Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
but didn't investigate until end of season.

On 3/11/24 16:38, Woozy Song wrote:
> Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
> but didn't investigate until end of season.

Yes, "Interesting".

And that is what gives this old controversy legitimate
legs. The officials knew improprieties took place
in the points awarded, and yet they kept quiet about it,
and hoped 'the wrongness' would just stay a secret.

It did not.

On 3/12/2024 12:43 PM, a425couple wrote:
> On 3/11/24 16:38, Woozy Song wrote:
>> Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
>> but didn't investigate until end of season.
>
> Yes, "Interesting".
>
> And that is what gives this old controversy legitimate
> legs.  The officials knew improprieties took place
> in the points awarded, and yet they kept quiet about it,
> and hoped 'the wrongness' would just stay a secret.
>
> It did not.
>

"Mislead to Survive" -- long before Liberty and Netflix

a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/11/24 16:38, Woozy Song wrote:
>> Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
>> but didn't investigate until end of season.
>
> Yes, "Interesting".
>
> And that is what gives this old controversy legitimate
> legs. The officials knew improprieties took place
> in the points awarded, and yet they kept quiet about it,
> and hoped 'the wrongness' would just stay a secret.
>
> It did not.

Several things make no sense to me. The first is why you would spend so
much money relying on the testimony of an old man who is less than
reliable. The second is his apparent certainty that the FIA would have
to cancel the entire race result if they found wrongdoing...even though
precedent suggests (Schumacher, McLaren, etc.) the team and/or driver
would lose points not the entire race being cancelled. The third thing
is that anyone would see it as "fair" to change the results after the
fact. While drivers do their best to maximise points, you take different
decisions and more risks if you are more points away, so a different
result in one race could well have (for better or worse) change the
subsequent races. You simply can't unpick these things "fairly".
Choosing the one change that happens to hand you a title...many years
after the fact...is being very selective.

This is going to be messy all-round. Ecclestone is going to prove a very
unreliable witness (he has already), and most of the others known to be
involved are either dead (Mosley) or have reasons not to get involved
(Nelsinho, Briatore, Alonso). Unless they have a smoking gun bit of
evidence, just proving the case will be hard. Getting precisely the
outcome they desire will be harder. This will be ruinously expensive,
make Massa look like a *very* sore loser and open a can of worms that
cannot end well.

(Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for Massa and how this has played out.
He's not the first driver to lose out on a title because of luck, and he
won't be the last. Attempting to litigate your way around this is going
to tarnish rather than burnish his reputation IMO).

Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
> a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 16:38, Woozy Song wrote:
>>> Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
>>> but didn't investigate until end of season.
>>
>> Yes, "Interesting".
>>
>> And that is what gives this old controversy legitimate
>> legs. The officials knew improprieties took place
>> in the points awarded, and yet they kept quiet about it,
>> and hoped 'the wrongness' would just stay a secret.
>>
>> It did not.
>
> Several things make no sense to me. The first is why you would spend so
> much money relying on the testimony of an old man who is less than
> reliable. The second is his apparent certainty that the FIA would have
> to cancel the entire race result if they found wrongdoing...even though
> precedent suggests (Schumacher, McLaren, etc.) the team and/or driver
> would lose points not the entire race being cancelled. The third thing
> is that anyone would see it as "fair" to change the results after the
> fact. While drivers do their best to maximise points, you take different
> decisions and more risks if you are more points away, so a different
> result in one race could well have (for better or worse) change the
> subsequent races. You simply can't unpick these things "fairly".
> Choosing the one change that happens to hand you a title...many years
> after the fact...is being very selective.
>
> This is going to be messy all-round. Ecclestone is going to prove a very
> unreliable witness (he has already), and most of the others known to be
> involved are either dead (Mosley) or have reasons not to get involved
> (Nelsinho, Briatore, Alonso). Unless they have a smoking gun bit of
> evidence, just proving the case will be hard. Getting precisely the
> outcome they desire will be harder. This will be ruinously expensive,
> make Massa look like a *very* sore loser and open a can of worms that
> cannot end well.
>
> (Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for Massa and how this has played out.
> He's not the first driver to lose out on a title because of luck, and he
> won't be the last. Attempting to litigate your way around this is going
> to tarnish rather than burnish his reputation IMO).

