Massa 2008 World Champion?
Discussion
ralphrj said:
MarkwG said:
There's nothing to be gained by the action he's taking if changing that is what he wants
Actually there is one thing to be gained, there is potential for some of those involved to have to testify in court over what they knew or did not know.ralphrj said:
MarkwG said:
There's nothing to be gained by the action he's taking if changing that is what he wants
Actually there is one thing to be gained, there is potential for some of those involved to have to testify in court over what they knew or did not know.MitchT said:
He's on a hiding to nothing. If he isn't careful he'll spend his entire fortune on lawyers and still have nothing to show for it. If they aren't going to amend the blatantly obvious 2021 issue then there's no way they're going to do anything about 2008.
But "they" in this case is an appeal to the court, not the FIA. No-one tested the 2021 championship in court.vaud said:
MitchT said:
He's on a hiding to nothing. If he isn't careful he'll spend his entire fortune on lawyers and still have nothing to show for it. If they aren't going to amend the blatantly obvious 2021 issue then there's no way they're going to do anything about 2008.
But "they" in this case is an appeal to the court, not the FIA. No-one tested the 2021 championship in court.With regards to Massa, I could understand doing this to get the parties he's taking to court to admit they knew etc and even chase a loss of earnings. But it's way too far down the line now for this to have the credibility it should have.
vaud said:
LucyP said:
Massa is out of time. The time limit expired at the F1 awards ceremony in 2008. The case will be struck out on that basis.
Maybe. Just because the FIA state that is when the title is decided does that give them absolute authority?As a parallel, suppose RB were uncovered today as having hidden traction control for 2023, would they retain their title or could the FIA rescind their title?
The nearest parallel in another sport is probably Lance Armstrong, and the Tour de France officially now has no winner from the years LA originally won - mostly because the whole lot of them were ‘pushing the rules’ at the time, just as the F1 teams do.
(I do wonder who’s behind this challenge, as I can’t believe Massa is funding it himself. A very old man who now lives in Brazil?)
DanielSan said:
If I remember rightly with the Abu Dhabi result voided, Verstappen would still be champion.
My take on Abu Dhabi is that, had the correct procedure been followed, then the race would have finished behind the safety car and, as such, that should have been the declared result, rather than voiding the whole race.MitchT said:
DanielSan said:
If I remember rightly with the Abu Dhabi result voided, Verstappen would still be champion.
My take on Abu Dhabi is that, had the correct procedure been followed, then the race would have finished behind the safety car and, as such, that should have been the declared result, rather than voiding the whole race.
Sandpit Steve said:
vaud said:
LucyP said:
Massa is out of time. The time limit expired at the F1 awards ceremony in 2008. The case will be struck out on that basis.
Maybe. Just because the FIA state that is when the title is decided does that give them absolute authority?As a parallel, suppose RB were uncovered today as having hidden traction control for 2023, would they retain their title or could the FIA rescind their title?
The nearest parallel in another sport is probably Lance Armstrong, and the Tour de France officially now has no winner from the years LA originally won - mostly because the whole lot of them were ‘pushing the rules’ at the time, just as the F1 teams do.
(I do wonder who’s behind this challenge, as I can’t believe Massa is funding it himself. A very old man who now lives in Brazil?)
vaud said:
LucyP said:
Massa is out of time. The time limit expired at the F1 awards ceremony in 2008. The case will be struck out on that basis.
Maybe. Just because the FIA state that is when the title is decided does that give them absolute authority?As a parallel, suppose RB were uncovered today as having hidden traction control for 2023, would they retain their title or could the FIA rescind their title?
A Judge cannot even re-write UK rules. If the UK law (rules) says that a tenant must be evicted when they are in arrears by 2 months, then the Judge must make a possession order, if the landlord proves those arrears, and if he has complied with all the rules and court procedures. The Judge cannot simply ignore the law (rules) and refuse to give the landlord possession.
LucyP said:
Yes it does give the FIA absolute authority. They are the rule makers for the sport. What powers does a foreign court Judge have to re-write a governing bodies rules?
A Judge cannot even re-write UK rules. If the UK law (rules) says that a tenant must be evicted when they are in arrears by 2 months, then the Judge must make a possession order, if the landlord proves those arrears, and if he has complied with all the rules and court procedures. The Judge cannot simply ignore the law (rules) and refuse to give the landlord possession.
Law in the UK is often based on previous judgements that break precedent or what some consider to be a law that is fixed being disregarded in order to keep up with the times, intervention by judges is not unusual.A Judge cannot even re-write UK rules. If the UK law (rules) says that a tenant must be evicted when they are in arrears by 2 months, then the Judge must make a possession order, if the landlord proves those arrears, and if he has complied with all the rules and court procedures. The Judge cannot simply ignore the law (rules) and refuse to give the landlord possession.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldj...
" This broad generalisation is a good starting point but, like most constitutional generalisations in this country, it calls for qualification. The boundary between making and administering the law is not in all respects quite so clear-cut as this general statement suggests. Contrary to the broad generalisation and within strict bounds, judges themselves have a legitimate law-making function. It is a function they have long exercised. In common law countries much of the basic law is still the common law. The common law is judge-made law. For centuries judges have been charged with the responsibility of keeping this law abreast of current social conditions and expectations. That is still the position. Continuing but limited development of the common law in this fashion is an integral part of the constitutional function of the judiciary. Had the judges not discharged this responsibility the common law would be the same now as it was in the reign of King Henry II. It is because of this that 'the common law is a living system of law, reacting to new events and new ideas, and so capable of providing the citizens of this country with a system of practical justice relevant to the times in which they live': see Lord Goff of Chieveley in Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349, 377."
LucyP said:
That's not true.
Common law aka precedents set by courts are from judges interpreting statutes. What is there to interpret here? The time limit is pretty clear and Massa is at least 15 years outside it.
Lucy, you made a statement that was false, i showed you concrete evidence of that from court case judgements.Common law aka precedents set by courts are from judges interpreting statutes. What is there to interpret here? The time limit is pretty clear and Massa is at least 15 years outside it.
The judge will determine if Massa has a case worth hearing.
MitchT said:
DanielSan said:
If I remember rightly with the Abu Dhabi result voided, Verstappen would still be champion.
My take on Abu Dhabi is that, had the correct procedure been followed, then the race would have finished behind the safety car and, as such, that should have been the declared result, rather than voiding the whole race.LucyP said:
That's not true.
Common law aka precedents set by courts are from judges interpreting statutes. What is there to interpret here? The time limit is pretty clear and Massa is at least 15 years outside it.
You have not understood the case.Common law aka precedents set by courts are from judges interpreting statutes. What is there to interpret here? The time limit is pretty clear and Massa is at least 15 years outside it.
- It is alleged that the FIA and its officers knew before the end of the 2008 F1 season that the Singapore Grand Prix was rigged.
- The statutes of the FIA obligated them to uphold "the interests of its membership in all international matters concerning automobile mobility and tourism and motor sport.” and further that one of the FIA's objectives is in “promoting the development of motor sport, enacting, interpreting and enforcing common rules applicable to the organization and running of motor sport events.”.
- In addition the FIA's International Sporting Code exists so that the the FIA exercises power “in a fair and equitable manner” and that it will “never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a competition or the participation of a competitor.”.
Massa is alleging that if the FIA knew the race was rigged then they were bound by their own statutes, objectives and codes to have conducted an investigation. Had they done this and declared the result of Singapore null and void then he would have been Champion. As a result he has suffered significant losses.
Saying that he missed the window to appeal about information that was known to the FIA but hidden from him is a weak argument. The FIA did not need Massa to appeal, they were already obligated to investigate but instead they covered it up.
ralphrj said:
LucyP said:
That's not true.
Common law aka precedents set by courts are from judges interpreting statutes. What is there to interpret here? The time limit is pretty clear and Massa is at least 15 years outside it.
You have not understood the case.Common law aka precedents set by courts are from judges interpreting statutes. What is there to interpret here? The time limit is pretty clear and Massa is at least 15 years outside it.
- It is alleged that the FIA and its officers knew before the end of the 2008 F1 season that the Singapore Grand Prix was rigged.
- The statutes of the FIA obligated them to uphold "the interests of its membership in all international matters concerning automobile mobility and tourism and motor sport.” and further that one of the FIA's objectives is in “promoting the development of motor sport, enacting, interpreting and enforcing common rules applicable to the organization and running of motor sport events.”.
- In addition the FIA's International Sporting Code exists so that the the FIA exercises power “in a fair and equitable manner” and that it will “never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a competition or the participation of a competitor.”.
Massa is alleging that if the FIA knew the race was rigged then they were bound by their own statutes, objectives and codes to have conducted an investigation. Had they done this and declared the result of Singapore null and void then he would have been Champion. As a result he has suffered significant losses.
Saying that he missed the window to appeal about information that was known to the FIA but hidden from him is a weak argument. The FIA did not need Massa to appeal, they were already obligated to investigate but instead they covered it up.
Maybe he should sue Ferrari for leaving the fuel hose on as that is what put him out of the points, not the cheating.
MarkwG said:
I feel sympathy for him, naturally: to have the WC snatched out of his grasp was mortifying to watch, whether you're a fan of the actual WC or not. However, that doesn't change the facts: he lost that season, without any FIA intervention. There's nothing to be gained by the action he's taking if changing that is what he wants
I dunno, given the FIA had done so much to try to bung him the championship it felt pretty just from here. Which makes his trying to sue the FIA for not doing even more pretty idiotic tbh. Unless he'd already bought and paid for the championship...Teddy Lop said:
MarkwG said:
I feel sympathy for him, naturally: to have the WC snatched out of his grasp was mortifying to watch, whether you're a fan of the actual WC or not. However, that doesn't change the facts: he lost that season, without any FIA intervention. There's nothing to be gained by the action he's taking if changing that is what he wants
I dunno, given the FIA had done so much to try to bung him the championship it felt pretty just from here. Which makes his trying to sue the FIA for not doing even more pretty idiotic tbh. Unless he'd already bought and paid for the championship...Massa also has very little chance of proving the powers that be knew about the alleged race fix before the end of the season. MM is not around anymore and Bernie is so old that he will say one thing one day and another the next.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff