, the only such duo that worked well for the time they spent together were Lauda and Prost in 84 and 85. Schumacher knew what he was doing, as did Jean, Ross, and Luca and they had good motivation for doing it. Sheesh, we all know what goes on in F1, it's part of the sport.
Noted for future reference.
[/QUOTE]Good stuff. Well put.
09-18-2009, 09:37 AM
#238
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Whiting was told about crash plot at Brazian GP LAST year
I spoke with FIA last year, says Piquet
18 September 2009
Nelson Piquet, the triple World Champion father of the man who was allegedly ordered to crash in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, has revealed that he informed the FIA of the plan last year, claiming that Renault Team Principal Flavio Briatore believed the 'truth' would remain under wraps.
With the Brazilian pairing having informed governing body the FIA of the scandal now knows as 'Crashgate', The Mirror has been told by Nelson Piquet Sr. that Paris-based federation has been aware of the supposed plot for some time.
Piquet Sr. claims to have spoken with Whiting last year
"At some point, people like Flavio get so much power they think they can walk on water," Piquet said on Thursday. "He really thought that, despite the clear evidence, that no-one could hurt him; what is he going to complain about - the truth?"
The Champion of 1981, 1983 and 1987 then went on to describe the shock of discovering the scheme. "When this thing happened in Singapore I couldn't believe it," he recalled, with the British newspaper having explained that Piquet employed the services of private investigators Quest in London.
"Anyway, in Brazil I talk to Charlie (Whiting, FIA Race Director)," he continued. "I got him and said: 'Look, what could happen to Nelson (Jr?) if I bring this up?' and I was afraid to screw up the career of Nelson. At the race in Brazil, I called Charlie and I told the whole story to Charlie."
18 September 2009
Nelson Piquet, the triple World Champion father of the man who was allegedly ordered to crash in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, has revealed that he informed the FIA of the plan last year, claiming that Renault Team Principal Flavio Briatore believed the 'truth' would remain under wraps.
With the Brazilian pairing having informed governing body the FIA of the scandal now knows as 'Crashgate', The Mirror has been told by Nelson Piquet Sr. that Paris-based federation has been aware of the supposed plot for some time.
Piquet Sr. claims to have spoken with Whiting last year
"At some point, people like Flavio get so much power they think they can walk on water," Piquet said on Thursday. "He really thought that, despite the clear evidence, that no-one could hurt him; what is he going to complain about - the truth?"
The Champion of 1981, 1983 and 1987 then went on to describe the shock of discovering the scheme. "When this thing happened in Singapore I couldn't believe it," he recalled, with the British newspaper having explained that Piquet employed the services of private investigators Quest in London.
"Anyway, in Brazil I talk to Charlie (Whiting, FIA Race Director)," he continued. "I got him and said: 'Look, what could happen to Nelson (Jr?) if I bring this up?' and I was afraid to screw up the career of Nelson. At the race in Brazil, I called Charlie and I told the whole story to Charlie."
09-18-2009, 10:48 AM
#239
RL Community Team
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Enduro911 – Great post!
I guess it is inevitable that Michael Schumacher gets drawn into so many F1 discussions, as he was, on balance, the dominant F1 driver for more than a decade. Layered on that was he extraordinary penchant for swinging between awful displays of unsportsmanship (e.g. trying to barge Villeneuve off track) to inspiring acts of humanity (extensive charity work, much of which was done with little publicity). Yeah, you can say he did it for selfish reasons, but I don’t really think so, I don’t remember any other F1 drivers taking the time to visit war amputees in the former Yugoslavia etc. The guy is one of the most complex drivers the sport has ever seen. However, it is clear that the people who worked for him, loved him, and that can’t be discounted.
As the evil-doer, Schumacher does have company… One can’t really be that much more outraged by his attempted take-out of Villeneuve than we can about when Senna and Prost essentially performed the exact same move (well, at least I can’t).
So what about Alonso? Is he really that bad? I tend to think that, somewhat like MS, he is a lighting rod for the ill-feeling and disgust of many. But if we look at the two scandals, what do we know about Alonso? He probably has not cheated any worse than MS (and others). I think what really rankles some was how he attempted to extort his team (McLaren) to give him preferential treatment or else he would spill the beans. That was a little unique. However, it is really hard to say how life was for Alonso at McLaren… there may be mitigating factors in that whole saga.
