In the recent months I have seen a number of media outlets quoting the thoughts of the disgraced Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds on the subject of Formula 1 motor racing. I find this astonishing. I fully understand why they might wish to be quoted in the media, to keep their names in the spotlight, but I fail to see what any publication would want to associate itself with a pair of individuals who damaged the image of the sport considerably by orchestrating a scam in Singapore in 2008. They were caught, admitted what they had done and were thrown out of the sport. OK, the FIA bungled the punishment, but settlements were reached with all concerned and the federation has since created a system of licensing to stop anything like that ever happening again.
I firmly believe that such licences should not be granted to anyone who has previously involved in such activities.
The reason I hold these views is that I believe that all those involved in a sport should aspire to winning in a clean and correct manner and not resort to underhand activities that undermine the very value of the sport. You can call that old-fashioned, if you like, but what point is there in competing to find out who is the best cheat? Or who can pay the referee the most money? I long ago lost interest in sports where performance-enhancing drugs have been seen to affect performance. These men and women may still be great athletes, but I am not interested in knowing who has the best chemist.
And let us put this into some perspective. A few days ago the Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld a lifetime suspension given to a Ukrainian soccer referee for not reporting a bribe offered to him for a Europa League match. UEFA, European soccer’s ruling body, suspended Oriekhov for life for failing to immediately report the bribe offer. Look back a little further and you will find that former Jamaican track star Raymond Stewart was kicked out of the athletics for life for allegedly obtaining performance-enhancing drugs for his athletes. In Australia William Morunga was banned for life from rugby league for cannabis use. He is not allowed to be involved in the game in any capacity, including training with teammates, competing, or acting in any support role such as coaching or managing. There are numerous examples of athletes who have been banned for drug use, while Pakistan cricketers Mohammad Yousuf and Younus Khan were banned from representing their country indefinitely for undermining the team. Look back further and one can see Cuba’s taekwondo champion Angel Matos banned for life for kicking a referee in the face after he was disqualified for taking too much injury time; South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje banned for life from professional cricket in 2004 for his role in a match-fixing scandal and, of course, the most amous sporting scandal of them all, back in 1919 when eight members of the Chicago White Sox were banned for life from baseball for intentionally losing games.
Why were these people banned? Because they failed to respect the sanctity of the sport.
That is right and fair, but I would like to hear what others think on this subject…
joeblogsf1 
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on Ferrari and the FIA.
Joe,
It does seem very odd that the transgressions of Briatore and Symonds seem to have passed into history. I am with you – if you bring the sport into serious disrepute then you should never be able to play a further part in it.
Briatore is a cancer and must not be allowed ever again in the paddock. It’s as simple as this..
I think there are journalists just happy to have access to big name players and so they will talk to almost anyone. Let’s face it, Joe, there are many writers who would sidle up to Briatore in a heartbeat for a good quote. Looks good in front of their editors and sells publications. People tend to forget the past. Or they hire a good publicist and try to re-write history.
“Shame” and “dignity” are antiquated concepts in our time.
I agree with you Joe, but F1 can hardly be seen as pure when you have someone like Ecclestone in command.
Hear hear!
I wrote a piece along similar lines a week or so ago (which I won’t link to here, as I’m not *that* kind of girl…), and was surprised to find myself in a comments conversation with someone who shared the name of a prominent motorsport figure* who thought I was out of order saying that the disgraced should be kept in Coventry. I paraphrase, but that’s the gist of it.
* Highly probable coincidence.
no its not just you Joe, but the little voices dont get heard until the echo comes back
It is definitely not just you.
Well Joe…in the gallery of rogues that you have mentioned, you seem to have missed out on the biggest con of all..Ben Johnson, Seoul 1988, Summer Olympics…
The racing ban should stick. But only to racing. Symonds’ writing is good. Flavio, well nobody can understand what he says anyway, so fret not.
While I agree with the central theme of this piece, it is important to note that there are people active in F1 who have been guilty of similarly dark behaivours. Most notable is Lewis Hamilton, who deliberately lied to the Stewards of the Meeting in Melbourne a couple of years ago in order to deny Jarno Trulli a podium position. Dave Ryan was the fall guy, and Hamilton’s sheepish press conferece in Malaysia (saying that he had been ‘misled’ by Ryan) seemed to result in him being absolved of any guilt. Why is he still allowed to compete when he, too, blatantly committed a ‘scam’?
David Myers,
I think you need to look at the severity of these things before comparing what Lewis did with what happened in Singapore in 2008. It is a completely different level of things.
Yes, gone for good.
I agree in principle with what you say Joe. While Flav has cropped up here and there, I am most surprised by how quickly Symonds has been welcomed back into the fold. A columnist for a well-known magazine! Appearing at the annual gala weekend for the industry hosted by another well-known magazine! And talking confidently of coming back into F1 when his suspension is served. I know we share different views of Flavio, but truth be told, no one was really surprised when it was found out he was dodgy. But Symonds, the backbone of the team, the good old trusty Symonds?!? It seems to me, in the British media at least, that Flavio is still regarded as a dodgy wheeler-dealer done wrong whereas Symonds is almost forgiven because he’s “one of us”. In my opinion, his guilt is equal and only slightly moderated by the fact he ‘fessed up when confronted.
Having said that, I did wonder a while back, is having your driver crash really any worse in principle than some of the other team orders issued by other teams…?
I agree, wholeheartedly, with every single word. Symonds’ appearance as a columnist in F1 Racing is a major contributory factor in my recent decision to cancel my subscription.
I waver a bit between lifetime bans for deliberate cheating such as this vs giving people a second chance. In the case of Symonds and Briatore however I’m a lot more on the lifetime ban side (it’s not like there haven’t been other suspicions about them in the past.). Whereas for Piquet Jr I would probably give him a second chance after a ban for a couple of years. On the other hand, while it might be harsh a lifetime ban for NPJ would set an example.
In some way Formula 1 always was a competition to find who is the best cheat. For example secret agreement between FIA and Ferrari giving right to veto all the rule changes, or other “special help” Ferrari received during all those years. Can you find anything like this in other sports? Or for example 2007 spygate. Or double diffusers and f-ducts – everyone agrees that they are against the spirit of the rules, but teams just found loopholes in the wording of the rules. So this is the sport where players constantly tries to find ways to go around the rules instead of respecting them. So I think you just concentrate too much on the crashgate, but looking at the bigger picture it was nothing out of ordinary in Formula 1 history.
Agreed Joe. What I find amazing is the justification some fans give for thinking that they should be allowed back in F1 at the drop of a hat (or thong in Flavio’s case). It’s usually something along the lines of “everyone cheats in F1 – they just don’t all get caught…. so what…. get over it!”.
It’s a lame excuse even if it were fair or even justifiable (which it is not), but to me, when people try to equate team orders or a technical infringement or even “Rascassegate” with such a cynical and most importantly pre-planned fraudulent action on the public and the sport – endangering people’s lives in the process – then they have lost the plot as well as any sense of sporting morals.
F1 is a business as well as a sport. Condoning fraud in either at such a base level is inexcusable.
If Stepney or Coughlan tried to get back into F1 there would be outrage. Probably (and sadly – only) because they weren’t “celebrity” enough to be honest. However, what they did had the same “malice aforethought” that Flavio, Pat & Nelsinho’s little trick had.
