During the course of the 2009 Formula 1 season, a driver for the Renault team, Nelson Piquet, Jr, who had recently been released by the team, accused Renault team princpal Flavio Briatore of race fixing. Specifically, the dismissed Brazilian driver alleged the Briatore, and Renault engineering chier Pat Symonds, had coerced Piquet into deliberately crashing his car in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, in order to bring out a saftey car. As a result of the safety car deployment, owing to the team’s pit stop strategy, Renault’s lead driver, two-time world champ Fernando Alonso, was able to vault to the race lead. Alonso eventually won the race.
Both Briatore and Symmonds initally denied the allegations, although Pat Symmonds at the same time suggesteed that Piquet had approached Briatore and him with an offer to crash out to create an a strategic advantage for Alonso. Cars will typically pit during a safety car deployment, as they lose less ground against the field when the lap speeds have been deliberately slowed by the saftey car. Alonso, however, had pitted prior to the crash, which meant that he was able to gain ground while the other cars all scrambled to make pit stops.
Ultimately, resigned from the Renault team, and when they were brought before hearing of the FIA (Federation Internationale d’Automobile), neither Briatore nor Symmonds contested the allegations. As a result of the hearing, Briatore was penalized with a lifetime ban from the sport (which included not only team management, but any ancillary activities, such as his lucrative driver management business); and Symmonds was issued a five-year ban.
Briatore insisted he capitulated to save the team from further turmoil. But it wasn’t long before he began making public statements that he’d been, in effect, framed, and that he was a victim of the personal animosit of Max Mosley, who was then president of the FIA.
Briatore took his case to a French court, and in January, 2010, and the court overturned the FIA’s bans, terming it “irregular,” and “illegal.” In addition, Briatore and Symonds were awarded cash settlements of 15,000 and 5,000 euros, respectively. These sums were considerably less than the compensation for damages the two men had initially sought, which were 1,000,000 and 500,000 euros, respectively.
Subsequent to the French court’s ruling, the FIA announced they would appeal the court’s decision. And regardless of whether or not the appeal is successful, the FIA is free to alter their own rules to disallow participation in the sport. They might, for example, bar individuals from team management based on prior unsportsmanlike conduct.
Ultimately, as an indpendent sport sanctioning body, the FIA is free to set its own prerequisites for participating in the sports it governs. While applying a lifetime ban to a single individual might be deemed illegal, setting up certain standards which would be applied uniformly to all Formula 1 applicants would not be, presumably.
The question remains, should Flavio Briatore, and by extension, Pat Symmonds, be allowed to participate in the sport at the same level as before? If the allegations against them are true, they’re guilty of behavior that is not only unethical and unsportsmanlike, but reckless and dangerous, as well. Any type of crash, even a controlled one, has inherent risks. Nelson Piquet, Jr could easily have done injury to himself, to one of his fellow drivers, or to one of the track stewards who took to the track to help clear the debris.
Moreover, the debris caused by the crash can also pose risks. Shards of carbon fiber, which is the primary material of Formula 1 car construction, were strewn over the track. Carbon fiber fragments are razor sharp, and can easily cause tire punctures, which, in turn, could pose additional saftey concerns for the other cars.
While certain cynics have suggested that what happened in Singapore in 2008 was nothing unusual, aside from the fact that Nelson Piquet, Jr was a whilstle-blower in the affair, the fact remains that, if the charges are true, the act should not go unpunished. While a lifetime ban might be an extreme measure, certainly a five-year ban applied to both men, along with a stiff fine, would not be out of the question.
It should be remembered that punishments of this sort have a two-fold value: not only do they have a punitive effect on the guilty parties, but they also serve as a deterrent for others who might otherwise engage in the same sort of questionable activities.
My Links : Empleomal Credito http://myethablogs.peblog.net/
