A statement from Eric Lux

Eric Lux, a partner in Genii Capital, the supposed owners of the Renault F1 team, has made a statement regarding his problems with Force India F1 driver Adrian Sutil.

“In the view of the recent events which occurred in Shanghai on 17 April, Mr Eric Lux has decided to file a criminal complaint against Mr Adrian Sutil for physical assault and grievous bodily harm. As soon as the complaint is registered, the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and the team Force India will be notified.

“Furthermore, please note that Mr Eric Lux does not exclude commencing an action against any other persons involved in this matter.”

The implication in this statement is that someone else was involved in the incident.

104 thoughts on “A statement from Eric Lux

  1. Interesting (and intriguing) last paragraph – who may be those “other persons involved in this matter”?

  2. Well, that’s less than half the story anyway. I hope Tonio files a counter criminal claim as well.

  3. From this statement it is clear, that Mr. Lux takes this very seriously.

    And as you write Joe, it hints at other people involved.

    It seems we have a big scandal with nothing to do with the racetrack action is waiting.

    Any clues on were charges will be pressed? It should probably be China. But no sensible country will extradite a EU citizen to China for this any time soon I guess.
    Or can he file in Luxembourg, Germany or even France (as the FIA is indicated to be informed of the matter)?

  4. When was the last time a driver was out of action due to being chucked in jail? Gachot I believe?

  5. Hope that it’s not Hamilton. An earlier post of yours mentioned that he was there, witnessed the incident and left in a bit of a hurry thereafter. Very unfortunate business, this…

  6. Lewis Hamilton?

    Well I suppose this isn’t going to help Sutil’s career to much but then again his driving is most to blame for that

  7. Obviously he has been “advised” by someone with an axe to grind, since previously he said it was a private matter just between the two of them and that Sutil had apologised.

    Looking at the last sentence of the statement, the “someone who has advised him” obviously sees an opportunity to do some wider mud slinging and possible damage to another’s reputation as well.

    Who could that someone be? Someone who is known to use any means to win, I wonder if ???? has been in touch with his old team again.

    How long before we hear how the original argument happened and who said what to whom? (and who filmed it on their mobile?)

  8. There goes any theory of the incident being an accident.

    I would assume Mr Sutil won’t be attending the Shanghai GP next season then.

    1. D,

      Yes, I am not convinced that Genii Capital owns Lotus Renault GP. I believe that it is largely owned by someone else. However I cannot prove this.

  9. Is there a Genii Client (F1 seat aspiring driver) that can be placed in FIF1 if Adrian Sutil loses race seat 😕

  10. What kind of crap statement is that Mr. Lux?

    If you feel the events happened to you warrant a criminal complaint, then it is of course your right to do just that.

    If there was another person involved beside Sutil, then name that person and don’t use veiled threads, which do bugger all to solve the matter, but only spin the rumour mill.

    Is this some kind of blackmail attempt to the unnamed person to be more cooperative?

  11. Hard to tell what went on there exactly. Lux had to go to the hospital to be treated. Sutil did something with that flute.

    I read this version
    “Sutil threw what he believed to be a Plastic champagne flute at Lux during the argument, Lux avoided it but as it was glass it hit the wall and shattered, a piece of it entering Lux’s neck.”
    which sounds like a reasonable theory, but there is no way for us to really know.

  12. We have been told that Sutil was in the nightclub with his friend Lewis Hamilton… Are we to assume that he is the other person involved in the matter?

  13. Hi Joe,

    I bet you know what allegedly happened in China between Sutil and Lux (and others apparently?). TheAutosport news that came out in Autosport is the first I’ve read on this. Can you comment on what happened?

    See you at the Montreal Audience!

    Augusto Gabaldoni
    Lima, Peru

    1. Augusto,

      No, I do not know. I knew about the fight in Turkey but decided to wait and see what happened. I don’t know what happened in the club and nor did anyone else I spoke to.

  14. Yes indeed. And I suppose it could be said that the further implication is that the “other persons” to whom Lux is referring would be newsworthy if Lux did “commence an action”…

  15. Just out of interest, the PRC’s criminal law has this to say:

    Article 234. Whoever intentionally injures the person of another is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, or control. Whoever commits the crime in the preceding paragraph and causes a person’s serious injury is to be sentenced to not less than three years and not more than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment; if he causes a person’s death or causes a person’s serious deformity by badly injuring him with particularly ruthless means, he is to be sentenced to not less than 10 years of fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death. …

    Article 235. Whoever negligently injures another and causes him serious injury is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment or criminal detention. …

    The only offence which carries a mandatory minimum sentence appears to be “intentionally injuring a person causing serious injury” — presumably it will be fixed up so that Sutil doesn’t actually spend any time in chokey. I don’t reckon his Force India drive will last more than about 15 minutes after the charges are laid though.

  16. I suspect that last bit is just standard legal mumbo-jumbo; it doesn’t necessarily confirm that others were involved in the incident, rather just a way for Lux to say that he is keeping all options open to him.

  17. Absolute joke! If there was a crime committed why was it not reported at the time. This man is not a poor innocent victim who was to scared to go to the authorities.

    This info was known by people in the know weeks ago. Its clear there is something to this this.

  18. If the police didn’t investigate it at the time it might be hard for Lux to prove it was an intentional assault. Sutil has already stated that it was unintentional and will likely have a few pals to back up his side and Lux the opposite. Could end up being a huge waste of time if Lux can’t provide any evidence (CCTV from the club perhaps?).

  19. Joe – is there any precedent about drivers standing down during criminal investigations?

    Does China have an extradition agreement with any countries where Adrian may visit?

  20. I’m confused. Is this Eric Lux about 20? Have i got the wrong man?

    I suppose if we get turbos again in two years, we should have retro off track action also.

    But if this is that particular Eric Lux, surely wiping mouth and moving on is the best thing to learn?

    I’m speaking as someone who has just broken a lifetime of wiping mouth and moving on, because well, blast it, i’m getting old. Ish. But enough. But by calling out, you always get more people into the fight, who weren’t there, which is never a good idea. Yup, i’m old enough to burn bridges. But really, it’s last resort stuff. You don’t do it for pride or self.

    All i’m saying, is come on guys, not nice save to leave it be!

    Sorry, who is thus Lux chap, saying some hit him, again? Call me stupid (OK, Joe, just another time, okay!) but i grew up on who bleats first caused it. And i was the wimp weakling on the playground, and i never saw the bigger guys blagging it.

    Gah, just wish this wasn’t news. Wish wash trash. The target is “ooh, i’ll ruin you, Ade!” or like that . . .

    sorry guys, take this as personal blocks from me if you like, but i hope we don’t hear again about people who cannot hold their drink – or civility – in China.

    be good,

    – j

  21. Sorry, just about what i said, i just had the fun of being disbelieved same time as i got one one the proverbial chin, bang to my rights and don’t fancy slinging one back, not i ever did or even tried.

    If it really just a scrap, what’s the point? Not my thing to get in those, so really who was doing what and why? Can it not just go away? Maybe it’s me, but it’s usually the guy who got hurt who gets fed up first and calls “Pax”, just to clear the air, walk away.

    Just wrong, all of it, my view. Hope we can all forget it.

    – john

  22. I just read this on f1 austin’s Facebook. What do you think fia can do? This seems like a criminal matter or a civil matter. What can fia do?

  23. If an incident is reported to the police and hospital/dr… he has a damn good case; but very odd that’s it’s taken this long UNLESS something has taken place in the background we don’t know about.

  24. Ordinarily after China and Turkey would be a good time for a scandal in F1… However this year there is actually enough track action for this to get too much air time…

  25. John (other John),

    I largely agree with most of what you said. However, this isn’t about average blokes. This is about blokes with money. Something tells me Eric Lux fancies a bit of Adrian Sutil’s bankroll. The guy is an F1 pilot after all, so he’s most certainly a multi-millionaire.

  26. I think a few questions need answering:

    Why would they not get on?

    What could cause Mr Sutil to throw a champagne flute? Surely something inflammatory must have been said?

    Why has Mr Lux taken so long to file this complaint? What exactly was he expecting from Mr Sutil in the interim? A public apology? Money?

