Assuming Renault is guilty of orchestrating PK Minimus' crash... Alonso must have known something was up befor the race... FB-Fred, we know your 15th on the grid, but we're going to run light. 12 laps of fuel. FA-that's nuts... no place to pass at the singlelane grand prix.. FB-don't worry... Whether he was specifically told, I'm sure he figured it out in about 2 minutes... And after the race, he could have had no doubt... So... If a driver knows, or believes,... a race was fixed.... is he obligated to go to the stewards? Is keeping silent a FIA offense?
I totally agree - when I heard he was playing dumb about the whole thing my feeling was that he'd have to be dumb (literally) to have not known something was up. While I'm no huge fan of Alonso, he isn't stupid when it comes to ways to win a race. Now when it comes to actually proving he knew something, that will be tough. >8^) ER
What difference does it make? If they didn't tell him specifically, which i'm sure they didn't, (plausible deniabilty) then while he might have been the beneficiary of the arrangment, he wouldn't be guilty of anything. If I suspected anything like that in his position, I'd keep my mouth shut and NEVER ask FB or PS about it.
Varsha on speed alluded to the same issue about Alonso's fuel level for Singapore. I don't think the implication is accurate. As I recall fuel rules last year were different and I believe you declared race-starting fuel level across the field (not just for the top-10 as in 2009). Alonso had been running well in practice but broke in qualifying (he either broke or had to park it on an escape road after taking evasive action). Up until that point he was considered a contender for the pole - and declaring a light load would've fit with that. Now what Flav and Nelson Putz-quet came up with to salvage the race for Fred subsequent to him having to start mid-field on light-load - well we'll know Wednesday.
Yeah, and Alonso threatened Ron Dennis with going to the FIA in the Ferrarigate espionage case. His morals are just as variable as PK Jr. and Flabbios...
He might have threatened, but he didn't actually do it did he? If you remember, he actually told RD to forget what he said, RD was the one that made the call to the FIA, not FA. Not the same thing is it?
I think it is somewhat hypercritical of FerrariChat to be discussing rigging races ... especially after the MS/JT years where Ferrari's cheating reached new and very visible heights. Pete
Yep, but it was more than just team orders, there were slow down sessions for the number 2 to allow MS to build a lead, etc. Plus add the couple off the top of my head times where MS tried to rig qualifying with spins or parking, etc. Pete
I disagree that using the strategy of number 2 driving slow to help number 1 is cheating (as long as there's not blocking to the extent that it violates the rules). It's been done since the 50's. But I will agree with you about the Monaco parking job. Not my favorite Schumi moment. I must have blocked it out
He caught it so fast it doesn't even show on NTSC quality replays, but watching live in MPEG-2 (bis) via satellite I swear I saw that back end get loose on him under braking. (The same thing that put Felipe in the fence in Q1.) Overcook the entry to (double apex) Rascasse, and that's the kind of exit you get. Remember both Kimi and Massa fetching up at exactly the same spot a year later? Some of Shumi's chopping starts were a bit questionable, but I can't really buy Monaco '06 as intentional blocking. Today, you can look at team orders as cheating, but it wasn't against any kind of rules until after Austria '02. Teamwork has always been a part of GP racing, and the rules against team orders has often been held up as an example of over-regulation in today's sport. The world has gone too far into the mode of equating success with "presumption of guilt". After all, why would we "assume" that Renault is guilty, when accused by a disgruntled sacked employee? Alonso won the next race too, and Piquet didn't even crash in that one.
I never looked at Monaco in that kind of detail, but since I'm a Schumi fan I'll take your word for it. You made my day And I totally agree about the over-regulation with team orders. We shouldn't forget that the great Fangio won one of his WDCs because his teammate pulled over and gave him his car!
The weird part was how everyone assumed that it was intentional, because they assumed that Schumi *never* made a mistake. Maybe that's why Piquet Jr is now doing a PeeWee Herman "I meant to do that" schtick about Singapore.
+1 and Ferrari must be taking stock of this situation and its problems or issues in the past related to "suspicious" actions/orders Ferrari have been part of. FA is great but is he worth the hassle and no matter what plausible deniability he has, he was on the team and it didnt take a rocket scientist to know how suspicious his victory was in the paddock. In terms of his deal with Ferrari, I think Ferrari are relooking the entire issue now and maybe they will have to pay off Alonso? Assuming he had a contract etc? I think this is an entire mess and the Kimi part is the easy part. Im betting the Alonso end, if true, is much more complicated now. Who knows its pretty much the usual soap opera anyway for F1. Im foolish to think the sport is clean or ever was prior to my gaining interest some 30 years ago.
Whether FA knew about potentially rigging the race is speculative, as is the reason for the crash itself. But I do agree that if PK crashed on purpose, FA must have had at least a suspicion and was obligated to notify some higher authority. So, if these two hypothets are true, then FA's actions (or lack of actions) implicate him also. Adding this to his McLaren behavior, the question MUST be asked: Is Ferrari really getting rid of Kimi to go with Alonso?
Two problems with what you wrote: 1) It is undeniable that Schumi cheated in Rascasse that year... it was clear from the TV picture, and was confirmed by the telemetry. No doubt about it. 2) You say "why would we assume Renault is guilty when accused by a disgruntled sacked employee". Renault does not dispute the crash was intentional. They only claim it was PK's idea and not theirs. There is no doubt about malfeasance, just blame.
WTF? If I were Flavio I wouldn´t base my defense on that. Why Piquet would want to crash without any agreement with the team? It´s easier to just say that Piquet crashed accidentally (he crashed quite often anyway).
Althought I somewhat agree, your argument is quite poor, don´t you think? First, this (supposed) cheat is quite bigger than anything Schumacher did (and boy, he did some big ones). And second, this is what some people call "to throw the sh*t on the fan", hope you know what I mean.
What he say Dave no wonder Flav is your hero!.. Let me guess Flav:" I'm hung like a mule and I have the balls to go with it". PK has got neither. I dig out my photo of him in G string for your wall if you like Dave..
