I have read today that sections of the media seem to think that the FIA ruling on Renault was a cop-out and that the French car company escaped lightly from the Singapore scandal. I think that this is a lot of rubbish. I don’t agree with Max Mosley or the World Council on a lot of things, but this was the correct decision. To my mind Renault was as much a victim of the affair as was the sport as a whole. Does anyone honestly believe that Carlos Ghosn and his besuited bureaucats in Paris had any idea what was happening in Singapore? Of course not.
And if they had known, would they have agreed it was a good idea? That is a more interesting question given the corruption that has too often been exposed in French industry and politics. This was highlighted yesterday by the start of a trial in Paris in which Dominique de Villepin, the former French prime minister, stands accused of trying to smear his former rival Nicolas Sarkozy before the 2007 election. However, in the case of Ghosn I simply do not believe it. He has made a name for himself by being a completely straight-shooter and such men do not generally surround themselves with people likely to get them into trouble. Ghosn’s only failing – and something that always seemed rather odd – was for him to keep Flavio Briatore as head of the F1 team when he took over as Renault chairman back in April 2005.
But let us keep this in perspective. Ghosn has more important fish to fry than Formula 1. The sport is barely a blip on his radar screen. Back in early 2005 Renault was winning. The team delivered World Championships in 2005 and 2006 and so there was really no need for change. When Patrick Faure reached 60 in 2006 he was replaced as head of the F1 team by Alain Dassas. When Dassas was needed to become chief financial officer of Nissan at the end of 2007 he was replaced by Bernard Rey. This was all just business as usual.
By the end of 2007 it was becoming clear that the team was not doing well. Giancarlo Fisichella and Heikki Kovalainen won nothing and scored just one podium between them. Renault slipped to third in the Constructors’ Championship. Then the team was caught up in the espionage scandal and in December that year was found guilty of breaching article 151(c) of the International Sporting Code, but escaped a penalty. If one is looking for a poor FIA decision this was it.
As the economy worsened and Renault’s financial results dived, so pressure grew on the F1 team to cut costs. As the latest figures reveal Renault F1 did no such thing, its spending going up dramatically in 2008. The team made a big loss. So in the autumn of 2008 the team was spending like crazy and failing to deliver results. This was a bad combination.
It was against this background that the Singapore plot was hatched. It was designed to give Renault success but the car company was being hoodwinked just as much as the rest of the F1 world. The real motivation behind the idea was very simple: Briatore and Symonds wanted to preserve their jobs. Thus they were conning the management of Renault that they were doing a good job. The risk they took in doing that was to put Renault’s international reputation on the line and in the last few weeks Renault has paid a mighty price in terms of bad publicity. In my opinion this is punishment enough for the company. If there was a hint that Renault top management knew about the plot then I would agree that the punishment was a cop-out, but there is no such evidence and it is clear that when the company realised what was happening, it did not even try to defend its errant staff. They were gone. Renault thus did the right thing
You may read elsewhere, if you can be bothered, that Formula 1 will miss Flavio Briatore.
Poppycock.
Formula 1 misses no-one. It is a world that moves ever onward. As Charles de Gaulle said: “The graveyards of the world are filled with indispensable men.” Briatore got what he had coming to him and Formula 1 is better off without him. You can attack Max Mosley for not acting sooner in this scandal and by doing so of seeming to be protecting the plotters, but I really believe that if the FIA had tried to nail Briatore without Nelson Piquet’s evidence, it would not have been successful. I think that the FIA’s handling of the situation was actually very smart: keeping Piquet’s revelations quiet until the Renault people had been ambushed with the interrogations in Spa.
And those who think that Max had it in for Flavio, ask yourselves this: why did he not crucify him over the McLaren data in the Renault computers in 2007? At that point the Italian was pretty much on the ropes and the FIA let him crawl away without any real punishment. No, that argument does not make sense.
I am not a Briatore fan. I never have been. I always felt that he was in the wrong business. Racing people like racing. Briatore just liked being on TV and making money. He was good at both. When he first arrived in F1 he brought with him sharp practices which were new to the F1 wheeler-dealers of the era. This changed the way that business was done in F1 and, as far as I am concerned, it was to the detriment of the sport. I always believed that one day he would get F1 into trouble and I did nothing to help him. He did not like this. We did not enjoy a good relationship.