    If Mr Hamilton was involved what could he have done for Mr Lux to consider a complaint against him too?

    It seems a sort of stalemate has been reached…

    Would you care to speculate Joe?

  27. joesaward
    D,

    Yes, I am not convinced that Genii Capital owns Lotus Renault GP. I believe that it is largely owned by someone else. However I cannot prove this
    —————————————————————

    So when Genii told all the employee’s at Renault, ‘we are your new owners’, they were lying then?.

    You also say you cant prove this, hmm, not the best statement a journo can make is it Mr Saward, and you wonder why journo’s get such bad reps for making stuff up.

  28. rpaco said what I was going to say.

    This is not what the business of F1 needs. I wouldn’t mind betting Mr Lux will be sitting on his own for lunch at the next GP.

  29. A man that believes he has been physically assaulted and feels that the perpetrator of that assault should be brought to justice and punished for what he did goes to the police.

    It’s perfectly reasonable that a man doesn’t make that decision there and then, but takes time to reflect and consider it carefully. It’s a serious allegation and can ruin lives.

    When such an incident occurs involving figures in the public eye, there is a certain level of media interest that can be expected. This media interest and publicity could be unwelcome by even a genuine, innocent victim. To be associated with negative publicity, even as an innocent victim could do him more harm and distress that the incident itself.

    So maybe that is why Lutz spent a month before acting.

    Or maybe not.

    It strikes me that posting a media statement announcing an intent to pursue a criminal complain, rather than actually pursuing that complaint is somewhat courting media interest and attention. Adding in the tantilising hint that other parties were involved is almost guaranteed to stir up a frenzy given the high profile of some of those known to be present.

    The act of posting this statement appears to be one designed to wound and damage Sutil.

    Watching this situation unfold via the media I am unimpressed by Lux and the way he is handling the situation.

    Unless what occured that night was a straightforward unprovoked physical assault by Sutil with a potentially lethal weapon, the Lux is sailing close to the wind of libel and slander.

    If it was Sutil wholly at the wrong then why, as others have questioned, has Lux waited so long to act?

    If it ever reached court Sutil’s defence will certainly ask that question and they will use this statement against Lux to question his true motives.

  30. I have heard for a long time now that colonel gadaffi owns an f1 team, but like everything in business, it is through a myriad of mirror companies.

    When I say owns, it is a large ongoing investment.

    I also heard about the libya, mclaren thing from quite early on from the same people. The source is a libyan govt source, so i believe as much as it can be it is credible.

    Perhaps this is it Joe? Lotus Renault?

  31. So is the someone else who owns LRGP someone who used to have an interest, or someone who has stated an intention to buy the team, but seems to be ribbed by Genii for not putting money on the table?

  32. Very sorry to hear that you suffered an injury, Mr Lux, and I am glad that you have gotten around to reporting the matter to the relevant authorities from around 5,000 miles away. Please take comfort that despite the passage of time since the alleged incident, I am convinced that the authorities will endeavour to conduct a thorough investigation to establish the material facts and also will establish whether or not any further perpetrators were involved. Thus you must feel free to go about recovering rather than going to the trouble of taxing yourself in order to nominate further alleged aggressors.

    Warmest regards.

  33. in reply to:
    joesaward
    D,
    Yes, I am not convinced that Genii Capital owns Lotus Renault GP. I believe that it is largely owned by someone else. However I cannot prove this.

    Joe, who do you suspect to be the owner?

    Flavio B.?
    Bernie E.?
    Group Lotus?

    1. Louis,

      None of the above. Dany Bahar. But it all disappears into Panama so it is hard to follow.

  34. thanks Joe, for erm, shedding light on which Lux was the luminary, just for stupid me.

    Minus several million points on my english comprehension test!

    I could understand better a drunken fight between young drivers i guess. But i can understand also an investment type being silly in a bar, just as ego ridden and all too sensitive.

    How did it start?

    “No, i said it’s *TEAM* Lotus!”

    Wagging aside (pathetic attempt to make up for not reading the first line of the piece) no charges yet. And i wonder also what kind of advice brought on the belated complaint.

  35. Does ‘supposed owners’ mean that the real owner of Renault is someone else, like Flavio B perhaps? Anyone know.

  36. This thing is really starting to snow ball isn’t it? This incident has the potential to be a massive story, we could see an F1 driver(s) in jail, and you got criticised in your previous post for bothering to report it!

    As ever Joe, a thoroughly professional and speculation free report of the facts, as befitting a journalist of your stature, as a humble car dealer I have no such constraints so now for some wild sensationalism!

    Lewis and Sutil end up doing 5 years in a Chinese jail and are banned for life from competing in any motorsport upon their release!

    Eric Lux develops complications from the injury and has to have the worlds first neck transplant!

    Flavio Briatore revealed as real owner of Renault F1 team after Genii Capital withdraw from F1 saying it’s too dangerous!

    Or, Sutil and Lux could do the right thing and sort out their differences in a grown up way, without resorting to the courts, and without damaging the sport that pays their wages.

  37. Conspiracy theory alert!

    Story A. Mr Lux remembers that he was assaulted one month ago by Adrian Sutil, a man who might be able to afford 10 million euros in damages, and if the German can’t, then Lewis Hamilton might.

    Story B. Robert Wickens is being groomed by Virgin to possibly replace D’Ambrosio, a Gravity/Genii driver who is said to have brought 10 million euros to Virgin to nail the seat, apart from the fact that the money is still forthcoming, or so it seems.

    Could A and B be related? 🙂

  38. So the only person who would want to own Renault and have to hide the fact would be one Flavio Briatore! Wow that would be a story! Cant think of anyone else with that much, or need, to hide?? Another existing owner if it showed a conflict of interest maybe….. But no, FB seems more likely if someone is lurking in the background.

  39. Joe,

    I seem to remember that when the sale of Renault F1 was first announced everyone were asking themselves who Genni Capital were… It was all a bit mysterious why this software VC company was now wanting to play in F1.

    Even more strangely, Genni Captial and one Bernard Ecclestone shortly announced thereafter they were bidding as a consortium for Saab from GM……

    As we all know VC’s take private equity in the form of investments from private parties…………..

    Hmmm……….

  40. “I am not convinced that Genii Capital owns Lotus Renault GP. I believe that it is largely owned by someone else. However I cannot prove this.”

    Why not go all the way and also say who you think owns them?

  41. Oh, come now.
    What would Hill, Clark, Hulme, Petty, Pearson, Foyt, or Lauda do? Please grow up and move on Mr Lux.

  42. it would be nice to see some driver solidarity and for them all to make a statement that they will not race if mr lux is present at the circuit.

    he could have pressed charges immediately but has for whatever reason dragged this on and by the open last paragraph potentially dragged innocent other parties into speculation.

    frankly if he wants to party with a load of young testosterone filled men unwinding after a stressful day at work then he should take the rough with the smooth.

    perhaps he is a bit precious for F1….

  43. I’m sure the Chinese authorities are soooooo interested in having a foreigner show up and insist on pressing charges against another foreigner for a month-old incident which was not considered report-worthy at the time, surfaced largely through the grapevine, and does not appear to involve any Chinese citizen… I mean it’s not like they have the internal affairs of a country of 1.3 billion people to worry about, right?

    This sounds like an attempt to get something out of the story.

  44. md
    Na!
    It was just that he got a text saying “Re your recent accident if you were injured and want to make a claim, text CLAIM to 09XXXX. If you do not want to receive further messages text STOP.

    He obviously sent “CLAIM” and an ambulance chaser lawyer popped up from the dank slimy rock he was hiding under and promised enormous fees win or loose and full employment for for several legal chambers.

    I wonder if China will send Jackie Chan to investigate 😉

  45. Shake n Bake
    It is mooted elsewhere, that Sutil threw a champagne flute which he thought was plastic, it hit a wall, broke and bounced off with part sticking into Lux’s neck, whether this was in retaliation for a previous act by Lux is not yet known. Obviously Sutil was provoked.

    I would not be surprised to see writs issued now by other parties who have their reputations besmirched by Lux’s threat to sue anybody else within range giving the impression that there is something to sue them for, which may or may not be the case but is almost certainly defamation of some sort.

