You beat me to it!

Had Flavio allowed Jr to finish this season, would we ever have heard it was a premeditated crash?

I think not and Nelsinho would be driving for Campos or another smaller team next season.

Victim my ass.

Nixon: I'm the victim of Watergate

well duh, it is exactly that simple.....I killed because my boss made me do it...it was orders...I needed the money.. .......all the poorest excuses in the world, and always rejected in Western criminal law...

Strange how many people here take their opinions for proven facts, and most seem to have the same agenda... I guess one of the dumbest (if not the dumbest...) WDC's ever, who excelled as drama queen, liar and crybaby, must be the role model...?



The "least worthy 3x WDC" sounds weird... So Schumacher was the "least worthy" 7x WDC, Fangio the least worthy 5x WDC, and so on...? Why Patrick Head, Paul Rosche, Herbie Blash, only to name a few (Do you even know who they are?) didn't agree with the "slippery bastard" would be an interesting discussion subject...



So you "think" (healthy exercise, btw...) they invented the plan... I rather think Flavio improved his skills after the crash in Adelaide 94, which IMO should urgently have been investigated the first "Crashgate"... Nobody remembers Schumacher's statement "ping-pong" (car was / was not damaged / undriveable, didn't / did see Hill...) after that race anymore? Strange that after having a "little conversation" w/ his boss, he had a very coherent (and also the most harmless...) version... Since it wasn't investigated, we will never know "for sure"...

And BTW I've watched the original interview and read the Times excerpts, as linked here, and can't absolutely find the place where Pk Jr. refers to himself as a "victim"...

In all countries I know of, ordering a crime carries the same or worse penalty as the actual offense. That's one thing Bernie and Flavio didn't seem to know - if you tell someone to rob a bank, you commit a crime and get to do the time as well. Depending on circumstance, the person hiring a murderer may get a harder sentence than the one doing it. One such circumstance may be going to the authorities and turn witness.

He doesnt. He knows that he is as guilty as the others, but he makes his defense by saying he was mentally harrassed by the duo, thus forced to play along without much time to think it over.

I think that, for a few, NPj is seen as the most obejectionable one in this whole thing.





I agree Piquet's "excuse" is hardly worth the name. But I think that just means any mitigation for him is limited. I don't think it elevates his level of blame.


Flav and Symonds didn't just come up with the idea, they were active in its execution. Just as Piquet could have prevented it from happening, at any time they could have stopped it from happening.

Very good summary! And in my eyes a pretty decent statement, knowing Flavio's antics...

Of course they were active just as someone who supplies a gun to a murderer is active and could have stopped it, but at the end of the day the person who ultimately executes the action either pulling the trigger or crashing the car, is the most guilty. The buck stops there as it did with piquet. No matter what plan symonds and flavio came up with, they were powerless without piquet. You are arguing they could have prevented it from happening but the point is who ultimately made it happen. Piquet. He is the most to blame, just accept it.

I

QFT.

All 3 of them, IMO. It wouldn't have happened without all of them being in on the act. Take any 1 away - no incident.

As for your concept that whoever "pulls the trigger" is always the most guilty - it doesn't work like that I'm afraid. See Henrik's post.

I agree but that doesnt mean the guilt is equal. It wouldnt have happened if witness x had not kept quiet also, or in the case of a murder, remove the gun and no murder.


Didnt we have a little debate a few days ago where you rejected the legal precedent of innocent until proven guilty? Now your trying to use legal precedent? Im afraid you have just been caught being hypocritical. Again.

Nelsinho making a good effort here, part of the rehabilitation proces should be taking his share of the blame without reservations and to carefully point out any mitigating circumstances such as Flavio constantly threatening to axe him.

Next step some positive publicity such as him testing (OK a truck but it's a start) or him doing some work for charity (road safety or something), also a popular beautiful girl on his arm would create some positive (free) publicity and would debunk Flav's gay story.
Any TV presenters or singers with a positive image in Brasil that would like to hang out with Nelsinho for a while?

BTW thanks for the link molive (and highdownforce)

Never said the others should not pay the price, indeed they should, but the fact that one is "ordered" does not reduce anything from the quilt of the one who complies

"Here's a gun and 10k, go kill Mr X" is a bit different from "here's a gun, sign here for your licence to make it a 100% legal transaction in our gun store, you have a nice day Mr I've never met you before".

The blame someone takes from an action that leads to something happening depends on whether their action was wrong or not and, if so, how wrong.

Completely legally and unknown to you, you supply someone with a gun < you illegally sell a gun to someone unknown to you < you sell someone a gun who you know is up to no good < you suggest to a friend that one solution to his problems might be bumping X off and give him a gun < you order your employee to bump X off and give them a gun to do it < you convince the guy from the movie memento that he is a cop, that X has a gun and is resisting arrest, a give him a gun


No, you're just being dishonest again. I considered that innocent until proven guilty applied to people being accused of crimes, not internet polls accused of not being 100% accurate reflections of opinion.

Disgusted mode on/

They are ALL to blame: Bernie, Mad Max, Briatore, Symmonds, Piquet, even Senna and Schumacher and their dirty antics.

The question is not about Piquet and his pathetic excuses ('my father wasn't there to think for me' - a confession of mental handicap if I ever read one: this from a 24 year old man that gets huge pay).

The question is about the dreadful state of F1, its unsportsmanship, its corruption, its power wars, its lack of excitement on race days.

F1 has turned into a soap opera: instead of watching the races we watch what happens behind the scenes. And we even get the sordid details: Piquet sleeps with an older man, Mosley sleeps with whores and gets whipped to have a turn on; if Suttil ever gets into a winning car we will go further down.

It is a pity that some persons really like to see fast cars superlatively driven at their most. Otherwise F1 would deservedly be dead.

I am at the brink of defending the indefensible: make F1 really dangerous and far less technical, as it was, and all these intrigue mongers will have to shut up.

Disgusted mode off/

But then, the suggestion is just stupid.

I've often read of immunity granted to "hired guns" to get the bosses... But some "prosecutors" here seem to want to proceed the completely opposite way...

And congratulations, BTW:



Voluntary or not, is the finest irony I ever noticed in this BB...

Even if you knowingly supply a gun to someone who wants to murder, you wont get as high a sentence as the one who pulled the trigger. You might be convicted of the same crime, but less time. You need to understand that piquet is the one who actually commited the act, and turned it from a plan to reality. Its like the race winner getting more credit and glory than his race engineer. They both played a role but the driver did the most important part.



And the legal precedents you mentioned applied to cime, not race cars crashing at sporting events.

Best post in this thread.

Thanks but unintentional Gagá.

Anyway there must be some well known girl in Brasil that can be convinced to hang with Nelsinho for a few months.
Be seen on his dad's yacht with jr., couple of fonctions or a premiere together, accompany Nelsinho to the FIA gala in Monaco where he gets the whistleblower award (a prize earlier won by Nigel Stepney, the Woking copyshop dude and hooker 4)

A surprise visit to the F1 paddock in Brazil might be a good start, I see potential.

I mentioned? Seems to me that your argument is based on it (see quote below). And if you think the workings of courts aren't a good analogy to sports arbitration (I think they are) then how in the heck do you think the workings of courts are the be all and end all of the opinion someone is allowed to hold on the integrity of an internet poll?

I'm not quite sure what your point is here?


Depends where in the example range I provided the person is. I reckon that if they're in the final "memento" style example, they'd get more time than the trigger puller.

So the point is your absolute "trigger puller = worst person" theory doesn't stack up in courts.

You are the one who rejected legal precedents with anything not concerning criminal actions so you should be asking yourself why are trying to hide behind it now.




I never meant it as a legal analogy, it was more of a practical analogy because law is hardly practical or logical a lot of the time. On a moral and practical level a trigger puller commited the most serious act.

Even in the "memento" example?

Oh and as for the first paragraph: didn't do that. But tired of replying to your bogus interpretations of my arguments.

???

Well, somehow we "knew" since Singapore 2008. The whole affair was too fishy and strange to be true. Look up this thread and see what credible experts of our BB took a stance pro Renault and Briatore: http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?show...deed%20arranged

I took a lot of flak for staying steadfast in my accusation of Renault, even being an Alonso fan - after all Fernando profited from the whole "arrangement".

The powers to be surely knew much better than fans like us that something was very fishy, they just waited till they had a bullet proof case. If they wouldn´t have had been so careful and the whole thing would have been a fluke, just imagine how it would have backfired on the FIA...

In short....

BB apologists thinking its perfectly ok for him to rebuild his career versus more than half the F1 paddock that think he is unemployable and a staggering majority outside of F1 that think he should not get a chance again in motorsport....says it all...

He made his bed...now he has to "LIE" in it.....

I read the whole thread and kudos to you is due

The naivety of bradleyl (ex-Renault press officer) was breathtaking !

Yes interesting well done aditya-now back then

post that caught my eye:



But then again if you believe in so many conspiracies you're bound to stumble upon a real one

"On his performance, to be honest, disregarding the [Singapore] issue, I probably would not give him a drive,” Toyota Motorsport President John Howett is quoted as having said by The Associated Press, “and I would probably be further influenced in that decision by what took place.”

“I don’t think we would have any interest at Red Bull Racing,” concurred the energy drinks-backed concern’s team principal Christian Horner, whilst stand-in Renault counterpart Bob Bell added: “I’m not sure I’ll be giving him a seat, and that’s really all I can say.”

Gareth

My issue with NPjnr is that out of the 3 - he was the only one that could have stopped it - he was the one in control of the car and ultimately it was him that crashed it - not PS or Flavio. Even had they said "oh, we've changed our minds, don't do it"...they couldn't stop him as they were not driving the car. Now had he done it and then dobbed them in immediately then maybe I would have more respect. But he didn't. He kept it up his sleeve and then vindictively released the information. He deserves all the scorn he gets.

Well, this guy stinks. If I order you to kill somebody and you do it, you cannot say later that I am the only one to blame. Maybe this example it´s a bit exaggerate, but it´s really the same situation. There are things that should not be done in any circunstance. Piquet is as guilty as Symonds and Briatore.

I understand offering Piquet some concessions, but he should have received at the very least a 1 year ban IMO.

This may be a warped way of looking at it. If he didn't crash and they fired him, how would he have proven that he was asked to crash? It would be seen as just any other firing and we continue to have dishonest, cheating people at Renault.

So because he did the wrong thing it exposed the wrongs of others, whereas if he did the right thing the head honchos would have been off scot free and he would look the poor driver. Now he looks the cheat and a poor driver, but F1 has benefited by getting rid of Flavio and Symonds.

Cheers for the various quotes Raelene, good reading and I agree with all of them.

On the 'he was the only one who could stop it' point, I disagree. Do you really think NPj would have gone ahead if Symonds or Flav had changed their minds?

As for the last point, I agree he deserves scorn. I'm not defending him, unless you think saying Flav and Symonds are just as bad is defending him. If you called me as bad as Briatore, I'd consider myself attacked!

Gareth

who was driving the car?
Who put it in the wall?

I think they are all to blame - I'm just p!ssed that Piquet got off scott free and people "stick up for him"..

Who was in charge of the team? Who gave the order? Ultimately when you're in charge of an organisation you take responsibility for what happens, particularly if it was you that thought up the idea and pushed it on others. Piquet was a tosser for doing it but Flavio has no excuse whatsoever it was disgraceful.

umm, what's your point?
I agree they are just as guilty
they have been punished have they not?
Piquet, just like the otheres has no excuse whatsoever, and what is more disgraceful - he used it for his own gains...held onto the info...and used it in spite when sacked for his poor perforamance...

Ignoring all logic, morale and guilt distribution there is also another much simpler explanation why Nelsinho is frowned upon more (seemingly) than Flavio and Pat - nobody likes a rat! I think we have it programmed into our backbones, it does not matter if the rat has a million good reasons, he is still a rat. How many holds Permane in higher regard after it was revealed he was "Witness X"?

What did he gain? Not much really. He just wanted to stay in F1 that's why he did it, it was wrong and very stuppid but there were others who should never have initiated it in the first place, older and more experienced adults who have even less excuse.

Hmm I'm trying to see what most of this has to do with Nelsinho giving his first interview since Crashgate as the thread title says?
What's the point rehashing the earlier blame/flame threads?

The guy has gotten immunity and is now trying to start a new career, which (understatement) will be an uphill battle.

Personally I think it's a good thing that he didn't hide away in shame but went out in the open full force, only that way he'll have a (small) chance to revive his career.
The interview on Globo and in The Times were first steps, now he has to generate some more positive publicity and find a way back into the F1 paddock, preferrably during the Brazilian GP.

oh come on - it's not as though Piquet was a 16 year old kid he was an ADULT - so your "less of an excduse for more experienced adults doesn't wash"!!!!

What dide he have to gain----well he thought it would keep him in a job...and when it didn't, he ratted them out and got off !! unbelievable.

Ah, Raelene - Long time no see - and you're completely right. Piquet is a grown man and his "I didn't have time to make the right decision", "Daddy wasn't there to protect me" excuses are noisome in the extreme.

I wonder what time frame NP needed to make the "right" decision"....?

It has everything to do with it because the whole point of that interview was to make him look less guilty, to ask forgiveness. Then it is natural that people say what they think about him and his actions.

Hi Bruce

obviously the time needed was the time it took the guys to realise he wasn't up to scratch and then sack him ;)

You and I both know there's not a sudden line you cross which makes you an adult it's a gradual process, people are always learning and gaining experience from life.

To be honest I think Piquet agreed to crash only because he knew it would get Flavio sacked.

Even reading the interview, I've got no sympathy for him. He should never have been granted immunity. He should have given the information and taken whatever punishment was given to him like a man. Then again, the fact he was so pathetically weak mentally that he didn't tell anyone for ages, and actually went and did it, makes him look even less of a man. If I was a team boss in any series in any country I wouldn't let him anywhere near my team. Was too weak to say no, to tell anyone, to be responsible for his own actions and not do it. He's 24 years old, not 2.4 years old, he's old enough to think for himself, and if he can't, then it's just 1 more reason for no team to touch him with a bargepole. Had he received a long ban from all forms of motorsport (let alone F1) then he couldn't have complained. He had absolutely no defence for what he did, not even being under stress because of Flavio, contracts etc. He should have been strong enough to deal with that, but he wasn't. I'll be very disappointed if I see him racing in F1 again, because people like him don't deserve a 2nd chance.

sure, but come on - HE WAS 23!!!!!

Still sharp, eh?