Briatore made himself a brand and turned that into cash. There are some who think that his brand values were chic, I did not. I think the man had little taste and little class. Maybe he found humour in getting idiotic wealthy people to spend mad amounts of money on tasteless Billionaire baubles. Who knows? Who cares.
Flavio’s boat has sailed and F1 is better off without him. He was, in the end, his own executioner and that was a suitable and rather satisfying end.
“I didn’t attend the funeral,” Mark Twain once wrote, “but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”
My sentiments entirely.
joeblogsf1 
Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about! It’s a prize-winning article you’ve got here, if ever there are prizes in F1 journalism.
I can only award you with FOFA t-shirt!
Some sense and clear thinking, at last, in the Renault/Briatore episode. Thanks for putting it so clearly.
Briatore is, pure and simple, a flashy wide boy living an adolescent’s dream. Taste or class only noticeable by their absence.
The next question: when do the management contracts get torn up? And will Alonso retract his “Briatore is one of the good guys” comment. No such support reported to come from either Heikki or Mark.
So fare well then Flav! A nice bit of editorial there Mr. Saward. I’m wondering if Bernie will distance himself from his portly friend now the dust has settled? I’m keen to see the FA boot him off QPR too. All that he’ll be left with is his ‘Billionare’ clothing store on Sloane Street although why anybody would want to dress like him is beyone me ;o)
I’m a bit sorry for Pat Symonds though. He wasn’t a bad bloke really.
I agree with all of this. Today most of the papers are reporting that Renault F1 got off lightly. But the conspiracy was between Briatore, Symonds and Piquet Jr. When Renault found our what had happened, they cooperated fully and sacked those responsible. A punishment that would have cost 700 employees their jobs would have been grossly unfair.
So what are the journos playing at? Simple: they are trying to perpetuate the scandal. “FIA makes sensible judgement” is not a good headline.
In 2007 Flavio wasn’t banking the FOTA drum, so why would Max be interested in crucifying him then?
No, I think this is all to do with the way Flavio has been grandstanding with FOTA, and Max took the chance to strike.
I agree though that this is a good decision.
It is true that a few months ago FOTA and Bernie Ecclestone did gang up on Max Mosley over the Concorde Agreement and make him accept compromises he did not wish to accept. However, that was more to do with Luca di Montezemolo than Briatore. And were the changes really that important? As he heads for retirement Mosley can say that he got most of what he wanted. He did get defeated and perhaps that hurt.
Oh well, I guess if that was the motive we should watch out for scandals involving Ecclestone, Montezemolo and Toyota’s John Howett… If we see such things then the FOTA argument will become much more valid…
Nice post Joe.
I can see the logic of this verdict – the evidence does suggest that this was the work of 3 people alone – all now gone. Why sacrifice a team and hundreds of employees?
However – this case really does highlight the fact that the FIA got it so, so wrong with the McLaren case in 2007.
They set a huge precedent, which every punishment they now hand out is compared with.
While the Renault judgement may be right – it does not compare with the Mclaren punishment by any stretch of the imagination.
Joe
Whilst I agree with 99% of the sentiment in this post, I can’t help but feel that someone high up in the FIA got the man he was after. Way back [actually, not all that way back at all, it just feels like it is] when spygate was still muddying the waters, Flavio was less on the radar of Mosley. He was Bernie’s chum and to some extent, had that as a buffer. However, even Bernie’s patronage was not enough to save him, once Max had the ammunition he needed to get rid of one the main players in this summers breakaway threat – the event I think left a desire to see Briatore hang.
Something that hasn’t been mentioned yet, or not in the places that I have been reading, when MM referred to Flav and the others supporting the breakaway earlier this summer as ‘loonies’ and the rest of that provocative interview, Max already knew about events at Singapore if the leak about Nelson Snr’s interview with Charlie Whiting last year is true. Love him or hate him, there is no doubt Max is a very clever operator and will happily spend a long time reeling in his enemy before striking the killer blow as it were. I recall a comment from Bernie not so long ago, which I think was in reference to Luca Montezemolo, but could equally be applied to Flavio – it went somethig like “never get into an argument with Max, because then he has you, he will always win”
However, when all is done, the sport is rid of someone I neither liked nor trusted, plus Max is off into the sunset [or where ever] so its win-win for F1…..
