Briatore punishment, foul or fair ?
Discussion
After a few days to reflect what is the verdict on Flavios punishment.
Seems to me without witness "x" they would not have been able to put Flavio away for good but what's done is done and his punishment is pronounced. Should he have been so heavily punished on the statement of someone who has not been revealed ?
More and more people seem to be coming out on the punishment too harsh side.
With the threat of legal action hanging over the process I wonder what is going to go on.
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo
"I'm humanly very sorry for Flavio Briatore, who has been one of F1's main players in the last 20 years," di Montezemolo was quoted as saying as Gazzetta dello Sport.
"It's a serious and delicate matter, but I hope and wish that the punishment he has received will soon be reduced."
http://www.racer.com/Di-Montezemolo-Briatore-ban-e...
Bernie Ecclestone
But Ecclestone, who was part of the hearing that dealt with the case, now feels the ban is disproportionate and urged Briatore to appeal against it.
"On reflection it wasn't necessary. It was too much. Definitely too much," said Ecclestone.
"I don't think it was necessary, but I was on the commission so I'm probably just as guilty as anybody."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Mark Webber
Webber said he had no complaints about the way Briatore had handled his career and would not seek a new manager.
"I've had Flavio looking after me for 11 years now," the Red Bull driver said. "I never looked at the contract since I signed it the first year. He has been sensational for me and I won't work with anyone else in the future if I can't work with him."
He believes Briatore will be missed by Formula 1 despite the manner of his exit.
"He is a very good character for our sport and a lot agree with that," said Webber. "It doesn't seem he will be around for a good while but that is the way it is."
http://www.racer.com/Webber-will-not-seek-new-mana...
Looking solely at the punishment here, was it fair, was it reflected in the punishment for others.
Lot of commentators and drivers saying Piquet should not have got immunity and should have been punished for his role.
I'm fascinated by the whole thing and don't believe Briatore should have got more than Symonds who from reports did far more to organise and sort the job according to his statement and reports.
Piquet was the instigator according to the witness "x" and I don't think should have been given immunity as it both tainted him as a witness (if he already wasn't as it was revenge) and he wasn't 100% honest according to the unknown witness "x".
Regards
TJ
Seems to me without witness "x" they would not have been able to put Flavio away for good but what's done is done and his punishment is pronounced. Should he have been so heavily punished on the statement of someone who has not been revealed ?
More and more people seem to be coming out on the punishment too harsh side.
With the threat of legal action hanging over the process I wonder what is going to go on.
Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo
"I'm humanly very sorry for Flavio Briatore, who has been one of F1's main players in the last 20 years," di Montezemolo was quoted as saying as Gazzetta dello Sport.
"It's a serious and delicate matter, but I hope and wish that the punishment he has received will soon be reduced."
http://www.racer.com/Di-Montezemolo-Briatore-ban-e...
Bernie Ecclestone
But Ecclestone, who was part of the hearing that dealt with the case, now feels the ban is disproportionate and urged Briatore to appeal against it.
"On reflection it wasn't necessary. It was too much. Definitely too much," said Ecclestone.
"I don't think it was necessary, but I was on the commission so I'm probably just as guilty as anybody."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula...
Mark Webber
Webber said he had no complaints about the way Briatore had handled his career and would not seek a new manager.
"I've had Flavio looking after me for 11 years now," the Red Bull driver said. "I never looked at the contract since I signed it the first year. He has been sensational for me and I won't work with anyone else in the future if I can't work with him."
He believes Briatore will be missed by Formula 1 despite the manner of his exit.
"He is a very good character for our sport and a lot agree with that," said Webber. "It doesn't seem he will be around for a good while but that is the way it is."
http://www.racer.com/Webber-will-not-seek-new-mana...
Looking solely at the punishment here, was it fair, was it reflected in the punishment for others.
Lot of commentators and drivers saying Piquet should not have got immunity and should have been punished for his role.
I'm fascinated by the whole thing and don't believe Briatore should have got more than Symonds who from reports did far more to organise and sort the job according to his statement and reports.
Piquet was the instigator according to the witness "x" and I don't think should have been given immunity as it both tainted him as a witness (if he already wasn't as it was revenge) and he wasn't 100% honest according to the unknown witness "x".
Regards
TJ
TJD2003 said:
Webber said he had no complaints about the way Briatore had handled his career and would not seek a new manager.
"I've had Flavio looking after me for 11 years now," the Red Bull driver said. "I never looked at the contract since I signed it the first year. He has been sensational for me and I won't work with anyone else in the future if I can't work with him."