As for the crashgate affair: If it really was a plot devised by FB and PS and Alonso just the lucky recipient of he benefits, than I don’t know what would be an appropriate sanction. He must have known something… If on the other hand, it could be shown that Alonso went to FB and demanded that Piquet crash his car to help his race, that would be vastly worse. However, I doubt that happened.
End of the day, Alonso is a great driver who does not have a rigid moral compass. He needs the right environment where he is the real number 1. Unlike MS, I don’t think Alonso has as much ability to create that environment, I think he needs to have it created for him. I sort of think Williams would be a good team for him. The integrity of the Patrick Head and Frank Williams would be a good influence.
I guess it is inevitable that Michael Schumacher gets drawn into so many F1 discussions, as he was, on balance, the dominant F1 driver for more than a decade. Layered on that was he extraordinary penchant for swinging between awful displays of unsportsmanship (e.g. trying to barge Villeneuve off track) to inspiring acts of humanity (extensive charity work, much of which was done with little publicity). Yeah, you can say he did it for selfish reasons, but I don’t really think so, I don’t remember any other F1 drivers taking the time to visit war amputees in the former Yugoslavia etc. The guy is one of the most complex drivers the sport has ever seen. However, it is clear that the people who worked for him, loved him, and that can’t be discounted.
As the evil-doer, Schumacher does have company… One can’t really be that much more outraged by his attempted take-out of Villeneuve than we can about when Senna and Prost essentially performed the exact same move (well, at least I can’t).
So what about Alonso? Is he really that bad? I tend to think that, somewhat like MS, he is a lighting rod for the ill-feeling and disgust of many. But if we look at the two scandals, what do we know about Alonso? He probably has not cheated any worse than MS (and others). I think what really rankles some was how he attempted to extort his team (McLaren) to give him preferential treatment or else he would spill the beans. That was a little unique. However, it is really hard to say how life was for Alonso at McLaren… there may be mitigating factors in that whole saga.
As for the crashgate affair: If it really was a plot devised by FB and PS and Alonso just the lucky recipient of he benefits, than I don’t know what would be an appropriate sanction. He must have known something… If on the other hand, it could be shown that Alonso went to FB and demanded that Piquet crash his car to help his race, that would be vastly worse. However, I doubt that happened.
End of the day, Alonso is a great driver who does not have a rigid moral compass. He needs the right environment where he is the real number 1. Unlike MS, I don’t think Alonso has as much ability to create that environment, I think he needs to have it created for him. I sort of think Williams would be a good team for him. The integrity of the Patrick Head and Frank Williams would be a good influence.
09-18-2009, 11:56 AM
#240
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
^^^ Another great post.
Once again, the degree of severity of the offense is what is in question. If we look at the two Alonso scandals, vs. Schumachers Monaco parking job, I think we'd all have to agree that the Alonso scandals have the element of premeditation. Calculated, knowingly planning and using data and planning accidents.
With qualifying in Monaco, no one knew that it would boil down to the last minutes of Q3 between MS and FA. My opinion is that when MS got fastest time with moments to go, he then decided to go wide and park the car to prevent Alonso on his flyer.
Again, the on track incident with Villeneuve was "spur of the moment" type thing. You don't know your going to be in that situation, when it happened, it was a poor decision.
I know we all joke around here and have our favorites, but in all seriousness I do believe the difference as it relates to Alonso's scandals is not only the severity of the offense, but the fact it was premeditated.
just my 2 pesos...
Once again, the degree of severity of the offense is what is in question. If we look at the two Alonso scandals, vs. Schumachers Monaco parking job, I think we'd all have to agree that the Alonso scandals have the element of premeditation. Calculated, knowingly planning and using data and planning accidents.
With qualifying in Monaco, no one knew that it would boil down to the last minutes of Q3 between MS and FA. My opinion is that when MS got fastest time with moments to go, he then decided to go wide and park the car to prevent Alonso on his flyer.
Again, the on track incident with Villeneuve was "spur of the moment" type thing. You don't know your going to be in that situation, when it happened, it was a poor decision.
I know we all joke around here and have our favorites, but in all seriousness I do believe the difference as it relates to Alonso's scandals is not only the severity of the offense, but the fact it was premeditated.
just my 2 pesos...