F1 has rejected Andretti's entry bid
Discussion
Pat Symonds has left F1 to join Andretti, an insider to F1 leaves, maybe he knows more than others that they are going to be in.
https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1048946/1/pat-symond...
https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1048946/1/pat-symond...
That's a major coup for Andretti, and another blow to the credibility of F1's argument for rejecting Andretti.
Symonds is going to have a period of gardening leave before he can join, so he must believe they will still be around and worth joining in however many months time. He either has inside knowledge that they'll get the entry eventually, or believes he can help get them there.
Symonds is going to have a period of gardening leave before he can join, so he must believe they will still be around and worth joining in however many months time. He either has inside knowledge that they'll get the entry eventually, or believes he can help get them there.
Forester1965 said:
Symonds is the current embodiment of how bent F1 is.
Barred from FIA events for life for purposely organising the crash in Singapore. Then hired by the FIA. Now lauded as a great hire by Andretti.
It's like HSBC hiring Nick Leeson as their compliance officer.
Classic poacher turned gamekeeper. Now he's off poaching again.Barred from FIA events for life for purposely organising the crash in Singapore. Then hired by the FIA. Now lauded as a great hire by Andretti.
It's like HSBC hiring Nick Leeson as their compliance officer.
thegreenhell said:
Forester1965 said:
Symonds is the current embodiment of how bent F1 is.
Barred from FIA events for life for purposely organising the crash in Singapore. Then hired by the FIA. Now lauded as a great hire by Andretti.
It's like HSBC hiring Nick Leeson as their compliance officer.
Classic poacher turned gamekeeper. Now he's off poaching again.Barred from FIA events for life for purposely organising the crash in Singapore. Then hired by the FIA. Now lauded as a great hire by Andretti.
It's like HSBC hiring Nick Leeson as their compliance officer.
Lifetime bans, rules are rules, etc.
Forester1965 said:
Symonds is the current embodiment of how bent F1 is.
Barred from FIA events for life for purposely organising the crash in Singapore. Then hired by the FIA. Now lauded as a great hire by Andretti.
It's like HSBC hiring Nick Leeson as their compliance officer.
Thought he was hired by the F1 group (Liberty Media), not the FIA i thought.Barred from FIA events for life for purposely organising the crash in Singapore. Then hired by the FIA. Now lauded as a great hire by Andretti.
It's like HSBC hiring Nick Leeson as their compliance officer.
I saw Pat Symonds give a Q and A at an event last year. He was clever, personable and an excellent speaker . I think the time is long past when people should queue up to give him a kicking for (I've always assumed ) being pressured by the appalling Briatore into cheating . But for him to be re-employed in F1 , whether in a team of as part of the establishment - I really don't know. As the politicians say , the optics are terrible
And one might consider Nelson Piquet in contrast- a triple champion , notorious in period for mischief and crass remarks. He made another one about Hamilton . Indefensible yes , but an indefinite ban from the F1 paddock for one comment ? While Symonds and Briatore not only fixed a result but endangered lives too and are now rehabilitated . That really doesn't make sense in my morality code .
And one might consider Nelson Piquet in contrast- a triple champion , notorious in period for mischief and crass remarks. He made another one about Hamilton . Indefensible yes , but an indefinite ban from the F1 paddock for one comment ? While Symonds and Briatore not only fixed a result but endangered lives too and are now rehabilitated . That really doesn't make sense in my morality code .
coppice said:
I saw Pat Symonds give a Q and A at an event last year. He was clever, personable and an excellent speaker . I think the time is long past when people should queue up to give him a kicking for (I've always assumed ) being pressured by the appalling Briatore into cheating . But for him to be re-employed in F1 , whether in a team of as part of the establishment - I really don't know. As the politicians say , the optics are terrible
And one might consider Nelson Piquet in contrast- a triple champion , notorious in period for mischief and crass remarks. He made another one about Hamilton . Indefensible yes , but an indefinite ban from the F1 paddock for one comment ? While Symonds and Briatore not only fixed a result but endangered lives too and are now rehabilitated . That really doesn't make sense in my morality code .