Flav got pandies slapped harder than Pat for lying plain and simple. Have you read the full FIA press release - it makes it very clear?"I've had Flavio looking after me for 11 years now," the Red Bull driver said. "I never looked at the contract since I signed it the first year. He has been sensational for me and I won't work with anyone else in the future if I can't work with him."
So Webber won't be driving once his superlicense expires then - FIA won't renew unless he changes manager or Flav wins any appeal.
sjtscott said:
Flav got pandies slapped harder than Pat for lying plain and simple. Have you read the full FIA press release - it makes it very clear?
So Webber won't be driving once his superlicense expires then - FIA won't renew unless he changes manager or Flav wins any appeal.
Yes same as Ron Dennis supplosedly but is a life time ban fair on that basis ? Has Symonds and Piquet been 100% straight, I dont think so. Has anyone been 100% straight ?So Webber won't be driving once his superlicense expires then - FIA won't renew unless he changes manager or Flav wins any appeal.
Webber will manage himself.
Regards
TJ
TJD2003 said:
sjtscott said:
Flav got pandies slapped harder than Pat for lying plain and simple. Have you read the full FIA press release - it makes it very clear?
So Webber won't be driving once his superlicense expires then - FIA won't renew unless he changes manager or Flav wins any appeal.
Yes same as Ron Dennis supplosedly but is a life time ban fair on that basis ? Has Symonds and Piquet been 100% straight, I dont think so. Has anyone been 100% straight ?So Webber won't be driving once his superlicense expires then - FIA won't renew unless he changes manager or Flav wins any appeal.
Webber will manage himself.
Regards
TJ
No one has been 100% straight, Piquet took his immunity so nothing happends, but I doubt anyone will ever give him a drive in F1 again. Pat however did not take his offer of immunity, but by showing remorse/regret and basically not actually lying only got his 5 year ban.
Personally I still think our old friend FA is in on the act somewhere too even though the FIA couldn't find direct evidence.
Of course the punishment is fair. What else would someone expect after setting this up. You need to question Monte and Bernies morals as they seem to be saying he should not have been punished so harshly.
Ok, say they appeal the decision and get the same lesser penalty as Symonds? Is a 5 year ban from f1 any better for Flavio and would Renault let him back in?
Ok, say they appeal the decision and get the same lesser penalty as Symonds? Is a 5 year ban from f1 any better for Flavio and would Renault let him back in?
paulmurr said:
Witness 'X' = Alonso
This could very well be the truth. It was fairly well publicised that he wasnt chuffed at getting called into the 'hearing'. My money is still on him being heavily involved, and what with his proven track record of 'being able to be involved but remain unscathed' I think the paddock would do very well to keep their ideas to themselves when he's around.
I also agree with the other thread in that Ferrari are signing a good driver yes, but they are also signing a 'high maintenance' personality with a bit of history attached now.
As a follow on from this, perhaps for this very reason he has remained unnamed BECAUSE of his imminent connection with Ferrari.
Where are the leaked documents on who was actually there. Funny how the rest of the info was available on the internet only minutes after it was apparently available.
Pistonheads - Conspiracy theories matter
What I do not understand is that PK Jr was the one in all this who started it...
He was so desperate to keep his drive this year that HE was the one who suggested it in the first place.
Of course Flav and Pat were stupid to go along with it, but it just seems as though The Spank has had it in for Flav for exposing his after hour Nazi parties, and unfortunately Pat has got caught up in all this too.
PK Jr should be banned from driving having been the one who put the idea into the heads of the team bosses in the first place - PK Jr has confirmed that he suggest the idea!!!
I think that once The Spank is gone, Flav will be back sooner than we all may think.
He was so desperate to keep his drive this year that HE was the one who suggested it in the first place.
Of course Flav and Pat were stupid to go along with it, but it just seems as though The Spank has had it in for Flav for exposing his after hour Nazi parties, and unfortunately Pat has got caught up in all this too.
PK Jr should be banned from driving having been the one who put the idea into the heads of the team bosses in the first place - PK Jr has confirmed that he suggest the idea!!!
I think that once The Spank is gone, Flav will be back sooner than we all may think.
I find it very hard to believe that Piquet Jr had the 'intelligence' to suggest crashing to bring out the safety car. It's also not the behaviour of a "scared" young guy fearing for his drive.
