Massa claims Alonso knew 'all along' (crashgate)

Pretty much my point. It makes more sense that Alonso wasn't in on the plot.
Once the crash happened I'm sure he had a good idea of what went down though.

 

No, no, and thrice no!......

Over than wishing Michael the best, seems we may as well keep flogging this horse..... The facts;

1. Kratftys BFF granted Fred immunity from punishment in return for his testimony.
2. As Bas noted, given his starting position there is zero, no, nada, sense in him scheduling a pit stop that early. He 100% knew at the start he was only fueled for 11 laps.
3. He's not stupid. The ONLY possible way such a strategy could make sense is if they knew there would be a SC immediately after he pitted. This was not a 'sudden change of strategy' or good luck on their part, it was 100% planned. (Brilliant thinking if you can ignore the ignimony of the entire concept).

As Steve noted, to believe anything else is naive at best. Of course he knew! He went along with it, and won the race as a result. The truth only came out much later as we now know. But to claim he was in the dark is stupid beyond belief.

Hopefully, we'll have something else to discuss soon. This poor horse maybe dead, but I simply cannot believe anyone can say he didn't know of the plan.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Do we know for a fact that they were low fueled and that Alonso knew that the early stop was scheduled? If so I missed hearing that. Citation?

 

Why else would they bring him in?

I'd need to fire up the Google engine, but yes, I'm pretty sure the FIA report details the whole sordid affair.

These guys know, pretty much down to the kilo, how much fuel they're carrying at any one time - Supposedly one of the reasons why 'big' jockeys are at such a disadvantage nowadays for example.

He absolutely knew how much fuel he had on board at the start - One of the things he and the strategists discuss. He pitted AHEAD of PK's shunt. He had to, as the pits were immediately closed as the SC is called out back then.

Again, there is absolutely no way he'd have gone along with 11 laps of fuel if he didn't know of the plan. And it worked until the beans got spilt many years later...... Of course he was in on it, as Steve noted, the entire pitlane recognized it at the time. No other scenario makes any sense whatsoever.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Please don't forget that Mosley granted him immunity from any punishment in return for his testimony. Flav & Symonds (rightfully, IMO) took the fall...... He simply went along with the plan. Despicable though it was, why should he be punished anyway?

Cheers,
Ian

 

No shat!

 

Since Bernie chose for them to race inside the confines of Singapore where passing is impossible, they just thought outside that box and employed (IMO) brilliant strategy to win the race. Punishments were far too harsh all around.

I suppose at the Formula 1 felt it had to protect its integrity. But it really has none, pitting classic tracks against new petro billions to have 19 high bidders for the season. F1 worrying about its integrity is like a porn star worrying about her virginity. That ship sailed a long time ago...

 

I'm not sure I follow you. They brought him in took take advantage of the upcoming crash.
Why he thought that they were bringing him in might be a different matter.

Race strategy sometimes has drivers pit early for a number of reasons. On occasion before it's dictated by low fuel just to get out of traffic or to get out of synch with the rest of the field.

Again, absent proof, the early pit stop per se does not prove Alonso's complicity before the fact.

 

I get your point, for sure.

They sure look good under the lights on the tv though!.......

However, as a long time motorsport fan and sometime participant, the entire concept of what they did here makes my blood run cold. It's anathema. It's terrifying. I don't care how 'safe' the things are these days, those responsible (Flav & Symonds if the FIA are to be believed) should NEVER be allowed near a race track again IMO.

He knew at the start that he had only 11 laps of fuel onboard. Given his grid position that makes zero sense. UNLESS he knew a SC would appear at that exact moment. And they almost pulled it off.....

As I've said, to claim he didn't know of the plan is naive at best. Of course he knew. He's an intelligent guy.

I'll try and find the FIA report, but as I already asked, why should he have been punished anyway? His 'bosses' came up with the plan, and it worked beautifully if all you're concerned about is a race win....

A terrifying scenario, but not of his doing.

Cheers,
Ian

 

I'm content to leave it at that.


Wait didn't we do that years ago?

Damn you Phil

 

I'm dragging this back again to add:

I was watching an F1 programme tonight that was an interview with Max Mosley and a review of his time in F1.

Part of the interview covered the crash-gate affair and Mosley stated that when the members of the Renault team were interviewed there was a retired police officer on the FIA's panel. He had been invited to join the panel to use his experience of interviewing suspects and advise the FIA of those he thought were lying about what they knew.

Alonso was quizzed as to what he knew about the crash plan and stated that he was totally unaware of any such plan.

When his interview was over, the ex-Police officer was asked if he believed Alonso had lied about not knowing anything about any crash plan, to which the ex-officer replied that in his opinion, based on over 30years of interviewing suspects, he was convinced that Alonso was telling the truth and was genuinely unaware of the plan.

Make of that what you will!

 

Obviously Zo is a sociopath.

Or telling the truth.

Everyone will decide according to their prejudices.

 

This about sums it up:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F54rqDh2mWA]Hindenburg disaster - YouTube[/ame]

 

If it was the Police officer on video, confirmed to be an actual experienced police officer, making that statement, I'd believe him.

It sounds, though, like it was Mosley on the video, telling the story of the police officer. In that case, I wouldn't believe Mosley for one second or one word, whichever is first.

Mosley had already let Renault off with a slap on the wrist in their own spy scandal which was worse than McLaren's, and given Alonso amnesty the prior year in 2007 in exchange for him testifying that he was deeply involved in the stolen information. Mosley treated Alonso with kid gloves all those years, and it certainly wouldn't be beyond Mosley to make up some story about a police interviewer giving a green light to Alonso, if it suited him to do so.

 

Saw him in Kensington about a year ago walking alone looking weird and confused.