I agree with everything you say and see nothing good for Massa in the whole
affair..

Hamilton had a much better case for challenging the result of the 2021 WDC
but he decided to suck it up and not litigate.

--
Sir Tim

On 14/03/2024 6:04 am, Sir Tim wrote:
> Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
>> a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 3/11/24 16:38, Woozy Song wrote:
>>>> Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
>>>> but didn't investigate until end of season.
>>>
>>> Yes, "Interesting".
>>>
>>> And that is what gives this old controversy legitimate
>>> legs. The officials knew improprieties took place
>>> in the points awarded, and yet they kept quiet about it,
>>> and hoped 'the wrongness' would just stay a secret.
>>>
>>> It did not.
>>
>> Several things make no sense to me. The first is why you would spend so
>> much money relying on the testimony of an old man who is less than
>> reliable. The second is his apparent certainty that the FIA would have
>> to cancel the entire race result if they found wrongdoing...even though
>> precedent suggests (Schumacher, McLaren, etc.) the team and/or driver
>> would lose points not the entire race being cancelled. The third thing
>> is that anyone would see it as "fair" to change the results after the
>> fact. While drivers do their best to maximise points, you take different
>> decisions and more risks if you are more points away, so a different
>> result in one race could well have (for better or worse) change the
>> subsequent races. You simply can't unpick these things "fairly".
>> Choosing the one change that happens to hand you a title...many years
>> after the fact...is being very selective.
>>
>> This is going to be messy all-round. Ecclestone is going to prove a very
>> unreliable witness (he has already), and most of the others known to be
>> involved are either dead (Mosley) or have reasons not to get involved
>> (Nelsinho, Briatore, Alonso). Unless they have a smoking gun bit of
>> evidence, just proving the case will be hard. Getting precisely the
>> outcome they desire will be harder. This will be ruinously expensive,
>> make Massa look like a *very* sore loser and open a can of worms that
>> cannot end well.
>>
>> (Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for Massa and how this has played out.
>> He's not the first driver to lose out on a title because of luck, and he
>> won't be the last. Attempting to litigate your way around this is going
>> to tarnish rather than burnish his reputation IMO).
>
> I agree with everything you say and see nothing good for Massa in the whole
> affair..
>
> Hamilton had a much better case for challenging the result of the 2021 WDC
> but he decided to suck it up and not litigate.
>

The difference being maybe that MAS is running short of $$$ and MAH isn't ?

geoff

On 14/03/2024 9:41 am, geoff wrote:
> On 14/03/2024 6:04 am, Sir Tim wrote:
>> Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> a425couple <a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/11/24 16:38, Woozy Song wrote:
>>>>> Interesting part is that Bernie knew Piquet Jr. crash was deliberate,
>>>>> but didn't investigate until end of season.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, "Interesting".
>>>>
>>>> And that is what gives this old controversy legitimate
>>>> legs.  The officials knew improprieties took place
>>>> in the points awarded, and yet they kept quiet about it,
>>>> and hoped 'the wrongness' would just stay a secret.
>>>>
>>>> It did not.
>>>
>>> Several things make no sense to me. The first is why you would spend so
>>> much money relying on the testimony of an old man who is less than
>>> reliable.  The second is his apparent certainty that the FIA would have
>>> to cancel the entire race result if they found wrongdoing...even though
>>> precedent suggests (Schumacher, McLaren, etc.) the team and/or driver
>>> would lose points not the entire race being cancelled. The third thing
>>> is that anyone would see it as "fair" to change the results after the
>>> fact. While drivers do their best to maximise points, you take different
>>> decisions and more risks if you are more points away, so a different
>>> result in one race could well have (for better or worse) change the
>>> subsequent races. You simply can't unpick these things "fairly".
>>> Choosing the one change that happens to hand you a title...many years
>>> after the fact...is being very selective.
>>>
>>> This is going to be messy all-round. Ecclestone is going to prove a very
>>> unreliable witness (he has already), and most of the others known to be
>>> involved are either dead (Mosley) or have reasons not to get involved
>>> (Nelsinho, Briatore, Alonso). Unless they have a smoking gun bit of
>>> evidence, just proving the case will be hard. Getting precisely the
>>> outcome they desire will be harder. This will be ruinously expensive,
>>> make Massa look like a *very* sore loser and open a can of worms that
>>> cannot end well.
>>>
>>> (Don't get me wrong, I feel sorry for Massa and how this has played out.
>>> He's not the first driver to lose out on a title because of luck, and he
>>> won't be the last. Attempting to litigate your way around this is going
>>> to tarnish rather than burnish his reputation IMO).
>>
>> I agree with everything you say and see nothing good for Massa in the
>> whole
>> affair..
>>
>> Hamilton had a much better case for challenging the result of the 2021
>> WDC
>> but he decided to suck it up and not litigate.
>>
>
> The difference being maybe that MAS is running short of $$$ and MAH isn't ?
>
> geoff