Much as I don't want to believe it, I think it was Symonds' idea. Flavio isn't really clever enough to come up with it either and it's the sort of tactical plan that Symonds would have a brainwave on.
But, Symonds has a 5 yr ban and Flav has a lifetime. If everyone held their hands up and told the truth, I rather suspect those punishments would be the other way round.
Flavio is a victim of politics at the end of the day. All these other people who talk about it being harsh and unfair have probably either done something comparable or thought about it...
That doesn't give an excuse for it to be right so I'd say fair, and Symonds should have got the same....
Much as I don't want to believe it, I think it was Symonds' idea. Flavio isn't really clever enough to come up with it either and it's the sort of tactical plan that Symonds would have a brainwave on.
But, Symonds has a 5 yr ban and Flav has a lifetime. If everyone held their hands up and told the truth, I rather suspect those punishments would be the other way round.
Flavio is a victim of politics at the end of the day. All these other people who talk about it being harsh and unfair have probably either done something comparable or thought about it...
That doesn't give an excuse for it to be right so I'd say fair, and Symonds should have got the same....
Muzzer said:
I find it very hard to believe that Piquet Jr had the 'intelligence' to suggest crashing to bring out the safety car. It's also not the behaviour of a "scared" young guy fearing for his drive.
Much as I don't want to believe it, I think it was Symonds' idea. Flavio isn't really clever enough to come up with it either and it's the sort of tactical plan that Symonds would have a brainwave on.
My thoughts precisely, although rather than piquet not having the intelligence I'd say it's simply not in a racing drivers nature to put forward such an idea for himself. Much as I don't like flav, and much as, as the team boss, he's one who has to take the flak, this whole episode had been commandeered by the fia/spanky to do a number on a particular guy they don't like. I mean piquet, the PERPETRATOR, gets off scot free. Alsonso, one of the main beneficiaries and you need a pretty optimistic outlook to believe he had no part/knowledge in this little scam, scot free. Renault/the team, pretty much scot free. Of course there's reasons why all those scot free's came about, but together they make the "verdict" a farce.Much as I don't want to believe it, I think it was Symonds' idea. Flavio isn't really clever enough to come up with it either and it's the sort of tactical plan that Symonds would have a brainwave on.
Whatever transpires, I doubt we've seen the last of flabio though, heh.
Edited by hairyben on Thursday 24th September 18:29
You can't allocate punishment without assessing guilt, and that guilt should be 'proved without a doubt'. The FiA has gone to lengths to reproduce lots of transcripts (largely spin IMHO) that really seem to actually 'prove' very little. In fact if you step away from the situation they do seem to suggest that hidden agendas have been at work with credence attached to various hearsay, particularly from discreditable sources by the very nature of their 'testimonies'?.
I really can't decide whether any of them except PK are guilty, never mind the extent of their guilt. However having observed many desirous of solely putting the boot in for their own petty hatred /jealousy I am somewhat dismayed, that should have no place in deciding the outcome of such serious accusations (even on these pages IMHO). I would hope that most of us on here believe in the process of being innocent until proved guilty, and that the actual proof should be beyond any reasonable doubt. I am not a fan of Flav, but taking the Mick out of him and reveling in an injustice are completely different things. I'm sure I am not alone in being endeared to some of his more blustering ramblings and numerous exploits in broken English, as a rule we do kind of warm to eccentric 'loonies' as long as they are of the harmless variety
More importantly, I fear that we might experience a loss of eye candy if he is absent for too long - face it Bernie and Max haven't exactly got great scores in pulling competitions 
I really can't decide whether any of them except PK are guilty, never mind the extent of their guilt. However having observed many desirous of solely putting the boot in for their own petty hatred /jealousy I am somewhat dismayed, that should have no place in deciding the outcome of such serious accusations (even on these pages IMHO). I would hope that most of us on here believe in the process of being innocent until proved guilty, and that the actual proof should be beyond any reasonable doubt. I am not a fan of Flav, but taking the Mick out of him and reveling in an injustice are completely different things. I'm sure I am not alone in being endeared to some of his more blustering ramblings and numerous exploits in broken English, as a rule we do kind of warm to eccentric 'loonies' as long as they are of the harmless variety
More importantly, I fear that we might experience a loss of eye candy if he is absent for too long
- face it Bernie and Max haven't exactly got great scores in pulling competitions Pitpass have an unusually scathing article about Flav http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
I am taking at face value all the evidence that I’m aware of that has been released to the public. I am also making the leap of faith that it is truthful and has not been doctored.