Briatore will be soon forgotten. It’s an odd world where a Mosley manages to look a little better, if only in the exercise of power.
But the fact remains that not only did Renault hire and keep Briatore, but it also must have repeatedly made it plain to him that results were required, or else.
Doubtful that they thought he would go that far. Doubtful indeed that anyone imagined such a bizarre response to their pressure as this one. But it’s plain that corporate disdain at Renault for F1 must have been pretty low all along. It’s difficult to picture him sitting down across the desk in some executive’s office without seeming a complete clown in that environment. Perhaps he wore a suit for a change. Perhaps his French is better than his English. But you have to wonder how Renault truly views the racing end, if that is who they left in charge of its most visible component.
As for the people in the media and fanbase who would defend Briatore, you have to accept that for many people — the Briatores and Piquets and their whole puffed-up badboy lot — Singapore 2008 was not a fix, it was “strategy”. And incidentally (they would point out), it worked.
An interesting article and to a large extent I agree that Renault were also victims and the company did not deserve a massive punishment. However it does seem strange to me that there was no sporting punishment for the sporting team. Although the cheating was done by individuals, the sporting team benefited from the results, and it feels like there has been no punishment for that. I would have thought a points deduction from this year or next year’s constructors’ championship would have been in order.
So to summarise: I think the FIA got the corporate punishment right but neglected a sporting punishment.
A fair point
I always felt a little bit conflicted, if not soiled, for being a Renault fan. I loved how the were able to hand it to Ferrari a few years back- it was about time somebody did- but there was something about Flavio that didn’t seem quite right. Now we see what the guy’s really about. It’s just a shame, that’s all, the whole thing. I’m sure he’s sleeping well, though.
Excellent point, and I love how you ended it….
“I didn’t attend the funeral,” Mark Twain once wrote, “but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.”
My sentiments entirely.
thank you for that golden nugget of info….
Great analysis as allways. I think that all those journalists who are saying penalty is too light simply wanted to see the repeat of the McLaren case.
Do you perhaps know how much is Renault forced to pay ”voluntarily” for FIA road safety program? I think that one is a hidden fine.
One question, Joe. If it is as you say that Mosley didn’t have it in for Briatore, can you say that Briatore was not the one who tipped the News of the World off about Mosley’s prostitute spank-party?
I have no idea who (if anyone) tipped of the News of the World. My feeling is that there was no tip-off.
I agree with Jon. Even if you ignore the precedent set by the McLaren fiasco in 2007, which one would have to argue was a poor decision by the FIA and just because it occurred, does not mean it’s correct to keep making the same mistakes. So I accept that the punishment shouldn’t be as severe as McLaren’s, despite the crime being more serious. It had to be a more realistic punishment.
The punishment metered out to the individuals was about right. I think, for once, the FIA were firm but fair. I also agree that, living just down the road from Enstone, it would be terrible for all of the innocent employees to suffer due to the actions of three men who have subsequently been “dealt with” by the team and now the FIA. It would, of course, also be bad for F1 to lose another constructor and more imporantly another engine supplier.
However, there is such a thing as corporate liability and Renault employed these people and put them in positions of power. I would agree that it would be unfair to punish the innocent going forward for the actions of the guilty in the past – so a fine, exclusion from the Championship, loss of points, etc. would not be a good move. However, the team should not be allowed to keep the gains they received as a result of the actions taken by Briatore et al. This is just plain wrong!
Perhaps the most fitting punishment (and one I have heard mentioned elsewhere) is that Renault should be officially disqualified from the 2008 World Championship, as McLaren were in 2007. This in turn will mean that they did not finish 4th in the Championship and should not be entitled to the revenue they received for this. They should be ordered to repay this income, in full, which could be ploughed into FIA road safety projects (which I know they are donating to, but doubtful to the tune of ~$50m, which may or may not be an accurate figure). Repayment of this income could be in installments over a 3-5 year period so as not to financially destablise the team.
Renault are then “punished” in that they receive no gain from the actions of their employees but the innocent parties are not punished going forward and Renault can put this behind them.
