Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1
Titolo: [ENG] - Lunghissimo - Unmasking the President

In the early evening of Tuesday 6th September 1994 Max Mosley, the
president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, stepped over
the mark of probity. He effectively 'fixed' the outcome of an FIA World
Council disciplinary hearing. Mosley may have felt he was safe to do so
and justified it by 'it being in the best interests of the sport'. Only
he knew everything that had been done to prevent the certainty of the
Benetton team being excluded from the 1994 world championship for
blatant cheating and endangering its mechanics' safety. But one other
man also knew: George Carman QC, without whom his 'fix' could not have
worked.
By Christian Sylt
On the evening of Tuesday 6th September 1994, Max Mosley, the president
of the Fédération Internationale de 1'Automobile, strolled out of his
Paris headquarters on the Place de la Concorde into the impressive
portals of the building next door, one of the most famous hotels in the
world, Hotel Crillon.
Mosley had arrived in Paris a few hours before aboard Bernie
Ecclestone's Learjet. Ecclestone, president of Formula One Management,
the commercial rights holder of Formula One, and a member of the FIA
World Council was also due in Paris for the meeting and the two men
travelled together.
Ecclestone and Mosley had discussed the upcoming World Council
disciplinary hearing, which had been brought forward five weeks.
Although there were two other disciplinary hearings on the
cobbled-together disciplinary agenda, the only one that mattered was the
one that concerned the Benetton team's absence of a fuel filter from its
refuelling rig at the German Grand Prix at Hockenheim in July. The other
two were sideshows.
Ecclestone, an extraordinary visionary in these situations, was
desperately worried that Benetton's German driver Michael Schumacher
could be excluded from the 1994 championship because of his team's
actions. That would be a disaster. German television figures were
rising, as was sponsorship interest from Germany in the sport.
Ecclestone knew the reunited country was a potential powerhouse for
Formula One.
Aside from his nationality, Schumacher was the new star of Fl, to fill
the gap left by the dead Ayrton Senna. In Ecclestone's view his
expulsion had to be avoided at all costs.
Ecclestone has since admitted that he put pressure on Mosley for that
not to happen. In fact, he has tried to take the blame for what
happened. But in fact Mosley was under pressure from all sides,
including Italian entrepreneur, Luciano Benetton, the owner of the team,
colourful team principal Flavio Briatore, who had breezed into Formula
One a few years before, and Tom Walkinshaw, the team's technical
director. Mosley was particularly upset by Walkinshaw's attitude. In his
opinion it was he who had removed the filter and caused all the problems
and then, even worse, had forgotten he had done it and got caught.
Benetton had been caught red-handed after the fuel rig had caught fire,
directly because the filter had been removed, during a pitstop by its
Dutch driver Jos Verstappen. The incident was dramatically caught on
television, making headlines throughout the world. Worse, the team had
three times changed its explanation of its actions. First it said it had
the FIA's permission, then it said it had Intertechnique's, the rig
manufacturer's permission, and lastly it said the filter had been
removed by a junior employee without the knowledge of the team's senior
managers. It had also tried to discredit the FIA's technical expertise
by commissioning a dubious safety report of its own which, surprise,
surprise, completely exonerated the team.
It was a disastrous situation, and Mosley realised the World Council
would vote Benetton out of the championship unless he could intervene.
Mosley knew the team was guilty but he had a plan and as long as he
could persuade Benetton's lawyer to go along with it, it just might
work. Mosley was not looking forward to the next few weeks. He knew that
even if he won he would have to face the press, which although tame
would not stand for what was about to happen. He would need all his
powers of persuasion to get through.
Carman had been hired by Benetton team boss, Flavio Briatore, via the
London office of Benetton's Italian lawyers. It was probably
Ecclestone's idea to hire him. He had come across him before and
instantly recognised a fellow genius.
Mosley had decided his strategy. He would ask Carman to plead guilty and
argue his case in mitigation as to why Benetton should escape
punishment, and hope the World Council would then decide there should be
no punishment. He would amplify everything Carman said in his summing
up, in his usual rational, persuasive way.
Mosley told Carman the guilty plea would effectively mean the case was
not heard, no witnesses would be called and the HA World Council would
only hear what Carman told them. It was down to Carman's skill to
convince the World Council that it was an innocent 'mistake' for which
there was no need to exact a punishment. This would be reinforced by
Mosley's summing up, which would take the view that it was unfortunate
that Carman had pleaded guilty because the World Council was not able to
hear all the facts. As Mosley well knew, Carman was the world's best
advocate, and he believed he was pretty good himself. As he predicted,
the World Council would be dazzled and produce the required verdict,
guilty but innocent.
The flash fire that engulfed the Benetton Ford pit at Hockenheim on 31st
July 1994, when Jos Verstappen made his pitstop at the end of lap 15 of
the German Grand Prix, produced some spectacular images, and left six
mechanics injured. It made front page news and led television news
reports worldwide. But what in reality was a minor, if dramatic looking,
drama, set off a chain of events that would directly affect the outcome
of the Formula One world championship that year, via an FIA World
Council disciplinary hearing.
The FIA launched an inquiry into what it initially thought was a
straightforward accident inquiry but as the investigation proceeded it
got more than it bargained for.
The incident is still red raw at the FIA and Charlie Whiting, the
highest ranking technical executive in the sport, absolutely refuses to
answer any questions about the affair Or at least he has been ordered to
make no comment. Unsurprisingly, the accident investigation brought the
discovery that the Benetton team had been cheating by removing filter
parts, with the result that fuel would flow 12.5 per cent more quickly
through the hose, increasing the speed of pitstops. For a team that had
repeatedly been under suspicion during the year for cheating, it should
have been the last straw. 
The day after the accident, on the morning of Monday 1st August, the FIA
announced its own investigation. Benetton also said it would be
commissioning an independent investigation. Brawn contacted a small
company called Accident and Failure Technical Analysis Ltd (AFTA), run
by Peter Coombs and Tony Neville. The French fuel rig manufacturer,
Intertechnique, was due to meet Benetton on the Wednesday after the
Grand Prix. So far, this was a straightforward accident investigation,
with the main concern being legal claims threatened by the injured
mechanics who sensed a payday from Benetton's insurers. Some of the
mechanics were quite badly injured and that was covered up. But Benetton
had made a huge mistake.
Crucially it had forgotten, or Ross Brawn didn't know, that it had
removed the filter in the rig earlier in the season.
It was not until 10 days after the accident that the bombshell dropped:
Intertechnique's report submitted to the FIA found the most likely cause
of the accident was deliberate removal of the filter, an action that
increased fuel flow by 12.5 per cent, which could have translated into a
gain of one second over an eight-second pitstop. The FIA's regulations
expressly forbid any modification of Intertechnique's equipment, Article
6.5.1. stating that the 'equipment must not be modified in any way
whatsoever'.
Suddenly the investigation had dramatically changed from a safety issue
to a cheating issue. Safety was containable, cheating which compromised
safety, was not, especially when lawyers, insurance companies and the
outcome of the world championship were concerned.
The FIA's press release read: "Following a detailed investigation into
the fire involving car No. 6 during a pitstop at the German Grand Prix,
the refuelling equipment manufacturer, Intertechnique, has reported to
the FIA as follows:
"1. The fuel spillage was caused by a valve failing to close properly,
"2. The valve was slow to close due to the presence of a foreign body,
"3. The foreign body is believed to have reached the valve because a
filter designed to eliminate this risk had been deliberately removed.
"A report has been submitted by the FIA Observer, Mr R. Causo, under
Article 152 of the International Sporting Code and Benetton Formula Ltd.
has been summoned to appear before the World Motor Sport Council on 19th
October, 1994 to answer a charge that they are in breach of Article
6.5.1 of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations."
It was a sensation. 
Benetton had been accused of cheating before that season but this time
there were rumours the punishment would be expulsion from the world
championship. Furthermore, the accusation that Benetton's actions had
put its own team members in danger was potentially more damning,
especially if the mechanics sued. Benetton had little choice but to
issue its own statement before the end of the day with some of the
findings from the independent report it had commissioned. At first
Benetton declined to reveal the identity of the accident investigation
company it had employed, calling it 'a specialist in the field of
accident investigation and assessment of engineering failures and
accidents, particularly specialising in the aerospace field'. It also
failed to explain how an aerospace company could have as much background
knowledge about the incident as the FIA Safety Commission.
The truth about Accident and Failure Technical Analysis Ltd (AFTA),
based in Camberley in Surrey, was somewhat different. The statement said
the company had 'conducted investigations into over 300 serious
accidents worldwide, in addition to numerous less serious cases,
including involvement in most major accidents since 1972 to public
transport aircraft and helicopters in the UK and surrounding waters, as
well as overseas incidents where aircraft of UK registration or
manufacture have been involved'. Benetton also said AFTA had frequently
served as technical investigator for military boards of inquiry into
serious and complex military aircraft accidents.
But Benetton's description of AFTA was entirely false. It had not
existed in 1972 and was only incorporated in 1989; it had only
investigated a few accidents and its turnover was tiny. It had only
three employees, two of whom were the directors Tony Neville and Peter
Coombs, plus a secretary, believed to be one of their wives. By 2001 its
accounts revealed it was virtually dormant. Today the company is run
from one of the director's homes and does little if any business.
Detailed searches of accident databases reveal no significant accidents
that AFTA or its directors investigated. At the time, no one questioned
Benetton's description of AFTA.
The press release, which even kindly can only be described as a blatant
lie, was written by Patrizia Spinelli, Benetton's longtime press officer
and a close associate of Flavio Briatore. Spinelli was extraordinarily
evasive when contacted and asked why she had written a totally
misleading press release. She said: "I do not wish to talk about that
incident." In fact the release was a sham.
Peter Coombs confirms this and has no idea why Benetton described his
company as it did. He confirmed he was first contacted by Ross Brawn and
that he was surprised because AFTA and its directors had no experience
of motor racing accidents.
Now it appears AFTA — with no experience to base an opinion on — merely
transcribed what it was told by Benetton personnel Coombs said: "We were
contacted out of the blue by Ross Brawn. I have no idea why."
The Benetton statement went on to quote part of the report that
explained that the filter had indeed been removed deliberately by the
team, but this was because Benetton had ceased to have problems with
debris collecting in the rig owing to the team's fastidious maintenance
of the rig. It claimed there was no evidence from the rig that debris
had fouled any of the moving parts. The statement went on to say
Benetton had lodged the AFTA report with its legal advisers, Marriott
Harrison of London, and urgently requested a meeting with the FIA.
Time and again Benetton and Spinelli quoted the AFTA report as
justification of Benetton's innocence. Spinelli also used it in an
internal communication at Benetton to put employees concerned about
their own reputations at ease. The Benetton staff were fed up that the
team had been brought into disrepute. Spinelli convinced them with
AFTA's report that Benetton was in the right. As a result, Benetton's
mechanics defended the company, including Steve Matchett, in his
best-selling book 'Life in the Fast Lane'. Matchett might not have been
so supportive had he known what Spinelli had written was not the truth.
Equally, the FIA seems to have taken AFTA's credentials at face value.
With her inaccurate description of AFTA's credentials, Spinelli had
conned her colleagues into believing everything was all right.
Meanwhile, Coombs met Charlie Whiting to discuss the report. Whiting did
not question his credentials.
However, it was the very last paragraph of the press release that was
most explosive, as Benetton claimed: "Benetton Formula concluded the
filter was unnecessary and it was removed with the full knowledge and
permission of the FIA Formula One Technical Delegate, Mr. Charlie
Whiting. This permission was given on the afternoon of Thursday 28th
July to Mr. Joan Villadelprat in the presence of Mr. Ross Brawn."
The suggestion that the FIA had given permission for the removal of the
filter stunned the governing body. It was an outright fabrication. By
the end of the day, FIA communications supremo Francesco Longanesi
issued the FIA's own statement: "Permission was certainly not given. Any
query on technical regulations should be addressed to the FIA in writing
and we have not received a letter from Benetton on this matter. We will
hear what they have to say and all we can say now is that they face
sanctions ranging from a reprimand to their disqualification, which
would mean their exclusion from Formula One."
Intertechnique executives were also on the defensive. They claimed: "Any
proposal to modify the equipment is made in writing to us through the
FIA and replied to by us in writing through the FIA.”
It was an extraordinary turn of events and it was clear that one party
was lying. Benetton was on the back foot, as it had most to gain, while
the other teams were increasingly hostile, refusing to accept Benetton's
protestations of innocence. One team principal at the time recalls: "The
strangest thing was the Benetton official statement, which was virtually
incomprehensible. Their excuses were questionable and their changes of
story highly inconsistent. There were just too many inconsistent
stories. That press release was all waffle and simply ludicrous. To me
the idea that permission was given actually at the track and then that
no one else was told is ludicrous. It should have been issued in a press
release to all the teams.”
Benetton released the findings of the AFTA report on the Sunday of the
Hungarian race weekend. Predictably it was a complete exoneration of the
team. AFTA claimed poor design of the refuelling equipment meant the
nozzle might not align properly and that Formula One did not have enough
experience with refuelling to be certain that the equipment had the
necessary level of service confidence. It also claimed that there was no
outlet for a refueller to take emergency action if needed and that there
was a clear imbalance between the need for speed and effectiveness.
AFTA's report concluded by recommending that the FIA should look closely
at aviation refuelling systems for its solutions. This was incredibly
naive, as Intertechnique was regarded as the world's foremost aviation
refuelling expert, which is precisely why it got the job of supplying
the refuelling rigs.
There was concern that the fuel rig hearing would not take place until
19th October, by which time the championship might have been nominally
decided. After several senior Formula One figures urged it be brought
forward the FIA agreed to call an extraordinary meeting of the FIA World
Council on 7th September. But before that date, even more controversy
was to hit Benetton. Schumacher was disqualified from first place in the
Belgian Grand Prix at the end of August, after the wooden skidblock
under his car was found to be excessively worn. The German was privately
furious and there were rumours that he was on the verge of quitting the
Benetton team, fuelled by none other than his manager, Willi Weber.
Benetton appealed the Spa decision and although the hearing was
originally scheduled for 5th September in London it was subsequently put
back two days to coincide with the fuel rig hearing in Paris 'for the
convenience of all parties and with the agreement of Benetton'.
Additionally, only two days before the Paris hearing, it was announced
that the hearing into McLaren's automatic gearbox misdemeanour at the
San Marino Grand Prix would also be held at the same time, despite
bubbling under for the previous four months.
A fine day dawned in Paris on Wednesday 7th September.
There were three cases to be heard. Alongside the fuel rig hearing,
Carman would also be representing Benetton in its appeal against Michael
Schumacher's disqualification from the Belgian Grand Prix. The wooden
skidblock on the floor of his car had been worn beyond the legal limit,
but Benetton was going before the Court of Appeal on the grounds that
the damage could have been done when Schumacher spun over a kerb early
in the race. The third case involved McLaren. At the San Marino Grand
Prix, Mika Häkkinen's car was found to have been fitted with a
fully-automatic upchange gear facility and the case had only just come
before the World Council. Ron Dennis argued that Häkkinen's car did
indeed have the device, but that in McLaren's interpretation of the
rules it was entirely legal. Dennis was also protesting against a
US$100,000 fine the team had been given as a result of failing to supply
its computer source codes to the FIA investigation.
The second two cases were disposed of in a few hours, before the main
event, the fuel rig case. George Carman quickly rose and said Benetton
would be pleading guilty. Members of the World Council who had not been
paying attention suddenly looked up. They had not been expecting this.
In fact a guilty plea in such circumstances was almost unprecedented.
What advantage was there in not putting up a fight about such an
important issue? They thought that Carman should have at least made a
fist of it. Mosley rose and said in the circumstances they should now
hear Carman's plea of mitigation.
Carman laid out his case for mitigation and, even though he had pleaded
guilty astonishingly asked for no punishment to be given. Carman argued
that another Formula One team of the day, Larrousse, had previously been
authorised by Intertechnique in a letter to remove a fuel filter back in
May; that the Benetton filter had been removed by a junior member of
staff without permission from the team director; that Benetton had made
no effort to conceal that the filter had been removed despite having had
ample opportunity to do so; and that the team had undertaken substantial
management changes to ensure that such an incident did not happen again.
Carman and Flavio Briatore emerged from the FIA headquarters at lunch to
face a media frenzy Carman confidently commented that he was 'very
satisfied' with the outcome. The World Council wasn't expected to give
its decision until mid-afternoon. Things had gone to plan and a beaming
Briatore announced that he was sure Schumacher would be racing again
this season.
It was to be late afternoon before the verdict was announced.
Max Mosley announced that the FIA World Council had concluded that
'under the circumstances... it would not be appropriate to impose a
penalty on the Mild Seven Benetton Ford team'. Benetton had pleaded
guilty, but Carman had asked for leniency on four accounts and that had
been accepted. The team did, however, lose on its appeal against Michael
Schumacher's Belgian disqualification, although McLaren was also found
innocent of any indiscretion.
Flavio Briatore was delighted. "The findings of the World Council speak
for themselves:' he said. "This is a great day for the team." But Mosley
was already having to fend off accusations of excessive leniency from
journalists who were astonished at the outcome. "We have not been
inconsistent," he said. "We are very consistent because we follow only
the evidence in front of us even if it appears to be inconvenient, by
which I mean that we're being lenient.” He firmly denied That the FIA
World Council had been 'bamboozled or intimidated' by the legal skills
of Carman.
The motor racing world was stunned. No one had expected Benetton to get
off on the charge and the fact that the team had actually admitted to
removing the filter and pleaded guilty made it seem all the more
unbelievable. The media was outraged. 
The following Friday, at the Italian Grand Prix at Monza, Mosley faced a
barrage of angry questions from journalists at a press conference asking
him to explain the World Council's actions.
To add to the controversy, on close scrutiny none of Benetton's defence
of its actions was watertight. First there was the Larrousse letter.
Larrousse ran with both a Ford engine and a Benetton semi-automatic
gearbox, which raised questions about the team's reasons for its support
by handing over the letter. The sudden appearance of the letter was what
Mosley claimed had foxed the World Council. It was only put in as
evidence on the day of the hearing, according to Mosley, and it had not
been copied to the FIA by either Larrousse or Intertechnique when it was
initially issued. With the letter, on Intertechnique-headed paper, came
a drawing of the rig that showed how the equipment could be assembled
without the filter. But contentiously, on further inspection it seemed
the letter did not so much give permission to Larrousse to remove the
filter, but instead advise on the specification of ring that should be
used if the filter was ever to be removed.
Few people accepted the argument about the junior employee either. One
team boss at the time commented: "I'm going to run a turbo at Estoril
and say a junior mechanic fitted it' while another said: "It was
irrelevant whether it was removed by a junior member of staff or not.
They are still guilty because they're the ones in charge:' It was also a
blatant change of story by Benetton on its original claims that the
filter had been removed not by a junior employee — suggested by some who
were at Benetton at the time to be fuel man Simon Mosley — but by
technical director Ross Brawn and team manager Joan Villadelprat.
As for the management changes that were supposed to have taken place
because of the incident, there was little sign that this had occurred
and when questioned about it Briatore told Autosport that no changes had
taken place. Mosley suggested on the BBC's Sportsnight programme that
the change had been to edge out engineering director Tom Walkinshaw, who
had not been present at the hearing but his disappearance from the team
was due to reasons other than the fuel rig controversy.
Concerning the claim that Benetton made no attempt to hide the removal
of the filter, there were several accusations that the filter had been
removed so long before the fire that its restoration was overlooked in
the fuss over the accident itself.
There was also still the question of whether or not the FIA had given
permission for the filter to be removed. In contradiction of the FIA's
original insistence that no permission had been given, Mosley was to
claim that Charlie Whiting had given permission of a sort. Mosley said:
"The thing is that as far as the 'junior employee' is concerned and his
removing the part, once you accept that he thought, at whatever level,
that he could do that, then immediately the level of guilt changes. Now
it was said by the team that Charlie said they could. What Charlie said
he said was, 'it's OK by me if it's OK by Intertechnique'. In other
words, 'go and ask Intertechnique, because it is not within my
competence.'
"I think the junior employee thought, because of the Larrousse business,
that Intertechnique had said it was all right. Or that was what was
presented to us in Paris. And the whole confusion at that level, unknown
to Briatore and to Benetton Formula, was taking place. Now what was said
at the beginning of the season was that if we caught somebody with...
it's always the same example: traction control... I distinctly remember
saying that if they deliberately used it, then this means that it is a
fraud, like painting a racehorse a different colour to disguise it. It
is analogous to that: if you deliberately change something on the car,
with the intention of getting an advantage, you will be out of the
championship. That's what we said, and it still remains the case. The
problem we were faced with here is that it became apparent on the facts
placed before us that this knowledge, which is the essential element in
deliberate cheating, was missing. And from what we were told on
September 7th, it undoubtedly was missing. And as I have already said,
we could have had a huge inquiry, who knows? But that's what was there,
that's what we decided on."
As for the lack of any penalty whatsoever for the team, despite the fact
that it had pleaded guilty Mosley told Autosport: "A scale of penalties
undoubtedly exists, but you sit there given all the facts and wonder
what is appropriate. If you accept what George Carman said, it wouldn't
be appropriate to fine them US$1 million and when you go all the way
down you ask 'why bother?'" But there was particular concern that just
four days after the hearing, Williams was given an official reprimand
for having modified its rig on safety grounds, with the written consent
of Intertechnique and the FIA.
Mosley was also dismissive of allegations that no attempt had been made
to address the fact that the missing filter would have give Benetton a
performance advantage. He commented: "The point about getting an
advantage is absolutely valid. But you see, what they were saying was
that they thought they were allowed to do it. In other words, if you
analyse what they were really saying, what they were saying was 'we
believe that the equipment was now without the filter'. You can argue
about that, but that's what they were actually saying. Now the moment
you accept that, then they didn't have an advantage, because what they
were doing was using the equipment. And the people who were using the
wrong equipment would have a disadvantage. Now as soon as someone pleads
guilty, you get into that area. But we never had to consider the guilt
or otherwise, because they pleaded guilty."
Mosley also admitted his actions had been taken in the best interest of
the sport rather than the interest of justice. He said: "As far as being
in the interests of the sport, we thought it was definitely in the
interests of the sport to resolve the Benetton filter issue, one way or
the other, on 7th September. We thought that public opinion, and the
interests of the sport, and certainly the teams, would have found it
very difficult to accept that we had adjourned the whole thing for six
weeks, to have another look at it. Perhaps the result would have been
different if we had adjourned: we don't know. But it would certainly not
have been the right thing to do. The suggestion that we were lenient in
the interests of the sport is incorrect, though. We were lenient because
the facts in front of us drove us to be lenient. It may well have been
that we would have been less lenient after an adjourned hearing, but we
shall never know.”
(c) BusinessF1 Magazine LTD. Additional reporting by Caroline Reid 
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Il Wed, 04 Jan 2006 15:28:23 +0000, David Mancini ha scritto:
Molto interessante e dettagliato. Per quanto riguarda la vicenda
Benetton, conferma quanto letto su AS del GP Italia. Mettendo insieme
tutto il "puzzle", si capisce meglio perché la FIA abbia preferito "non
infierire" sulla Benetton.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (o_        Vinci                     registered Linux User #276630
 //\         " Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent "
 V_/_                     Salvor Hardin, Foundation