If it wasn't for his suit I would have thought of him as a junkie.

Sad.

 

It was an interview Steve Rider did For SKY TV with Max Mosley.

On crashgate, Alonso and the ex-Police officer, here is an article about it: Crashgate's shadow still lingers five years on - F1 Fanatic

The FIA hired corporate investigative firm Quest to conduct an inquiry. Among their team was Martin Smith, a former detective superintendent who had spent 30 years with the Metropolitan Police.

They were quick to rule out any involvement on Alonso’s part after he was interviewed on August 28th at Spa-Francorchamps, where practice for the Belgian Grand Prix was taking place. “Alonso denied any knowledge of any sort of plot,” explained Mosley.

Alonso told the FIA that the unusual strategy of starting with a light fuel load from a low qualifying position at a track where overtaking was difficult was borne out of a desire to pursue a different approach to those immediately around him in the hope of gaining an advantage. Besides which, he added, “the question of strategy was one which he largely left to his engineers” (in the FIA’s words).

“Interestingly the senior policeman [who interviewed Alonso] – very experienced at questioning people – is convinced he was telling the truth,” Mosley added.

I can't see why Mosley would bother lying about this TBH! - Perhaps you know better?



As for Renault being treated differently to McLaren over the Spygate affairs: I think you need to go and re-read about what happened in both cases!

As I've previously posted, in McLaren's first hearing they admitted having a 780 page dossier of current Ferrari Data within their team but told the FIA that the only person who had seen any of it was Mike Coughlan, and added that they had not made any use of the information it contained. They were found Guilty of the charges but were given no punishment for the infringement.

In Renault's spying case, they admitted having McLaren Data on their computers but told the FIA that it was old Data that was of no use to them, that they had not used any of it on their previous seasons car or on their forthcoming car for the next season and that they had sacked those involved in getting the Data. They were found Guilty of the charges but were given no punishment for the infringement.

So far then, two Guilty verdicts and no punishment = Equal treatment!

The FIA were then made aware that McLaren had not been telling the truth about their case and had instigated a cover-up. When further investigations were made by the FIA, it was confirmed that McLaren had lied about who had seen the Ferrari Data in their team, lied about not making use of the Data and lied about not using it to improve their car. A second hearing was called which found them Guilty of lying to the FIA in an official hearing and so they were punished with exclusion from the previous season and given a £100Million fine.

Renault on the other hand had proven to the FIA that they had been truthful about not using the Data that they had and so faced no further punishment.


So:

McLaren lied and got punished for it!
Renault were honest and received no punishment!

These are the simple facts of both cases!

McLaren were very lucky not to have been banned from competing in F1 for life! (Which the FIA were weighing up! Allegedly, Mosley argued against that punishment due to the effect it would have had on all of their employee's and it was Bernie's idea to fine them $100Million instead [none of which you'll believe I'm sure!] ).



The problem with most of the anti-Max posts and rhetoric that we get on here is that it tends to be based on a dislike of Max due to what he did in his private life and/or on what happened when it came to peoples favoured teams.

They also tend to only be based on what happened at the end of Mosley's tenure in charge of F1 and completely ignore all of the good things that Mosley did for F1 throughout the rest of his tenure.

As for Myself, I have no axe to grind with Mosley and no bias either way so I watched the interview with an open mind and found it quite interesting!

Yes there were some issues with him at times that I disagreed with, but I suspect that a lifetime of dealing with the likes of Bernie Ecclestone, Jean-Marie Balestre, Flavio Briatore, LDM, Ron Dennis etc., etc., could be enough to make anyone want to take matters into their own hands!

 

I hope you are not trying to wind me up.

Mosley was Bernies show fixing side kick, Bernie wanted him there, that's why, that's until he nearly single handily brought the whole damn sport down, remember the break away talk.

Mosley called Jackie Stewart a certified half wit, yet that man did more for the safety of the sport than that cretin ever did.

Like it or not his personal life comes into it, < he was a public figure in control of the FIA running and fixing the rules, yet he was so damn pigheaded he never took heed of folk telling him he was being followed, well every dog has his day.

You carry on believing what comes out of his mouth, but count me out period.

Feel sorry for his wife and sons, on planet Maxxx.

 

I'm not trying to wind you or anybody up, I'm just pointing out that there was more to Mosley's tenure in charge of F1 than what happened at the end of it.

I'm also just clarifying that there was no bias against McLaren in comparison with Renault as had been suggested - McLaren were the architects of their own downfall by lying to the FIA!
Had they been honest with the FIA from the start then they would have been treated identically to Renault (as shown by the result of their first hearing: Guilty but no punishment!).

People read posts on here and take them at face value as being the complete facts of the matter. However, when those facts are not true or accurate then it needs pointing out! - And in the case of the posts made about Spygate, they did not give the whole story of the events!

Yes Mosley was out of order with how he dealt with Jackie Stewart, and the "half wit" comment was unprofessional. I have every respect for what Jackie Stewart has done for safety in racing (and not just F1!), but I've also read and watched interviews with Stewart where I've disagreed with what he's said and felt that he's starting to talk nonsense!

As I've already said, there is more to Mosley's tenure than what occurred in the last few years, but that's all you're focussing on!

You and I both know that there are certain topics that we are never going to agree on, and that's fine! - That's life and I have no problem with that at all.

However, there are times when the best course of action is to simply walk away before things get out of hand and so I'll leave this thread to die it's natural death!

 

Honesty and Mosley/FIA are not a combination of words I would use together.

As I said believe what you want, but by the same token do not state it as fact because you do not know that is the case.

Look up when he was the team manager of March, he was involved in cheating, resulting in Brambilla getting pole, thats before he became judge and jury of the FIA.

 

Mosley is the skid mark in the soiled underpants that is F1.