  46. @r. Ferguson

    You also say you cant prove this, hmm, not the best statement a journo can make is it Mr Saward, and you wonder why journo’s get such bad reps for making stuff up.
    ————————————
    I disagree. It is a very honest statement, and if you look at Joe’s later posts, one which is not idle speculation. There is a lot of difference between saying I believe it but can’t prove it and making it up. This is a blog, not a newspaper or magazine which gives more license, and it is great to get the insight. Joe is not always right, but we get a lot of stories here before they break elsewhere, and what we get, even if not 100% generally has the main points correct. So when he says he can’t prove it it means we are getting an informed opinion, not something being made up.

  47. This is really developing into a big thing by now.

    A mr. Lux from Luxembourg puts out a press statement he has the intent to file charges against an F1 driver and “possibly others” for something that happened in China about a month ago.
    Why not simply inform those involved that charges were pressed in China immediately or at a later stadium?

    Not to mention he was apparently heavily bandaged in Turkey, although the 16-24 stitches would have probably healed enough to be hid less apparent in the 3 weeks from that China race.

    Sounds like putting a bit of pressure on Sutil to pay out some kind of settlement, esp. if he wants to keep his friends out of it.

    Sutil’s manager has also put out a statement saying they will defend his drivers reputation if needed. Sad to see he has to do so.

    Same Mr. Lux being a director of Genii capital who have told the world they own Renault GP, while at the same time Lotus Cars has repeatedly stated it bought equity in said team as well, but no evidence to this fact exists. And who exactly owns Genii seems to be even more clouded a matter.

    What about buying Saab with Bernie, is it possible that was the get out strategy after Proton has to ditch a bankrupt Lotus (which conveniently bankrolled the Renault GP team in with Malaysian state funds), taking on the Lotus cars brand as well to “help out”?

    Looking dirty, I fear. Very much F1.

    Thank you for giving a small insight in your suspision about Bahar and Renault GP Joe. I fully understand you cannot say much more without having any firm evidence.

    1. BasCB

      It is a suspicion based on the fact that Bahar is a director. No team in F1 that I can think of has a sponsor on the board of directors. Usually this is reserved for shareholders. Thus I feel that DB must have a shareholding. I have heard that there is a hedge fund involved as well and that GenII people actually own almost nothing, but are using the team to do their business. I do not know if this is true because tracing the ownership is complicated.

  48. Ah Panama, that shining light of fair deals, honesty and openness, makes a change from Jersey and all the Bernie hidey holes I suppose.

    No, the real hidden story is that Bernie has secretly sold F1 to Danny Boy (As opposed to Broadsword**) Bahar

    ** Where Eagles Dare

  49. It certainly raises questions (or at least it should raise them), that Bahar is a director.

    From what we saw of Genii’s way of doing business they certainly seem to be better at doing “magic” with funds and PR than actually putting the money where their mouths are.

    Wouldn’t at all be suprised to learn your thoughts on this are very accurate indeed Joe (although we might never get conclusive evidence with all those “clever” ways to hide it).

    I wonder where that leaves this deal after the court decides on the Lotus cases in a few weeks from now.

  50. Joe,

    Do you think Bahar was involved with the F1 team before he got involved in Group Lotus, possibly explaining why he’s led them to plough money into said team? Otherwise wouldn’t you think Group Lotus own the team rather than just Bahar?

  51. rpaco,

    extra conspiracy: Flav owns the ambulance chaser “law” firm.

    obviously in partnership with with Libyans,

    and “Team Lotus” is applied for in classes 36 (insurance) and 44 (medical)

    sounds very plausible to me . . .

    – j

  52. Joe, you must keep in mind that the ownership structure of PE/VC firms is that the FIRM is owned by various partners who administer FUNDS that are financed by investors (often called limited partners, or LPs, for short). The partners make investment decisions and charge an annual fee. When the fund closes (usual lifetime is 10 years) the profits are distributed and the partners take a hefty cut. However, some LPs may have the option of taking more interest in certain investments, including board seats. There are many types of LP and the incentives to invest in PE/VC funds and associated benefits have gone up, recently, obviously aiming to make it more lucrative at a time of diminishing capital. The only other source of capital for PE (but less so, VC) funds is debt, however this only entitles the debtor to assets upon liquidation.

    So, the entire situation within Genii and Renault may be explained by assuming Proton as a LP of Genii (a fairly common arrangement) with access to the governance structure of the investment in question (Lotus Renault).

    Another alternative is that the money that Proton pays Lotus Renault is not all booked as advertising revenue, but also as pure financing, which may then warrant a board seat if above a certain threshold.

    What would be interesting to know is whether Proton colsolidate Lotus Renault in their financial statements (we may have to wait a year to find out), as this would indicate the latter.

    I hope the above is useful.

  53. in reply to:
    rpaco

    I had not previously heard that version of events. It does sound compelling and plausible. However I am cognisent that my lack of respect for Lux’s dealing of the incident may have tainted my ability to be objective.

    To repeat what I said in the comments of Joe’s previous post on this story, irregardless of the guilt or innocenec of Sutil, he is already greviously damaged by this story and I very much doubt his career will recover. Sponsor’s are (I would imagine) very particular about the drivers they are associated with.

    You only have to read the comments above and elsewhere to see that the majority of people who have (voice) an opinion assume the worst of the accused without reservation. Somewhat gleefully in most cases it would seem. That’s a sad idictment of our society. I think the Australians call it tall-poppy syndrome.

  54. in reply to:
    Joe

    re: sponsors sitting on a board

    Hi Joe,

    I certainly wouldn’t refute your assertion that this is unheard of in F1; you are far more informed and expert on that topic than I will ever be – and we who visit your site and read your magazine are keen consumers of that experience.

    However it’s not an unknown in business for people other than those with an equity stake to have board positions. I don’t mean standard non-exec directors who are known to the board or chairman from past associations and are asked to join the board. I refer rather to people with a seperate stakeholder interest. I would categorise sponsors in this way. Partner organisations who wish to protect their interests will often insist on a board seat in return for their sizeable financial investment. This is very common with venture capitalists. I’ve also known major suppliers take a board seat in return for favourable pricing terms and the promise of a creating a referencable client for their product.

  55. I must also apologise, unreservedly, to the other, younger, racer, Eric Lux.

    Mr Lux (racer), you inadvertently gained a follower! So something good came of this mess . .

    – john

  56. rpaco,

    The Tailor Of Panama?

    even with “Full Retard” Pierce Brosnan (but top form Geoffrey Rush who makes it brilliant)?

    Wild Geese, is the flick which best sums up these follies.

    (so going to put on Where Eagles.. this weekend! thanks pal for the push)

    yours,

    – john

  57. Kibo59,

    just as the art of management is to make no orders, the art of wealth is to own nothing. Or, at least to realise that time decays all so much faster than anyone imagines.

    I long ago decided there is no point in owning a business, though nominally i do, because the point of a business is to provide good work for others from which they can feel a sense of useful involvement in mankind. I’m still trying to understand if the trust system isn’t so corrupted that i would be doing my survivors a disservice. (last of male line, by the way) Because it’s possibly the only way to leave something of your life behind, better than a vainglory statue (not criticising Peabody, not at all) that i care, and because i also work to keep another’s memory alive.

    I’ll skip a huge debate as to how the States, who gave us Peabody (incredible improvements in then derelict London, see his statue next to Reuter’s) makes charity a protective asset for families, and the implications of inherited wealth disconnected from the welfare of who toiled to bring that wealth. I’m writing now because i have had some experiences very recently of being treated as a presumed thief, as a kind of tax on the fact i keep my own home and name and address, and it seems clear to me that most do not, and shirk debts and obligations, and so i am treated either as the imaginary shifting masses, or as a target to be plundered. There has to be some sanity in this, and i am trying to find a way.

    yours,

    – j

  58. Another Jon
    @r. Ferguson

    You also say you cant prove this, hmm, not the best statement a journo can make is it Mr Saward, and you wonder why journo’s get such bad reps for making stuff up.
    ————————————
    I disagree. It is a very honest statement, and if you look at Joe’s later posts, one which is not idle speculation. There is a lot of difference between saying I believe it but can’t prove it and making it up. This is a blog, not a newspaper or magazine which gives more license, and it is great to get the insight. Joe is not always right, but we get a lot of stories here before they break elsewhere, and what we get, even if not 100% generally has the main points correct. So when he says he can’t prove it it means we are getting an informed opinion, not something being made up.

    _________________________________

    I will have to disagree with you as well Another Jon, You say this is a blog which of course it is, but it is also in the public domain for anyone to read.
    If it is then in the public domain, then it should also be able to be questioned, or am I not allowed to do this?.

    If this is the case, be it an ‘informed opinion’ or not, I like to hear Comments ( or informed opinions ), at least based on some facts, or relevate information concerning the statment made.
    Mr Saward himself has made it clear, that its complicated to find out who owns Lotus Renault GP.

    As Mr Saward has given me neither just suspicions or what he has heard, then I stand by what I said. If on the other hand he does, I would gladly take back what I said.

    Facts are facts , yes people can speculate as much as they like, but if you cant prove anything, then thats not news its speculative gossip.

  59. Best comment/response ever:

    Kibo59: Putin own Renault??? No proof either.

    Joe: @Kibo. No.

    Haha. Brilliant. Some people just dont want to understand what Joe writes on this blog: I think that if you read it, its not hard to understand that the reason Joe initially withheld his opinion was because he cannot prove it. Which is, as usual with Joe, far more open and honest than most journalists out there. Admitting that it is a hunch, not making an attention grabbing headline. Yet somehow people find it possible to criticize this. If someone offers you an opinion and openly says, I have no proof but this is what I think based on years of experience reporting on F1 and business in F1, the only response is to take it at face value. If you choose not to believe it, dont. But dont post utterly pointless, unhelpful, sarcastic remarks in the blog which offer nothing of interest!

    sorry for the rant. With regards to the actual content of the article, surely Lux was looking for an out of court settlement on this before he decided to go to court. Which is not particularly unusual or unheard of. Other person comment is a bit irritating since it gives rise to speculation, maybe he is hoping for another out of court settlement, maybe he is being a pain. But assault is serious, I sometimes say things to people that they may disagree with or find annoying; but if I received a glass in the neck as a response I would be very angry, and I think it is well within his rights to take Sutil to court. Then again, I am committing the cardinal sin of speculation without any access to the evidence (if there is any).

    p.s. the story about throwing a glass that he thought was plastic which smashed and accidentally went into his neck is the worst lie I have read in a long time. Broken glass bouncing off a wall into someone may cause considerable pain and a few stitches, but the number of stitches (unproven of course) has been put at between 16-24, which lets face it does not happen without intent. At least, thats my two cents. If that is the story they agree on to minimize publicity etc, go for it. But judges are normally known for their ability to spot half-truths like these. (again, all speculation).

  60. If Danny Bahar has had a significant shareholding in Renault F1 for some time, this would have very large bearing on the Lotus-Lotus court case. Also non-disclosure of this fact, if it is true, could have significant legal & thus financial consequences on the case in future, even if Bahar/GL were to initially win the case. Very interesting…
    It also strikes me that Lux’s statement could be seen as damaging to any future court proceedings, as it looks to me, in my humble opinion, like a request for a financial settlement from Sutil. I don’t know about China, but this kind of thing doesn’t work well in English courts.

  61. Hmm… (joke – a poor joke – in progress) surely that Gribawlsky character has something to do with it.

  62. @R.Ferguson

    Why bother commenting in the first place if you refuse to take on board other people’s opinion. A blog is a perfect place for opinion, it can be used for any purpose which the author intends. Your implication is that Joe should not use his blog to publish his speculations. That is your opinion: I will not try to change it, but I will disagree. Personally I think the only time speculation is an issue is when it is masquerading as fact. Which is something that I cannot claim to have witnessed on this blog. When clearly labelled as speculation, (as it was in this case) it is perfectly valid, and sometimes even useful.

  63. Henry
    Stitches “put” at 16 to 24 by whom? The trouble here is that this originated in a restaurant and any one who has read Douglas Adams know that mathematics does not work in them. (Admittedly it transferred to a hospital, but I cannot count in Chinese) Then we have to consider the press involvement which escalates any figure, so to get back to the real figure I propose to take off ten then halve the remainder.