There are requirements that are overarching for all ‘courts’, the main one being that they are fair.
In asking whether his punishment is fair or not you have to compare it with those involved in the incident and previous punishments for similar events.
No one disputes that there were three principles in the conspiracy, the only dispute being whether or not there were more. So for ‘fairness’ one must ask what the culpability is of each one.
The instigator would appear to be Piquet. Two statements, neither made under duress or promise of reward (on the [questionable] assumption that witness X’ job was not under threat from Mosley/FIA and that he’s not just bought a Porsche), implicate Piquet as the instigator. This, I would suggest, racks up his guilt to an extent. It also negates his defence in part that he was under pressure.
Piquet has made no statement where he suggests anything other than ‘regret’. I’ve not seen on where he accepts blame. This doesn’t increase his culpability but means there’s no reduction.
Piquet has the weight of the actus reus. In other words, if it hadn’t been for his actions, no substantive offence would have occurred. There would still have been the conspiracy though.
Piquet was given immunity. This tends to indicate that Mosley/FIA did not consider his offence particularly bad.
Pat was approached by Piquet. His duty is quite clear in the matter. Of this there can be no doubt. He should have knocked it on the head there and then. He failed in an important duty of his rank/office. This was made worse by taking it, apparently, to Briatore.
On the plus, mitigation, side for Pat, there has been no suggestion that he has told lies at any time. Indeed, during the much vaunted interview, he was very particular not to say anything that could be construed after as a lie. Further, he was offered immunity, which he refused. By being offered immunity it tends to indicate that Mosley/FIA did not think his offence was particularly bad.
Witness X also failed in a duty. He/she should, once he was aware of the conspiracy, have informed Mosley/FIA. He has defences for this – trust of Mosley being the one that came to my mind almost at once – so we can’t be too judgmental at this time. However, he/she was not offered immunity but was not punished. Therefore his act was considered very minor by Mosley/FIA.
Renault’s punishment was minor but then nothing was proved against them. They accepted vicarious liability. This can be described, rather loosely, as lack of supervision of staff.
Flav! Now what have we got against him? He was, given the (tainted?) evidence of Piquet that he was involved. This is confirmed by Witness X. There is nothing to support the suggestion that he bullied Piquet into the act. So the evidence we have is that he was approached by Symonds who brought Piquet’s suggestion. From then on Flav’s in deep do-do. He failed in his duty as the person in charge, both of Renault F1 and of Piquet. That’s the essence of his offences, but not, one might be surprised to find, of any charge.
Flav, by not being charged with any breach of regs, is placed in a very invidious position. His name is blackened, he is punished, without any chance of putting his side of the story, of pleading other facts, of giving mitigation. Whilst you might say he failed in one important aspect of his role so is guilty, the same can be said of Piquet.
So we have the situation where the other three – because that was what, in essence, witness X was, a party to the conspiracy – involved in the offence are all offered immunity to put their boss away. Before offering immunity one limit must be the nature of the offence. You can’t offer, for instance, a party to a murder immunity, especially the one who pulled the trigger. So by offering to all and sundry, Mosley is suggesting one of two things: the offences are not quite as serious as suggested, or that the offences were so dreadful, so remarkably repulsive that special steps are required. You take your pick.
So in coming to a decision on what punishment to mete out to Flav one has to establish the seriousness of the offence. Over and above the other conspirators, Flav was in charge. He takes the blame. He did not perform his duties as required.
It is a pretty serious offence. He has proved himself, I would suggest, incapable of performing the role of team manager. This is ignoring the presumption that the chap hasn’t been charged with any offences nor given a chance of defending himself properly.
What punishments have been given in similar circumstances to guide Mosley in coming to a decision as to what punishment to give? I can think of none. No help there. I would say that the duty of the court would be to remove him from managership of Renault – already done – and to ban him from further similar responsible positions in the sport. Done. I don’t think there was anything else Mosley/FIA could have done (I accept Flav not being charged can affect this) but I’ll like to come back to this one.
Banning from all aspects of the FIA? Not so sure about that. This is where his skills lie. Mosley is, in effect, stopping Flav from doing other more menial tasks where his undoubted – to Mosley – character flaws – so he should know – do not affect his ability to do the job. It is not good saying that Flav has been proved to be beyond employable because nothing has been proved against him. There has been no trial as such.
Managing drivers? That is, to me, just plain vicious. I can see no justification for that. It is a punishment and Flav has not been tried.