estratto di: 
Interview with Max Mosley
The following transcript is from an interview with FIA President Max
Mosley conducted by members of the racing media and held Friday
September 9 at Monza, site of the 1994 Grand Prix of Italy.
Jochen Mass: The fine imposed on Schumacher for ignoring the flag at
Silverstone was very heavy. Isn't it a slap in the face for sponsors,
who are always being asked to pay up for things like this?
Max Mosley: It WAS a very stiff fine, it was MEANT to be a very stiff
fine, and if it out the team into such difficulties that they had to
approach the sponsors, no doubt they would then sell the airplane, the
helicopter, the yacht or other such facilities. We intended the fine to
be felt, and I think it WAS felt.
Q. Vasconcelos: Going back to Wednesday, it seems that Benetton was well
prepared and had a good lawyer. But it also appears that there was
nobody as well prepared on the other side to contradict what Benetton
said. Should the World Council not be prepared, as one would be in a
court of law?
Mosley: That's a perfectly valid point. What happens is this: if, for
example, they had pleaded not guilty, or had they said they offered a
defense, such as "Charlie (Whiting) said we could do it," we had there a
lawyer who in fact was available (to represent the World Council).
The Stewards presented their evidence and both sides had their lawyers.
(The FIA) lawyer was present, and he had been briefed as far as the
filter was concerned. But the moment that Benetton pleaded guilty, the
situation changed. Instead of being out to (prosecute) Benetton, we
listened to what they had to say (in mitigation). Their argument was
that a filter was necessary only to clear the manufacturing debris
within the pipe, and that once that debris had gone, and there was
obviously nothing further to be found in the filter, it was unnecessary
and the filter could be removed.
Now this was allegedly said, at a low level, between Intertechnique and
Larrousse. And (Benetton) DID produce a letter from Larrousse saying
this, and they also produced a drawing from Intertechnique showing how
the filter could be removed. But you still had to leave the ring in,
because the ring that held the filter was part of the assembly.
Now, at that point we could do one of two things. One thing, though,
that we CANNOT do is to evoke something that may or may not have been
said on TV, or in a publication. We either have to accept the facts as
put to us, or we might say, "we don't accept what has been put to us,"
and adjourn the entire proceedings to, in this case, October 19, to
bring in Intertechnique or, if we could get him there, Mr. Walkinshaw,
then examine every detail of the Larrousse/Intertechnique relationship
including the letter, etc., and we considered carefully what to do and
thought that in the interests of the sport, and in fairness to the other
teams who wanted a decision, fairness generally would not be served by
following that procedure.
And once you have taken that decision, all you can consider are the
matters that are placed in front of you, by counsel, on behalf of the
person making his plea in mitigation. This we did. And just taking those
factors into account -- being strictly legal and fair about it -- we
decided that they WERE guilty, but that on the basis of the facts in
front of us it would not be appropriate to impose a penalty. That was
how it happened.
Q. Treuthardt: The members of the World Council must have known that the
effect of removing the filter was to gain a performance advantage. And
the rules clearly imply that all the refuelling rigs should be
identical, so as not to provide a performance advantage. They did it,
they got a performance advantage, and yet even then no action was taken.
If I may follow my first question, I would like to ask if you did this
in the interests of the sport.
Mosley: The point about getting an advantage is absolutely valid. But
you see, what they were saying was that they thought they were allowed
to do it. In other words, if you analyse what they were really saying,
what they were saying was, 'we believe that the equipment was now
without the filter.' You can argue about that, but that's what they were
actually saying. Now the moment you accept that, then they didn't have
an advantage, because what they were doing was using THE equipment. And
the people who were using the wrong equipment would have a disadvantage.
Now as soon as someone pleads guilty, you get into that area. But we
never had to consider the guilt or otherwise, because they pleaded
guilty.
Q. Treuthardt: Second point? 
Mosley: As far as being in the interests of the sport, we thought it was
definitely in the interests of the sport to resolve the Benetton filter
issue, one way or the other, on September 7. We thought that public
opinion, and the interests of the sport, and certainly the teams, would
have found it very difficult to accept that we had adjourned the whole
thing for six weeks, to have another look at it. Perhaps the result
would have been different if we had adjourned: we don't know. But it
would certainly not have been the right thing to do. The suggestion that
we were lenient in the interests of the sport is incorrect, though. We
were lenient because the facts in front of us drove us to be lenient. It
may well have been that we would have been less lenient after an
adjourned hearing, but we shall never know.
Q. Wagner Gonzales: Benetton claimed that the FIA's Technical Delegate
(Charlie Whiting) had given permission for the filter to be removed.
What is your feeling about this, and the decision of the "junior
employee" to remove it?
Mosley: Well, the thing is that as far as the 'junior employee' is
concerned, and his removing the part, once you accept that HE thought,
at whatever level, that he could do that, then, immediately, the level
of guilt changes. Now it was said by the team that Charlie said they
could. What Charlie said he said was, "it's OK by me if it's OK by
Intertechnique." In other words, (Whiting was saying) "go and ask
Intertechnique, because it is not within my competence."
I think the junior employee thought, because of the Larrousse business,
that Intertechnique had said it was alright. Or that was what was
presented to us in Paris. And the whole confusion at that level -- (that
it was) unknown to Briatore and to Benetton Formula -- was taking place.
Now what was said at the beginning of the season was that if we caught
somebody with ...it's always the same example: traction control ...I
distinctly remember saying that if they deliberately used it, then this
means that it is a fraud, like painting a race horse a different color
to disguise it. It is analogous to that: if you deliberately change
something on the car, with the intention of getting an advantage, you
will be out of the championship. That's what we said, and it still
remains the case. The problem we were faced with here is that it became
apparent on the facts placed before us that this knowledge which is the
essential element in deliberate cheating was missing. And from what we
were told on September 7, it undoubtedly WAS missing. And as I have
already said, we could have had a huge enquiry, who knows? But that's
what was there, that's what we decided on.
Q. Gonzalez: Do you agree that we need fixed penalties for certain
offences? Surely it was not correct that somebody who didn't see a black
flag at Estoril in 1989 should have been punished differently from
someone who didn't see it at Silverstone in 1994? I am sure that you are
aware of the suggestions that you only punished Schumacher so heavily to
make for an interesting championship.
Mosley: The black flag is a good example. Taking Estoril in 1989, once
Mansell had been shown the black flag, in this context of F1, it means
that you must stop racing. You will automatically get no points. So, had
Mansell not had the accident, and if he had continued to the end of the
race, he would have got no points.
Equally, Schumacher got no points at Silverstone. Not because he ignored
the black flag, but because the black flag was shown to him, signifying
that he was (obliged) to stop racing. He could not possibly have got an
advantage from failing to do what he was supposed to do: he could never
possibly have got points because in effect he wasn't racing anymore.
In Mansell's case, having failed to stop for the black flag, he offered
the excuse that the sun was directly behind the person holding the black
flag, and that he would have seen only the sun. There was a video which
supported his claim. On that basis, the World Council gave him a one
race suspension.
Now, Michael Schumacher said he did not see the flag. We all saw what
was seen on TV. If you watch the monitor from the car, you see not only
the black flag that was shown on TV, but there was also the other black
flag on the other side of the circuit. There were, in fact, TWO black
flags. His offence was obviously graver than Mansell's. So... in reason
and logic you can say that Mansell got one, so Schumacher gets two.
Maybe three would have been too harsh. But it had to be more than one;
it just seemed rational. Now maybe it is ALL too harsh, but it seemed to
me and, I think, unanimously to the other members of the World Council,
that (the two-race ban) was right. It must be said that even after an
appeal to the FIA Court of Appeal, with independent lawyers and a full
re-hearing, they came to the same conclusion.
Q. Jochen Mass: There are still suggestions that Ferrari's car at Aida
was illegal, and they got off too lightly. Can you comment?
Mosley: We think that the Ferrari device was illegal (but) you could
produce an extremely good argument that it was entirely legitimate. We
heard about it, and they did actually get to Charlie Whiting before he
went to them. But everybody knew that there was something funny with
(the Ferrari) in the untimed practice. We said to Ferrari not to run it
(in qualifying) and they did not run it. But if Ferrari had claimed that
it was legal, and had insisted on going to the Stewards, they would have
had a completely arguable case.
Of course, this is also what we were saying (last week in Paris) about
Ron Dennis's gearbox -- I would have thought less strongly arguable in
Ron Dennis's case, but an arguable case nonetheless. With the Ferrari,
it was very clearly arguable, so one could not possibly say it was
cheating. It was a genuine (dispute of) the interpretation of the rules.
Ferrari made one mistake, as I am sure Jean Todt would be the first to
admit -- which was that they did not consult us to ask us whether we
considered the device to reduce power in the lower gears to be traction
control. We would have said that we did not consider it to be traction
control, which clearly it was not, but we would have seen it as a driver
aid. And on that basis we said we didn't want it to be used. But you
could not possibly say it was cheating.