  64. Henry:

    Broken glass bouncing off a wall into someone may cause considerable pain and a few stitches, but the number of stitches (unproven of course) has been put at between 16-24, which lets face it does not happen without intent.

    That was my first thought too when I heard the wall-bounce theory, but then it occurred to me that presumably Mr. Lux could afford the services of an eminent plastic surgeon, who would possibly use much finer and smaller stitches than usual so as to minimise scarring.

    So it could well be a “normal”-sized cut — whatever that might be, exactly — but an abnormal number of stitches.

    Even assuming, of course, that the reported number is correct, as you pointed out.

  65. R.Ferguson, &.al.

    you make a distinction about blog or newspaper. I was left a copy of The Times, this weekend, by a visitor. How depressing. I always knew magazines could be bought, but the rot is now full flow in the bloodstream, third generation at least.

    I think instead that journalists are seeking the blogs where they can live up to their professional ideals, not diminish themselves by becoming a blogger. Nutshell: higher standards here, than in the most famous of London papers.

    So, there is a quandary to be understood, in the formation of a blog, whether it is derivative or primary work, whether reportage of record, or common speech, and how we perceive it. As i understand it, some very prominent blogs, one recently sold for real fortunes, played hard and disingenuously on the “it’s opinion, don’t sue us” card, and others, including here, stand up to their principles.

    It is time, therefore, to stop distinguishing the media, and accept what is our own evaluation of the quality of the message.

    yours,

    a person who some would accuse of causing problems, in public speech, by dint of dealing the money which makes adverts make weak editors bend.

  66. @rpaco

    Firstly its important that I tried to make it clear that I was not sure about the numbers: of course we do not know the number. The 16-24 numbers have come from various stories written across the F1 press on the internet, mostly written in a manner that is open that such numbers are rumors. In fact, I think if you look back to Joe’s first post on this topic about a week or so ago, he wrote that he had heard various numbers including 16 and 24. Which, if you read around a bit, you will see.

    So essentially my point is that yes, I agree, we dont know the numbers. In fact I hope I made it clear that all I was doing was speculating. But my speculation was that the number of stitches reportedly received was high: too high for it to logically be an accident. Not impossible – but the story sounded implausible in my opinion.

  67. John (Other)
    Did the person who left you the Times pay for the skip necessary to cart away the 42 sections of the Times.

    I don’t take a daily newspaper, but rely on online newsfeeds. My wife has the Express or “daily doom”, the only part of which can be taken seriously is their campaign to get us out of the E.U., which cannot come soon enough for me.

    Still second practice and lunch await..

  68. Ooh, have to take a swipe at the London Evening Standard. It’s taken a bit of a different tack, from the handful of copies i indigested the other week. The faux proletarian angst drawn on lines which gave sections of the Labour Party a bad name, is paid for by advertisers pushing onerous contracts for highly expensive fragile disposable toys (cellphones) and dresses which cost a month’s salary. Maybe it’s Russian humor. Nah, Russian humor is funny.

  69. It has now been two weeks since Mr Lux advised the world that he would be proceeding with legal action against Sutil and making (in my opinion) thinly veiled threats to implicate others.

    I said at the time that I found that to be the act of someone seeking to smear Sutil’s reputation and gain attention to himself rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. I stand by that opinion after two weeks have passed with no further news. I am close to jumping to the conclusion that Mr Lux did not in fact pursue criminal charges which would support my view.

    Of course Mr Lux could well have done so and an investigation might be underway that takes time. I am afraid that my lack of respect for Mr Lux’s handling of the situation makes me assume the worst of him, which I know I should not do.

    I am keen to follow this story through to conclusion. Joe, was there any further talk in the paddock last weekend that you would be in a position to share?

    Thanks,

    Shake

  70. 1. Adrian should have been provoked by Lux (he insulted somebody dear to Adrain or he tried to disturb Adrian) and due to the guilt, action was not taken against Adrian.
    Now the decision seems to be race/team provoked. He is trying to scare sutil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s