Renault’s punishment, or lack of one, is interesting. Misbehaving staff and lack of supervision is, in essence, the only thing that was proved against McLaren. Whilst McLaren pleased NG, that was in fact against other matters which later Mosley had to accept was quite correct. So McLaren £100m, Renault nothing.
To get back to Flav being banned from team management. I’m not so sure that is in Mosley/FIA’s remit. They do not licence team managers, there are no professional standards, so I don’t see how they can refuse permission for any team to employ him as they don’t need to ask. Further, with regards to management of drivers, again there is no licensing requirement.
So, in short, the punishments are, in my opinion, open to some degree of criticism.
One last bit:
And as for Flav not being intelligent enough to come up with a devious plan, well I’d suggest that history tell us otherwise. Just because he didn’t invent Channel 13 doesn’t mean he was not involved in it in a major way. And that is just one. I accept that the removal of the fuel filter was a stupid idea, as it turned out, but one wonders how long it had been missing before the fire.
There are requirements that are overarching for all ‘courts’, the main one being that they are fair.
In asking whether his punishment is fair or not you have to compare it with those involved in the incident and previous punishments for similar events.
No one disputes that there were three principles in the conspiracy, the only dispute being whether or not there were more. So for ‘fairness’ one must ask what the culpability is of each one.
The instigator would appear to be Piquet. Two statements, neither made under duress or promise of reward (on the [questionable] assumption that witness X’ job was not under threat from Mosley/FIA and that he’s not just bought a Porsche), implicate Piquet as the instigator. This, I would suggest, racks up his guilt to an extent. It also negates his defence in part that he was under pressure.
Piquet has made no statement where he suggests anything other than ‘regret’. I’ve not seen on where he accepts blame. This doesn’t increase his culpability but means there’s no reduction.
Piquet has the weight of the actus reus. In other words, if it hadn’t been for his actions, no substantive offence would have occurred. There would still have been the conspiracy though.
Piquet was given immunity. This tends to indicate that Mosley/FIA did not consider his offence particularly bad.
Pat was approached by Piquet. His duty is quite clear in the matter. Of this there can be no doubt. He should have knocked it on the head there and then. He failed in an important duty of his rank/office. This was made worse by taking it, apparently, to Briatore.
On the plus, mitigation, side for Pat, there has been no suggestion that he has told lies at any time. Indeed, during the much vaunted interview, he was very particular not to say anything that could be construed after as a lie. Further, he was offered immunity, which he refused. By being offered immunity it tends to indicate that Mosley/FIA did not think his offence was particularly bad.
Witness X also failed in a duty. He/she should, once he was aware of the conspiracy, have informed Mosley/FIA. He has defences for this – trust of Mosley being the one that came to my mind almost at once – so we can’t be too judgmental at this time. However, he/she was not offered immunity but was not punished. Therefore his act was considered very minor by Mosley/FIA.
Renault’s punishment was minor but then nothing was proved against them. They accepted vicarious liability. This can be described, rather loosely, as lack of supervision of staff.
Flav! Now what have we got against him? He was, given the (tainted?) evidence of Piquet that he was involved. This is confirmed by Witness X. There is nothing to support the suggestion that he bullied Piquet into the act. So the evidence we have is that he was approached by Symonds who brought Piquet’s suggestion. From then on Flav’s in deep do-do. He failed in his duty as the person in charge, both of Renault F1 and of Piquet. That’s the essence of his offences, but not, one might be surprised to find, of any charge.
Flav, by not being charged with any breach of regs, is placed in a very invidious position. His name is blackened, he is punished, without any chance of putting his side of the story, of pleading other facts, of giving mitigation. Whilst you might say he failed in one important aspect of his role so is guilty, the same can be said of Piquet.
So we have the situation where the other three – because that was what, in essence, witness X was, a party to the conspiracy – involved in the offence are all offered immunity to put their boss away. Before offering immunity one limit must be the nature of the offence. You can’t offer, for instance, a party to a murder immunity, especially the one who pulled the trigger. So by offering to all and sundry, Mosley is suggesting one of two things: the offences are not quite as serious as suggested, or that the offences were so dreadful, so remarkably repulsive that special steps are required. You take your pick.
So in coming to a decision on what punishment to mete out to Flav one has to establish the seriousness of the offence. Over and above the other conspirators, Flav was in charge. He takes the blame. He did not perform his duties as required.
It is a pretty serious offence. He has proved himself, I would suggest, incapable of performing the role of team manager. This is ignoring the presumption that the chap hasn’t been charged with any offences nor given a chance of defending himself properly.