Hi Joe,
A very good post and balanced, logical description of it all. I think this blog and to a great extent James Allen’s are not the places the fanboys go and thus differing opinions are able to be aired with polite counter responses offering a different opinion.
Now I admit I do not have a paddock pass and am not in the F1 industry thus on the inside. Therefore, I can only form opinions from what I read on various websites or coffee machine discussions with other interested people. Having said that, I get the impression there was still an underlying sense that Max wanted to get Flav before he left. I can almost imagine him ticking off Ron Dennis from his list before lining up Flav. As you say, he could have hung him out to dry for the Renault spying incident but chose not to do so. Why? I suppose we will never know.
I chuckled also at your comment about Flav’s need to get himself on telly. I suppose Martin Brundle’s gridwalk will now be Flav-free. I think every week you could spot Flav hanging around presumably hoping Martin would thrust the mike under his nose for an unintelligible opinion. Shame his pitpass is taken away – he could join Legard in the commentary box and they could spout nonsense together. Pace Flavio…
Joe, I agree with a nearly everything that you’ve said and I think it is a good thing Renault are still in the sport.
However, I disagree with one of the first things you wrote:
To my mind Renault was as much a victim of the affair as was the sport as a whole. Does anyone honestly believe that Carlos Ghosn and his besuited bureaucats in Paris had any idea what was happening in Singapore? Of course not.
It doesn’t matter if they knew or approved. The point is it happened on their watch and they should have had better control of their F1 Management. At work if one of my team messes up, I quite rightly, am held to account by those above.
I also think the punishment looks “light” when compared to McLaren’s treatment and agree with Jon that a sporting punishment was called for. It seems a bit of a fudged punishment to me designed to keep Renault in the sport.
Adding to Jon’s comment – while I also agree with almost all that you have written, I think that more attention needs to be paid to the distinction between the Renault parent company and the Renault F1 formula 1 team.
Your (and Max’s) argument is that, since the parent company did not know, there should be no punishment for the team. It is true that the bad publicity can be argued to be penalty enough for Renault – and of course nobody wants Renault to pull out – but what if there was no parent company?
What if Frank Williams and Patrick Head had got Nakajima to crash – or Ross Brawn and Nick Fry got (which one?) of their guys to crash. They wouldn’t, of course, but had they done so, would their resignations save the team from any immediate sanction. Would they be allowed to keep a championship won as a result?
Maybe it would – maybe if Ron Dennis and Paddy Lowe had resigned from McLaren in 2007, there would not have been a big fine or disqualification.
Nevertheless, it seems crazy that Renault get to keep the points and the money earned as a result of the Singapore race.
The English press may think Renault got off lightly, but on the other hand the Italian one is quite awkwardly coming in defence of Flavio. The headlines (quite buried in the internal pages of the papers actually) talk about Briatore being framed and that the whole fault lies with Piquet. “Crazy ruling” etc.
The dean of the Italian motorsport journalists even ventured to suggest in a radio interview that the plot was done to keep Renault in F1 through some good results, and therefore save hundreds of jobs in the factory. I felt sorry for him.
I largely concur with your perspective on Renault’s punishment. What I struggle to reconcile, however, is the following:
McLaren’s fine: $100,000,000.00
Renault’s fine: $0.00
Ok, we know Renault came clean ASAP while McLaren was, er, less than straight-forward. But that fails to fully explain the magnitude of difference in the fines. I don’t agree with McLaren’s egregious fine, but it does set a precedent.
And let’s not forget Toyota’s punishment a few years back — when the company also didn’t know about the actions being taken by the team. An explanation (excuse?) which, by the way, in no way excuses such actions. On the one hand, it’s impossible for management to know everything in any large organization. On the other hand, it’s also entirely possible that such lapses reveal a lack of sufficient structure/discipline/oversight.
All the above were different “crimes”, of course, but was Renault’s the most detrimental to the popular perception of the sport? There may have different views on this, but it certainly did the sport no favors…
Would Renault (the team, and their engine supply) have left the sport under a fine approaching $100M? Probably. Is it a different economy than when McLaren was fined? Unquestionably. Did both of the above influence the FIA’s decision not to fine Renault? Probably. Should it have? Probably not (moral compass, right-&-wrong, and all that).
Hi Joe,
A nice article, in the way you have written it but fairly one-sided as far as the recent Singapore Scandal and its aspects are concerned.
“I think the man had little taste and little class”
Talking of individuals – I think you have unfairly analysed Briatore’s character as an individual. You have said of him of being gawdy, spending millions of dollars on unproductive junk, and getting others like him to flock the paddock. I don’t think this is of any consequence to anything. He can be what he wants but in the end he runs an F1 team and competes with others, who I am sure are not overwhelmed and intimidated by the personal financial clout he has and the flamboyance he indulges in.
Not to mention what Mr. Max Mosley has done by having his derriere shown globally. Or what Mr. BCE did when he spoke about dictators and pogroms and got away with. Just a few examples that come to mind that find of having little class and not finding a mention in the article, as Mosley was an individual central to this entire episode.
One may argue that what Mosley did was to be kept under wraps. Well, let’s not forget what Briatore and SYMONDS did was also supposed to be kept under wraps until….
“Briatore just liked being on TV and making money…brought with him sharp practices… which were new to the F1 wheeler-dealers of the era… it was to the detriment of the sport.”
– And you think Max doesn’t like being on TV? I haven’t seen the organiser of any other professional sport being on TV or interacting with the media beyond what is necessary for the positive marketing and publicity of the sport.
Talking of sharp practices introduced to the detriment of the sport. Who do you think foments these so-called sharp practices in F1? Or the better question is: why do you think these so-called sharp practices fester and thrive in F1 as they have over the past few years? And why do you think F1 , over the last decade, has become one of the most watched sports and a multi-multi-billion dollar business in the first place?
Simple answer: because the regulators and the promoters of the sport themselves are corrupt and partial. They use opportunities to settle scores while taking the public for a ride. It all about who is in which camp and for how long. Vested interests, huge amounts of quid, return on investment and the spectacle and the entertainment. That’s all that is there to it.
“Racing people like racing.”
How do you define racing people and how do you define racing? I am not looking for examples in names, but for traits of racing people, so that I may be able to compare if Briatore lacked any.
My opinion on this point is that it was actually Briatore, who laid emphasis on improving the show and calling for wheel-to-wheel racing back in the early 90’s. He argued that people like to see great drivers and Senna and Schumacher fight it on the track and that people may not be able to appreciate the intense technology that goes into F1 and therefore are not really interested in great engineering feats achieved by spending huge amounts of money.
Please don’t conveniently forget that Renault won 4 titles under Briatore. I am sure that you wouldn’t have written at the time that Briatore is not a racing person.
It is easy now to lay any blame on the Briatore wagon and push it over the cliff.
“And those who think that Max had it in for Flavio, ask yourselves this: why did he not crucify him over the McLaren data in the Renault computers in 2007?”
Max Mosley had another big and more important fish to fry, Ron Dennis. The master politician and skillful manipulator of the media that he is, Max Mosley , at the time, couldn’t have allowed the opportunity to deteriorate into something that could be dubbed as personal vendetta.
As recent as 2007 – 2008, it was Briatore who initiated the point of reducing costs which was in direct concurrence with Max Mosley’s thoughts. He did not superficially have an enemy in Flavio Briatore at the time.
When FOTA was founded and Briatore became a stauch ally of LDM against Mosley and his governance, true feelings came out. As we all know, during this stand-off, Mosley and Briatore, apart from LDM, were at loggerheads and passing judgements on each other under full media scrutiny.
“but I really believe that if the FIA had tried to nail Briatore without Nelson Piquet’s evidence, it would not have been successful…If there was a hint that Renault top management knew about the plot then I would agree that the punishment was a cop-out, but there is no such evidence and it is clear that when the company realised what was happening, it did not even try to defend its errant staff. They were gone. Renault thus did the right thing.”
Compare the situation of the FIA and Renault back in 2008. Are they not similiar? And isn’t the logic you present just too simple? In your previous posts, you have tried to bring out the point that the public needs to know if Alonso knew about the plan pre/post the race or not. You mentioned that the FIA was just to quick in dismissing him as a possible conspirator, despite the lack of evidence against him. The argument was that he at least must have had suspicion on what went on that weekend, even if he did keep all that to himself. We are speaking on 1 individual here.
Now we are talking about an organisation involved in motorsports for a good part of the last 20 years. Don’t you think they would have suspected what went on in Singapore ? Do you think Bernard Rey passed-off that accident and the consequent win as fortuitous, looked-up and thanked the heavens ? Or are you saying that the Renault management is incompetent to understand what goes in F1 and on a race weekend ?
No, the simple truth is that Renault had just too much to lose. Renault were in no different a position than the FIA in October 2008 when this issue first came to the FIA’s knowledge. Renault would have been in an awkward position without Piquet first testifying about the conspiracy. It would not have made any sense and like you have said they would have failed to nail the conspirators. What Renault executed was a risk mitigation strategy, similiar to what McLaren did at the beginning of the year. And let’s not forget, Lewis Hamilton didn’t receive any sanctions in the liar-gate scandal. He, after all, was a key guilty co-conspirator in the plan. Why is that? Could you care to explain it?
“I always believed that one day he (FB) would get F1 into trouble and I did nothing to help him.”
And what are your opinions on Michael Schumacher, Jean Todt, Ron Dennis and Lewis Hamilton. Did you always as well believe that they will bring F1 into trouble with their histroinics ? Just curious to know.
“Briatore made himself a brand and turned that into cash.”
– That is what everyone does to make a living. And that is what F1 personifies more than anything else in the world. And you are part of this industry, trying to help create and turn that brand into cash….
And I am not even delving into what the FIA is, has done over the past few years, and what it should be.
I can understand why you have written it the way you have. In your own words: I am not a Briatore fan. I never have been.
But as I said I still liked the article.
This is a blog. This my opinion. I don’t doubt some people disagree with me. That is fine. As to Schumacher, Todt, Dennis and Hamilton, I will say the following. Michael Schumacher was a great driver who ruined his fine record by behaviour that meant he will never be compared to the greats, no matter what the statistics may say.
Todt was highly effective at Peugeot and Ferrari. I believe that he has never shown himself to be very sporting, believing that efficiency is what brings the best results for his employer. A lot of dubious things happened during his watch at Ferrari. He made a lot of enemies as a result. If he is elected FIA President he has the opportunity to present a very different Todt. His “employer” will then be the sport so if he protects the sport and tries to make it successful with the same kind of energy then it may end up being a good thing. I think he needs to watch out for where the limits are.
I think Ron Dennis is a much-misunderstood figure. He does not help himself but that is part of the enigma of the man. I believe that he has always had the best interest of the sport in his mind. I will not say more about 2007 because I always get into fights about that…
Lewis Hamilton is a great racing driver. The whole Melbourne lying thing was simply because he was caught in the crossfire of someone else’s fight.
These are my opinions…
Would you not concede that Mosley’s feelings towards Briatore may have hardened somewhat after Biatore forced him out of his job.
Remember that the commercial situation in F1 was very different in late 2007 than now, there were not 3-4 teams waiting to take Renault’s place should they quit the sport. I also believe that the 2007 spying case was a direct attack on Ron Dennis and a favour to Jean Todt rather than a real attempt to right any wrong.
FIA courts are show trials, nothing more. Arriving at the morally right decision, or even the right decision for the sport is never the primary goal.
This saga was always a matter of revenge on Briatore. FIA judgements are all about exercising the whims of the current President. I agree completely with your summary that Renault were equally wronged by Briatore but the fact that this is in some ways the ‘right decision’ there is little disguising the real reasons behind why the FIA took it.
Joe, this is not just a blog but this is a great blog and it is a great blog because of your opinions. As you say, people may not agree with everything you say, but that is the nature of opinions.
Don’t stop having opinions.
Also, my question regarding the News of the World was not an accusation or a challenge, it was genuine, because even if Briatore did not do it, Mosley may think/assume he did it.
I agree that the FIA’s decision is defensible – and indeed Joe has done a better job defending it than Max. But how does one reconcile it with the McLaren penalty for “spygate” (actually a very inappropriate name, in my view), or Renault’s non-penalty in the same affair, or any one of many other eccentric FIA-imposed penalties? Each one is defended by the Federation with equal smoothness, but the underlying principles that dictate penalties seem to be a constantly moving target. That being so, people start to look for other underlying principles – and motivations like personal vendettas or team favouritism become all too easy to believe.
How about this for a fair resolution: Renault to lose all their FOM prize money from 2008 with said funds to be rebated to McLaren, thus providing some reparation for the draconian fine of 2007 (to the tune of about 50%, I would hazard to guess). I don’t believe Todt could or would bring himself to make such a move if elected FIA president. I can see Ari doing it, though. He’s got clean hands (and I don’t mean in the Italian sense of the term).
As for Flav, I would like to help people to see him a little more clearly based on my personal experience. I worked for the guy for six months. He asked me to stay on, but at a price, in terms of ethics and potential legal liability, I was not willing to pay. After I left, Flav and one of his wretched toadies put some effort into (successfully) blackballing me with another client with whom he had influence. This made life quite difficult for a short while, but I soon found replacement work in F1 with a couple of fellow former Flav victims, of whom I remain only a small example among many.
As Joe is often at pains to point out, within the paddock distinctions are made between those you can trust and those you cannot. There is always a steady supply of the latter, but also enough of the former to make working in F1 a pleasure. It can be a great way of life once you sort out the good guys from the bad.
So Briatore’s departure from the scene is an unalloyed good thing because, in public and in private, he only corrupted, degraded, and disgraced our sport over his two decades in it. Of course, Mosley is guilty of the same to some extent, but might at least claim something of a positive legacy (from his non-F1 efforts at the FIA) when he leaves the stage.
And anyway, who can argue with the spectacle of thugs bumping each other off?
While I agree with you that Renault top management would of had no clue what went on.
Perception is reality in marketing,
All big money sponsors main concern is not how passionate motor racing fans react to the effective slap on the wrist Renault got, but the average punter does not know the team management are so removed from the Renault company, to a casual mass market observer this may look like the FIA is looking after Renault and feathering its own nest. What bank, insurance company brand will want to be on the side of the Renault car now? No, this is not over in a commercial or brand image sense. I am surprised Bernie does not see this.
For F1 to not be badly tarnished from this, Renault needs to be seen to be punished big time.
To be seen to be sincerely contrite Renault F1 Team will have to disqualify itself from all results in 2008 and 2009 up to 2009 SIngapore Grand Prix or something dramatic, and to back words with tangible action pay a huge amount of money to a very global charity to show to the mass market they are good guys after all. They could announce this massive donation to a good lasting cause in Singapore this weekend where it all happened twelve months ago. They should publicly thank Piquet for bringing out truth of what was happening in their waywood team. Just keeping on like FIA has presented will do damage to the sport and to Renaults brand in mass market eyes and they are the ones who buy most products, not he tiny percentage of hard core F1 fans who will follow the sport regardless.
I find myself in total agreement with your piece Mr Saward and believe it should be read with the one in the main section of the Sunday Times this week. Braitore came into F1 as part of his career with the Beneton family and milked it for all it was worth. Many F1 team principles have made lots of money but most started as racers and earned money Bernie brought to the sport. Briatore saw the money and learned about the racing but he corrupted the team and the sport, perhaps more than we realise
Just what he will do to replace the fantastic sums he has “earned” with his many interests remains to be seen but many in the press report his ban from F1, it is much more than that, as I understand it he is banned from MOTORSPORT, there is a big difference.
I am firmly in the “Renault got off too lightly camp” on this one. However, I am happy that they did not recieve some McLaren-esque “Mega-Penalty” that would have driven them from the sport. It was not, in my opinion a well-balanced judgement.
If Briatore’s, ahem, “style” was clear for the reasonably attentive fan to fathom, than surely Renault’s top brass would be similarly aware. Yes, they did not directly participate in the Singapore shenanigans, but they hired the people that did. No one is THAT surprised that Briatore would have involved himself in this, so how can Renault be given such a free pass?
The lesson is clear here: Hire whomever you want to run your team, but keep them at arms-length. When the poop hits the fan, have them leave the team, be suitably contrite to the federation and it should all be OK. No, I would say F1 failed to make an appropriate stand here.
you didnt like him then…. how about some comment on please on poor Pat Symonds (or wasn’t he?)
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your revert and for sharing your perspective to my queries. I must admit that in the past few days, whatever I have read on your blog, I have liked it for the way you have written it and the perspective you bring to an episode.
And I really appreciate the personal touch on the blog.
Thanks again.
Regards.
Joe Saward, FIA President.
Has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
GD
“And those who think that Max had it in for Flavio, ask yourselves this: why did he not crucify him over the McLaren data in the Renault computers in 2007? At that point the Italian was pretty much on the ropes and the FIA let him crawl away without any real punishment. No, that argument does not make sense.”
I think you’re forgetting a little thing called FOTA, which Flav played his part in.
I am sorry Joe but I totally disagree with you on this. Whether the Renault main board knew or not is irrelevant. The Renault team took actions worthy of severe punishment and not this fudge.
Did the Mercedes-Benz main board know about Ferrari data being in the possesion of McLaren employees? Did the main board of Dubai Mumtalakat or did Mansour Ojjeh? That accounts for 85% of the McLaren shareholding with no known knowledge of the facts.
McLaren were fined $100 million dollars. Renault then had their own spy case where most of their senior management admitted knowing about or having seen the McLaren drawings or files. The team received no punishiment whatever for that. Now we have another major ‘crime’ by Renault and yet again they go unpunished.
Renault have effectively been given carte blanche to do what they like. McLaren were hammered simply because they are committed to F1. Renault are seen to be prepared to pull out at a moments notice if they are unhppy so they can do what they like without punishment.
This punishment is very very light by any standards. How can Renault receive no punishment now when a few years ago Eddie Irvine ended up with something like a four race ban for contributing to causing a crash in Brazil when it was clear to anyone that he did not cause the crash? How can something that happens during a race like the Irvine situation warrant a greater penalty than a conspiracy to manufacture an accident to the benefit of the teams other driver.
It is beyond me that the WMSC can let Renault’s representative state that Renault F1 were the victims without challenging him. Renault F1 were the perpetrators. He then goes on to say Renault didn’t benefit. So world wide publicity as the winner of the first F1 night race is worthless. Something that was carried by every major news service in the world has no value.
I really cannot see how this is in anyway a proportionate penalty and I am surprised you think otherwise. Are we really at the point where anyone who supplies engines is playing to a different set of rules to teams who don’t? That seemed to be what Eddie Jordan was suggesting on TV this morning.
Yes, if you compare it to the McLaren decision it is not right, but then I would argue that the McLaren was wrong, so this one is right!
Joe, first of all I need to thank you for this blog and the effort you put into it. Your opinionated writing is excellent indeed and probably for that reason it generates many interesting comments from so many clever people with good arguments. Therefore I see no need you should defend yourself for it, claiming it is “only” a blog etc. It is Your blog and that’s it.
As much as I can remember your writing (i.e. grandprix.com) was always pretty opinionated, what I always admired even if I often did not agree with your reasoning. But with a blog you even made a step forward: you gave us, your readers, a chance to counter your opinions. It all takes quite some courage, I’d say, so we’d only have to congratulate you for it.
When judging your writing we should also not forget that you do not mull over a story for several days to think over all the possible implications. You’re giving us very prompt and very elaborate stories what is an incredible effort even for an experienced writer. Therefore it is not difficult for us to find discutable bits in a wealth of information and opinion.
I can give you an example from the very story from above where you wrote:
“A lot of dubious things happened during his (Jean Todt’s) watch at Ferrari. He made a lot of enemies as a result. If he is elected FIA President he has the opportunity to present a very different Todt. His “employer” will then be the sport so if he protects the sport and tries to make it successful with the same kind of energy then it may end up being a good thing.”
My basic understanding of these words leads me to a conclusion that even Flavio Briatore might be a perfectly good candidate for the FIA president… providing he would be as efficient as he was in the recent past, but now submited to the good of his new employer. It is interesting you somehow omitted the other activities of FIA as the motorsport would be the deciding or prevailing factor for presidential election. In spite of you frequently reminding us that F1-world is too self absorbed and incapable of seeing beyond their carbon-fibre noses. 🙂
I’m not sure I can 100% agree with you here Joe. For the team to go ostensibly unpunished sends the wrong signal to the outside world. OK, we know that there are mitigating circumstances – such as the apparent disconnect between the the Renault board and the maverick race team – but not all casual observers will necessarily be aware of these and will only see a cheating sports team getting away with it.
Help anyone out there! Why am I loosing text in my posts?