From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/felipe-massas-f1-2008-lawsuit-will-proceed-to-trial/10778237/
--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

In article <mo9immFeceU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:


https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/felipe-massas-f1-2008-lawsuit-will-proceed-to-trial/10778237/

I mean, good for him - to my layman's understanding of things it does
sound like he has a broadly reasonable point - if TPTB knew about the
Crashgate shenanigans within the season, as Bernie says they did, then it sounds fair enough to expect them to have done something about it there
and then, and doing so might well have made the difference and left him as
2008 champion.

I certainly haven't bothered reading much of the conjecture around what
the potential outcome might have been, but with a razor thin losing margin
at the end of the season I think he's right to argue that the authority's supposedly wilfull inaction likely kept a lot of money out of his pocket. Bernie's now playing the quasi-senility card and claiming to not remember giving the interview where he said that they knew about the scandal a lot earlier than it became public, but he said what he said and I hope it ends
up costing the FIA a stack of money.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <mo9immFeceU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/felipe-massas-f1-2008-lawsuit-will-proceed-to-trial/10778237/

I mean, good for him - to my layman's understanding of things it does
sound like he has a broadly reasonable point - if TPTB knew about the Crashgate shenanigans within the season, as Bernie says they did, then it sounds fair enough to expect them to have done something about it there
and then, and doing so might well have made the difference and left him as 2008 champion.

I certainly haven't bothered reading much of the conjecture around what
the potential outcome might have been, but with a razor thin losing margin
at the end of the season I think he's right to argue that the authority's supposedly wilfull inaction likely kept a lot of money out of his pocket. Bernie's now playing the quasi-senility card and claiming to not remember giving the interview where he said that they knew about the scandal a lot earlier than it became public, but he said what he said and I hope it ends
up costing the FIA a stack of money.

I think he has a point about dodgy decisions by various FIA
officials...but I would categorically reject any suggestion that he can
rewind and selectively cancel races well after the fact and in a way
that doesn't reflect the rules or the precedents.

So if he were looking for some sort of vindication and compensation from
the individuals or groups involved, I would support him.

He (and others) fell foul of an awful bit of cheating and, had it been
caught at the time, action would have been taken. I expect that would
have been similar to the Spygate situation where Renault would have lost
all of their points and (in line with the Schumacher precedent) Piquet
would have lots his points. Here are the three parts of Massa's court case
that I really can't support...

1: He would like _all_ of the points in that round to be deleted. I
can't see a single precedent where that would happen. Removing both
Renault drivers from the points would make a lot of sense - a bit unfair
on Alonso if he knew nothing about it, but that's how it goes. But Massa
wants to introduce a wholly unique penalty as that's the only way he can
make the arithmetic work. If the points were redistributed - which make
smore sense - Hamilton would end up with *more* points. I get he's
desperate to make this case stack up, but I wouldn't see the fairness in
doing that even at the time let alone after-the-fact...which brings me
onto my second objection:

2: You can't "fix" the past. These things are not in isolation. If it had
been corrected at the time - and even if they cancelled all points from
that round, which I can't see the sense in - who knows what impact the
points change would have on the behaviour of drivers in the Japanese or
Chinese rounds let alone the final race? Before anyone says "but they
always go for the best result possible" - which is broadly true - it's
also true that you take fewer risks when you can't see a benefit, and
take more risks when there is an opportunity and less to lose. I'm not
saying that there is a particular change that would have benefited
Hamilton or hindered Massa, I'm saying you don't know...but if you
fiddle results after the fact, you are manipulating history
definitively. Massa gets to decide how it all plays out for a specific, predetermined outcome as only he, FIA, F1 and Bernie gets a say - the
other drivers and teams are not parties to the case.

3: There are long-standing rules in motorsports that there is a
predetermined window in which you can challenge results. For the
championship in F1, that window closes at the FIA Gala. If we now
have the right to challenge it beyond that window - in this case years
later - I think Hamilton would rightly challenge AD21 and there is a
whole host of results that could be litigated and we could completely
rewrite the history books. That's nonsense and would tarnish the whole
sport.

The whole case is going to be a circus. Bernie is a difficult person at
the best of times, and age has not helped. Finding credible witnesses
from that period is going to be nigh-on-impossible:

- The passage of time is likely to make any evidence that isn't
supported by contemporaneous records - written or recorded - open
to challenge on the basis that memories alone are not reliable.
- Ecclestone's 95, and the story he told in an interview that triggered
this case he has since said he can't really remember what he said.
He's a difficult person at the best of times, he's not seen as
reliable *and* he's being sued, so he'll be a hostile witness at
best.
- Mosley's dead
- Briatore is also a hostile witness if called, and is hardly known
for honesty.
- Pretty much anyone else who might know what happened or
who-knew-what-and-when is similarly compromised and can't be
relied upon.

Unless he's got smoking-gun documents or a whistleblower - who he can demonstrate doesn't have a personal stake in this *and* who can back it
up with hard evidence - this is going to be a tough case to prove in
court.

Even if he won - which I seriously doubt he can - I don't think his
remedies are credible or can/will be enforced.

I think that the very best he can hope for is a bit of a payout and and
an apology, and I don't think any compensation will be anywhere near the
scale of what he's asking. In practice, though, I doubt this will go
anywhere if he insists on taking it to conclusion.

Which brings me to *my* big question? Who's putting him up to this? The
lawyers will know that this is a tough case to win. This feels like a
personal vendetta, and one that will cost Massa not just time and money,
but also his reputation. He left that season with his head held high and
I respected him for the way he dealt with disappointment. Now, he seems
rather bitter and "small".

Of course, I am not a lawyer and I don't know what tricks Massa might
have up his sleeve. I still think that getting what he's asking for
would be wrong - and not just legally - and unfair on all the innocent bystanders.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

I certainly haven't bothered reading much of the conjecture around what
the potential outcome might have been, but with a razor thin losing margin
at the end of the season I think he's right to argue that the authority's supposedly wilfull inaction likely kept a lot of money out of his pocket. Bernie's now playing the quasi-senility card and claiming to not remember giving the interview where he said that they knew about the scandal a lot earlier than it became public, but he said what he said and I hope it ends
up costing the FIA a stack of money.

P.S. I don't care about Ecclestone losing any of his ill-gotten gains,
but if it costs the FIA (or F1) a "stack of money" that will just
penalise the sport, the teams and (ultimately) the fans, as it's them
who bankroll the sport.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

In article <10fpft8$3jerl$1@dont-email.me>, Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <mo9immFeceU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/felipe-massas-f1-2008-lawsuit-will-proceed-to-trial/10778237/

I mean, good for him - to my layman's understanding of things it does
sound like he has a broadly reasonable point - if TPTB knew about the Crashgate shenanigans within the season, as Bernie says they did, then it sounds fair enough to expect them to have done something about it there
and then, and doing so might well have made the difference and left him as 2008 champion.

I certainly haven't bothered reading much of the conjecture around what
the potential outcome might have been, but with a razor thin losing margin at the end of the season I think he's right to argue that the authority's supposedly wilfull inaction likely kept a lot of money out of his pocket. Bernie's now playing the quasi-senility card and claiming to not remember giving the interview where he said that they knew about the scandal a lot earlier than it became public, but he said what he said and I hope it ends up costing the FIA a stack of money.

I think he has a point about dodgy decisions by various FIA
officials...but I would categorically reject any suggestion that he can rewind and selectively cancel races well after the fact and in a way
that doesn't reflect the rules or the precedents.

In fairness, and based on what I've read (which hasn't been much,
admittedly), I don't think he is actually pushing for retroactive
cancellation of the race result/rewriting history, he's after compensation
for lost earnings from potentially being crowned champion had the FIA
taken action at the time, when they allegedly knew about it.

So if he were looking for some sort of vindication and compensation from
the individuals or groups involved, I would support him.

Yup, that's what I think is absolutely fair and proper - if TPTB knew in
season and chose to keep it hush-hush, then as far as my sense of natural justice is concerned Massa has a case - at least an apology, and some
level of financial compensation.

He (and others) fell foul of an awful bit of cheating and, had it been
caught at the time, action would have been taken. I expect that would
have been similar to the Spygate situation where Renault would have lost
all of their points and (in line with the Schumacher precedent) Piquet
would have lots his points. Here are the three parts of Massa's court case that I really can't support...

<respectful snip>

As above, I don't think he's expecting or asking for history to be
rewritten. To your point 3, though, I believe the judge in the case has
ruled that time limit for claim has not expired as Massa would not have
known that he could sue on these grounds until Bernie's interview in 2023 saying that they knew the crash was a scam in 2008 not long after it
happened. I think that's reasonable logic for the court case/compensation claim, although I still agree with you that history should not be
rewritten even so.

The whole case is going to be a circus. Bernie is a difficult person at
the best of times, and age has not helped. Finding credible witnesses
from that period is going to be nigh-on-impossible:

- The passage of time is likely to make any evidence that isn't
supported by contemporaneous records - written or recorded - open
to challenge on the basis that memories alone are not reliable.
- Ecclestone's 95, and the story he told in an interview that triggered
this case he has since said he can't really remember what he said.
He's a difficult person at the best of times, he's not seen as
reliable *and* he's being sued, so he'll be a hostile witness at
best.
- Mosley's dead
- Briatore is also a hostile witness if called, and is hardly known
for honesty.
- Pretty much anyone else who might know what happened or
who-knew-what-and-when is similarly compromised and can't be
relied upon.

Unless he's got smoking-gun documents or a whistleblower - who he can demonstrate doesn't have a personal stake in this *and* who can back it
up with hard evidence - this is going to be a tough case to prove in
court.

Yup, agree with the above, it'll be a freak show. But Mosley being dead shouldn't be an issue - he was President of the FIA at the time, and any
claim against actions he took while President is a claim to be defended by
the FIA.

Even if he won - which I seriously doubt he can - I don't think his
remedies are credible or can/will be enforced.

I think that the very best he can hope for is a bit of a payout and and
an apology, and I don't think any compensation will be anywhere near the scale of what he's asking. In practice, though, I doubt this will go
anywhere if he insists on taking it to conclusion.

Which brings me to *my* big question? Who's putting him up to this? The lawyers will know that this is a tough case to win. This feels like a personal vendetta, and one that will cost Massa not just time and money,
but also his reputation. He left that season with his head held high and
I respected him for the way he dealt with disappointment. Now, he seems rather bitter and "small".

I hope Massa gets the satisfaction he's looking for, which seems largely a matter of pride but also financial recompense (although I'd be surprised
if he gets anyuthing like the 80 million or so dollars he asking for...).

To your other follow-up post, if it is found that Ecclestone/Mosley hushed
it up, then yes I too would love to see Bernie forced to part with money,
but also think it would be entirely fair for the FIA to have to pay out
for the actions of its former President.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <10fpft8$3jerl$1@dont-email.me>, Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

I think he has a point about dodgy decisions by various FIA
officials...but I would categorically reject any suggestion that he can
rewind and selectively cancel races well after the fact and in a way
that doesn't reflect the rules or the precedents.

In fairness, and based on what I've read (which hasn't been much, admittedly), I don't think he is actually pushing for retroactive cancellation of the race result/rewriting history, he's after compensation for lost earnings from potentially being crowned champion had the FIA
taken action at the time, when they allegedly knew about it.

Well, that wasn't the case originally...but since I wrote that, I have
read the preimlinary judgements handed down. The attempts to rewrite
history have effectively been thrown out. The judge explicitly said that
his wish to have the points wiped and/or the WDC awarded to him were not
within his jurisdiction and also that the effect of the other request
would have been presented to the public as somehow proving he was the
rightful WDC. He has outright rejected that whole part of the case,
leaving just the question of the FIA behaviour and any subsequent
financial relief due to him to go forward.

I think that's fair enough. Not that you have seen Massa or his lawyers admitting that the WDC question is over - let alone shouting it as
loudly as they were claiming it at the start - but it is what it is.

So if he were looking for some sort of vindication and compensation from
the individuals or groups involved, I would support him.

Yup, that's what I think is absolutely fair and proper - if TPTB knew in season and chose to keep it hush-hush, then as far as my sense of natural justice is concerned Massa has a case - at least an apology, and some
level of financial compensation.

Oh, I think he deserves all that. I think the scale needs thinking
about. It would also be nice to see who actually was involved. I'd be
slightly happier if this was a small, limited conspiracy than to find
out that half the FIA was involved. I still think demonstrating clear
evidence that is incontrovertible is hard. So far, the only "evidence"
is the ramblings of Ecclestone in an interview that he's already
denied...but Ecclestone is a known troublemaker who has been ruled to be unreliable in an English court back when he was done for tax evasion.

While I think he deserves _some_ apology and some (reasonable)
compensation, I still think it's an uphill struggle and, if he wins big,
the people responsible are likely *not* to be the ones who will pay.

He (and others) fell foul of an awful bit of cheating and, had it been
caught at the time, action would have been taken. I expect that would
have been similar to the Spygate situation where Renault would have lost
all of their points and (in line with the Schumacher precedent) Piquet
would have lots his points. Here are the three parts of Massa's court case >> that I really can't support...

<respectful snip>

As above, I don't think he's expecting or asking for history to be
rewritten. To your point 3, though, I believe the judge in the case has
ruled that time limit for claim has not expired as Massa would not have
known that he could sue on these grounds until Bernie's interview in 2023 saying that they knew the crash was a scam in 2008 not long after it happened. I think that's reasonable logic for the court case/compensation claim, although I still agree with you that history should not be
rewritten even so.

I wasn't suggesting that he was out of time, so we agree. My point about
time is that courts are (rightly) dubious about single sources of
evidence, particularly when relying on memory. Add 17 years and an
unreliable witness who is 95 and claiming he can't remember, it doesn't
look "solid". Briatore is even less reliable. The one (likely) direct
witness that would have been interesting (IMO) was Mosley - not least
because of his legal background - but obviously he's dead. There could
be others who can testify...but I am not aware of any being mentioned by Massa's team. There is time.

The alternative is that he's found some documentary evidence. If there's
that, he might have a solid case.

My view - and I am not a lawyer - is that so far the evidence he's
bringing to the court is very "thin" given the range of reliefs he's
seeking. Even now the results issue has been taken out, the scale of compensation being sought based on a senile troublemaker's comment years
after the fact feels like a stretch to me.

In fact, even though the issue isn't in play, I don't know how you claim
such massive losses unless you can _still_ demonstrate that you were
more or less a sure thing for the WDC if that race hadn't be corrupted.
And I don't think you can demonstrate that. IMO.

The whole case is going to be a circus. Bernie is a difficult person at
the best of times, and age has not helped. Finding credible witnesses
from that period is going to be nigh-on-impossible:

- The passage of time is likely to make any evidence that isn't
supported by contemporaneous records - written or recorded - open
to challenge on the basis that memories alone are not reliable.
- Ecclestone's 95, and the story he told in an interview that triggered >> this case he has since said he can't really remember what he said.
He's a difficult person at the best of times, he's not seen as
reliable *and* he's being sued, so he'll be a hostile witness at
best.
- Mosley's dead
- Briatore is also a hostile witness if called, and is hardly known
for honesty.
- Pretty much anyone else who might know what happened or
who-knew-what-and-when is similarly compromised and can't be
relied upon.

Unless he's got smoking-gun documents or a whistleblower - who he can
demonstrate doesn't have a personal stake in this *and* who can back it
up with hard evidence - this is going to be a tough case to prove in
court.

Yup, agree with the above, it'll be a freak show. But Mosley being dead shouldn't be an issue - he was President of the FIA at the time, and any claim against actions he took while President is a claim to be defended by the FIA.

Agreed. The death of Mosley comment is about the loss of someone who
would have been an interesting witness not about absolving the FIA.

Even if he won - which I seriously doubt he can - I don't think his
remedies are credible or can/will be enforced.

I think that the very best he can hope for is a bit of a payout and and
an apology, and I don't think any compensation will be anywhere near the
scale of what he's asking. In practice, though, I doubt this will go
anywhere if he insists on taking it to conclusion.

Which brings me to *my* big question? Who's putting him up to this? The
lawyers will know that this is a tough case to win. This feels like a
personal vendetta, and one that will cost Massa not just time and money,
but also his reputation. He left that season with his head held high and
I respected him for the way he dealt with disappointment. Now, he seems
rather bitter and "small".

I hope Massa gets the satisfaction he's looking for, which seems largely a matter of pride but also financial recompense (although I'd be surprised
if he gets anyuthing like the 80 million or so dollars he asking for...).

To your other follow-up post, if it is found that Ecclestone/Mosley hushed
it up, then yes I too would love to see Bernie forced to part with money,
but also think it would be entirely fair for the FIA to have to pay out
for the actions of its former President.

My issue - at the heart of it - is that there is not a way to "fix"
this. And if there was a wrong done (in addition to what Renault did),
it was done to all the drivers, teams and fans. The only way in which
this can be uniquely framed as being of particular focus on Massa is if
you accept his claim - which I don't - that he would definitely have
been WDC if this hadn't happened, and that his apology, compensation and reputation reflect that version of reality.

There is certainly a case that things might have been different and he
might have won the WDC had Singapore been different. There is also (IMO)
a more likely reality where the cheating was found and the points
reallocated to non-Renault drivers and the gap was wider. No-one can
know though, and this feels like more about ego and pride than simply
fairness.

Oh well. It feels pretty dodgy, though.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

In article <10fte66$suli$1@dont-email.me>, Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <10fpft8$3jerl$1@dont-email.me>, Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Thanks for your thoughts, Mark - all good points, well made, and
interesting insights. :)

My issue - at the heart of it - is that there is not a way to "fix"
this. And if there was a wrong done (in addition to what Renault did),
it was done to all the drivers, teams and fans. The only way in which
this can be uniquely framed as being of particular focus on Massa is if
you accept his claim - which I don't - that he would definitely have
been WDC if this hadn't happened, and that his apology, compensation and reputation reflect that version of reality.

For me, bearing in mind the eventual thinnest of losing margins for the championship, I do think there is a level of credibility in this claim -
I'm not saying he would *definitely* have been champion but he *probably*
would have bagged enough points in Singapore otherwise that it's easy
enough to imagine the season playing out fundamentally differently...
Other teams and drivers were also affected, sure, but Massa was arguably affected the most. Again, can't rewrite history, and an infinity of other things may have happened had the crash not been performed, but I'm leaning towards Massa got shafted big time and the guy's got a right to have a
chip on his shoulder about it.

It'll be interesting to see it play out in court. Like you say, Bernie and Flavio will be a real challenge for the prosecutors when they're in the
dock - pure circus!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.sport.f1

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <10fte66$suli$1@dont-email.me>, Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

scole <vintageapplemac@gmail.com> wrote:

In article <10fpft8$3jerl$1@dont-email.me>, Mark <mpconmy@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Thanks for your thoughts, Mark - all good points, well made, and
interesting insights. :)

My issue - at the heart of it - is that there is not a way to "fix"
this. And if there was a wrong done (in addition to what Renault did),
it was done to all the drivers, teams and fans. The only way in which
this can be uniquely framed as being of particular focus on Massa is if
you accept his claim - which I don't - that he would definitely have
been WDC if this hadn't happened, and that his apology, compensation and
reputation reflect that version of reality.

For me, bearing in mind the eventual thinnest of losing margins for the championship, I do think there is a level of credibility in this claim -
I'm not saying he would *definitely* have been champion but he *probably* would have bagged enough points in Singapore otherwise that it's easy
enough to imagine the season playing out fundamentally differently...
Other teams and drivers were also affected, sure, but Massa was arguably affected the most. Again, can't rewrite history, and an infinity of other things may have happened had the crash not been performed, but I'm leaning towards Massa got shafted big time and the guy's got a right to have a
chip on his shoulder about it.

His case hinges not on what might have been different in Singapore but
rather what would have been different if the FIA had definitely known
and taken action at the time. That's why the judge was so definitive in throwing out the declaratory judgements - he explicitly said that there
was no way for the court to rule on the outcome of the championship, but
that the declarations Massa was seeking would be presented as proof that
he not only could have been WDC "...but if declaratory relief along
the lines sought were granted, that is how Mr Massa would present his
victory to the world, and it is also how it would be perceived by the
public.".

Now, if that's the case you have to look at how that would play out. The
most likely action (as I said in a previous post) would be for the
Renault points to be voided. If they were simply not counted, it has
zero impact on the points...but, if discovered at the time, Renault
would likely be disqualified in line with numerous precedents. In fact,
despite there having been numerous cheating scandals of varying degrees
of severity, I can't find a single example where the relief has been the cancellation of all points as Massa things would have been the outcome.

In the case of just Renault and their drivers being disqualified,
everyone below gets shuffled up. Massa would have moved from 13th to
12th (and he was back there because of his own mistakes) while Hamilton
would move from 3rd to 2nd. So, Massa would still be out of the points
while Hamilton would have gone from 6 to 8 points. The
gap would have widened not narrowed with them leaving that round with
Hamilton on 86 to Massa's 67 instead of 84 to 67. If that led to the
same outcomes in the next two rounds (which you can't know for sure),
that still meant the Brazilian GP started with Hamilton on 96 to Massa's 87...an even bigger mountain to climb.

It doesn't make sense to me - what am I missing?

It'll be interesting to see it play out in court. Like you say, Bernie and Flavio will be a real challenge for the prosecutors when they're in the
dock - pure circus!

It should be an interesting case. I'm expecting Bernie to play (or for
real) the senility card. I expect Flavio just won't admit anything - and
why would he? More interesting is (as I said) what other corroborating
evidence exists.

That the judge let it go forward isn't an indication that Massa has a
strong case, just that the judge disagrees with the defence that he has
_no_ realistic chance of prevailing. That's a long way away from
winning, and a wholly different thing to believing that the remedy he is
asking for would be acceptable even if successful.

This is where I just have a strange feeling of someone stirring the pot
in the background. Unless I'm being stupid - always possible - this
really is quite a weak case to go in so hard on...but having gone "all
in", Massa has to win to an extent. If he loses - and I think he will
lose* - he's burnt his bridges to the F1 world and will look like an
embittered loser. I'm not sure he'll be any more popular in the motor
sporting world if he wins, but he will feel some sort of personal
vindication. So...in such a high stakes move, why wouldn't he seek a
lower-key alternative route (though maybe he tried before)? It just
feels like there's someone bankrolling this with a personal stake either against one of the individuals or maybe as a way to mess with F1 or the
FIA.

I don't know - let's see what happens.

* Even though he deserves some sort of apology and compensation, that
doesn't mean any and all cases associated with it can win even on
balance of probability. There has to be solid evidence which, if he
has it, I don't think is public yet.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2