 infierire" sulla Benetton.
diciamo che la Benetton l'ha scampata veramente grossa e che MSC ha
vinto con una macchina che ha corso gran parte della stagione essendo
illegale e "barando".
Aggiungiamo che MSC nell'ultima gara era "out", kaputt, finito, ed č
rientrato in pista "cercando" negli specchietti il rivale per poi
chiudergli addosso č la ciliegina sulla torta...
La Benetton č stata beccata ad inizio anno con un software illegale; poi
hanno bellamente ignorato la bandiera nera a SStone, sono andati bassi a
Spa e hanno corso il  campionato senza il filtro per guadagnare
tempo ai pit-stops. Hanno cambianto versione dicendo che c'era
l'approvazione della FIA (falso), della Intertecnhique (falso), č che č
stato rimosso da un "junior member" del team all'insaputa di tutti...
Hanno commissionato una indagine ad una ditta "fasulla" prendendo tutti
in giro...
Insomma ce ne era abbastanza per buttarli fuori dal campionato (per
prese per il culo reiterate) invece hanno portato a casa il titolo (con
un "bel" finale..) perchč Ecclestone e Mosley consideravano un danno
assoluto estromettere dal campionato MSC, la stella nascente della F1 e
il mercato tedesco. business is business.


chiudergli addosso è la ciliegina sulla torta...
Su quest'ultimo aspetto sono sempre stato un po più tenero con Schumi, e severo
con Hill. Permesso che la condotta di gara del tedesco, qui come altrove, non
va additata come dimostrazione di fervente fair-play, resta il fatto che se
si è in lotta per il campionato e il doppio zero implica la sconfitta, l'ultima
cosa da fare è ficcarsi nei guai. E buttarsi all'interno di un'auto potenzialmente
danneggiata, che sta errando qua e là per la pista, guidata dal tuo avversario
diretto per il titolo non mi sembra indice di una visione intelligente della
gara.
-- 
SNAFU
Per rispondermi privatamente, sostituisci "snaphoo" con "snafu"
To reply via e-mail, please remember to replace "snaphoo" with "snafu"

 gara.
può essere che Hill sia stato poco intelligente, il fatto è che MSC
avendo con il suo errore, la sua uscita e picchiata _perso il titolo_ è
tornato in pista, ha cercato negli specchietti l'avversario e gli ha
sterzato addosso. Questo è quello che mi "interessa" e non l'ingenuità
di Hill.


 il mercato tedesco. business is business.
E perché non c'era alcun interesse che la Benetton, vistasi esclusa,
cominciasse a fare ricorsi a destra e a manca, costringendo la FIA ad
ulteriori verifiche, ed a squalificare di conseguenza, con grosse
ripercussioni sulla credibilità del campionato.
BTW, non una parola sulla serietà dell'altra squadra protagonista del
mondiale, che pur essendo certa della solidità dei propri piantoni e del
fatto che fosse normale avere oscillazioni del volante nel cockpit, sempre
secondo AS di Monza, subito dopo Imola ha provveduto ad installare nuovi
piantoni di diametro maggiorato.... Se la Benetton ha "preso per il culo"
il pubblico, cosa si dovrebbe dire della Williams ?


 di Hill.
Veramente non si era ancora ritirato quando è tornato in pista. Può
anche essere che sia tornato in pista "sullo slancio" e volesse verificare
se la macchina andava ancora.
D'altra parte ha emulato ciò che nei 15 anni precedenti avevano fatto
Jones, Prost e Senna, 8 titoli mondiali in 3... diciamo che era andato a
scuola dai grandi...


 l'ultima cosa da fare č ficcarsi nei guai. 
Verissimo.
E' altresi' vero che se sei ad Adelaide e chi ti precede ti paia abbia
sbagliato la curva e quella puo' essere l'unica occasione per sorpassare
il mascellone, non credo che ci stai a pensare piu' di un tot.
m
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 se la macchina andava ancora.
Infatti controllava attentamente che dai suoi scarichi uscisse il fumo,
indice inequivocabile del fatto che la macchina stava funzionando.
Ecco anche spiegato perche' appena rientrato in pista guarda 5 volte negli
specchietti.
: )
marloc


> In the early [stra mega iper cut]
Davvero molto interessante!
m


 il mascellone, non credo che ci stai a pensare piu' di un tot.
E' anche vero che se accettiamo che Hill non avesse visto che Schumacher
aveva urtato il muro, e quindi non sapeva che fosse fuori gara, era un
motivo in più per non tentare il sorpasso, perché di certo un avversario
ostico con una vettura "in forma" la curva l'avrebbe chiusa senza pietà...


 il pubblico, cosa si dovrebbe dire della Williams ?
Si parlava  di sportività credo, se vogliamo parlare d'altro parliamone.
Trovo giustissimo che dopo Imola abbiano provveduto ad installare
piantoni di diametro maggiorato anche se quelli esistenti probabilmente
erano già adeguati.
Era quello di Senna quello bacato, una richiesta specifica del pilota
per avere maggiore confort. Una modifica realizzata male.
La Williams anche con i piloti Hill e Coulthard si è difesa dalle accuse
e sono stati tutti prosciolti. Potrebbe esserci qualche responsabilità
morale da parte loro ma in F1 ci sono cedimenti frequentemente e non si
possono mettere tutti in galera: Motorracing is dangerous.


 ostico con una vettura "in forma" la curva l'avrebbe chiusa senza pietร ...
Mah, secondo me il botto non lo vede ma di certo vede la Benetton quasi
piantata che sta agonizzando per rientrare in pista tanto e' vero che si
butta subito a sx per passarla all'esterno (e MS lo chiude) per poi
tentare l'interno (con gli esiti che conosciamo).
Una fatale mancanza di freddezza da parte dell'inglese forse.
Per contro non vedo una particolare dimostrazione di freddezza (tanto
sbandierata dai media italici in questi anni) da parte di MS: non c'e' poi
tanto da pensare: con il doppio zero sei campione.
Punto.
marloc


 possono mettere tutti in galera: Motorracing is dangerous.
Parafrasando: motorracing is treacherous...
: )


 possono mettere tutti in galera: Motorracing is dangerous.
OK, e allora perché non ammettere che si era rotto il piantone, se i
cedimenti ci possono essere ?


 specchietti.
Banalmente, per controllare dove era l'avversario, poteva anche non aver
avuto modo di giudicare se il danno era "terminale"...


 Punto.
La freddezza c'è nel senso che in quei 50 metri dopo l'errore fa tutto il
ragionamento e decide di sbattere fuori Hill, peraltro in una maniera
"rischiosa" perché non era così detto che la Williams si sarebbe
danneggiata in modo irreparabile (vedi 1997). Quindi scarterei la
premeditazione e il "tutto" si è consumato in quei pochi metri tra l'urto
e la curva successiva. Per cui almeno una certa "presenza di spirito"
gliela dobbiamo riconoscere.



A far bastardate gli funziona rapido, il cervello. A Jerez di metri me aveva 
meno, forse un paio...
-- 
Maui 

 meno, forse un paio...
A chi vuole guardare bene, tocca ammettere che forse non gli funziona
rapido solo per quello...


 cedimenti ci possono essere ?
perchè sarebbero finiti in galera con l'accusa di omicidio colposo?


 avrebbe fatto perdere conoscenza.
so perfettamente che hanno detto stronzate colossali.
Dovevano difendersi dal reato di omicidio.
Siccome le F1 sono prototipi costruiti al limite della rottura spesso ci
sono rotture: sospensioni, freni, appendici aerodinamiche ecc.
Che facciamo mettiamo tutti in galera per tentato omicidio?
A questo punto arrestiamo tutta la Ferrari per tutte le rotture che
subisce Badoer nei suoi frequentissimi "high speed crash" che lo portano
spesso in ospedale..
Purtroppo Senna non è stato fortunato e un braccetto dello sterzo ha
fatto quello che non avrebbe dovuto fare, ma anche se il lavoro di
modifica è stato effettuato male non si può mettere nessuno in galera a
meno che non sia stato qualcuno che volontariamente abbia segato la
colonna dello sterzo.


 rapido solo per quello...
Sei bravissimo a sviare. Ma resta che a Jerez per la bastardata gli son 
bastati due metri. Che poi gli funzioni per tremila cose, ok. Per la 
bastardate incluse.
-- 
Maui 

 bastardate incluse.
Non ho sviato. Dico che non è "rapido di testa" solo per le bastardate.
BTW, quella di Jerez non la definirei così esemplare, perché in fondo in
fondo è stata eseguita in ritardo e male, col risultato di non ottenere
il risultato sperato (dal pilota).


 aver avuto modo di giudicare se il danno era "terminale"...
IMHO non lo era... IMHO poteva ancora correre con quella macchina.... poi 
chi potr mai dirlo... 

 spesso in ospedale..
Se accadrà, in Italia, un incidente che comporti precise conseguenze
penali, la Ferrari e i suoi dirigenti ne dovranno rispondere nelle sedi
opportune, come mi pare sia già successo in passato.
BTW, vedo che anche tu, come tanti altri, nella foga di difendere la
Williams e la sua linea e dimostrare quanto sono cattivi i magistrati
italiani, dimenticano completamente che c'è stata un'indagine anche a
carico di Simtek, che NON HA portato ad un processo perché si è concluso
trattarsi di un evento accidentale.
E andrebbe fatto notare che le teorie più fantasiose sull'errore del
pilota e su un suo possibile svenimento (perché "tratteneva il fiato")
sono circolate nei giorni immediatamente successivi all'incidente, quando
ancora non era stata ancora avviata l'indagine preliminare e sicuramente
non era stato comunicato alcunché a carico di coloro che poi al processo
furono imputati.
E giusto per completare il panorama, se anche posso concordare sul fatto
che in tribunale gli imputati (e credo solo loro, non i testimoni) possano
mentire per difendersi, come puoi "passare sopra" a tutto quello che è
successo di contorno, come le centraline prelevate senza autorizzazione
della magistratura ma intatte, e ripresentate alla magistratura una
sovrascritta con un test al banco e l'altra danneggiata a martellate ?
Come puoi "passare sopra" alla chiara connivenza della FOA/FOM in merito
alla sparizione delle riprese della CC di Senna ?
Per quanto possa eventualmente capire (poco) il tuo (recente) odio per
Schumacher, non ci sono motivi perché nella vicenda Senna si possa
definire "normale" il comportamento di Williams, Renault e FOA/FOM, anche
se la Williams ha costituito un "notevole" avversario per Schumacher negli
anni successivi...


 perchè sarebbero finiti in galera con l'accusa di omicidio colposo?
No, perché l'ultimo grado ha deciso che, pur essendosi rotto il piantone,
Williams era già innocente al primo grado (se non ricordo male), Newey
non c'entrava, e per Head era scattata la prescrizione. Ora, visto che
tutti sono "a posto", ossia non a rischio di carcerazione, perché non
"dire la verità" ? Se non altro per onorare veramente la memoria di un
grande pilota morto al volante di una delle proprie vetture ?
E poi si parla di moralità in tante altre occasioni, dove almeno non ci
sono di mezzo morti...


 Schumacher
Nessuno odio. Ho sempre considerato il pilota estremamente veloce.
Quello di cui mi sono (in ritardo) reso conto sul suo conto č che per
essere un Campione occorre essere anche un esempio di sportivitā e lui
troppe volte ha "sgarrato". Quindi _per me_ MSC č uno che ha vinto 8
titoli e 80 GP ma non č un Campione "completo".
Per moltissimi lo č, per me no, mi dispiace. Non c'č odio, cerco di
essere obiettivo e quando vedo cose che non mi piacciono di lui lo dico.
Quando vedo Macao 90, Adelaide 94 e Jerez 97. Quando vedo Le Mans 90,
Austria 00. Quando choppa. Quando "austrieggia" 01 02 o Monaco 05. ecc.
ecc. Non vedo perche bisognerebbe chiudere gli occhi e ingnorare. Vuoi
essere un Campione con la C maiuscola? Č su queste cose che dovrebbe
"migliorarsi" ma ormai mi sembra un po' tardi.


 di salvarsi il culo.... mi pare un pelo piÃ¹ grave...
mi pare molto più grave quello Benetton.
La Williams era innocente, vittima della "giustizia" italiana.
Senna è morto per una disgrazia. Nessuno lo ha ucciso.
La Benetton era invece colpevole, consapevolmente stava frodando lo
sport.


Quando vedo Le Mans 90
Non ricordo. Mi rinfreschi la memoria?
Grazie in anticipo,


 Grazie in anticipo,
te lo faccio spiegare da qualcuno che c'era: 
"Sett. 1990, Finale europea F3 a Le Mans.
Noi partecipiamo con Colciago, abbiamo appena vinto il titolo italiano,
MS ha vinto il tedesco.
Noi usiamo Michelin, mentre Zanardi, Angelelli e MS usano Bridgestone,
gomme infinitamente superiori alle nostre.
Prima Fila : MS - Zanardi (mi sembra che MS abbia la pole)
Sec. Fila: Angelelli - Colciago (primo di quelli con le Michelin)
Alla partenza, MS parte male alla prima curva
arriva terzo, arriva lungo e centra
Zanardi e Angelelli, facendo strike, tutti fuori, Colciago va in  testa.
Schummy fa per scendere dalla macchina, ha già tolto il volante ed è in
piedi dentro alla macchina, poi si risiede, la mette in moto, e la porta
al centro pista per provocare l'interruzione della gara con la Bandiera
rossa, cosa che puntualmente avviene.
(c'è un filmato che testimonia tutto questo)"


"Sett. 1990, Finale europea F3 a Le Mans.
L'avevo completamente dimenticato, e pensavo alla 24 ore!
Grazie,    


 sport.
La Williams non era vittima di nessuno, la legge italiana è così ed
infatti alla Simtek nessuno ha detto nulla. La Williams ha cercato di
propagandare falsità sulla morte di Senna, per eliminare le proprie
responsabilità. Visto che ormai il reato sarebbe comunque in
prescrizione, perché non dire la verità, almeno _oggi_ ?


 (c'è un filmato che testimonia tutto questo)"
Beh, Zanardi ad esempio mi pare che abbia vinto la gara dopo la
ripartenza. E comunque nel suo libro afferma che successivamente, in una
gara mi pare a Pergusa, ma potrei sbagliarmi, anche lui avrebbe dovuto
avere la presenza di spirito di fare una cosa del genere per vincere una
gara che invece perse mentre era al comando.


 "migliorarsi" ma ormai mi sembra un po' tardi.
Certo, se uno dopo "solo" 13 anni si accorge che un pilota non è un
campione completo....


prescrizione, perché non dire la verità, almeno _oggi_ ?
Metti che cambi il vento con le prossime elezioni e "quelli nuovi" votino una
legge che porta i termini di prescizione a 20, 50, 100 anni?
;-\        


 ;-\
Non dovrebbe comunque applicarsi a processi già "conclusi".


 campione completo....
meglio tardi che mai. Il mio è stato un colpevole ritardo ma ero
disposto a difenderlo dagli attacchi in quanto era secondo me il pilota
più veloce della F1. Per fortuna ho superato la malattia del "tifo".
Forse anche te e altri, vi "arrenderete" all'evidenza che MSC non è
un Campione con la C maiuscola oppure continuerete a difenderlo a
oltranza dicendo che sono tutti uguali o altre amenità, pazienza.


 oltranza dicendo che sono tutti uguali o altre amenità, pazienza.
Chi "sono tutti uguali" ? Io affermo molto semplicemente che campioni di
epoche diverse non possono essere messi in una classifica precisa (alias,
Clark è meglio o peggio di Senna), ma trovo comunque un po' "riduttivo"
affermare che i risultati di Schumacher siano solo frutto di una serie di
fortunate circostanze....


 fortunate circostanze....
-- 


 fortunate circostanze....
ho detto un'altra cosa e cioè che anche se hai vinto 80 GP non sei un
Campione, per quanto mi riguarda. È molto più Campione di te uno che,
altrettanto veloce, ha vinto zero titoli ma che può guardarsi
serenamente allo specchio vedi Moss oppure, in paradiso, GVilleneuve.


 serenamente allo specchio vedi Moss oppure, in paradiso, GVilleneuve.
Sei così intimo di Schumacher da sapere se lui è in grado di guardarsi
serenamente allo specchio ? BTW, posso accettare tranquillamente che gli
80 GP e i 7 titoli non siano determinanti per farne il più grande di
sempre, anche perché confermo che è una cosa non determinabile, ma
sinceramente il fatto di non considerarlo nemmeno tra i campioni lo trovo
eccessivo. Sarebbe come se io, tifoso di Senna, non considerassi Prost un
Campione solo perché si è preso a ruotate con il mio beniamino.
In un solo anno sei passato da un estremo all'altro della tua
considerazione per Schumacher. Come trovavo la considerazione "pro"
decisamente eccessiva, lo stesso vale per quella "contro": a volte è vero
che la giusta misura sta nel mezzo.


 modifica è stato effettuato male non si può mettere nessuno in galera
Credo che esista un carico pendente per negligenza o qualcosa di simile.
Non sono un leguleo e quindi potrei ovviamente sbagliarmi ma se per
esempio io (che faccio SW) scrivo un programma che fa deragliare un treno
contro una nave che affondando distrugge un sommergibile, e si scopre che
il programma lo ho fatto "ad minchiam", posso anche finire in galera.
marloc
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 che la giusta misura sta nel mezzo.
La mia considerazione sulla velocità di MSC è immutata. Lo consideravo e
lo considero molto veloce.
Quello che è cambiato in me è il fatto che prima lo difendevo
donchishottamente e non volevo vedere le cose "poche opportune" che
faceva, poi ho dovuto cedere all'evidenza e riconoscere che tanto
"pulito" non era e che tutta la sua carriera era costellata da episodi
"offensivi" allo sport. Quindi pur essendo probabilmente il più veloce
della sua era ha (per me) definitivamente perso il posto nella (mia
personale) categoria dei Campioni


 il programma lo ho fatto "ad minchiam", posso anche finire in galera.
Un piantone modificato con una sezione più stretta e una sospensione
alleggerita che cedono sono entrambe modifiche "ad minchiam" nell'esito
finale. A questo punto piuttosto che accanirsi col singolo malcapitato
di turno, chiudiamo lo sport perchè è lo sport stesso che spinge al
limite di rottura questi prototipi, rotture che avvengono a rotazione
senza che nessuno ne sia escluso.


eloquente.
Con il "buon senso" forse; altrimenti è un indizio, niente di più, forse nemmeno
questo!
IMHO anch'io


andrebbero quindi "processati".
[IMHO ON]
Dipende dall'orientamento giuridico, da Paese a Paese. In Italia, se tu mi
spari e io mi scanso e non mi faccio niente, a me va di lusso, ma molto anche
a te.
Leggi di altri Paesi credo che possano trattarti da assassino, come se tu ci
fossi riuscito.
[IMHO OFF]  


'55.
In compenso, nell'occasione del 50°, si è scritto un po' di più degli altri
anni a proposito di quanto è accaduto.
In particolare, credo sul Magazine dell'Equipe, si portava l'attenzione sul
ritiro delle Mercedes (avvenuto non "a botta calda" ma dopo un po', come se
in seguito a qualche scoperta e/o riflessione), e l'abbandono precipitoso del
luogo da parte della squadra tedesca.
In più si adombrava che politicamente si volesse mettere a tacere il tutto
il più presto possibile per non riaprire dolorosi contrasti tra Francia e Germania.


 "offensivi" allo sport.
_Tutta_ ? Poi è chiaro, dipende cosa consideri "offensivo" per lo sport.
E poi mi piacerebbe che estendessi un po' a tutti gli stessi criteri di
valutazione...


 andrebbero quindi "processati".
Nel momento in cui dovesse capitare la disgrazia, si andrà a valutare il
motivo che l'ha provocata ed eventualmente si stabiliranno le
responsabilità. 
BTW, la "moralità" di Williams, Head e Newey, IMVVVHO, non è tanto
legata al fatto di aver dato in mano a Senna una macchina evidentemente
poco sicura. Quello che mi fa esprimere un giudizio severo è il
comportamento in sede processuale, oltre che il comportamento mediatico
prima, durante e dopo. E quello dei testimoni chiamati a deporre, come
Hill, Coulthard, la FOA per le immagini, la Williams e la Renault per le
centraline e via dicendo... perché va ricordato che Martini ed Alboreto
hanno dato spiegazioni "contrastanti" con quelle di Hill e Coulthard...
Tu fai tanto le pulci alla gestione Ferrari e a Schumacher per il
trattamento del secondo pilota o cose del genere, poi "sorvoli" su
questioni IMHO decisamente peggiori, giustificandole con il "diritto di
difendersi". OK, allora metti che Schumacher vuole certe cose per vincere
un sacco di GP e di titoli, anche lui è giustificato ? Tutto sommato
almeno non ha calpestato la memoria di un morto...


 il più presto possibile per non riaprire dolorosi contrasti tra Francia e Germania.
Anche, comunque la polizia francese fece indagini approfondite,
ricostruendo l'accaduto con l'aiuto anche di piloti e protagonisti della
vicenda.


Il fatto poi che abbiano fatto armi e bagagli e siano ripartiti in >tutta
fretta รจ legato (secondo l'articolo) alla possibilitเ che >venisse fuori l'utilizzo
di additivi nel carburante che, pur non >essendo vietati e quindi non portando
alla squalifica, avrebbero >migliorato le prestazioni.
Beh, se non c'era frode non c'era motivo, a meno che non si volesse trovare
un legame con il modo in cui l'auto ่ esplosa.
IMHO
P.S.: meno male; un altro che legge anche queste cose...


 un legame con il modo in cui l'auto è esplosa.
Perdonami ma forse non ho compreso il tuo intervento.
La dinamica dell'incidente e' stata da subito abbastanza chiara e una
serie di coincidenze da film dell'orrore hanno fatto il resto.
Il motore della macchina di Levegh staccatosi dal corpo vettura e con un
braccetto della trasmissione ancora attaccato piombo' sulla folla e
durante l'impatto della Mercedes con il muretto di contenimento il cofano
della stessa si sgancio' finendo come una ghigliottina sulle teste dei
presenti.
Onestamente credo che peggio non potesse andare.


 tutto sommato non ha fatto cose dello stesso "peso".
secondo me chi dovrebbe avere difficoltà a guardarsi allo specchio è la
"giustizia" italiana. Sarò populista...


 "giustizia" italiana. Sarò populista...
Perché la giustizia italiana non deve applicare le leggi dello stato ?


 morto...
la "moralità" di uno sportivo non è questione di "fare le pulci" ma una
cosa molto seria (almeno per me, per te evidentemente no...).
Quando c'è di mezzo il morto, è solo per il fato che ha voluto che il
braccetto trapassasse la visiera del pilota ma quello per cui è stato
imputata la Williams è moralmente applicabile a Ferrari, Benetton,
Mclaren, Minardi (solo per fare es.) per aver fatto "lavori ad
minchiam" che hanno spedito piloti fuori pista ad alta velocità. Quindi
ripeto, o Head è moralmente innocente (come io propendo) oppure Head,
Brawn, Newey, tredozi ecc ecc sono tutti moralmente dei "killer".


 cosa molto seria (almeno per me, per te evidentemente no...).
Posso essere d'accordo, però poi non sei altrettanto fiscale quando c'è
di mezzo un morto. Se permetti, tra un mondiale ed una vita umana vedo una
lievissima differenza. Io poi tra le due vedo anche una certa importanza
di una delle due. Dai tuoi ragionamenti, forse non adottiamo la stessa
scala di valori.


Una personalità veramente grande ha sempre avuto dei nemici. Guardate
un pò cosa si diceva (e si scriveva) di Senna quand´era ancora vivo.
Oppure di Lauda quando correva per la Ferrari. Ma Schumachera se ne
infischia di tuti gli invidiosi, tanto lo sa che è così e non può
farci niente.