Either we believe in serving a penalty and being rehabilitated, or we don’t. That’s the basic principle of justice.And one might consider Nelson Piquet in contrast- a triple champion , notorious in period for mischief and crass remarks. He made another one about Hamilton . Indefensible yes , but an indefinite ban from the F1 paddock for one comment ? While Symonds and Briatore not only fixed a result but endangered lives too and are now rehabilitated . That really doesn't make sense in my morality code .
There are those who say “but he cheated.” Yes, he did. So where were Schumacher’s lengthy bans? Where was Renault’s £100m fine?
In many sports, doping results in a ban, after which competition is allowed again. Why should Symonds be different?
Cheating has always been an issue in competitive sport. It isn’t ok, and it shouldn’t go unpunished, but it is strange to say that Symonds should end his career over it when that’s not the usual outcome for other competitors (and let’s recall, F1 is a team sport - Symonds and Schumacher are/were both competing in the sport).
There's 'cheating' and cheating.
Forming a conspiracy and asking a driver to crash into a wall at a pre-determined time without being able to control the physics of what happened or how other people respond, in a way that alters the points scoring for all the other participants in a race, potentially costing other teams and drivers prizes (arguably a WDC) and prize money for championship end positions, is about as bad as it can get in F1. It's not just a sporting cheat, it's fraud.
Having people like Symonds in F1 is like locking up a Police Officer for fraud then putting him in the executive team at the IOPC a few years later.
Forming a conspiracy and asking a driver to crash into a wall at a pre-determined time without being able to control the physics of what happened or how other people respond, in a way that alters the points scoring for all the other participants in a race, potentially costing other teams and drivers prizes (arguably a WDC) and prize money for championship end positions, is about as bad as it can get in F1. It's not just a sporting cheat, it's fraud.
Having people like Symonds in F1 is like locking up a Police Officer for fraud then putting him in the executive team at the IOPC a few years later.
Forester1965 said:
There's 'cheating' and cheating.
Forming a conspiracy and asking a driver to crash into a wall at a pre-determined time without being able to control the physics of what happened or how other people respond, in a way that alters the points scoring for all the other participants in a race, potentially costing other teams and drivers prizes (arguably a WDC) and prize money for championship end positions, is about as bad as it can get in F1. It's not just a sporting cheat, it's fraud.
Having people like Symonds in F1 is like locking up a Police Officer for fraud then putting him in the executive team at the IOPC a few years later.
It is worse; and a 5 year ban was the result. For you it should have been a lifetime ban?Forming a conspiracy and asking a driver to crash into a wall at a pre-determined time without being able to control the physics of what happened or how other people respond, in a way that alters the points scoring for all the other participants in a race, potentially costing other teams and drivers prizes (arguably a WDC) and prize money for championship end positions, is about as bad as it can get in F1. It's not just a sporting cheat, it's fraud.
Having people like Symonds in F1 is like locking up a Police Officer for fraud then putting him in the executive team at the IOPC a few years later.
However I think the better analogy is a banker convicted of fraud, having served his or her sentence, being employed by the Police to help frame rules designed to reduce the chance of technical fraud. There are precedents for just such appointments.
coppice said:
I saw Pat Symonds give a Q and A at an event last year. He was clever, personable and an excellent speaker . I think the time is long past when people should queue up to give him a kicking for (I've always assumed ) being pressured by the appalling Briatore into cheating . But for him to be re-employed in F1 , whether in a team of as part of the establishment - I really don't know. As the politicians say , the optics are terrible
And one might consider Nelson Piquet in contrast- a triple champion , notorious in period for mischief and crass remarks. He made another one about Hamilton . Indefensible yes , but an indefinite ban from the F1 paddock for one comment ? While Symonds and Briatore not only fixed a result but endangered lives too and are now rehabilitated . That really doesn't make sense in my morality code .
