Gotta love Bernie... He helped start this s&&t show with Massa and then "forgot". And now, in an effort to remain important, he's mad at how Liberty is running F1 (because he was SO good at it) Bernie Ecclestone issues F1 ‘divorce’ warning following ‘completely mad’ move (msn.com)
Every item Massa has noted was out of Bernie's mouth. I hope he gains compensation so the Bernie era idiocy has to pay up and then others can file as well. Time to sort the mess he was in charge of and the Massa case is already having impact. The attention its bringing is all Bernie's fault and is over due. Pathetic trash that he is now. He can never just shut it lol. Well deserved is all this for him. This will be interesting.
I pulled this off Autosport Forum. I would be interested to hear what smart legal minded members have to say about this opinion. UK based it appears. --Hi. Let me add a lawyerly perspective on this; a civil court in California, indeed a case in California is built upon the same system, the common law, as the UK and many other Commonwealth or 'Anglophone' countries. Whilst a separate jurisdiction, the same principles apply and whilst a precedent set by a higher court is not binding in other Common Law jurisdictions, precedents set in other jurisdictions can be seen as 'persuasive' i.e. I could use a case in California it as part of a structured argument to a court over a point of precedence in New Zealand. However, the same principle applies about known evidence not being made forthcoming; it does weaken an argument by the party involved and can, and in a serious enough case, usually does, lead to an order for the relevant evidence to be presented. In this instance we are talking about 'tortious liability' or Tort, a breach of duty or legal rights and this is not necessarily jurisdiction specific and can be heard in a UK court as Massa intends. In this case, there is a layer of contractual obligations between the driver and team and those organising, or having responsibility for the event, FIA and FOM and these may specify that once a title has been decided, it has been decide. However, those contracts exist within a wider legal sphere that is of a higher order, i.e 'the law' and by this I do not mean legislation or rules but the underlying traditions and precedents that is the legal system. Therefore, did FIA and FOM act in a way that represents a breach of duty and infringement of legal rights towards Massa? Well, if the evidence is truthful and the parties acted in this way then yes, it appears they did regardless of any de jure breach of contract. So, by stating that the title is decided and that's the rules then yes, FIA and FOM are correct, that is the contractual arrangements drivers and teams contractually agree too. However, if there is an intent to act in away that would cause 'harm' in a tortious liability way, then they do have an obligation to rectify the situation....in some sense. In some sense; a court would not have the power to order FIA or FOM to make Massa world champion. It could state that if FIA and FOM acted in a way to prevent 'harm' then Massa would have been world champion and that he is entitled to 'damages' (this does not merely mean money). It could even, and I will put money on this, find that the behaviour of FIA and FOM impacted all teams in 2008 and therefore the authorities were in breach of their contractual obligations with all teams and drivers in F1. They they would be entitled to 'damages'. What these could be can only be speculative at this stage and when it comes to the law, it's best not to muse on this. Whilst we can all have opinions @geoffrey.rowe this is not a frivolous case in any sense of the term. In fact, I believe that the behaviour of a certain cohort at that time core to the sport is of such a serious and significant nature in a Tort sense of harm, that I would advise FIA and FOM to settle right now with Massa in a significant, and perhaps exceptional way (again, not for me to muse on any outcome) because this strikes at the very core of the sport. That why being sympathetic and generous towards Massa may be in the interests of everyone in F1.--
Toto is watching this with great interest. IF, and that's a huge if, Massa gets the 2008 championship overturned in his favor, Toto will more than likely look at getting the 2021 championship overturned as well.
I don't see how they can give Massa the title as there were still 3 races left in the season after "Crashgate".
I don't see what good can come out of that shyte. Today's generation having to deal with a conspiracy that happend 15 years ago, and someone trying to cash in. Bringing up the notion that any sport result can be subject to revision decades later. How great would that be ? Thank you Felipe Massa, you are freaking a joke !!!!
Or maybe, just maybe, F1 will start enforcing their own rules (all 300+ pages of them) when something happens and stop allowing steward "interpretation" of the rules. In Massa's case, Bernie/Max KNEW what happened less than a week after, and Bernie decides to talk about it...15 years later (and then "forgets"). It's like the serve clock in tennis. Nothing ambiguous about the rule, but it may or may not be enforced (usually based on who you are). If, in the second point of the match, the server goes over time, you CALL it. Then this would stop.
I seriously doubt it(F1 enforcing their own rules). I have printed before each race the stewards governing said race and they are always different hence the inconsistencies in the rules in F1. I have said time and time again in the modern era of F1 is to gather all the stewards via ZOOM call and have a consensus of whatever rule comes up.
Not sure what you mean? Crashgate was a "conspiracy" in order to sabotage the race and alow Alonso to win it. But this in itself is a proven fact.
The plot was unknown in Singapore 2008. It was only revealed by Piquet in 2009, one year later. Then, the FIA took action against the guilty parties (Renault, Briatore and Symmonds); but it was too late to change the race result. Had it be known at the time, Alonso would have been disqualified, and Rosberg declared winner. Hamilton would have finished 2nd instead of 3rd, gaining 2 extra points. Massa would have still DNF (no point). At the end of the year, Hamilton would still have been WDC, but with 2 points ahead of Massa, instead of one. What Massa wants, if I understand that right, is for the race to be cancelled, for him to be declared WDC, but that's not the rule. When someone is found cheating, he is disqualified, but the race is never cancelled and that doesn't affect the other participants. Massa also claims that the FIA knew of the plot at the time (2008), but didn't act upon it; that's something he will have to prove ! So far, Massa's case rests on an indiscretion from Ecclestone who said the FIA knew, but now he doesn't remember saying it !! LOL Max Mosley and Bernie ruled F1 then; one is dead, the other absent-minded. Good luck to that !!!
It has been crystal clear since Massa said he intended to go to court that he has greater chances to obtain some form of imdemnification under "Common Law" than under the french Law, as I wrote earlier in this thread, and OF COURSE his lawyers know that. If any court should rule that, as the matter concerns the FIA, and that FIA matters are to be brought to a french court which has competence, it seems probable to me that he might obtain some damages under the "perte de chance" (more or less: the "loss of an opportunity" to compete for the title) but in front of a french court, the chances to have the 2008 title reversed seem "close to zero" to me, for reasons that I have already commented about. So the decision to claim in front of a british court is entirely rational. It doesn't guarantee success...but I won't comment in any matter pertaining to Common Law; here, we need a lawyer qualified in Common Law. Rgds
The FIA sits in Paris, so a French court seems, on the face of it, to be the only legal authority in the matter. The layman that I am cannot understant the point of addressing a British court to adjudicate on a case upon which it has no jurisdiction.
To quote the "Autosport" comment cited by DF1 in post #504 above: "In this instance we are talking about 'tortious liability' or "Tort", a breach of duty or legal rights and this is not necessarily jurisdiction specific and can be heard in a UK court as Massa intends" It might go forward, or not. As far as I remember (but I have not checked) the FIA bylaws say that only the french courts have jurisdiction for FIA matters, but it depends who Massa intends to sue. And whether the UK courts says it has jurisdiction over the matter indeed... Interesting case... Rgds