Perception can be a funny thing!
Personally I take no notice of comments attributed to Flav both for the reasons stated and also because he has always peddled the line most beneficial to himself so none of his remarks actually have any value. Pat Symonds I see in a different light. He has always been open, honest, interesting and genuinely insightful in his comments and writings which I find very interesting and worth reading. What exactly was his role in the Singapore fix and why did he ‘fall on his sword’? I suspect there is a big story as yet untold.
To answer your question, yes, I think it is just you. I don’t see any of the other independent web sites making as big a deal out of it as you. I’m not passing judgment either way, simply answering your question.
I think the question is where to draw the line on cheating, or should I say, bending of the rules. Most people wax nostalgic about some of Chapman’s ideas like the Lotus water tanks of the ’80s, and nobody seems to mind much in retrospect Ferrari’s barge boards of the Brawn era, to name but two. the latter example was clearly a breach of reglations, while you could actually argue that what Symonds/Briatore/Piquet/Alonso did was within the letter of the law – they found a loophole and exploited it, just like Lotus’ water tanks, or McLaren’s F-ducts. Was it cynical? Sure!
I do, however, think you have a personal problem with Briatore. That much is clear from your posts that can’t… let… go…
CTP.
Read all the replies and you will see that it is not just me
Joe, I fully understand your view but I do have some thoughts about why its not always correct.
People do make mistakes and should be punished, however, in some of these cases the punishment is not fit for the crime. We are talking about taking away someones entire livelihood for making a “big mistake”.
Lets take Pat for example (Flavio is an entirely different fish, some research online might uncover more on his history but one has to beware of his use of lawyers, even when guilty!). Pat has worked in motor racing for years and was very well respected by most in the paddock. He made a very big mistake but the pressure was there from his boss – he should be punished, but for life?
I’d support Pat making a return to F1, the same can’t be said for the other one…
On one hand yes they cheated but so was the Brabham fan to cool the engine, the Tyrrell water cooled brakes or the BAR hidden fuel tank etc. You can argue it’s worse that they put Piquets life at risk but evidently it was his own idea designed to save his job.
Why Schumacher was not ban from the 1994 championship? If he had I doubt he would have done it again in 1997. I think F1 lives in a gray area concerning rules and regulations. Why the double diffuser was allowed in 2009? To satisfy Max Mosley political agenda. So I will not be surprise if Briatore returns to F1 although I will be disgusted.
I completely agree, Joe (although I think you meant to type “Chicago White Sox” rather than “Six”). What amazes me is that anybody would want to associate with them – even if somebody felt that what they did was forgivable, are people willing to risk their own journalistic reputation by being among such company? I would distance myself as much as possible from these guys.
What’s done is done – Flavio and Pat are part of F1 history now, but they aren’t part of the current F1 world. Other than trying to get an obnoxious headline out of them, what good is their opinion now? When it comes to current F1 news, I prefer news and fact over gossip and speculation. Flavio and Pat can’t provide the former, so why bother?
Now, on the other hand, if one of them were to write a memoir about their F1 lives before Singapore 2008, it might be a fun read. I’m sure they had good times and some good stories.
I’m sorry, pirhana don’t respect the sancity of life – much less that of sport
I’m very much with you Joe but I admit I’ve always felt sympathy for Pat Symonds when I probably shouldn’t. It seems like a desperate move and Pat always came across as very likeable. Of course I’m relying only on TV interviews and the like so I really don’t know.
But without a doubt I don’t think either should be allowed to work in F1 again.
Couldn’t agree more, Joe.
I thought it was just me noticing Flav popping up in the media. I think I even saw him on one of M.B.’s grid walks, where I’m sure Brundle said ‘what’s he doing here’ to the camera.
But yes, they did the crime, they should do the time, so to speak….
Difficult … I understand why people print what they have to say – Flavio is still a manager of drivers after all, and Pat Symonds still hasn’t forgotten his knowledge or lost is interest / passion (technical at least!) in F1.
But my gut feeling on this is that I am interested in what Pat Symonds has to say on F1, and enjoy his articles in F1 Racing, but have no interest in what Flavio has to say. But then again, I didn’t really have time for him when he was still in F1, whereas I did always like Pat Symonds and was sorry to hear of his role in the ‘fix’.
I fully agree with you Joe. In my experience you don’t tend to get quoted in the press unless you proactively canvass a number of publishers directly – it’s a competitive marketplace like many others and their are individuals, companies and PR agents constantly seeking the attention of publishers.
So it’s fair to assume that Briatore and Symonds will have shared their viewpoints proactively, which leads me to wonder what their agenda can be. Briatore is still managing Mark Webber, so he’s still involved in that respect – although following your earlier argument that in itself raises the question as to whether he should be allowed to influence the sport in this way. I saw that Symonds was interviewed on the stage at Autosport Live recently which i read as a sign that he was edging back in to the sport.
You’ll know the details of their ban beter than me, but I had made a mental note to find out more about what this all meant.
As far as the publishers are concerned, my respect for the ethics of many of these was lost long ago, so I’m not surprised they’ve risen to the bait and in that respect your values are from a bygone era – but long may you continue to stand by them!
Totally with you Joe, the sight of FB on the grid and people talking to him as if nothing happened is amazing. Think top of the list is his friend and sometime business partner BE.
As for the way him and PS get quoted !!!!!
Banning a rugby player for smoking pot is pathetic – it’s not a performance enhancer, and since it’s not motor-racing, any degradation of his competence does not endanger anyone bu himself.
It really is none of their business, and makes me happy I’m not a fan of rugby if it involves that sort of puritanical, authoritarian behavior from the governing body.
It isn’t just you.
It’s akin to someone like Floyd Landis decrying amount of doping that goes on in professional cycling. Is doping in professional cycling a problem? Yes. Do I want to hear a confessed doper (one who initially and vehemently, denied all such claims) tell his tales and point his fingers? Not really.
Its not that it’s unthinkable that a guy like Floyd could have something insightful to say, but rather that he has comprehensively discredited himself as a source of reliable information.
I agree with regards to traditional sports. To me, ‘sports’ like cycling have lost their appeal completely. It’s now not about the result of the event, but rather waiting (sometimes for years) to see if the latest winning athlete was also involved in doping. Same goes for many athletic sports.
This moral question gets more difficult with sports such as F1, where the aim of the game is often to be on the brighter side of the grey areas, i.e. to gain an advantage through interpretations of the rules. In my mind this is part of F1, and the excitement of it, but could also understand why less involved spectators could see this as ‘cheating’. This sentiment is probably reinforced when the other F1 teams spend the 2nd half of a season accusing the leader of cheating.
For me the complexity comes when looking back at F1’s history in ‘cheating’. Singapore was blatant and the penalty seems to fit, but what about episodes such as McLaren’s Spygate, should the team have been banned forever? What about Benetton? And was Honda’s punishment for the petrol tank too mild?
All difficult questions, to which I have no easy or short answer…
Or is the situation simply; the more competitive a sport becomes (making cheating almost justifiable to some – ends justify the means?), the harsher the penalties?
While I get annoyed at ‘fans’ that call past drivers has beens when they say something they disagree with, I have to agree with you on this one Joe. They damaged the sport and should be ignored by it.
Mr Briatore’s comments often annoyed fans before the scandal so why anyone would be interested now is beyond me.
Wholeheartedly agree
PS, typo, Chicago White Sox.
Joe you are correct on this. Cheating is one thing and bending the technical rules is another, F1 has always pushed the limit of the technical rule book. There is definate distinction between the two, Briatore and Symonds are cheats, engineers that push the technical rules are not.
Red Bull pushed those limits with the bendy front end, was this cheating? Underhand? To me it was very close to cheating, look at Darren Heaths photo’s. Certainly underhand and if caught cheating.
The McLaren F-Duct, cheating? No, kept Charlie Whiting informed, went through proper channels and it was there for all to see. No big secret, just got there before the rest. Underhand? No.
Does this mean that in the engineering sense you are a cheat only if you get caught? Where as in the human sense its cut and dry cheating.
Alonso, for all his skill will never be regarded by many as a great champion due to his tainted reputation. Is he a cheat not yet caught?
Your post will create a great deal of opinion on this Joe, Well done.
No it’s not just you Joe, I agree 100% though I am sad at the loss of Pat, Flav deserves no tears at his exclusion.
Fair enough, I agree. If the sport is to have any credibility bans must be upheld and the individulas should have the common sense to keep their noses clean for the period of the ban.
Flavs rather large ego prevents this and he’s a bit of a media whore at the best of times but thats the problem with certain sections of the media if they want an immediate quote from someone perceived as having gravitas in the sport they’ll go to someone who will give them one, its the quiet part of the year and most of the ‘news’ isnt really news at all so lesser websites/ publications will go where they can for an ‘exclusive’
I’m suprised at Pat Simmons ‘edging’ his way back in so soon but I guess he’s angling for a job in a couple of years time .. but will anyone take him on?
F1 is ‘my’ sport so I want it clean and I want a fair fight on the track, I was, and still am, appalled at Benettons behaviour during the 1994 season and dont believe we ever got to the bottom of that .. I don’t believe it a coincidence that two of the major players in that situation where mssrs Briatore and Simmons (Walkinshaw being the fall guy)
Maybe jsutice was done in the end?
iain,
The story of 1994 will one day come out. Sadly, unless someone involved gets into his cups and confesses (which is always possible), it may be that we have to wait until death separates the people concerned from their lawyers…
Yes, I had started to wonder why these two names were creeping back into editorials and being quoted in various capacities. Until I read your comments I was wondering whether someone had actually restored their bona fide, heaven forbid.
When is the FIA going to be seen to act decisively and put an end to this whole sordid affair? Surely it cannot be allowed to drift on for much longer without Mr Todt and friends losing much of their credbility and respect?
Joe, finally someone in the F1 media sees the light! Individuals who have disgraced the sport should be dropped by everyone.
I have been disappointed by the way that Briatore has been accepted back into F1 with him still managing several drivers and walking up and down the gird before races. Someone (Pasquale?) must be signing off his passes and they are facilitating the public acceptance of what he did having no consequences.
While the FIA may not have been able to legally ban him for life, they do not have to make it easy for him to return to the circus. It’s a disgrace in my view.
Is is really a sport , if it’s closed shop, with their own secret agendas, and secret payouts?
F1 isn’t far from Sports Entertainment.
I get your uneasiness with “leading” f1 and motorsport media continuously quoting disgraced senior team personnel. However, provided that one is the manager to two leading f1 drivers and the other is still highly respected for his F1 technical know-how, there really isn’t any getting away from them.
Until Adrian Newey or some other technical head can speak freely on hour long pod casts on f1 technical regs I’m happy to hear from Pat Symonds. And I don’t believe the FIA licensing-conduct rules will apply to driver managers or attorneys as they rightfully shouldn’t.
No it’s not just you. Briatore should never be allowed back. I have sympathy for Symonds as he seemed to have been drawn into this, he openly admitted his involvement, his regret. He has been punished and served his time. I would not be sorry to see him back but as far as I know Briatore has never admitted guilt, apologised or shown remorse. It’s abhorrent he is back on the scene already.
However the reason he will be back is because of the money he can bring. You can buy a get out of jail free card.
Oh and while I am typing, I believe Alosno knew, but such was Mosely’s red mist of desire to get Briatore he let many of the other guilty parties go.
It’s not just you.
As a relative newcomer to the sport, I’ve been taken aback by the “nod and a wink” attitude to cheating in F1. I’ve heard all kinds of excuses, not from the fans, but from people who are closely connected with the sport, that this is how it’s always been, and anyone who disagrees just doesn’t understand F1.
Well, I understand cheating, I understand bribery, and I understand corruption. The fact that it happens in F1 doesn’t excuse it. It seems there is no shame and hardly any accountability, and when there is accountability it is heavily biased. The sport seems to be run through an old boys network, and would benefit from external supervision.
I’m glad to see someone speaking out. But unless the fans stand up and say that they’re not going to put up with it any more, who is likely to do anything about it? I can only hope that one of the new countries that F1 is travelling to has a legal framework that can heavily penalise any cheating that happens in their territory.
Some publications are, at best, applying a double standard: They steadily recycle criticism of one or another personality (Jean Todt, for example, for the team orders that decided the outcome of the 2002 Austrian Grand Prix; Michael Schumacher, for his move against Reubens Barrichello at the 2010 Hungarian Grand Prix, and for numerous other incidents) but remain silent about the two individuals you mention.
There is the particularly troubling case of Motor Sport magazine. On its website, a podcast featuring one of the individuals you mentioned began with a comment along these lines: “We will not, of course, be talking about anything having to do with that incident. If you don’t know to what we’re referring, fine.” Its February issue revised some of the Schumacher controversies but also included a column by Symonds, without acknowledgment of the course of his career.
It is notably poor journalism, and it offers all of us a seriously distorted history of Formula One.
I agree with you.
However, I’d go further and say I wasn’t impressed when Alonso’s Singapore race result was allowed to stand. That kind of indicated to me that there was a substantial benefit to be gained from that scam. The actual perpetrator wasn’t punished by the FIA if I recall correctly. The whole thing smelled a lot less pleasant than roses.
The punishment needs to fit the crime. I suspect I’d be less interested in a harsh penalty for someone who smoked a joint than for one who took bribes to swing a result.
Excellent Blog, by the way!
No, it’s not just you Joe.
Thankyou for championing these old fashioned, but valid views
Well, we’ll see what remains to be licensed after the Gribkowsky case anyway. I would posit that the whole structure of F1 has for the last decades evolved with endemic problems the kinds of which typify the “unhinged cosmopolitan asset management” most of us are … uh, “so fond of” (even if they’re still comparatively in the little leagues). In my opinion this represents a mighty existential risk to the brand – and that realisation, when absorbed in its causal entirety, doesn’t mean I’d venture to care more, but less. This is only symmetrically proportional to those whose sole, main interest is below their personal bottom line. The veneer of boyish charm in being a “pioneer” has truly lost its luster, the full extent of globalism rendering any virtual remnants of colonialistic, pseudoneoliberal rationalisations (whichever entity practices these towards whomever) a manifestly untenable philosophy (“philosophy” being too lofty a word for the occasion, but shall do for all practical purposes here). Sure, there are interests still to be rallied in the defense of F1, the private and public ilk of “the Mole” perhaps springing to action within their parochial and self-approving spheres. To me though, the “sport” has become just one more barometer, just one more harbinger in assessing the health of the World we live in – and I’m thinking it never should’ve been anything but.
Joe
I reckon the real architects of the “scam” reside in Brazil and were recently awarded a huge sum of money that they don’t need. Briatore is probably equally guilty and I don’t really have a great deal of time for what he says, but Symonds – while guilty by implication and if memory serves decided to keep his mouth shut at the time of the investigation probably out of some loyalty, albeit perhaps misplaced in this instance, to his boss – at least has some technical expertise to bring some astute commentary on F1.
I wonder how many other individuals who still hold high office in F1 who have skeletons in their closet? I seem to recall one high ranking F1 team of the late ’70’s and early ’80s that appeared to bend the rules considerably. They say that poachers make the best game keepers.
Joe, I respect your opinion and do in fact agree that the Renault duo got off lightly, I see a tremendous double standard in your suggestion.
If journalists are not to talk to Symonds and Briatore, who else among F1’s retirees should be persona non grata?
I fully expect if given the opportunity, you’d have no such qualms in interviewing Max Mosley. Yet it is Mosley, not Symonds or Briatore that has done more to hurt the sport than any single man in history. (In this calculation, I’m completely setting aside the entirety of his prostitute scandal.)
Mosley’s sins have to do with his using the sport’s authority, officials, and punishments to settle personal grievances and perceived affronts. Mosley sinned by repeatedly using the sport’s court system as would a third world dictator. Mosley arranged the sale of the sport’s TV rights to his years long friend for an almost felonious pittance. Mosley continually knocked down WRC, Sportscars, and other FIA sports that threatened F1’s popularity. His sins go on and on, they are of such seriousness and of such lasting impact as to make anything done by Briatore and company mere parking tickets by comparison.
I understand your point of course. Renault wasn’t *just* involved in a Machiavellian political game, they were caught blatantly cheating. True enough, but Mosley hardly has clean hands on this topic. Who is more guilty, the man who commits the crime, or the authority figure who after the fact, knowingly and purposefully sets out to cover up the crime? In my estimation, both parties share the burden of guilt.
As such, Mosley’s convictions for outright cheating should be measured as far more serious and damaging than anything done by the Renault duo. Mosley didn’t just cover up one incident of blatant cheating, but many. Just off the top of my head I can name four. Mosley knew of Benneton’s cheating and (as clearly described in the biography of Benetton’s solicitor) “arranged” for the court to let them off the hook, TWICE. Further, Mosley knew of both Toyota’s & Renault’s copying of competitor’s designs and let them off the hook, while lynching McLaren for a nearly identical offense. Mosley was judge, jury, and executioner. Those in his favor received unfair lenience, those out of favor, unfair penalties.
In fact, Mosley’s sins are far more serious than most of the offenses detailed in the lifetime bans you describe above. I take no issue with your assailing journalists for speaking with the Renault two, yet I think this is a rather awful hypocrisy when the far larger scoundrel is given a pass.
Please correct me if I’m wrong (and I hope I am) – I suspect you’d interview Mosley tomorrow if given the opportunity.
Random,
No, I’m not really that interested in Mosley these days. He is a part of history now. The sport has moved on and whenever it does I hope that we will move on to better times. Max is doing his own thing, trying to make himself a champion of privacy, which is a subject in which I have little interest. If people are in public office (and I include the FIA President role in that) then they have a responsibility to behave correctly in all areas of their lives, if only because being caught will reflect badly on the office they hold.
and promote themselves mercilessly then they must fac
A lifetime ban from rugby league for cannabis use? I can’t see any unfair performance advantage he’d get from that, he’d just be a bit absent or giggly and probably a bit worse overall. Of course the players should be completely sober and undrugged, but a lifetime ban?? In comparison to that they should send Briatore to one of Jupiter’s moons at least.
For whatever reason, the general attitude seems to be one of relatively benign tolerance (at least, that’s how it appears from far outside the paddock).
Flav is allowed into the paddock and onto the grid, and continues to manage Alonso and (shockingly) the otherwise straight-shooting, Scouts-honour Mark Webber. Pat Symonds makes appearances at big magazine-sponsored corroborees and is taken seriously. While Flav might not play a senior team role again, one gets the feeling that Pat Symonds might be snapped up as soon as his ban ends.
I wonder why? The only thing that I can think of, and it’s tarring the sport with a pretty broad brush, is that no-one’s conscience is clear. Whether it’s water-cooled brakes, mysterious ride-height control, hidden launch programs, questionable fuel systems, or industrial espionage, maybe the sport’s culture of “creative” rule interpretation and succeeding at any cost has meant that no-one’s closet is unoccupied by skeletons of one sort or another. And if this is the case, maybe the higher echelons in the sport are unwilling to come down too hard on Flav and Pat Symonds, lest their own secret dirty deeds be exposed.
I happen to agree with you that what Flav and Pat Symonds did is deserving of harsh censure. But it is curious that so many of the top people in the sport are so reticent on that point, and so willing to welcome them both back.
While Pat Symonds did make a major mistake and a ban needed to be placed upon him for the good of the sport, he did at least eventually admit he’d been wrong to do what he did. I therefore have no problem with him being involved in F1 as long as it is on a theoretical level. Although I suspect Pat wouldn’t be a repeat offender under normal circumstances if he went back to being a chief tactician/race engineering, that doesn’t reassure me because it was undue pressure from above that caused Pat to err in the first place.
Flavio Briatore, on the other hand, has no such excuse. Maybe he simply took a jokey phrase literally at a really bad time (a theory I’ve heard before) but the fact remains that he piled on a lot of pressure on Piquet Jr in previous races and didn’t moderate the pressure from the Renault board. With such poor management, pointlessly damaging actions such as those undertaken in Singapore 2008 are only to be expected.
Flavio’s management of the situation was unethical before Singapore even began. I did not find the evidence given concerning Flavio’s direct involvement to be particularly compelling, though the circumstantial evidence was not exactly in his favour either. Even so, the lead-in to the weekend, which Flavio never attempted to deny even informally, should be enough for ethical outlets to refrain from going near Flavio with a ten-foot bargepole. Sadly, Flavio has insufficient humility to recognise this (and, judging from previous behaviour, could well think sporting sanctity is the divine right of a particular team to win) and many media outlets are too headline-hungry to respect the concept of sporting sanctity.
Joe,
Firstly, let me say that I greatly admire your work. However, our joint favorite sport is on pretty shaky grounds about cheating. Let’s face it, one of the main objectives of engineers and designers is to push every regulation over the edge. Wasn’t it Mark Donahue (an all time great) and Roger Penske who believed in “The Unfair Advantage”? What about Colin Chapman, Ferrari (always), even in recent years McLaren? When it comes to F1, a perspective/reality check is definitely required.
Keep up the good work.
Mark M,
But there is cheating and then there is cheating… no?
Joe,
I totally agree with you. Any individual that brings the sport into question should be banned. You just have to look at NASCAR (I know some of you are rolling your eyes!), they have a rule about NASCAR members being subject to penalty for actions detrimental to the sport of stock car racing.
Depending on the severity, this can be probation, race bans and banned for life (mostly for drug infractions).
The wording is pretty vague, but since NASCAR is a benevolet dictatorship, appeals are rarely heard. The FIA should take a stronger stand on these matters and the civil courts should stay out of it.
Any individual in F1 must have a license which entitles them to participate as driver, crew, engineer, etc….. and if this license is pulled, that’s it.
Just my opinion.
Joe,
It strikes me that although you are right that people who abuse this should be punished, but the thing is, black and white is no good here. I imagine that Pat Symmonds was under incredible pressure with the potential knowledge that Renault were probably going to cut funding… colleagues jobs etc. Was he doing it for the glory? I think not… and who knows what pressure Piquet was under? Flavio, well that’s another matter!
Julian
You’re completely right Joe.
How would a soccer fan feel if he found out that the Netherlands acted the way they did in the World Cup Final intentionally to lose the tournament?
Crashing an F1 car at a street track in the night-time setting on it’s inaugural UNTESTED race scenario was potentially fatal for the man they asked to do it, the other drivers, the stewards and the fans at the event.
We all know that there is no way Flavio or Pat should ever be even allowed attend another F1 weekend or any FIA event for that matter.
Joe, I’m with you totally. Sickens me to think of Bracelets Briatore strutting in the paddock as if nothing has happened. And to think he’s a possible replacement for Bernie….
BillG,
He was never a possible replacement for Bernie. Nor will he ever be.
Mark M, there’s a big difference between rule interpretation (say, having a barge board that’s a little too big but within the tolerances under one interpretation or a rule but not another) and direct manipulation of a race result by crashing a car.
But NASCAR really competes well with F1 for cheating/rule bending. Slightly smaller cars, lifting rear windows, fuel inside the roll cage, leaving the cover off a box inside the car (as it improved air flow), etc.
I have a hard time thinking that Flavio was “smart” enough to think up the whole “Crashgate” thing! So who does that leave?
I also have the same hard time thinking that Alonso never knew about it! But I digress!
The simple thing is I have always felt that if you have done your time, then there should be a way for you to re-visit your chosen profession.
I have always though of Pat Simmons as a “meat and potatoes” kind of person that I would enjoy a pint with down the pub. Was he so corrupted by Flavio that he should never be allowed to work in his chosen profession again?
The reality is I’m sure we will see Flavio back in the industry much sooner than PS. Is that right?
Power corrupts and ultimate power ultimately corrupts.
I’m sure that there are many people with very dirty hands that are still working away in F1. I would think that Pat Simmonds would have a very hard time getting a job similar to what he was used too, but if he could, then what would that say for the team that hired him?
No question, Joe. I never understood it when people talked about the ‘good’ that FB was supposed to have done. He just always looked like he was saying ‘hey, I can do what I like, what’s anyone going to do about it?’. So when the details all came out, it was completely unsurprising. I just know that whatever else may or may not still go on in the sport, it felt so good to know that he was gone. And I’m appalled that anyone who feels part of the sport would even entertain the mention of his name. Black and white? In this case, yes.
No matter the reasoning, the rationalising and the excuses, in the end they wanted a driver to intentionally crash.
This is not a controlled act.
We’ve seen Massa’s incident where he was hit by a piece of a car, something similar could have easily happened, let alone debris injuring marshalls or crowd members.
Unfortunately, sometimes a punishment has to serve as a warning to others. A lifetime ban would do this, so the next group thinking of it would not consider it worth the risk.
We all know in motorsport the object is to interpret the rules to the benefit of your team & the frustration of your fellow competitors, but what these men did was completely outside the normal rules of behaviour, therefore Joe, I agree they should not be absolved for any reason.
I agree with you 100%. Sadly, such punishments cannot be applied to F1 people (except drivers) because of all the political stuff that happen behind the scenes. The same way McLaren wasn’t banned for life from F1 because it would cost Bernie a lot of money since he would lose possibly millions of watchers, Briatore and Symonds cannot be kept outside of F1 because the first one is friends with Bernie and the second is very good at his job so that makes him desirable from teams.
I don’t understand why Briatore and Symonds are castigated for organising a minor crash to gain a sporting advantage when there are not the same calls for Schumacher to get a life ban for the numerous occasions he has put other drivers’ lives at risked or cheated.
Is there a huge difference between Piquet’s Singapore spin and Schumacher’s Monaco parking fiasco? Certainly Piquet’s accident could have gone wrong and someone could have been hurt but the risks are insignificant compared to all the cases where Schumacher has driven someone into a wall or chopped across a nose at the start of the race.
By nature I have a purist attitude to all sport and I hate to see cheats prosper but I would far rather Briatore had been banned for running a crooked car at Benetton that resulted in a championship than for a silly little crash that won him a race.
I just don’t get why this one incident is so much worse than anything else in the history of F1.
Peter: I quite agree, Briatore is a snivelling little something or other. I absolutely cannot stand him, he makes my skin ‘ow you say ?’, crawl. He should never be allowed back, no matter how much cash he brings.
Symonds however, I feel a bit sorry for. I think he knew, but i’m certain he wouldn’t have agreed to it, probably just felt pressured into going along with it.
Alonso also knew, how could he not ? He was number 1 driver by leagues. He should have been stripped of his win, which might have given the 08 championship a different outcome altogether.. ironic that he is now at Fia-rrari, the perfect place for him.
Last year I was absolutely disgusted to see on tv that Flavio was at a couple of races.
I have wondered how it is for people like Webber who has Flavio as a manager…
Joe, I thought exactly the same thing when I listened to the most recent Motorsport Magazine podcast, which featured Symonds.
In the introduction the host said something like “Pat is here, but we won’t be asking him any questions about you know what”. Why not? If Symonds wants to be back in the media he needs to at least tell what he knows- yes, I understand that there are legal issues and agreements, but we can’t just pretend that it never happended.
Remember that Pat’s statement confessing to his role also said that the whole thing was Nelson’s idea…why would he lie about that in a confession?
Actually, I am more concerned about hearing Pat’s explanation that Flavio’s, because Pat had more credibility to lose..what Flav did probably just confirmed many people’s existing views
dc
Joe, it is not just you. I agree.
Briatore should be banned; the sport was always better off without him IMO. I always thought that Simmonds was forced to confess without actually being guilty, and feel bad for him, but such is life and since judgment was passed, he should be made to live up to it.
As to why other publications give them air time, I also agree – what is up with that?
I felt that too. I didn’t really agree with the lifteime ban back then because there was no good legal basis for it but I was content with 5 years ban for both and expected them not to show their face or be allowed anywhere near f1 for that time.
However the truth quickly turned it’s ugly head. Flavio was back in the paddock doing gridwalks with Bernie the next race and Pat was interviewed sometimes soon after as “analyst” in places. Ugh…
On a related note Coughlan of McLaren spy fame worked at StefanGP, remember that? oh the laughs we had!
On another related note in Nascar cheating let off on a regular basis with fines, points deduction and crew chief suspensions, if you don’t try to cheat your basicly a fool, even the wins stand when cheating is confirmed a day after.
@joesaward “But there is cheating and then there is cheating… no?” Well … no, rather too black and white I think.
There is cheating and then there is getting caught. And then the self-righteousness in all of us comes out. As someone once said “Let he who is without a copy of someone else’s plans cast the first wrench”.
EMComments,
The point I am trying to make is that there is race-fixing and then there is pushing into “the grey areas” in the regulations. On top of that one must also include some unpleasantness in the past that was not what it appeared to be, particularly when it came to spy scandals.
Joe
I agree with your thesis: when I have read the interviews/listened to the podcasts, I have been amazed that other journalists whose opinions I have held in high regard over the years, have not interrogated Pat Symonds when he has been interviewed. It is as though they just accept the facts, without questioning the man or his motivation. For sure, he was under pressure, but F1 is a high pressure sport and that alone is insufficient reason to cheat.
Kick them out and don’t let them back.
Happy to see at least one journalist is maintaining his high level of integrity.
Thank you.
No, Joe, you’re dead right. I was astonished by the cant from some quarters when Briatore and Symonds were banned for life. You’d have thought it was some kind of novel, cruel, and unusual punishment. Footballers have been banned “sine die” for years, and you’ve given plenty of examples.
Yes, it’s a harsh penalty, but the Renault pair broke the rules in the most cynical way, unquestionably bringing the sport into disrepute – there’s a clear moral difference between their blatantly unsportsmanlike actions and testing the limits of technical regulations, which has always been part of the sport – and paid an appropriate price.
Having said that mind you, like Julian above, I have some sympathy for Symonds, who I strongly suspect went along with the scheme against his better judgement. But that’s rather beside the point. I’m sure the prisons are full of people who could say the same.
THANK YOU. I’m pretty new to the sport, and I’ve been baffled by the fact that people seem to be treating these guys as though nothing ever happened. Pat Symonds appears at Autosport International and writes a column in F1 Racing, and…everyone’s cool with it? Well, I’m glad to see that not everyone necessarily is.
I agree completely Joe, the penalties the FIA hand out are far too inconsistent. $100m fine for Mclaren and nothing for Renault and what 3 year bans for those responsible? For the biggest scam the sport has ever seen its laughable.
Flavio had it coming, he was dodgy on all sides. Between the drivers he managed and teams he was involved in he had far too much influence.
The lifetime ban for cannabis use is just silly.
Give the guy a 10-match ban and get him doing some community work, but I think some sports take the punishment of recreational drug use too far.
As much as I dislike seeing Briatore in the paddock (which unfortunately happened several times in 2010) I don’t actually mind hearing Symonds’ (and, sometimes, even Flavio’s ) opinion on topics they have profound knowledge in. Moreover, since both of them are out of F1 right now I fell now they can be a little bit more “outspoken”.
I’ve read what Flavio said about Mark Webber and his injury and for once I agree with him. Surprisingly he is the only person to say what I was thinking since the revelation about his shoulder came out.
And I don’t think that quoting these two men can undermine any outlet’s reputation simply because of that association. Or may be Ron Dennis should become an outlaw because of 2007?
Joe, I believe all of the non-F1 examples you’ve mentioned are for SPORTS, run by federations/organizations.
F1 on the other hand is technically a sport but in reality looks like ENTERTAINMENT, run by a benevolent dictator. The FIA’s policies for f1 under Max used to be a joke, but things seem to be looking better under Jean. Maybe if the CVC/FOM influence on F1 reduces drastically, F1 may become a cleaner place for sports and not politics.
I agree with you. However, the F1 industry has allowed corporate ethics to overtop sporting integrity. Take the money out of any sport and integrity always remains. Allow the money in and the priotities will eventually change, only strong governance and abiding by the rules and the spirit of fairness being the controlling mechanism.
Cannabis, that well-known performance-enhancing drug. As long as there’s a tempting pile of chocolate to tackle, that is…
My problem with Symonds is as follows. Before Crashgate, he was a respected man in the paddock, and one whose skills were in demand. Unlike Piquet, had he decided to say ‘no’ to the scheme and lost his Renault job as a consequence, another team would have been quick to hire him.
Given the above, I don’t understand why he felt the need to go along with the plan against his better judgement.
He had spent a lifetime building up a good reputation, and threw it away in a matter of minutes. Warren Buffett has a quote for just this situation:
“It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”
Except Symonds appears to have been able to preserve his reputation if his current in-demand status as an interviewee, columnist, and consultant is anything to go by. I just don’t get it.
Easy mate – they are DESPERATE for ANY quotes, especially at this time.
A quote is a quote.
Symmonds and Briatore are not participating in the sport by providing opinions to journalists, journalists are free to use whichever sources they choose.
Symmonds article in Motorsport this month, and esoecially his appearance on their podcast before Christmas was very intersting. As long as he has a point of view worth hearing I’m happy to listen to the guy.
In terms of sporting integrity, F1 sold itself down the river long ago. For ten years the governing body allowed one participant a contractural advantage over the others in terms of law making, and fined one of its participants $100M on the basis of the president’s ‘strong suspicion’ I think a few articles by Symmonds and the odd soundbite from Briatore are the least of its problems.
kibby,
There is an interesting discussion in this about whether a young, naive driver can be blamed for agreeing to do something he knew to be wrong in order to preserve his dream of racing in F1. Yes, he was wrong to do what he did, but it was not his idea and he did it under duress.
Joe, I couldn’t agree more. Other sports, including those I suspect you perceive to carry more endemic cheating (you didn’t specify but I’m guessing cycling for one) go out of their way to distance themselves openly from the cheats. They want to protect the reputation of their sports, however tainted.
Sadly, it seems F1 just wants to live in its rarified bubble hoping the recession will blow over soon so everyone can get back to the serious business of spending other peoples money. It is all rather sad to see sometimes, especially against a backdrop of some recent superb racing.
Kate Walker,
I don’t understand why he felt the need to go along with the plan against his better judgement.
From what he said in his statement, it appears Symonds went along with — or dare I say, even invented — the plan because he was concerned for the hundreds of jobs at Enstone that would be lost had Renault pulled out at the end of the season (which it appears they had threatened to do if there was no win that year). He’d worked at the same place for what, 20-odd years, so had a huge emotional attachment to the place. I’m not saying that makes it right, not at all, but I can understand why he felt he had to do what he did.
And I quite agree with you and others about the lifetime ban for smoking cannabis. Considering how recreational it is, and more to the point, how performance-enhancing it isn’t, that’s just silly.
As for Joe’s original point, yeah, I was dismayed the first time I saw Briatore back on the grid, and even MORE dismayed when Martin Brundle spoke to him. I believe the BBC received some complaints about that, hence Martin’s “oooh, what’s HE doing here?” comment and swift avoidance of the man the next time he appeared. Never want to see FB back if we can help it.
Pat I’m just confused about. I always saw him as one of the good guys, but when this all first blew up and someone asked Joe his opinion of the man and his involvement on this blog, Joe’s reply “I prefer to keep my own counsel on the subject of Pat” told me all I needed to know. 😦 And after all, he was there in 1994…
Anyway, I just bought my first F1 Racing in ages, because of the Ian Harrison / Senna article, and was actually very disappointed as to how dumbed-down Pat’s contributions were. Moral considerations aside, they won’t be tempting me to start buying the magazine regularly again.
Couldn’t agree with you more Joe! Even without all those comparisons with events in other sports there should be no question of them coming back.
Bob Bennett
SW France.
Joe, I agree with you 100%. However, we must remember – controversy sells…
I am in full agreement with you on this issue. Anyone connected with that disgraceful incident should be shunned by the sport. Is F1 a sport though – certainly not the way it is run at the moment.
Ever since a certain individual managed to wrest control of it for his own dubious financial ends, it has had no right to compare itself to true sports such as athletics, rowing etc. The whole of F1 is ultimately at the total mercy of vested financial interests, and as such will probably never be able to regard itself as a ‘sporting endeavour’. It remains what it has long been – merely a ‘circus’.
Returning to the two individuals that you cite, I have been particularly dismayed to see motorsport publications that should know better quoting Symonds at any opportunity, one even seems to retain him as a technical consultant. I may be fooling myself, but I like to think that when I was involved as a motoring PR in the 70’s, individuals that I dealt with like Pete Lyons and John Blunsden would have had higher journalistic standards. I have been so disturbed by this that I have seriously considered cancelling my subscription to the UK’s leading motorsport weekly – it begins with ‘A’, and may still do so.
Well, from my point of view it’s even more depressing but also much easier to understand.
Briatore, although a lot of his activities are UK- or elsewhere-based, is Italian and has a lot of business going on in Italy. Moreover, he’s close friend with (or even master of) the same people doing the dance around our disgraced PM Silvio Berlusconi. His highlighted and well-known Billionaire brand and club in Sardinia is a place to be seen at and the racing track of summer paparazzi. He has all kind of connections.
To put it shortly, he has a number of people including journalists in his pocket. The level of servility in the Italian F1 press towards Briatore is simply incredible, you’re lucky not to be able to understand Italian and follow the pre-race talk up on the local RAI channel. They make this questionable businessman (involved in all kind of shady deals since the 70s) look and sound like the greatest expert in any possible field including, but not limited to, F1.
From the Italian media world, I suppose it reverberates on the general international media, FIA, etc.
Joe,
In general I agree with you.
However, I strongly beleive that an F1 team like any entity has its own ethics and culture. This culture has to be outlined and controlled by the senior management and the guy at the top is ultimatley responsible.
From ’94 it was clear that Briatore allowed his guys to plough through grey areas into black ones and time and again this became a problem for Benetton/Renault under his control.
If it was Symonds’ idea, Briatore should have quashed it and slapped his wrists. But he didn’t, and that says it all. I would be good money it came from Briatore anyway.
I dislike the theory in sport that when someone transgresses, they are guilty for life. Most of civilisation has been built on the justice principle of “serve a sentence then become free”.
Symonds should serve a ban, then be free. He will forever be tainted by it and that, long term, is enough.
I absoluely agree. It is sickening that those two are still sought for quotes and advice. It’s just happened that you missed out another key character of the scandal.
I’m with you Joe… keep the rotten apples out.
As to the media, they write almost anything down if it’s about F1.
Any journo who publishes ‘respectable’ quotes or comments from Briatore needs to have a long think about the concept of journalism and their own credentials. It seems to me, that some F1 journalists think that they are publishing articles to an audience of fickle mush-heads who have the attention span of 7 seconds.. or someone has some dodgy photographs of their stag party to Amsterdam. Either way, its a good job we live in the internet era, where we can all choose our sources. Keep ’em coming Joe.
Also, the concept of finding loopholes and braking rules is not a tricky concept. Ross Brawn even mentioned the double-diffuser idea at a FOTA meeting way before the season started, I don’t think Flavio mentioned his idea though.
In response to mayhemfunkster on January 25, 2011 at 11:26:
In the past 97 comments or so, there seems to be a general agreement that Briatore is a cancer on the sport and should never be allowed to influence it ever again, but jury is split on Symonds who is clearly a talented engineer and still has much to offer Formula One.
The issue seems to be the unethical manner in which he transgressed (although he did own up at the time) and the similarly unethical manner in which he appears to be returning (with certain publishers trying hard to brush the past under the carpet).
Whilst Pat apologised to the FIA, he didn’t apologise to you or I. A sport, any sport only exists because spectators choose to watch and support its participants – so ultimately it is the public who need to accept Symonds back into the fold – not the FIA, not FOM, nor the press.
What we all object to is the apparent lack of repentance, and I would certainly feel more open to Pat’s return if he ‘really’ made peace with those people whom he disrespected in the first place – i.e. Us.
Hi Joe
No, I don’t think you are alone. However (yes, I know I am using “that” word), I don’t think it as as clear as “black and white”. Lets actually look at the charges levelled against Pat (and the reason I don’t include Flavio in this, is because he would never have had the gut instinct to think of it in the first place) and I would also include Mr Alonso as this whole affair had his signature all over it.
The first issue was to get Alonso in for fuel and tyres before “arranging” for Piquet to do his Rascasse moment (or as it so happened, trash his car into the wall). This would have taken a fair amount of planning and inevitably there would have been some simulations needed, not something any of those already mentioned would have ready access to, alone.
Then we have all the planning to arrange bringing in Alonso early which would have to have been pre-planned with regard to initial fuel loads, etc. Then it would have all hinged on whether or not Piquet actually did invoke the safety car being called out. As you can see a lot of “if’s” and “maybe’s” are involved. We would also then have the whole issue of would Piquet still even be in the race when the time came for him to perform and then the biggest “if” of then all, could Alonso actually make it work?
So in conclusion, there is no way this was ever a three man job. It had to, by it’s very nature, involve a fair number of other senior team members and it would be hard to imagine even trying to pull this off without the other driver’s knowledge let alone input. So I personally think it involved the “team” and that Pat and Flavio carried the can to save the rest of the team personal. Lets face it neither were/are particularly poor, nor would they miss a meal without their Renault salaries which could not be said for the rest of the team members who were probably involved in this tragic mess.
Yes this was a mess and yes, it was right to inflict penalties against both of them but paying the Piquets good money after bad was just as big an injustice; given that Junior must have already pocketed a substantial amount in the first place. As to whether or not either Pat or Flavio deserve to be back in F1, I would agree that if they were the sole guilty parties, then no they should not be; but its clear even from what is “officially known” that they were not the only participants.
Personally I would say that F1 would be the poorer without them. In Pat’s case he still has much to contribute in terms of his technical ability and without Flavio we would loose that little bit of colour and controversy he brings with him.
A lot of posts obviously something that means a lot to a lot of people, I am uncomfortable seeing Briatore on the grid and talking about getting back into F1, but I do enjoy reading Symond’s pieces in the mags. Is this a double standard borne from my dislike of the abrasive flash and foreign FB, and my natural warmth towards the F1 through and through salt of the (English) earth Symonds? Maybe, but if a private company wants to employ Pat and their readers comtinue to buy the mag why not? The problem I have with life time bans is I still don’t feel as if I know what really happened prior to the Singapore race. Symonds was quoted at the time as saying that Alonso had knowledge of the plot. I have allways thought it strange that a two time world champion didn’t question such a strange fuel strategy, surely driver and race engineer must have known.
I also don’t like the fact that Piquet jnr was let off scott free. His F1 career was finished anyway as he wasn’t quick enough, so letting the guy who actually committed the offence walk in return for testimony against those who put him up to it, seems overly lenient. Piquet was a young driver under duress, but F1 is a mans game and it isn’t difficult to imagine the hand of his Father being involved as well. Also the delay in reporting counts against him, Piquet was quite happy to keep quiet while it suited him, but as soon as his drive was taken away then he was suddenly overcome with remorse.
The point is, the admissions made by Symonds and Briatore were made under the understanding that the penalty was not going to be a lifetime ban, this and the various gagging orders is why Pat doesn’t say that Alonso was involved anymore. If a life ban was on the cards then I am sure his story would have been different.
The main point I am trying to make is this. A life time ban is a serious penalty and the FIA would have to have been much more certain of exactly what happened before they could have handed one out. This would have required a much more extensive investigation than was undertaken at the time, and would have had to look at the potential involvement of Alonso and his Engineer,Piquet Snr, and other team personnel who may have had knowledge of the plot. Maybe they didn’t want to delve to deeply or maybe they didn’t want to damage the sport by implicating Alonso.
life time bans? A good idea but you better be sure the guilty are punished and I mean all of them.
Somebody was banned for life from their profession for cannabis use? That’s so depressing i wanna cry for the guy, what an unbeliveably moronic decision there, if anything it’s a performance-decreasing drug.
Wow what a subject to ask for comments on Joe…
I would like to add my 2 pence worth, however I feel it is important to state that I am an ‘arm chair’ fan, who attends the British GP and subscribes to GP+.
Flavo Briatore should be banned for life.. as my thoughts on him are the same as Joe’s.
However Pat Symonds is a different story.. I have always felt there was something not quite right…. Why would someone be offered immunity from punishment by the FIA turn it down and in effect put his neck on the block. It might have been Pat’s conscious in doing the right thing and taking his punishment like a man or was there more too it. I don’t know.
Why would a leading F1 mag employ him to explain the technical ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ of F1 to their readership, surely as risky thing to do in the declining magazine market..
Also it is believed Pat Symonds consultancy firm have done work for Williams F1 team, surely a team full of racers like Frank and Patrick would not want to be associated with Pat unless they know something different..?
However as Joe’s article says ‘They were caught, admitted what they had done’ you cant argue with facts. When I asked Joe once on the subject his response was ‘if you cant prove it you cant write it!’ so I guess that it..
Something still doesn’t seem right to me in Pat Symonds case.
Its obviously going to happen whether we like it or not, may as well let it go.
Ambient Sheep,
I can see the logic in Symonds wanting to help preserve the jobs of those working in Enstone, but there must have been better ways to do it. (Although desperate times, desperate measures may have been a factor in his head.)
But a man of Symonds’ logic and experience must have known that even if they got away with it in the short-term, the long-term would have been another matter entirely (as proved to be the case).
First off, you have the telemetry and radio broadcasts that were used to bring a case against the conspirators. Then there’s the fact that the paddock and media were instantly suspicious of the potential fix, with Massa reportedly accusing Alonso of a conspiracy immediately after the race.
There’s also the old adage that the only way to keep a secret is to keep it to yourself. Any conspiracy with a minimum of three players has a very high chance of becoming public if one conspirator has reason to feel aggrieved (as transpired when Piquet Jr blew the whistle).
Given that Symonds will have been aware of all these things on some level, I still don’t understand why he went along with it. I suppose the short version of the above is that I expected better from him.
Joe,
Fantastic post, because it really looks at the issues and forces us to think about them.
Society and the legal system tend to be a bit more sympathetic to first-time offenders, without letting them completely off the hook. While at the same time, repeat offenders should face the full punishment of the law. That is a good thing – sometimes people do things in the heat of the moment. I believe that was Pat’s case. To his credit, he did come clean with a confession and apology, which was the very thing that made it possible to punish Flavio.
Others, on the other hand, seem to have a history of bad behaviour – such as Flavio. The fact that he never owned up to his mistake nor did he apologized for it, when all evidence and testimony points out to him being guilty, should make his punishment much more severe. He should have stayed banned from the sport for life, while Pat, for his cooperation with the investigation, and his admission and apology, should be given a chance to show that this mistake did not reflect who he was – and let us not forget that he was not the person who called the shots, he was merely one of the people that did what they were told to do by the boss.
This is very well how things will end up working out in practice – Flavio never being given another licence to work in a team, while Pat will likely receive one at some point. I believe it is also how the sentences would be carried out in a court of law in most developed countries.
Niether Flav nor Symonds should be allowed in F1 again.
If Symonds wants to do press work, that’s fine, but if they’re going to gloss over why he’s not in the pit lane anymore, I ain’t interested. I also don’t understand why everyone seems give him more leniancy than Flav. He’s as guilty as Flav, NPJr and Alonso in my eyes (Alonso saying he didn’t know is BS imo, and to let him keep the race victory is a joke). If Symonds didn’t want anything to do with it he could’ve walked out of Renault and straight in to another job at another team.
The only one I feel sorry for is NPJr, I’m by no means excusing him of his actions, but he was put in a horrible position. But worse of all, he was put in that position by his manager, the one person who’s supposed to look after his interests!
The sport is better of without Flav and the less I see or hear of him and his slimy ways the better.
Surely the point is the ban (or lack of it, once challenged in the courts) and the arena that it intended to cover, and th arenas that the guilty are now operating in.
Clearly the ban was only ever about working for a team. One might argue that it should have been wider or that one would LIKE it to be wider, but that wasn’t the rule. (ok, the rule was they couldn’t actually ban them at all, but we’ll leave that to one side). I’m not even sure that Mad Mosely TRIED to make the ban any wider…
Therefore, distasteful or not, Flavio has the right to manage drivers. Whether a respected publication should court his opinion is another matter, but as he manages Mark W it seems reasonable to print his views in support of something Mark did.
Similarly, are we really saying that a ban from working directly for any F1 team means that someone with the acknowledged expertise and insight of Pat Symonds has no right to earn a living writing about the technical side of F1? Even if he were NOT, arguably, by far the most able person (outside of any current team) to write on the subject, how is it fair to restrict him from this avenue when the FIA never, apprently, intended to restrict him from it.
I understand there is huge outrage at what they did and I am passionate about fair play and the “right” way of competing and winning.
However, that sense of fair play must also, in my opinion, extend to how we treat the guilty.
(While the other bans add colour to the argument, the example of the rugby player is irrelevant – he WAS banned from all these things – like it or not Flav and at were not).
Cannabis as a performance enhancing drug (nothing short of a joke)…but as Ian Botham it enhances performance in the bed…WADA for sure got their notes mixed on that one….
…”but as Ian Botham it enhances”…missed out on the “said” bit…
(Corrected version of the above.)
Hi Kate,
(Although desperate times, desperate measures may have been a factor in his head.)
I think that sums it up, basically. He may even have said as much in his testimony.
I suppose the short version of the above is that I expected better from him.
I can only agree with you.
I agree, and would like to mention M. Schumacher again. 1994 (Option 13, Adelaide, etc), 1997 (Jerez), 2003 (tyre rules couple of days ahead of Monza), Monaco 2006, etc, etc 🙂
Did I write something a bit tasty?
While I agree with a lot of what has been written (“Briatore is a cancer” was brilliant!), a lot of what has been expressed is subjective and emotional. Personally, while there are certain characters that I would not shed a tear for if they never enter the paddock again, it is the rule of law that must prevail, and this must be objective and free from any prejudice. While some may argue that the punishment does not befit the crime (and Lord knows that there are many examples of this in all walks of life, especially in the sport that I hope we all love), we should accept the decisions of those empowered to pass sentence. If we do not like the sentences that these people are passing we should be able to question them (and the system). Oh, and one other thing, we should ensure that the sentences are enforced!