If your moral code doesn't include rehabilitation, it may be worth a review.And one might consider Nelson Piquet in contrast- a triple champion , notorious in period for mischief and crass remarks. He made another one about Hamilton . Indefensible yes , but an indefinite ban from the F1 paddock for one comment ? While Symonds and Briatore not only fixed a result but endangered lives too and are now rehabilitated . That really doesn't make sense in my morality code .
Forester1965 said:
There's 'cheating' and cheating.
Forming a conspiracy and asking a driver to crash into a wall at a pre-determined time without being able to control the physics of what happened or how other people respond, in a way that alters the points scoring for all the other participants in a race, potentially costing other teams and drivers prizes (arguably a WDC) and prize money for championship end positions, is about as bad as it can get in F1. It's not just a sporting cheat, it's fraud.
Having people like Symonds in F1 is like locking up a Police Officer for fraud then putting him in the executive team at the IOPC a few years later.
Cheating and 'cheating' are one and the same. There is no distinction other than in your mind you think there is a line up to which it's somewhat acceptable to cheat.Forming a conspiracy and asking a driver to crash into a wall at a pre-determined time without being able to control the physics of what happened or how other people respond, in a way that alters the points scoring for all the other participants in a race, potentially costing other teams and drivers prizes (arguably a WDC) and prize money for championship end positions, is about as bad as it can get in F1. It's not just a sporting cheat, it's fraud.
Having people like Symonds in F1 is like locking up a Police Officer for fraud then putting him in the executive team at the IOPC a few years later.
The law, administered by the criminal justice system, allows for rehabilitation and reinsertion into normal working society of convicted criminals, as long as they are not a danger to others. What Symonds did, whatever his involvement in that act was, was not even at a criminal level. It was the real legal courts that overturned the FIA court's 'lifetime' bans for Symonds and Briatore.
It's only F1 after all. The only real result was that one group of millionaires got slightly richer than another group of millionaires. The rest, as they say, is entertainment.
I do think people should be able to rehabilitate, but there's a difference between that and simply walking back into an environment you've proven unsuitable for previously. I don't agree that's an appropriate thing to do any more I would putting a child sex offender back into a school after a prison sentence or a fraudster into the compliance section of a bank.
F1 is the ultimate nepotistic environment though, unfortunately.
F1 is the ultimate nepotistic environment though, unfortunately.
Forester1965 said:
I do think people should be able to rehabilitate, but there's a difference between that and simply walking back into an environment you've proven unsuitable for previously. I don't agree that's an appropriate thing to do any more I would putting a child sex offender back into a school after a prison sentence or a fraudster into the compliance section of a bank.
F1 is the ultimate nepotistic environment though, unfortunately.
So you don't, in fact, believe in rehabilitation, but instead believe in irresistible urges and irredeemable character defects?F1 is the ultimate nepotistic environment though, unfortunately.
Forester1965 said:
You don't get to decide what my interpretation of rehabilitation or reasonable is any more than I do yours.
We're entitled to come to a different view on whether he should be allowed to operate in the management capacity of a team.
Rehabilitation in the context of offenders is readily defined. An offence of the type Symonds was found culpable of, if prosecuted as a criminal matter, would not any longer be disclosable to a potential employer, and the "right to be forgotten" would allow reference to be removed from the internet by and large.We're entitled to come to a different view on whether he should be allowed to operate in the management capacity of a team.
Your hypothetical bank worker would absolutely be allowed to apply for another bank job after the requisite period of time and (assuming no other requirements applied, such as DBS or FCA approval) not disclose their conviction quite legally.
So that's how I view it. Your view of it does seem (to me, at least) to be at odds with the accepted meaning of the term in this context. But you're right, I don't get to tell you what you should think.
As you rightly understand, the convicted bank worker, teacher, lawyer, health worker etc would not be allowed back into a regulated profession where they're responsible for others' health, safety or prosperity. Yet here we have someone ordering racing drivers to crash on live circuits in order to defraud the sport and is welcomed back with open arms.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff