Several times during the race you hear announcers stressing the apparent irony: ‘Piquet’s accident cleared the way for Alonso’. But that’s the kind of witless, off-the-cuff silliness that announcers are expected to give us during a live event. Those of us who know the sport take it for what it’s worth and then forget it. Who would you think could take it seriously? Well….

We hear often that most of the FIA is composed of people who know little about racing or even automobiles… Owners of holiday motoring clubs in Madagascar and the like. Perhaps they adore Mr. Mosley because twice a year he brings them and the missus to Paris and takes them out to dinner in exchange for their support. (OK, in the spring he brings out the FIA delegate and his wife, and in autumn he brings out the delegate and his mistress.) What other kind of organization could sustain and investigation as inane as this?

Well, *I* did! And lots of friends did. The danger was what made all those months of flying gravel pathetic instead of just laughable.

> Either it was a reckless crash that put
> spectators and other drivers at risk,
> or it was a fairly harmless shunt

Says who? I don’t believe that for a minute! Every incident occurs in a continuum of bad outcomes. There’s a whole range of bad maneuvers that stand to be judged as more or less evil… I think the Massa release during refueling was a such a hideous, dangerous mistake that the failure borders on criminal negligence.

> that was inconvenient, but didn’t
> really pose a danger to anyone
> other than Piquet.

Did Barricello’s flying spring pose a danger to anyone? No? Could you make a case to convince Massa’s ophthalmologist? Wanna let a western-style lawyer answer that argument, or a p****d-off Asian civic official?

> they were acceptable just because his
> intent was not to crash?

Not at all acceptable. Accidental crashes get all sorts of attention, much of it punitive. Piquet’s intention is of *pivotal* importance to me. If the crash is proven to have been deliberate, I’ll give up interest in the sport and erase all the races I have on file… Time to get seriously into pop music again, like I did in the 70′s after Donahue died.

…But it ain’t likely. The FIA is apparently alleging that –

- Piquet crashed because he was told to;

- Into a concrete wall;

- A few feet from the bayfront crowd, perhaps the densest population on the circuit;

- In order to benefit a stable-mate who’s famously disinterested in team play;

- In close traffic with at least three other drivers in a tight urban corner;

- A quarter of the way through a very long race (lap 16/61);

- Moving the brusque partner, no contender for the championship, to just fifth position;

- In the first race at the setting, with no historical data by which to compose strategic patterns;

- After the partner’s own car had failed out on the track during quali the day before.

Right?

No. Didn’t happen. Did not.

Cridland, I’ve not heard the theory about Max Mosley having something against French people. Is the accent not suitable enough for a prison scenario?

Brendan, It is true that Piquet had a lot of crashes in his F1 career. But I think surely the difference is obvious when the crash is deliberately caused rather than accidental.

Even Yuji Ide’s crash was accidental, but it would have been reckless to keep him in the car because he was such a poor driver. I think everyone understands the rationale behind that. Piquet isn’t a dangerously bad driver like Ide when he is performing with noble intent, but it is certainly reckless to head out and deliberately cause a crash. Normally we call crashes accidents, but in this allegation there was no accident — there was intent.

Like I say, I don’t believe that Piquet or the Renault team is guilty — we have to see the clear evidence first before judging. But to have drivers deliberately causing crashes is surely something that should not be tolerated in the slightest, and anyone who goes out intending to throw their car in the wall and spread debris across the circuit ought to have the book thrown at them.

Basically, what I’m saying is that Piquet’s intent shouldn’t change the way we look at the crash. Either it was a reckless crash that put spectators and other drivers at risk, or it was a fairly harmless shunt that was inconvenient, but didn’t really pose a danger to anyone other than Piquet. I think it was firmly in the second category, and based on the lack of any outcry or controversy after the race last year, I think most people did also.
Now, we hear that it might have been deliberate, and suddenly you are analyzing every way that it was unsafe? *All* of his crashes could have hurt spectators and other drivers, but they were acceptable just because his intent was not to crash? This truly does not make sense to me.

I still cant believe that Renault could do something like this to win a race. Ok, I admit that Flavio seems to be the guy who loves dirt tricks, but Pat Symonds surely not. He seems to be the man who has the F1 heritage flowing through his veins, he wouldn´t pactuate with such a maquiavelic plan…

Another point is ABOUT EVIDENCES: When Reginaldo Leme told about Renault case on TV last Sunday, there was something that was lost in translation in all this mess: The man said that FIA ALREADY collected strong testimonies from Renault´s engineers that incriminates Flavio Briatore.

So, I don’t think that FIA will conduct their investigations backed only in telemetry data. Could be have another people (supposing that was our Piquetzinho the main source!) inside the team that opened its mouth…

Yes. And imagine if a “Massa spring” (if you’ll forgive the expression”) had hit some middle-aged schoolmarm in the crowd. Of course the car wouldn’t have been going 200mph after a ‘slow speed’ urban corner, but then our schoolteacher wouldn’t have been wearing at $10,000 helmet, either.

Imagine the scandal if word of this crime, at the first F1 race in Singapore, got out. I can’t imagine a bigger international incident not involving abject murder. Bernie Ecclestone would go to prison. Other men with bad haircuts would go to prison too, as a matter of principle. Bernie’s *daughters* would go to prison.

This is all about Mosley being pissy. This is his last chance to get even with Briatore or Renault for God-knows-what. Maybe it’s got something to do with French more generally. But his reputation at the end of his career couldn’t be any lower, so he’s going to wound as many souls as he can on the way to the grave.

It’s just too farfetched a theory for me. How much would it cost Renault to replace a totalled F1 car? Surely more than the gamble of ten points?