Lysdexic.... 'HAM'.

geoff

geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> On 14/03/2024 9:41 am, geoff wrote:
>>
>> The difference being maybe that MAS is running short of $$$ and MAH isn't ?
>
> Lysdexic.... 'HAM'.

Yes...but that raises a different question. I think it's generally
understood that this kind of litigation needs deep pockets and is far
from a sure bet...and that's even with compelling evidence, which the
ramblings of an unreliable witness is not, IMO. If Massa is short of
cash, this kind of thing will require lots of money which will be tied
up for years, during which time he will find he's not welcome in a
number of F1-related activities, further reducing his ability to earn.

If that's the case - and I think it is - *someone* is bankrolling this.
So, I'd be interested in knowing who is supporting him and (more
importantly) their motivation for doing so.

It wouldn't even surprise me if it had nothing to do with Hamilton (*or*
Massa), but rather some sort of axe being ground elsewhere in the FIA or
F1. It's destabilising and another unwelcome distraction.

All very odd.

On 3/14/2024 5:43 AM, Mark wrote:
> geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>> On 14/03/2024 9:41 am, geoff wrote:
>>>
>>> The difference being maybe that MAS is running short of $$$ and MAH isn't ?
>>
>> Lysdexic.... 'HAM'.
>
> Yes...but that raises a different question. I think it's generally
> understood that this kind of litigation needs deep pockets and is far
> from a sure bet...and that's even with compelling evidence, which the
> ramblings of an unreliable witness is not, IMO. If Massa is short of
> cash, this kind of thing will require lots of money which will be tied
> up for years, during which time he will find he's not welcome in a
> number of F1-related activities, further reducing his ability to earn.
>
> If that's the case - and I think it is - *someone* is bankrolling this.
> So, I'd be interested in knowing who is supporting him and (more
> importantly) their motivation for doing so.
>
> It wouldn't even surprise me if it had nothing to do with Hamilton (*or*
> Massa), but rather some sort of axe being ground elsewhere in the FIA or
> F1. It's destabilising and another unwelcome distraction.
>
> All very odd.

Or is it designed to pot-stir, thus attract more attention?

"Stay tuned ... for the next exciting episode of F1 in Chains"

News <News@group.name> wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 5:43 AM, Mark wrote:
>>
>> All very odd.
>
>
> Or is it designed to pot-stir, thus attract more attention?
>
> "Stay tuned ... for the next exciting episode of F1 in Chains"

Yes...but again, cui bono? It's a damned expensive way to get
publicity...which goes back to the questions of "who" and "why"?

On 3/14/2024 12:36 PM, Mark wrote:
> News <News@group.name> wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 5:43 AM, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>> All very odd.
>>
>>
>> Or is it designed to pot-stir, thus attract more attention?
>>
>> "Stay tuned ... for the next exciting episode of F1 in Chains"
>
> Yes...but again, cui bono? It's a damned expensive way to get
> publicity...which goes back to the questions of "who" and "why"?

He/she/they who benefit from clicks and eyeballs.