What punishments have been given in similar circumstances to guide Mosley in coming to a decision as to what punishment to give? I can think of none. No help there. I would say that the duty of the court would be to remove him from managership of Renault – already done – and to ban him from further similar responsible positions in the sport. Done. I don’t think there was anything else Mosley/FIA could have done (I accept Flav not being charged can affect this) but I’ll like to come back to this one.
Banning from all aspects of the FIA? Not so sure about that. This is where his skills lie. Mosley is, in effect, stopping Flav from doing other more menial tasks where his undoubted – to Mosley – character flaws – so he should know – do not affect his ability to do the job. It is not good saying that Flav has been proved to be beyond employable because nothing has been proved against him. There has been no trial as such.
Managing drivers? That is, to me, just plain vicious. I can see no justification for that. It is a punishment and Flav has not been tried.
Renault’s punishment, or lack of one, is interesting. Misbehaving staff and lack of supervision is, in essence, the only thing that was proved against McLaren. Whilst McLaren pleased NG, that was in fact against other matters which later Mosley had to accept was quite correct. So McLaren £100m, Renault nothing.
To get back to Flav being banned from team management. I’m not so sure that is in Mosley/FIA’s remit. They do not licence team managers, there are no professional standards, so I don’t see how they can refuse permission for any team to employ him as they don’t need to ask. Further, with regards to management of drivers, again there is no licensing requirement.
So, in short, the punishments are, in my opinion, open to some degree of criticism.
One last bit:
Muzzer said:
Much as I don't want to believe it, I think it was Symonds' idea. Flavio isn't really clever enough to come up with it either . . .
That’s a very strange conclusion. There is absolutely no evidence against Pat for coming up with the plan. Pat’s behaviour before the hearing was such that he seemed to take great pains not to be put in a position where he might need to tell a lie. His post hearing statement was the only one that contained the word shame. I think it was more or less true, as he sees things. I’m not so sure we can say the same about Piquet’s. It takes no blame from him of course.And as for Flav not being intelligent enough to come up with a devious plan, well I’d suggest that history tell us otherwise. Just because he didn’t invent Channel 13 doesn’t mean he was not involved in it in a major way. And that is just one. I accept that the removal of the fuel filter was a stupid idea, as it turned out, but one wonders how long it had been missing before the fire.
Briatore Hits Back and it could get messy
Former Renault team boss Flavio Briatore has vowed to hit back at those who "betrayed" him in the race-fixing scandal.
The Italian received an undefined ban from Formula 1 after being found guilty of having conspired to fix the result of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.
Briatore will also not be allowed to participate in any FIA-sanctioned series or manage any Formula 1 drivers.
The 58-year-old, in a response to a selected group of Italian journalist, said he will eventually emerge victorious and have a "great party" to celebrate.
"I've been betrayed by my own world," Briatore was quoted as saying by the Repubblica newspaper.
"In the end I will win and, you'll see, we'll have a great party. It will be organized well and we'll invite all those people who have stayed close to me during these tough times.
"(This response) is just a matter of good manners, because I don't want to say absolutely anything. I'm not giving any quotes. I will talk only at the right time, assuming that they still allow me to talk.
"Look at the verdict the FIA has put online on Tuesday: it is not about me."
Former Renault team boss Flavio Briatore has vowed to hit back at those who "betrayed" him in the race-fixing scandal.
The Italian received an undefined ban from Formula 1 after being found guilty of having conspired to fix the result of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.
Briatore will also not be allowed to participate in any FIA-sanctioned series or manage any Formula 1 drivers.
The 58-year-old, in a response to a selected group of Italian journalist, said he will eventually emerge victorious and have a "great party" to celebrate.
"I've been betrayed by my own world," Briatore was quoted as saying by the Repubblica newspaper.
"In the end I will win and, you'll see, we'll have a great party. It will be organized well and we'll invite all those people who have stayed close to me during these tough times.
"(This response) is just a matter of good manners, because I don't want to say absolutely anything. I'm not giving any quotes. I will talk only at the right time, assuming that they still allow me to talk.
"Look at the verdict the FIA has put online on Tuesday: it is not about me."
MartG said:
Pitpass have an unusually scathing article about Flav http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_ite...
That's a very vindictive article.Mike Lawrence sometimes has a point but this piece reads like someone sounding off down the pub, making facts out of rumour and putting the boot in although he wouldn't dare to when the guy in question was still around.
Not his finest hour is it.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff