The most notorious piece of cheating ever seen in Formula 1 took place on this day five years ago.
Fernando Alonso’s victory in the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix raised questions as he began the race using an unusual strategy and benefitted from an early Safety Car period. That was triggered when his team mate crashed, and it subsequently emerged Nelson Piquet Jnr had done so deliberately under instructions from the team’s top management, to help Alonso win.Yet despite suspicions about the race being raised in its immediate aftermath, it took almost a year for the matter to be investigated and the conspiracy exposed. Once it was the ill-gotten victory was not confiscated and punitive action was largely confined to individuals who had already left the sport.
Five years on, can it be said the FIA took the Crashgate scandal seriously? Or did it conduct a hasty investigation which unearthed no more than it was supposed to?
“I’m going to need a miracle”
The genesis of the scandal in Singapore began ten weeks before that race, at the Hockenheimring. As lap 36 of the German Grand Prix began Timo Glock lost control of his Toyota, striking the pit wall. It was a heavy impact, the Toyota skidding down to the first corner. The Safety Car was summoned while the wreck was recovered.
Nelson Piquet Jnr had made his second and final pit stop two laps earlier. This being two years before in-race refuelling was banned, Piquet had taken on enough fuel to the end of the race.
The rules also meant that immediately after the Safety Car came out no one could venture into the pits. Once they were allowed to come in Piquet was handed 11 places, and went on to lead the race and take a lucky second place. His frustrated team mate Alonso finished out of the points in 11th.
On Saturday morning at Singapore things were looking up for Alonso. He’d been quickest the day before at the new street circuit, which was holding F1′s first night race, and topped the times in final practice by over half a second. His last win had been at the wheel of a McLaren over 12 months ago, and this weekend seemed to be his chance to end the drought.
But in Q2 his car lost fuel pressure and came to a stop before he’d even set a time. A fuming Alonso stamped his feet as he climbed from the R28 and realised he would line up 15th on the grid. “Starting from the middle of the pack, I’m going to need a miracle,” he rued.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Ill-gotten gains
Alonso was one of only two drivers to start the race on the soft tyre – the harder of the two compounds brought by Bridgestone. Nico Rosberg in the Williams did likewise.
The Renault driver made up three places at the start and gained another one soon after as Jarno Trulli, heavy with fuel, began to drop back.
But as early as lap 12 of the 61-lap race Alonso himself was in the pits. Seemingly, his hopes of running light on fuel to gain places had failed: he rejoined over 80 seconds behind Massa.
Two laps later Piquet Jnr’s Renault clattered into the barrier at the exit of turn 17. That in itself was no cause for surprise: this was his 15th grand prix start and he’d already crashed or spun out of five previous races.
As in Germany it worked out beautifully for Renault – albeit their other driver. Once the field had queued up behind the Safety Car and then pitted, Alonso was up to fifth. What’s more, two of the drivers in front of him had to serve drive-through penalties – Rosberg and Robert Kubica had been forced to stop for fuel while the pits were ‘closed’.
That left Trulli and Giancarlo Fisichella, both of which had started with high fuel loads and were now running on worn tyres leaving them unlikely to challenge Alonso. After his second pit stop on lap 41 he easily held the lead until the end.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Suspicions
Even at the time some suspected Alonso’s win was not entirely kosher: “There were those who left Singapore with an uneasy feeling at the coincidental manner in which Renault’s return to winning form had been achieved,” remembered television presenter Steve Ryder in his memoirs.
“There was the poor qualifying session, the nonsensical gamble on a light fuel load, and then the mysterious crash of Alonso’s team mate Nelson Piquet Jnr that brought the Safety Car out at the absolutely optimum time; a million-to-one-shot had seemingly come off, and on what was a particularly high-profile race for the team’s sponsors.”
Despite the suspicious circumstances of Alonso’s victory the stewards chose not to investigate. Even this pre-race spin conducted by Piquet during the warm-up lap – seemingly a dress rehearsal – failed to attract their attention:
After the race journalists quizzed Piquet Jnr about the crash, noting it was “suspicious”. One of his engineers who had not been privy to details of the plan challenged Piquet on why he had not done a better job of keeping the car out of the barriers.
Hushing it up
It didn’t take long for the FIA to learn of the plot. Race director Charlie Whiting had been a chief mechanic at Brabham in the 1980s when the elder Nelson Piquet won his first world championships. Piquet approached Whiting at the Brazilian Grand Prix weekend.
“Nelson told Charlie the story, in great confidence, and Charlie told me,” said FIA president Max Mosley in an interview with Sky earlier this year.
Yet still the FIA chose not to act. “We knew what had happened but there was absolutely no proof, no evidence,” said Mosley.
Three days after the race in Brazil, Renault confirmed an extension on Piquet’s contract despite a disappointing debut season in which he had contributed little by way of results apart from his fluke podium finish in Germany and his involvement in the Singapore scam, which was still undisclosed.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Having been reconfirmed as a Renault driver, though with his pay cut from $1.5m to $1m, Piquet Jnr intended to keep the plan secret. In an interview for F1 Racing magazine he scoffed at the suggestion he’d been involved in anything underhand in Singapore: “Yeah, I wanted to kill myself to help Fernando get on the podium.”
The truth comes out
Thanks in part to their Singapore win, but also due to a superb drive by Alonso two weeks later in Fuji to a fully-deserved second win, Renault seemed to have turned around their slump in form in 2008. They failed to carry that into the next season with the dismal R29.
Piquet continued to struggle and after ten point-less races, team principal Flavio Briatore finally cut him loose. With that went his reason to keep quiet about what had gone on in Singapore.
He wasn’t the only person feeling the pressure in 2009. Mosley was fighting a battle on many fronts. In April the now-defunct News of the World ran a devastating expose on his private life which brought the future of his presidency into question.
Mosley clung to power, but facing hostile opposition from the teams – temporarily united under the Formula One Teams’ Association banner – the clock was clearly running out on his presidency.
“In ’09 Nelson senior came to see me in Monaco and we had lunch together,” said Mosley. “He told me the story, not knowing that I already knew, and it was extraordinary because he was really, really upset. He was distraught over lunch.”
“I said ‘what we need is we need a statement from Nelson Jnr’. He said ‘he’s ’round the corner, I can bring him in.’ I said ‘no, I’ve got to stay out of this but I will arrange for people to interview him and so on, I don’t want to get involved’.”
Now the FIA had finally begun an investigation, matters proceeded swiftly. Yet the individuals they interviewed and the evidence they collected could all have been obtained months earlier when the suspicions first arose.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Piquet Jnr exposes the plot
News of Piquet Jnr’s impending departure broke on August 1st. Two days earlier in Paris he signed a statement exposing a story which was predictably dubbed ‘Crashgate’ by a scandal-weary F1 media, which in the preceding two seasons had also reported on ‘Spygate’, ‘Liegate’ and ‘Spankgate’.
In his statement Piquet Jnr pointed the finger at Briatore and technical director Pat Symonds. He said that shortly before the start of the race: “Mr Symonds, in the presence of Mr Briatore, asked me if I would be willing to sacrifice my race for the team by ‘causing a Safety Car’.”
“I accepted because I hoped that it could improve my position in the team at a critical time in the race season,” he said, adding that the pair did not make the tactic a condition of him earning a drive for 2009, though he hoped it would help.
Renault were meticulous in their planning. Piquet was told to crash at the exit of turn 17 where there were no cranes and no side entrances to allow the car to be swiftly recovered, maximising the potential for a Safety Car deployment.
Naturally, Alonso’s strategy would have to be prepared accordingly: “Mr Symonds also told me which exact lap to cause the incident upon, so that a strategy could be deployed for my team mate Mr Fernando Alonso to refuel at the pit shortly before the deployment of the Safety Car, which he indeed did during lap 12.”
“The key to this strategy resided in the fact that the near-knowledge that the Safety Car would be deployed in lap 13/14 allowed the team to start Mr Alonso’s car with an aggressive fuel strategy using a light car containing enough fuel to arrive at lap 12, but not much more.”
The meticulous planning did not extend to how to minimise the risk to marshals and spectators. “Be careful” were Symonds’ only words to Piquet Jnr on the subject, “which I took to mean that I should not injure myself”.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
The evidence mounts up
The FIA hired corporate investigative firm Quest to conduct an inquiry. Among their team was Martin Smith, a former detective superintendent who had spent 30 years with the Metropolitan Police.
They were quick to rule out any involvement on Alonso’s part after he was interviewed on August 28th at Spa-Francorchamps, where practice for the Belgian Grand Prix was taking place. “Alonso denied any knowledge of any sort of plot,” explained Mosley.
Alonso told the FIA that the unusual strategy of starting with a light fuel load from a low qualifying position at a track where overtaking was difficult was borne out of a desire to pursue a different approach to those immediately around him in the hope of gaining an advantage. Besides which, he added, “the question of strategy was one which he largely left to his engineers” (in the FIA’s words).
“Interestingly the senior policeman [who interviewed Alonso] – very experienced at questioning people – is convinced he was telling the truth,” Mosley added.
But they reached the opposite conclusion about Symonds, who was interviewed shortly after Alonso. He refused to answer repeated questions over whether he had met with Briatore and Piquet Jnr on the day of the race or knew anything of a plan to orchestrate a crash, but did assert that the plan was first put to him by Piquet Jnr “the day before” the race.
Eventually one of the interviewers put it to him that “if Mr Symonds you’d been put in the position where you were made to ask Mr Piquet Jnr to crash it’s much better, it would be much better you in the long term to tell these stewards to hear that today?”
“I fully understand that,” Symonds replied. “I have no intention of lying to you. I have not lied to you but I have reserved my position just a little.” In their report the stewards added Symonds was “very responsive throughout the rest of the interview”.Briatore responded to the investigation by claiming the elder Piquet tried to blackmail him by threatening to expose the conspiracy if his son did not keep his place at the team.
The Renault team boss gave the FIA a copy of a letter he had sent to Piquet Snr three days after the FIA received his son’s statement.
“I can certainly not accept your contention that the Renault team, myself and your son entered into some sort of conspiracy that would not only have a impact on the result of the competition, but actually, that may put at risk the safety of all the contenders in the grand prix just to have Fernando Alonso obtaining a racing advantage,” Briatore told Piquet Snr in the letter.
Briatore threatened the Piquets with legal action if he did not desist his “blatant attempt of exerting blackmail… by way of threats and outrageous lies”.
He maintained this position before the stewards. “I never talk with Nelsinho [Piquet Jnr].”
“I never talk about crashing the car, he’s never coming to me tell me ‘Flavio Jesus Christ I crash the car, you won the race, can you renew my contract?'”
The FIA also obtained telemetry from Renault (pictured) which clearly showed Piquet had provoked the spin and subsequent crash. He had responded to his car’s loss of rear grip not by backing off but keeping his foot planted on the throttle.
“To my eternal shame and regret”
The World Motor Sport Council finally convened to rule on the controversy on September 21st, 2009 – almost a year to the day since the race, and six days before F1′s second Singapore Grand Prix.
Five days earlier Renault made the stunning announcement they would not contest the charges brought against them and that both Briatore and Symonds had left the team.
This was enough for the Mosley: “Because Renault had actually, as a company, known nothing about it, got rid of the two people concerned which was Flavio and Pat, we took no further action, at least against Renault.”
In their eagerness to make Briatore the focus of the blame the FIA over-reached, handing him an indefinite ban which was later overturned by an appeal court. His management of Alonso and three other drivers was also placed in jeopardy as they were told they would lose their superlicences if they did not.
Symonds did not attend the hearing but did send a letter to be read out. It included a reiteration of his claim the Piquet Jnr first suggested the plan.
The driver refuted that in a 2010 interview, claiming Briatore had put the idea forward. “The only way we can benefit in any way out here is by getting a safety car on the course at the right moment,” were Briatore’s words, according to Piquet Jnr, who also said he had been reminded of how the Safety Car had helped him in Germany.
But Symonds told the WMSC he “should have dismissed [the plan] immediately”.
“It is to my eternal regret and shame that I did not do so,” he continued. “I can only say that I did it out of a misguided devotion to my team and not for any personal gain whatsoever.”
Back to Singapore
Soon after the teams were back in Singapore where paddock chatter was dominated by the scandalous fall-out of the previous year’s race.
The news got worse for Renault as their title sponsor ING announced its “deep disappointment” with the verdict and cancelled its sponsorship of the team, followed swiftly by Mutua Madrilena.
Piquet Jnr later admitted he “didn’t consider the morality” of what he had done. And the prime benefactor of the conspiracy – Alonso – didn’t care. Quizzed by journalists in Singapore he dismissed the facts of his team’s manufactured victory as an “interpretation”.
“There are many interpretations how you can win the race,” he said. “[The crash] was in the very early stage of the race, it was a long race to do, the car was performing well, I did no mistakes and I still count it [as a win].”
In the 2009 race Alonso took a remarkable – and this time fully-deserved – third place, and sent a clear message about his opinion of the previous year’s events by dedicating it to the disgraced Briatore.
Lingering doubts
There is nothing about the sordid Crashgate episode that doesn’t reek of cynicism.
The conception of the plan, the FIA’s initial indifference to the warning signs about the manner in which the race had been won, Piquet Jnr’s eagerness to keep quiet about it while it kept him in a drive, the sudden vigour with which Mosley pursued the matter once it suited him and Alonso’s dismaying readiness to accept his tainted spoils exposed F1 as corrupt, conniving and morally deficient.
Five years on, there are many who find it hard to believe that the one person who stood to gain most from Crashgate had no knowledge of it. The passage of time has given us further cause to doubt Alonso’s insistence that he would not know basic details of his own strategy. We have also seen examples of Alonso’s team mate being sacrificed for his needs in a manner which does not happen with other drivers.
Mosley’s attempt to banish Briatore from motor racing indefinitely having failed, he has since reappeared in the F1 paddock. His most recent visit, at the Italian Grand Prix, was with Ferrari.
Of all the teams for him to show up at, this was perhaps the most surprising. If any team had cause to bear a grudge against Briatore for his actions in Singapore it was surely them, for during the manufactured Safety Car period Felipe Massa suffered a disastrous pit stop which cost him a likely win.
Given that, it was strange to see Briatore back in their garage. Odd too, that a team not shy about levelling accusations at rival teams minimised the Renault conspiracy and crash as “a euphemistically naughty spin from Nelson Piquet Jnr”.
But to do so might have caused too much embarrassment on the other side of the garage – which, ironically, is now occupied by the very person whose ill-gotten win potentially cost Massa the world championship.
2008 Singapore Grand Prix partial Renault radio transcript
Extracts from the pit wall radio transcript published by the FIA of Renault’s radio messages leading up to and after Piquet Jnr’s crash. Only Briatore, Symonds, Alonso and Piquet Jnr were named.
| From | Message |
|---|---|
| Engineer | Nakajima was being told that Trulli was heavy so he needs to overtake him as well. |
| Pat Symonds | While we’re behind Nakajima we’re f***ed, we’re not going anywhere. |
| Engineer | I agree. |
| Pat Symonds | I’m also’ |
| Engineer | It’s f***ing our three stop isn’t it completely. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah absolutely. I’m also concerned about that that fuel current thing, um as soon as we get laps coming in I’m gonna look for gaps. |
| Pat Symonds | […] I can tell you now we’re not three-stopping. |
| Engineer | At this space for Fernando we are lap 15 so far and maybe we get to 16. We’ll see how it develops. |
| Engineer | Okay. |
| Pat Symonds | [Engineer], don’t worry about fuel because I’m going to get him out of this traffic earlier than that. |
| Engineer | Massa ran over the debris on lap eight. […] There’s a bit of debris in the middle of the circuit there. |
| Engineer | Maybe debris on the circuit. Yellow flag between nine and ten and we think there’s debris on the circuit. |
| Pat Symonds | That’s not gonna be a Safety Car. |
| Fernando Alonso | Okay, okay. |
| Flavio Briatore | […] [Inaudible] Fernando will be going nowhere? |
| Pat Symonds | Absolutely. Um we’ve got a little strategy programme problem but as soon as I’ve got it back I’m gonna be looking for a gap to put him in. |
| Pat Symonds | […] I think Rosberg will be quite light because he’s on options but this is still bad news for us. We’ve, we’ve gotta think out of the box now. |
| Flavio Briatore | […] Fernando need to overtake somebody there because that is not’ |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah. |
| Flavio Briatore | Alonso passed Trulli on lap nine. That Trulli’s very slow eh? |
| Engineer | Okay, I’ll tell him. |
| Nelson Piquet Jnr | As per his testimony, Piquet Jnr asks what lap he’s on. What lap are we in, what lap are we in? |
| Engineer | […] He just asked what lap are we in. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah, tell him that he’s about to complete lap eight. Is that correct? |
| Engineer | That’s correct yeah. I think he was asking what lap are we in though but, which he already knows. |
| Pat Symonds | No just tell him, he is about, he’s just completing, he is about to complete lap 8. |
| Engineer | Understood. |
| Nelson Piquet Jnr | Piquet Jnr says he can’t see his pit board. […] I can’t see Gabria, I can’t see Gabria. |
| Engineer | Okay, want to tell him this straight yes? |
| Pat Symonds | Just say understood – say understood. He can’t see the pit board. |
| Engineer | Okay – understood. |
| Pat Symonds | Don’t worry [Engineer]. |
| Engineer | Okay, I think we’ve got him. |
| Engineer | Understood. |
| Pat Symonds | Gabriel – can you hear? |
| Engineer | He just said ‘yes’. |
| Pat Symonds | Okay. Just try and get that pit board a bit further out, wave it or do something like that. |
| Pat Symonds | […] Right, what have we got; f***ing hell we’ve got seven seconds to Nakajima. |
| Nelson Piquet Jnr | […] It’s better to count through the laps because I cannot see Gabria. |
| Pat Symonds | Nakajima lapped in 1’50.3 on lap eight. […] And then see how quickly we can catch up on Nakajima. Nakajima’s doing 50.3. |
| Engineer | No, he’s going to be much quicker this lap. |
| Engineer | 1.3 up at the moment. |
| Engineer | And these tyres are s***. |
| Pat Symonds | We need to’I need a bit of help here cos we haven’t got any strategy system. |
| Engineer | I just think, I can’t believe we can’t lap at Nakajima’s pace; I’m just worried these tyres are useless and we should get on the other ones. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah, exactly… |
| Engineer | We 9/10ths up at the moment. |
| Flavio Briatore | Just wait one second guys. |
| Engineer | We’ve got a much better first sector to come on here. |
| Flavio Briatore | Maybe, you know, maybe we need to quicken up now. |
| Engineer | Yeah, we gone quicker now than Nakajima. |
| Pat Symonds | [Engineer], we’re gonna go two. |
| Engineer | Okay. |
| Pat Symonds | Um, what was our target without this now? |
| Engineer | Um, 40 was the sort of optimum, and then 40 up to 46 if he wanted to cover… |
| Pat Symonds | I think we’ll stay at around the 40 mark. |
| Engineer | Predicted what 47.6 for this lap. |
| Pat Symonds | 47 – 6. |
| Engineer | Yeah. |
| Pat Symonds | So point 8, point 8 quicker than Nakajima’s last one yeah? |
| Engineer | 47 – 1 predicted now. We’re two seconds up at the moment on that lap. |
| Engineer | We’ve gone below one and a half seconds quicker than him. |
| Pat Symonds | One and a half’so we’re going to catch him in about three laps. Yeah? |
| Engineer | Yep. |
| Pat Symonds | Alonso took 0.6s out of Nakajima on lap 11 and was still over three seconds behind him. Right, I’m going to ‘ I think we’re going to stop him just before we catch him and get him out of it, the reason being we’ve still got this worry on the on the fuel pump, it’s only a couple of laps short, we’re going to be stopping him early and we’re going to go to lap 40. |
| Engineer | Yeah I think so. |
| Pat Symonds | 4 – 0. Lap 40. |
| Engineer | Alonso set his fastest lap of the race so far on lap nine, then improved on it on each of the next two laps. How’s the balance, Fernando how’s the balance? |
| Pat Symonds | Um, acknowledge please Freddie. |
| Fernando Alonso | Very poor grip. |
| Engineer | Can you repeat that please? |
| Engineer | Okay let’s stay as we are, it will be tyres yeah? |
| Pat Symonds | That confirms it. |
| Flavio Briatore | ‘Cause no way we’re overtaking Nakajima with these tyre. |
| Pat Symonds | Exactly, exactly and I don’t want to waste one second behind him. |
| Engineer | What lap you’re claiming Pat? |
| Pat Symonds | Um lap ‘ we’re coming in in a couple of laps something like that and then I want you to get to lap 40 please – four zero. |
| Engineer | Okay lap 40′ which fuel system-wise I think we can… we can go easily to lap 12 without any problem. |
| Pat Symonds | Symonds announces Alonso’s early pit stop. Okay, I think I’m going to stop him the end of 12, that looks like it’s all going to work out. |
| Fernando Alonso | Maybe over steering. |
| Engineer | I’m quite aggressive on rear pressures Pat so… |
| Engineer | Alright don’t do anything it’s gonna be a different story on the other tyre I would imagine. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah exactly. |
| Engineer | Scupper our rear isn’t it so. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah that wasn’t a great centre. Right, we’re gonna stop at the end of lap 12 guys; we’re going to lap 40. |
| Engineer | 63 kilogrammes for Fernando – 6 – 3. Okay? |
| Pat Symonds | […] Yeah with a good lap we’re going to be within a second and a half of him which is right. |
| Engineer | An engineer who apparently was not in on the plan queries whether Symonds is pitting Alonso too early based on the fact Alonso is not catching Nakajima quickly enough to be held up by him for three or four laps. Pat do you still not think that this is a bit early? We only did six tenths that lap. |
| Pat Symonds | No, no it’s going to be alright. |
| Engineer | Okay, okay. Understood. |
| Flavio Briatore | [inaudible] …behind Nakajima now. |
| Pat Symonds | Renault also had a problem with their computer strategy system leaving Symonds to devise Alonso’s strategy on the fly. I’m having to hand calculate because we haven’t got. |
| Engineer | Okay. Just we were 3.1 that last lap. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah, I mean we might be able to get one more lap but I’m not gonna risk missing anything. |
| Engineer | Okay Pat, understood understood. |
| Engineer | […] And in now Fernando in now pit confirm. 40 seconds Fernando. |
| Fernando Alonso | Alonso pits on lap 12. Okay in now. |
| Flavio Briatore | Anyway we had nothing to lose. |
| Pat Symonds | Exactly. |
| Engineer | 62 [Engineer], 6 – 2. |
| Engineer | 20 seconds Fernando. Multi-map 2, multi-map 2. Guys he’s gonna be target plus 8 isn’t he if we go into lap 40, 32 was the original one. |
| Engineer | […] He’ll know from that we changed the two stops won’t he we don’t need to explain that to him? |
| Engineer | Yep. |
| Pat Symonds | […] Right, now let’s concentrate on Nelson. |
| Engineer | […] He just sat behind Barrichello ain’t he and he’s got massive straight line speed give him a little hurry up [Engineer] tell him he’s got a load of straight line and advantage on him. |
| Pat Symonds | Just hang on’ |
| Flavio Briatore | Tell him to push. |
| Pat Symonds | ‘Let me just look at the end of this lap please. Just one minute [Engineer] please I just want to see where he is. |
| Engineer | Understood Pat. |
| Engineer | Bourdais went off the track at turn 18. Bourdais’ spun, so he’s made a place up there. |
| Engineer | [inaudible] go to R2. |
| Engineer | Okay [Engineer] |
| Pat Symonds | Lap 14 begins. Okay right [Engineer], you’ve gotta push him really bloody hard now if he doesn’t get past Barrichello he’s a, he’s going nowhere, he’s got to get past Barrichello this lap. |
| Flavio Briatore | Tell him, push. |
| Engineer | Nelson no excuses now you’ve got to get past Barrichello you’ve got four clicks straight line advantage come on you’ve got to push now you must get past him. |
| Pat Symonds | Tell him to push really hard. |
| [Multiple voices] | Piquet crashes at turn 17 on lap 14. […] Nelson’s off. F***ing hell. Nelson’s had a crash I would say that would be a red flag its huge [all speaking at the same time]. |
| Nelson Piquet Jnr | Sorry guys. I had a little outing. |
| Engineer | Is he alright? Is he alright |
| Pat Symonds | Ask him if he’s alright. |
| Engineer | Are you okay? Are you okay? |
| Engineer | Fernando’s just gone past it. |
| Engineer | Okay yellow flag |
| Nelson Piquet Jnr | Yeah I hit my head in the back. I think I’m okay. |
| Engineer | Okay understood. |
| Pat Symonds | Right [inaudible] stop him. |
| Engineer | Safety car, safety car, safety car, safety car, Fernando safety car mixture three. |
| Pat Symonds | Tell him be careful, be careful, turn 17 I think it is. |
| Engineer | Mixture three, mixture three. |
| Engineer | Pat he went through it just after him. |
| Pat Symonds | Okay thank you. |
| Engineer | […] I overtake the safety car or no? |
| Engineer | You follow it Fernando follow it unless you get a green light, follow the safety car unless you get a green light. |
| Engineer | F***ing hell that was a big shunt. |
| Flavio Briatore | Briatore appears to be watching a replay of the crash F***ing hell… my every f***ing disgrace, f***ing, he’s not a driver. |
| Pat Symonds | […] What position is Fernando in? |
| Engineer | Well we were twenty, and we’re first guy to pick the safety car up. |
| Pat Symonds | Yeah we’re not. |
| Engineer | […] Okay Williams are refuelling |
| Fernando Alonso | Alonso saw Rosberg – the only other driver who started on super-softs as he did – head for the pits. Renault’s plan relied on the pits being closed at this time so Alonso’s rivals couldn’t respond to the Safety Car by pitting. Pit lane is closed isn’t it? |
| Engineer | Yes, yes it is. |
| Engineer | Yes, yes pit lane is closed. |
| Engineer | 6.8 Williams and a penalty. Rosberg. |
| Engineer | Did those guys ever get in before the safety car came in? |
| Pat Symonds | Yes I think so, yeah. |
| Engineer | Okay. |
| Engineer | Yes I think both Red Bulls didn’t they? |
| Fernando Alonso | Is the pit lane closed? |
| Engineer | Yes, yes. |
| Pat Symonds | The pit lane is closed |
| Engineer | Yes, the pit lane is closed Fernando, the pit lane is closed |
| Fernando Alonso | Rosberg he pit now hasn’t he? |
| Pat Symonds | Yes he’ll get a penalty. |
| Engineer | Yes Rosberg pitted, he will get a penalty there were guys that pitted before it came out we believe, think the Red Bulls. |
| Engineer | And probably Barrichello. |
| Fernando Alonso | I have the green flag, I will overtake. |
| Engineer | Okay Fernando. |
| Engineer | Okay. |
| Flavio Briatore | What position we are now in the all this? |
| Pat Symonds | To be honest, I don’t know Flavio. It’s got to have been good for Fernando but I honestly don’t know where he is. |
Imre (@f1mre)
28th September 2013, 11:47
The last article says it all about Ferrari’s relationship with Massa… no respect at all. This is Ferrari.
Imre (@f1mre)
28th September 2013, 11:48
the last part of the article
celeste (@celeste)
28th September 2013, 13:29
I call it impartiality. Why should Ferrari be about all questioning?
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
29th September 2013, 11:15
Look around my friend, these teams won’t let a chance go by. In Renault 3.5 appears like Dams has run an illegal drs all championship long only being warned of their infringement when they got randomly checked yesterday, now imagine what F1 teams do, water tanks, the “stupid” safety car rule that I suspect was explored more than once and benefiting from your team-mate, who knows why Webber gets cautionary penaltys for replacing gear and Vettel none, I reassure that I’m just wondering the only fact here is that we have no idea what these groups do for the green.
Gordon (@)
28th September 2013, 12:06
Alonso has matured a lot since 07/08. But I find it incredibly hard to believe that Alonso had no knowledge of these plans, even if questioned by an experienced person. Could he just be that good of a liar? (Note: I don’t hate him, I rate him highly as a driver, but I find this very odd). As also mentioned, you look at how Massa has been sacrificed before with Ferrari with Alonso as a team mate. You look at someone like Hamilton who wasn’t content with his 3rd place finish at all when Rosberg was told to stay behind – I just find that much more honest and with more integrity. Granted, a different situation, but still.
tmax (@tmax)
28th September 2013, 15:00
There is one common person in the 2 Scandals (Crashgate & Spygate) of last decade – Fernando Alonso !!!!
Is it a coincidence that in both case he escaped even without a reprimand ?
Is it a coincidence that in both the cases the apparent effected party is Ferrari ?
Is it a coincidence that in both the cases the driver knew nothing and the team knew everything ?
I was a great fan of Fernando and was massively excited with his move to McLaren et all… But I lost most of the respect for him after 2007 Hungarian GP and then whatever little remaining of that after crashgate !!!!
He is a wonderful F1 driver but yeah that is it…. nothing more than that…..
Patrick (@paeschli)
28th September 2013, 15:39
Yep, he’s always the driver involved in scandals …
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 19:07
How could anyone forget he drove in the Merc tyre test earlier this year?
Oh wait, he didn’t :P
wsrgo (@wsrgo)
28th September 2013, 16:58
That’s why he’s Teflonso…anyway, I firmly believe he had no hand, because otherwise he would have asked Renault to do the same again at Fuji, instead of having to “sprint like hell” and overturn a 15 second deficit to Kubica’s BMW in the round of pitstops.
q85
28th September 2013, 17:10
‘unusual strategy ‘ that makes the article hard to take serious from the start.
Rubens and the 2 red bulls were on exactly the same strategy. It was the strategy to go for if you were out of position. because you pitted early so you then went on to heavy fuel giving yourself alot of free air to run your race, you would then jump the guys ahead of you when they stop and a be faster than them after they pit as they are then running their heavy stint therefore pulling away getting well into the top 10. Strategy basics of the 90s/00s for a car out of position on a street track. I believe michael schumacher did the same in monaco 06 to great effect.
IF a SC comes out in that time that so much the better.
Now the obvious of above is out of the way, next question did fernando know? Fernando is many many things… a pointless risk taker? no he is not. He would not do that for a win he doesnt need. Did Flavio need the win? yes as renault were threatening to pull out if results didnt come. Little did flav and pat know that they would win the next grand prix anyway.
The story is getting very old indeed. as is the lack of understanding of F1 at the time and the strategies etc
q85
28th September 2013, 17:12
forgot Nico being on the same strategy too and Robert. So thats quite a few cars on a ‘unusual strategy’
Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh)
28th September 2013, 12:06
I dont like how this article makes a very strong accusation against Fernando when even the speculation is so very, very weak. Plus the writer ignores the fact that one of the MAIN reasons for this stunt was to persuade Fernando not to leave the team, which would never have worked if Fernando was in on it.
Feuerdrache (@xenomorph91)
28th September 2013, 12:16
Source for your fact? After all, it must have been said by those who have been involved.
Klaas (@klaas)
28th September 2013, 12:29
A weekend with no F1 news, what do you expect? Other topics have been ruminated (Vettel booing, ALO-RAI relationship) already. So Keith comes with this stunt, let’s undig a scandalous subject and start a debate. Really, Keith a caption competition would be better.
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 13:21
Not sure what article you read, but the one I read merely expressed a lingering doubt held by some people. At no point did it make any claim Alonso was definitely involved in the plan. In fact, it makes no claim either way.
astonished (@)
28th September 2013, 14:42
aka_robyn
28th September 2013, 16:06
Which part of that can be disputed?
astonished (@)
28th September 2013, 20:46
No source, no names of who doubts so it is more a journalist view that should be written in first person.
It is subtle, but is not good journalism
Of course it is only my opinion, not interested in making any point.
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 16:27
Thanks for proving my point for me :-)
@HoHum (@hohum)
28th September 2013, 23:52
After Senna (god) and Schumacher (god2) winning championships by crashing into their main rivals, F1 fans have to be either cynics or extraordinarily credulous. Crashgate was the obvious natural progression of this trend. One step to far or 3 ?
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
28th September 2013, 16:48
I seem to recall you recently claiming that Red Bull frequently fake problems with their car, based on no evidence whatsoever.
q85
28th September 2013, 18:59
yeah they have done that. Was it Korea last year when they told the world Sebs front tyre was in trouble when it clearly clearly was not. Half the Press fell for it(which says alot).
But they have every right to do that if it fools their rivals
matt90 (@matt90)
1st October 2013, 0:27
But if Fernando wasn’t in on it he would surely be aware that supreme luck got him that win and it was representative of nothing?
Gill (@gill)
28th September 2013, 12:29
Ur article clearly suggests that Alonso was involved. He was already a 2 times champion. He did not need to something of this sort. And whats the point of writing the article now ? Massa could only support ALonso in only handful moments. Notably One Germany 2010, other being when his gearbox seal is broken. Why cant you see this being a team order before the race and hows this one different from the other orders’ given by other teams. Rosberg not allowed to race Ham in Malaysia 2013 was equallly baffling. The front wing which was taken away from Webber in Britain 2010, would you also say that Vettel wasn’t behind that decision or a part of ? Alonso was right when he attributed his win to Flavio for without Flavio he probably would still be racing in Spain. One mistake from a person cant take everything away from that person. He drove the race well and rightly deserved the win because he was not the part of this cheating. We all praise Webber for being straight forward. And ALonso spoke what he felt. He knew all media personnels will be after him after his POst race interview but he said what he felt. He could have been politically correct but why should have he devoid-ed himself of a great win which he fought for with all his might ?
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
29th September 2013, 18:17
What IS it with people and that stupid wing? It is standard practice in F1 for a team with one new part to give that part to their driver with the most points at the time. This is so normal that nobody even mentions it 99.9% of the time it happens. Going into Silverstone 2010 the RB driver with the most points was Vettel. End of Story – if not for Webbers’ Praetorian Guard in the press.
I was going to say that people are making a mountain out a molehill over this issue, but that’s really accurate. They’re making a mountain out of a single grain of sand.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
30th September 2013, 10:24
Well it wasn’t that the team brought one wing and gave it to Vettel. They brought two and Vettel broke his in practice, and the team then removed Webber’s to give to Vettel. That’s quite a big difference in my view, seeing as Webber would have been setting up his car for that wing.
Also, i can’t remember exactly but wasn’t the points difference something like 5 points? Which is nothing at that point in the season. I think for Webber it was the principal, that Redbull clearly seemed to favour Vettel for the championship.
David-A (@david-a)
30th September 2013, 10:34
@jonsan @keithedin The driver feedback from Friday showed that Vettel was happier, and faster with the new wing, which he didn’t break- it failed at the end of a straight. Vettel was ahead by 12 points despite numerous car failures from the lead.
Canderous (@yoshif8tures)
28th September 2013, 12:30
Excellent article Keith, thank you.
erix
29th September 2013, 15:48
Political agenda to get rid of Teflonso.
The FIA could not afford to have double world-champion was a fraud, but the media certainly can. Sorry for Alonso fan, but he was two time fraud involved, excluding his plot to sack Raikkonen. What you get is what you give and the time will tell.
Matt
28th September 2013, 12:36
I also find it very hard to believe that Fernando had absolutely no knowledge of this, he is not stupid.
He has always been one for telling his team what he wants to do rather than letting them write his strategy for him, if the team came up with this seemingly crazy strategy that doesn’t make sense he would have questioned it and would not have taken the answer they have tried to give.
I think he knew about it and to be honest after his antics at Mclaren where he intentionally held Lewis up in the pits so he couldn’t do a lap I wouldn’t be that surprised if Alonso played some part in formulating the plan himself as he has proven before that he has a dirty streak in him.
Like most things perhaps one day the truth will come out.
q85
28th September 2013, 18:55
it wasnt a crazy strategy. Anyone with a grasp of F1 at the time can see that.
Honda, BMW and Red Bull all had drivers on it. Were they in on it too? Its typical strategy for cars stuck out of position on a street track. F1 Fuel strategy basics.
also as for hungary it wasnt nice or pretty, Infact it was very petty by alonso but he wasnt the only driver blocking that day.
q85
28th September 2013, 18:56
+ Williams
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
30th September 2013, 16:15
They were not on the same strategy – as noted in the article, none of those drivers were on the super-soft tyres which were likely to require them to pit as early as Alonso would.
Only Rosberg was, and he started higher on the grid and would have expected to make up more places at the start but, as things turned out, didn’t make a good start and ended up dropping back.
Shrieker (@shrieker)
28th September 2013, 12:50
“Interestingly the senior policeman – very experienced at questioning people – is convinced he was telling the truth,” Mosley added.
How convenient.
Shrieker (@shrieker)
28th September 2013, 13:07
After reading the pit wall radio transcript and seeing Alonso ask whether the pit lane is closed or not multiple times i have very little remaining doubt that Fernando was in on it.
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 13:24
He asked twice – don’t see why that’s excessive :-P
Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms)
28th September 2013, 13:33
@shrieker
Indeed. Here in Finland we have had a famous murder case going on for seven years now in which a house wife is accused of murdering her husband. It already went to supreme court once and they ordered the case back to district court. Even though it can’t be said with an absolute certainty that the wife did it, 99,9 % of people believe she’s hiding something. But the police completely screwed up the investigation, so we’ll never know the truth. The reason? An experienced policeman interviewed the wife shortly after the murder and was convinced that the wife had nothing to do with it. He threatened other policemen that they’d be fired if they investigated the wife anymore, so the police started investigating the wife again only two years after the murder).
An opinion of one policeman after one discussion is the stupidest reason to drop investigation ever.
Hamish
28th September 2013, 12:54
I say the result stands for one reason and one reason only – I had money on Alonso to win. He was paying 20:1.
Which begs the question, with knowledge of that information was there any significant bets put on Alonso?
In a completely unrelated topic – I didn’t know Flavio was convicted on multiple counts of fraud in the 1980’s.
mantresx (@mantresx)
28th September 2013, 17:28
Even if the results change due to penalties or whatever after the race, they pay to the initial result.
Hamish
29th September 2013, 5:49
Thats my point.
Jorge Lardone (@jorge-lardone)
28th September 2013, 18:28
Yes, you tell it!!! Follow the money!!!
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
30th September 2013, 10:30
Oh my god, Hamish was in on it too!
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
28th September 2013, 12:55
There were many worse things which occurred during the whole event, but this is the one that forever tainted my opinion of Alonso: I already didn’t like him from his McLaren days and it was the final nail in the coffin.
obviously
28th September 2013, 13:13
Dude, you started following F1 in 2010. What are you talking about?
celeste (@celeste)
28th September 2013, 15:00
Crashgate and Alonso vrs. Hamilton at McLaren were in every sport news program at the world. So you didn´t exactly have to follow closetly F1 to get to know this two incidents.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
28th September 2013, 17:27
@celeste precisely.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
28th September 2013, 13:21
I selected that on my profile because that’s when I started following F1 in the sense of watching every race avidly. I’ve watched it (albeit not with an entirely dedicated following) since the tail end of Schumacher’s days.
Besides that, I still read the news.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
28th September 2013, 13:34
I just feel it wouldn’t be correct of me to say I started following F1 before I actually did start watching every race, since as far as I’m concerned that is “following” it. Hope that clarifies things :)
q85
28th September 2013, 19:04
he had no part of the incident so therefore would count it as a win. Wasnt his problem Flav did this to keep Renault in F1. They were desperate for the win Fernando was not.
Senna did worse things than alonso has yet he is your pic, but you wouldnt of seen him race either…1 race contract at mclaren for 93 incase his car wasnt good enough for him and he wanted to go home mid season
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
28th September 2013, 19:28
Yes, I freely admit he wasn’t the most moral of drivers. But he was just so unbelievable to watch in qualifying replays – my personal favourite being Jerez 1990: it was absolutely staggering how he stayed so committed after that horrifying crash Martin Donnelly suffered. I like Senna so much because I think, had he not died, he’d be the best driver on history statistically as well as in ratings.
Also though, he has the benefit of having had Prost as a teammate for more than one season, suggesting he can put up with internal warfare seemingly unlike Alonso (and didn’t resort to his crashing tactic until Prost had done so to himself).
I don’t see your point. He was denied the opportunity to drive the fastest car on the grid because his arch rival, frankly, was scared of losing to him. He wanted to keep his options open, as every driver wants to win.
q85
29th September 2013, 0:25
so what. he didnt get the car he wanted after one bad year at Mclaren. So he blackmailed the team to do a 1 race contract… Leaving mika on the sideline.
As for Prost yeah he raced him but never actually beat him on points as team mates. The accident is there for all to see and Ayrton comes out badly, in fairness even Ron says so.
Prost wasnt scared of him, he didnt want the man in his team. The same man that barely tested pre season, left it to prost. Why would prost do all his work?
Senna was amazing but had weakness like the rest of them do.
Max Jacobson (@vettel1)
29th September 2013, 13:10
I should clarify, Senna’s move in Japan was unacceptable.
How did he “blackmail the team” though? He wanted to leave, as he was at the time arguably the best driver on the grid (I’d certainly say so) but without the best car. Obviously he wanted to go to Williams.
And although Senna never beat Prost on points, he beat Prost under the points system at the time. That’s all that matters: he was clearly faster when he did finish, obviously. And he was a very focused driver – second only to Schumacher in many people’s minds, for his technical feedback and dedication. So saying he “left Prost to do all the work” is completely nonsensical. Ask David Coulthard, who was test driver to both Mansell and Senna.
As a result of all this, I think it’s perfectly fair to say Prost didn’t want to partner Senna again a) because they had a fractious relationship and b) because he wanted to win another WDC: Senna would likely have prevented him from doing that.
Andrew Simmons
29th September 2013, 13:54
So its worse to blackmail your team about cheating rife throughout, but its not bad to nearly kill yourself and your teammate to win?
Some screwed up morals there.
Robbie (@robbie)
30th September 2013, 20:39
I don’t know how to jump into this debate that now is involving Senna, but I will just give my opinion on him and defend him thus. I think Senna was a genius, and I think he was born to race in the pinnacle of racing. We know he was very religious, and I think that he was convinced that God put him on this Earth to race in the pinnacle of racing. I think most other drivers are talented, many highly, and grew up around karting and developed from there into great racers, but I think Senna was a level above most racers that have ever turned a wheel. Did he make mistakes? Did he make errors in judgement? Sure. And he’d be the first to admit it. Btw, Prost WAS afraid of Senna, because he saw that Senna HAD to win at all costs. He (Senna) felt he was on this Earth for that very purpose. When Senna was performing at his best he said it was an out of body experience for him and it was like he was hovering over the car, not sitting in it.
Let’s not forget one of Senna’s famous indiscretions against Prost was at a race that saw French president of the FISA Balestre change the rule mid-weekend after Senna got pole, and put Senna on the dirty side of the track for Sunday and Prost on the clean side. One can somewhat understand Senna’s frustration, no? Even if one doesn’t condone crashing one’s car into another for gain, one can at least see how Senna would have been extremely frustrated at having something he earned taken away mid-weekend.
One of the remarks Schumacher made after he whacked JV at Jerez 97 was that Senna was a hero of his and basically MS blamed his action against JV on something he learned from Senna. I thought that was extremely poor of MS and I lost a ton more respect for him out of what little I already had. Couldn’t take the high road eh, MS? Had to say Senna did it so why shouldn’t I. Would he teach his own kids that? Two wrongs make a right?
Senna did what he did in F1 without nearly the massive effort MS had behind him to compile his numbers. Senna was, imho, pure genius, MS…merely a good driver put in incredible circumstances to compile numbers post-Senna, except that MS (FIA’s hand-picked icon post-Senna) decided to take the cheap way out and spend his whole career behaving like Senna did after being slighted by the governing body. MS was never slighted by the FIA. Only ever helped massively by them. And yet he still had to be the boor and the bully on the track time and time again, for a far more sustained period than Senna, with more advantages hand over fist than any other driver in the history of F1. MS was no genius…more a copycat who was in the right place at the right time and more heavily advantaged with illegal Benetton’s and a trumped up package at Ferrari, thanks to Senna’s death and F1 feeling the need to create a new chapter in F1 since Senna was no longer around to have a Senna/Schumacher rivalry create the next chapter on it’s own. Imho of course.
graham228221 (@graham228221)
28th September 2013, 13:04
Man, I miss refueling. Bring it back FIA!
dragoll (@dragoll)
28th September 2013, 13:27
Read Steve Matchetts book, where he recounts the refuelling horror of Jos Verstappen’s pit fire in 1994 and then we’ll see if you want to reintroduce refuelling.
Imre (@f1mre)
28th September 2013, 14:17
There are still racing series where refuelling is allowed… Shocking, isn’t it?
graham228221 (@graham228221)
28th September 2013, 15:38
I could give a horrific incident for almost any aspect of racing. Let’s ban the whole thing.
dragoll (@dragoll)
28th September 2013, 23:20
I’m not being a nanny here @graham228221 However, refuelling is just an unnecessary risk where not only the driver is at risk, but people in and around pitlane.
@HoHum (@hohum)
28th September 2013, 23:59
And it is very expensive.
graham228221 (@graham228221)
29th September 2013, 9:21
@dragoll I strongly disagree – it could made as safe as almost any other aspect of GP racing if the regulations were strong enough. Indycar, NASCAR, WEC all have in-race refuelling but I can’t recall the last serious incident in any series. Hey and don’t forget the thousands and thousands of people refilling their cars everyday without any safety equipment or expert supervision ;)
The only reason serious refuelling incidents ever happen is because the teams were allowed to push it too far.
Exactly the same as the pitlane incidents we’ve seen more recently. Changing a tyre is hardly difficult but because the teams are allowed to push the process to the limit in speed and complexity someone very nearly lost their life earlier this year.
dragoll (@dragoll)
29th September 2013, 10:45
@graham228221 I disagree, F1 pitstops are ridiculously quick. In WEC they don’t fight for the split second. And in Indycar and NASCAR, I haven’t watched recently… However, I recall refuelling in Indycar hasn’t been without problems either…
dragoll (@dragoll)
29th September 2013, 10:55
Indycar is without problems:
Tony Kanaan 2009: http://youtu.be/ZOi3n9XeEzw
Forsyth Car 2006: http://youtu.be/fuXG0OYRGTc
I had a look at NASCAR, they don’t have a rig, they use a canister to load up with fuel, which is probably a good way of going about it. I had a look, WEC have a very slow approach to their stops, refuelling is done first, then tyres.
There are approaches that work, but yeah, its not suitable for F1’s lightning fast pitstops where the guys can’t even get tyres on properly because they’re so time poor.
bull mello (@bullmello)
28th September 2013, 18:45
As a long time racing and F1 fan (since the mid 1960s) I am extremely grateful for the many improvements in fuel safety across all racing series and for no no refueling in F1. The lack of any injuries from fuel related issues during races in recent years is quite a welcome relief. The Williams garage fire emphasizes the inherent possibilities of the dangers of fuel when mistakes happen. Why reintroduce that to the pit lane? I don’t understand what the possible benefits of refueling could be.
The current tire formula still requires at least one pit stop to change compounds. This allows for competing pit strategies without the dangers of refueling. Teams are allowed to put different amounts of fuel into their cars which can provide for different strategies. Maybe less so starting next season with the stricter fuel regs.
Rick Mears was one of my favorite drivers in Indy Car/CART and I always wanted to see him in F1. After the nasty wreck he had and the injuries to his feet the F1 thing was not going to happen, sadly. The reason I mention Mears is because of the terrible refueling incident in the pits during a race. He still suffers the effects of that incident to this day. This is but one example, there are plenty of F1 incidents ranging from minor to horrific that argue against ever bringing back refueling in F1.
It is correct that racing can be inherently dangerous. It makes sense to eliminate known hazards wherever possible.
dragoll (@dragoll)
28th September 2013, 23:21
+1
Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms)
28th September 2013, 13:18
Great article @keithcollantine . I also admire your courage to cover Alonso’s possible involvement in the scandal knowing how much angry comments it’s going to spark.
At the end of the day there are two possibilities – either Alonso knew that Piquet was going to crash on purpose or he doesn’t understand strategy and has no involvement in the strategic decisions.
andae23 (@andae23)
28th September 2013, 14:04
+1
Diceman (@diceman)
28th September 2013, 19:04
+1
q85
28th September 2013, 19:08
i dont think its him that does not understand strategy. Go back and watch F1 at the time and do a bit of research.
If your right perhaps you should go and tell Williams, BMW, Honda and RBR strategy team they know nothing too eh??
Ed Marques (@edmarques)
28th September 2013, 21:28
+1
Hal
29th September 2013, 0:15
They may have the same strategy but what they didn’t know was “when” to pit and refuel in relation to a safety car.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
28th September 2013, 13:26
Great summary of what happened. I’d not seen that piece of telemetry. Full throttle while spinning…
At the time I remember I didn’t thought of it that way. Piquet had been crashing consantly, and it was bound to happen at Singapore again. And it happened.
It’s very sad, but I don’t think FIA was wrong not to act. If you act based on suspicions, you’re constantly investigating stuff that’s probably not there, and governing bodies don’t work that way. Though they should’ve acted after the Brazilian GP, but that was already very late….
All in all, it’s very sad that the race and the championship was tainted that way. Had this not happened, Ferrari would be firing a World Champion at the end of this year…
Tomsk (@tomsk)
28th September 2013, 14:29
At first I thought it was a lie-detector trace… I guess it is, in a way.
mantresx (@mantresx)
28th September 2013, 17:40
Yes it’s very sad that all of that happened but we have to remember that F1 is half soap opera and half sport, we like scandals like this, like the secret tyre tests, like drivers disobeying team orders, it’s all part of F1 as much as the racing itself, it reminds us that there’s people behind, of what appears from the outside, a very cold and tech driven sport. Spygate, crashgate, tyregate all for the better I say!
Ed Marques (@edmarques)
28th September 2013, 21:27
Had Nassa not spun 7 times in Silverstone a Ferrari driver would have been champion that year.
Oh, Massa spun in Malasya and Australia. Oh, he started 6th and finished 6th in Monza (Hamilton went from 13th to 7th). Oh, he was given a win in Spa by the stewards.
Both drivers had issues that year, and both had chance to win. Hamilton did, Massa didn’t.
BasCB (@bascb)
29th September 2013, 19:58
I do think the FIA was wrong not to act, as well as they were wrong in the way they acted a year later.
It had very little to do with fair sports regulation and all to do with keeping a lid on things and sports politics.
celeste (@celeste)
28th September 2013, 13:27
Excellent article, putting all the information in one place.
TWO POINTS:
1.- Even back in Germany 2010 media asked Alonso is that wing gived to him by Massa was like Singapore 2008.
2. A driver like Alonso is highly involve and inform about the strategy of the race. This line
is what still don´t clear Alonso. Alonso is always over the strategy and he wasn´t involve in this one? I don´t believe it.
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 16:28
Alonso knew exactly what his strategy was – he didn’t necessarily know that Piquet would be the one to crash.
q85
28th September 2013, 19:12
Williams, RBR, BMW and Honda were all on identical strategies.
it was a very good strategy for cars out of position and wanting to get the jump with clean air running.
Basics.
celeste (@celeste)
29th September 2013, 20:09
But they weren´t as far behind as Alonso, were them?
Paul
28th September 2013, 13:28
Lap 1 *Alonso message to the team*
-Alright guys, time to race! So what strategy on will i be for the race?
Understand how ridiculous that sounds? 2 times world champion doesn’t know on what strategy he will be on before the race? And if he does, hes got no problem on racing 3 stopper where you can not overtake? Come on guys…
FIA and F-1 management in general has showed for a few times in its history, that it doesn’t punish big names, champions, because it is bad publicity and bad for a sport in general. 2 times world champion is a fraud? Imagine the headlines! In the book about Bernie E there are a few remarks about ’97 world championship, where Schumi turned into Jaques. quote Max M: “I need to make a decision which is best for sport. No need to disqualify Schumacher. Fans will not like it.” They took away his 2nd place in standings, which meant nothing.
Getting back to Alonso. The guy had a track record of being egoist fraud even before that, we should remember his Mcl days, where he had the information about spying going on, withheld it for leverage, tried to blackmail team boss. Of course F-1 investigators puts him under “witness” category, not to damage his or sports reputation.
Looking at his years at ferrari i just feel that karma might be real after all.
dragoll (@dragoll)
28th September 2013, 13:30
I’m not 100% sure that there was any solid evidence against Alonso. Although all the circumstantial evidence suggests that it would be difficult for Alonso not to know about the scheme, there is nothing presented that conclusively suggests he was involved. Need to be careful with the wording @keithcollantine
OmarR-Pepper (@)
28th September 2013, 14:34
@dragoll he looks careful, I think. He’s not pointing a finger blaming him , because, as you say, the evidence couldn’t prove it. Why should Keith start detouring from an impartial website to an opinioinated one?
It’s just eerie to think he didn’t know about it. It’s possible, as much as the opposite is possible too.
Bleu (@bleu)
28th September 2013, 14:47
I have always been thinking that Alonso could be explained his strategy something like this: “It is a risky tactic, we know that. But if safety car comes out at right time, you may win the race.”
OmarR-Pepper (@)
28th September 2013, 16:03
@bleu which was more certain than today, given the refuelling ban during sc period that ruled those days. Anyway, doubts are there to stay. And I have my doubts about that day, so….
q85
28th September 2013, 19:10
‘This resulted in the first safety car period of the race.[26] The two Red Bull cars managed to come into the pits before it was closed. With very little fuel left, Rosberg, Kubica and Rubens Barrichello had no choice but to pit despite the pit lane being closed’
Alonso pitted just before this. This kills the ‘crazy’ strategy theory. Why is this so hard for fans to remember??? Are williams, Honda & RBR all thick too? NO.
George (@george)
28th September 2013, 13:57
I’m not particularly experienced with telemetry, but it doesn’t look that suspicious to me. The throttle application highlighted was the same as the previous, and when the wheels started spinning he backed off the throttle slightly?
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 23:37
He did back off – then straight back on ;-)
Tomsk (@tomsk)
1st October 2013, 20:04
Such a shame Piquet never got to drive with a blown diffuser.
His driving style was perfect for it, just like Vettel…
andae23 (@andae23)
28th September 2013, 14:01
I’m going to leave the matter of whether Alonso was involved in this for what it is. The most important point for me is the way the FIA acted. They were aware that one of the teams had not only cheated to win a race, they had also endangered marshalls, spectators and their driver by doing so. And yet, they decided to keep quiet. What if Piquet wouldn’t have stepped forward, would they have kept quiet forever?
Even NASCAR knows how to deal with things like this: as soon as there are suspicions (which there were in F1 too, as pointed out in the article), there should be an investigation. The FIA and possibly F1 as a whole failed in the aftermath of the 2008 Singapore GP.
The entire episode is the worst thing to have happened in modern Formula 1 and it is just shameful to think NASCAR dealt with it better than a sport that is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport.
bpacman (@bpacman)
28th September 2013, 23:08
I completely agree @andae23 .
As soon as the FIA had any suspicions about the incident, they should’ve launched a full and thorough investigation. They should’ve looked at the telemetry, the onboard footage, the radio transcripts; they should’ve interviewed Briatore, Symonds, Piquet, Alonso and the other key staff at Renault; and they should’ve requested any relevant documents from Renault. That is how you build an investigation – you don’t necessarily need a whistleblower. You look at the evidence, you judge the credibility of the witnesses and then you reach your conclusions.
The fact that the FIA not only failed to do this immediately after the race – but also once Whiting had been told of the plot – is disgraceful.
I know that he’s considered a bit of a personality – but I’m amazed that Whiting is still in his job given his roles in “Crashgate” and “Tyregate”.
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 23:32
Whiting told Mosley everything – in that capacity he did everything that could be expected of him. It’s not Whiting’s job to launch investigations.
Kyle (@hammerheadgb)
28th September 2013, 14:04
Thanks Keith – this is an exceptional piece of journalism and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I wasn’t aware that the FIA were tipped off about the plot just weeks after, and I find it extraordinary that someone as senior as Charlie Whiting was told about what happened and nothing was done for months. Although I accept the point that it would have been tough to prove without a whistleblower and it may have been tough to obtain the necessary evidence by challenging Renault about what happened.
To those complaining about the suggestion Alonso might have knew, there is no claim of certainty, and it is certainly true that many do think it is likely Alonso had knowledge. It may be something that we never know for sure. What I will say is that Fernando could have painted a much kinder picture of his feelings about the event by showing some humility when asked if he considered it a deserved victory.
Jason (@jason12)
28th September 2013, 14:10
Alonso has been involved in all sorts of controversies.
Very well written article.
Slr (@slr)
28th September 2013, 14:13
I remember during the time and for the following year I did not suspect a thing. Although I’d heard others’ suspicions at the time, I just couldn’t believe that Renault – or a few individuals within the team – would do such a thing.
I remember I hated Piquet Jr after he revealed that he crashed on purpose, but I’ve since forgiven him. I’m sure he genuinely regrets what he did, and I also like to thing that perhaps he wasn’t himself when he agreed to do the deed. The pressure to succeed in Formula One can make you do crazy things and make you forget about what what is right and what is wrong. I imagine there are times when the drivers just don’t have time to properly think through what they are doing, and that apparently seems to be what happened with Piquet Jr.
I’ve always given Alonso the benefit of the doubt in regards to whether he knew about the plot beforehand or not. This is partly because as a fan of him, I feel better believing that he wasn’t in on it, and also because of the fact that there is no evidence.
The truth is that only Alonso – and perhaps some of those close to him – know whether he had knowledge of the Crashgate at the time.
Slr (@slr)
28th September 2013, 14:14
BasCB (@bascb)
29th September 2013, 20:01
I think that was the case for most fans
Sadly, after this incident, I will never put down the thoughts about anything fishy having happened as easily as I did then.
Bruno (@brunes)
28th September 2013, 14:56
Had this event not happened, Massa would have been champion.
It is so sad that it was probably his only chance of doing so.And the funny thing is, it was done by another Brazilian.
andae23 (@andae23)
28th September 2013, 15:04
You’re making a lot of assumptions there.
celeste (@celeste)
28th September 2013, 15:10
Well even Massa used to think so… I remember one or two year ago an interview with Piquet Jr. saying that Massa can´t forgive him over the incident
andae23 (@andae23)
28th September 2013, 15:21
But you can’t definitively say he would have been champion: if Piquet would not have crashed, maybe Massa would have crashed eventually or he would have been hit by a backmarker. Or if Massa would have won in Singapore, Hamilton would have taken more risk the following races, so he would have to gained more points and thus he would have secured the championship anyhow. Maybe the pressure meant Massa wouldn’t have qualified in pole position in Brazil or he would have lost the lead on the opening lap.
Just by the shear amount of woulds in that last paragraph, I hope I have made my point that talking retrospectively doesn’t prove anything.
@HoHum (@hohum)
29th September 2013, 0:14
Let’s just say that it was 1 of many misfortunes that befell Massa that year.
BasCB (@bascb)
29th September 2013, 20:04
Yes, well, for Massa its an easy one. It means he can uphold that he did everything right to win and not think about his numerous mistakes that year as what could have meant not to win it @celeste.
IMO there was a lot of points that were fishy that whole year. The time Bourdais got a penalty when Massa cut past him and should have gotten penalized, the Spa race where the FIA pulled a new rule out of the cabinet that was really only defined after it happened to punish Hamilton. And more things.
Stress from the SC was a factor in that pitlane incident that mean he did not finish. But it could have just as well happened anyhow.
celeste (@celeste)
29th September 2013, 20:16
@andae23 @bascb I get that the fact that Massa could have won the race launch a lot of scenaries and if questions and we could go on for days creating different paths that could have lead either Massa and Hamilton, even Kubica to be the 2008 champion. And that´s why this action, Piquet Jr.´s crash is so horrible it completely changed the curse of the championship no matter in wich direction or wich driver would have got the championship at the end.
And BASCB yeah if I remember correctly 2008 was one of the last year fans openly called the FIA Ferrari International Assistance
Slr (@slr)
28th September 2013, 15:16
For all we know, Ferrari’s pit blunder could have happened under normal circumstances. There were also occasions where Massa lost points himself, had he not embarrassingly spun five times during the British GP, he may have scored enough points to be champion.
Deej92 (@deej92)
28th September 2013, 19:37
Hamilton won it and deservedly so. Assuming what “would have” happened won’t change that. It’s time to get over it.
celeste (@celeste)
28th September 2013, 15:31
On another note, funny to read people pricing Vettel after Abu Dhabi in the article Keith linked
iFelix (@ifelix)
28th September 2013, 15:38
I think we need distinguish between two things:
1. Was Alonso actively involved in the plot, or at least had received direct info from Briatore/Symonds that how they plan to run things? I don’t know and I don’t think apart from the Briatore, Symonds and Alonso himself anybody else does. But the rule is that people are innocent until proven guilty and the evidence is not enough for that.
2. Alonso is too smart not to have sensed that this strategy is not just doing “something different”. The strategy is what we call “gamble for resurrection” in finance, which only only made sense for somebody who knew that the cheat factor is going to help. At the same the best course of action for a smart (and not 100% honest) person is to remain in ignorance and do not try to question further. Having lived through the Spygate I think Alonso knew how he should walk to be able to claim ignorance. Does this make a him a bad person, or even deserved to be booed? Not in my opinion. But I it doesn’t bring me to like or respect his character, even though I highly regard him as driver, esp. in racecraft.
obviously
28th September 2013, 15:53
I think this line really highlights that most of the people, including the author are all buried well into their own perceptions, without even an attempt to step back and comprehend the whole thing. They are unable to see beyond one meaningless benefit to a driver, because they’re all focused on punishing or rewarding drivers, based on their completely biased and emotional preferences, which is ok for a simple cheering of one driver over another, but not in this case.
To suggest that Alonso is a main benefactor, implies that this whole thing was made in order to gain him a single race win, in a season where he wasn’t even in a championship fight. So, on a face of it, the only thing Alonso could gain was one sole victory, without any benefit for himself, except the statistics in his total race wins tally. Suggesting that he would do all this for just one win that doesn’t help his championship one bit, is completely illogical.
You should actually try to see who could benefit from Alonso’s (or Renault’s) win, and/or who would benefit from some extra points.
Apparently, Alonso really didn’t have much benefit from gaining few extra points, and that one win in itself really doesn’t mean much when you are not fighting for the championship.
The main beneficiary was undoubtedly Hamilton and McLaren, but that’s a bit too far-fetched and relies on knowing exactly how screwed Massa would be in comparison to Hamilton, since they’ve both lost out in the safety car period. So I think, it’s safe to discard them from any planning, even though they have, due to the long set of circumstances, benefit in the end more than anyone else.
Next you got Ferrari who has the most to lose by losing a P1, since they are in the championship hunt and have all to lose and nothing to gain with safety car. Again, suggesting that Renault or Alonso would simply want to screw Ferrari and Massa for some reason is a bit too far-fetched too.
So now that the championship points themselves are out of the question, think about the win itself.
Who has a motive here?
A win in a first night race, where you don’t have much to gain from points, is a matter of prestige. That counts more towards sponsors’ commitments, sponsorship packages, budget approvals and similar. That’s why I think it was done with a view of the Renault’s long term future. Of course, in the long run it backfired spectacularly, but still, I don’t see any other possible beneficiary than Renault F1 programme, or perhaps Flavio’s or Junior’s position in a team. Junior was just dreadful as a driver, while Flavio on the other hand needed probably needed to start getting some results in order to secure funding and survival of the F1 programme. Many won’t remember, but there was a constant talk about Renault withdrawing from F1 through all this time, even starting back when they were winning in 2006.
fangio85 (@fangio85)
29th September 2013, 2:33
+1 exactly what I thought when I read the article. I was not surprised by it though
Shreyas Mohanty (@)
29th September 2013, 4:51
+1. I echo your thoughts word for word.
Broom (@)
29th September 2013, 7:02
Great post.
me
30th September 2013, 6:17
When you are not in a championship winning position, wins are all that matter for a top line driver. That should be obvious.
zoom (@zoomracing)
28th September 2013, 16:22
I think that was the Spy Gate by McLaren.
me
30th September 2013, 6:20
And who was caught in emails using this data and yet got away with immunity and a very odd FIA protection detail in the McLaren garage? Alonso.
Aced (@)
28th September 2013, 17:08
I’m actually with Alonso on this one. I mean, what driver actually knows what their team is up to? Or their manager for that matter. Or their race engineer.
Hamilfan (@hamilfan)
28th September 2013, 17:56
OMG what an article !!
Kudos @keithcollantine for being so exhaustive . As I was not following keenly that I did not know too much of this incident , just the basic info.
I LOLed at the warm up practice . I find it so disgusting that such distinguished people could be involved in such stupid things . Charlie whiting could have done something , Nelson Piquet the legend, and Mr. Alonso who did not know anything about strategy ( I personally don’t believe that ). Pity . The whole of f1 is marred by a shroud of dirty politics . Who knows what other dirty politics will be unveiled some day with a whistleblower throwing light immediately when their position of advantage is taken out ?
Hamilfan (@hamilfan)
28th September 2013, 17:58
As I was not following keenly that * year . sorry for the missing typo
Chad (@chaddy)
28th September 2013, 18:35
Really great article. Thanks Keith!
Broom (@)
28th September 2013, 18:35
Very interesting.
Max Mosley’s initial reluctance to act on this information when he found out does make you wonder whether this sort of race fixing happens more than we know of.
Think implying Alonso was involved in the strategy itself is poor journalism however.
Broom (@)
28th September 2013, 18:38
Sorry, poor journalism is harsh because this is an excellent piece. Maybe I should say that it is a bit contentious.
Jorge Lardone (@jorge-lardone)
28th September 2013, 18:45
Very good article, and brave. Few journalists are able to write something like this, where important figures are unmasked by his dishonesty, as Briatore, Symonds, Piquet Jr. and of course, Alonso, the main beneficiary of this fact completely unsportsmanlike.
It seems incredible to think that Alonso was not aware of the conspiracy. He already in McLaren had acted very badly trying to blackmail their bosses, and that history is very important to judge his attitude in Singapore.
Obviously the economic interests dominate Formula 1 hide their guilt.
I believe the four involved in this incident should have been expelled for the rest of their lives in any activity related to motorsport.
That did not happen this speaks of immorality that dominates our beloved motorsport.
Force Maikel (@force-maikel)
28th September 2013, 19:04
To this day not a single shred off evidence has been provided that F.A. was involved or knew what was going to happen. This tells me all I need to know.
One thing however has somehow botherd me, if people in the padock has some supisions after the race surely Alonso must have figured it out himself as well. He is intelligent enough for that.
Dave (@)
28th September 2013, 19:11
Remember, the first rule of F1 – don’t rat out your employers.
Wait…
Force Maikel (@force-maikel)
28th September 2013, 19:19
I might have to add that this was a great article by @keithcollantine but I cannot accept the blunt accusation towards Fernado. Like I said above no evidence has been provided he was involved. If he was, why did Briatore, Simmonds and Piquet not just drag him into this to save their own skins inspired by the saying ‘If I go down, you all go with me’
This proves to me he wasn’t involved. Just because some sour fans have screamed it for many years know doesn’t mean it has become a fact and frankly it is has damaged Fernando.
Concerning Flavios recent return to the paddock I can only say that when Simmonds returned so many here screamed that he deserved a second change (which he most certainly does not!). So now you don’t need to act all spiked and declare him your enemy number one. It is nothing but hypocritic to do so. Both off them should have been banned for life like Piquet. End of story!
To finish off I would like to thank @keithcollantine for remembering us this event even though I don’t necessarily agree with everything that has been said.
Albert
29th September 2013, 5:38
That really doesn’t make much sense.
I’m not saying Alonso knew or was involved (that’s something we’ll never know), but it’s quite illogical, borderline irrational to be so sure he wasn’t based on such incredibly flawed lines of reasoning. Because make no mistake, they are incredibly flawed.
renton
28th September 2013, 20:25
thank god,
there are some many controversies around alonso’s personality, you don’t need to look to far to find another reason to dislike him
btw, he’s handling these pr-disasters very well, better than anybody
Diceman (@diceman)
28th September 2013, 19:17
Great article, thanks Keith. It’s really hard to tell whether Alonso knew about it or not. I hope he didn’t, because I have learned to quite like him lately, but we will probably never know.
Shreyas Mohanty (@)
28th September 2013, 21:46
+1. Agreed 100%.
Billy (@)
28th September 2013, 19:33
Anti-Alonso tripe. quit gossiping Keith.
Hamilfan (@hamilfan)
28th September 2013, 20:29
I am surprised that such a well written article is called gossip ! He has just stated the bare facts . What we make out of them is our own perspective.
puneeth Bharath (@puneethvb)
29th September 2013, 6:23
I think it’s a well written article by Keith… It does indirectly kind of suggests that Alonso was involved and without any kind of evidence I thought that could’ve been avoided…But again it’s Keith’s opinion and he is entitled to it like the rest of us are entitled to ours…
Jon Sandor (@jonsan)
29th September 2013, 17:30
If Alonso had a record of impeccable sportsmanship apart from “Crashgate” it would make it a lot easier to believe he was uninvolved. But in fact he’s spent his entire career engaging in highly unsporting/unethical behavior with respect to his teammates, the most notable example being his effort to blackmail McLaren into giving him preferential treatment. So it would be perfectly in character for him to have known what Piquet was up to. I think it’s more likely than not that he did know.
Shreyas Mohanty (@)
28th September 2013, 21:44
Everyone convinced Alonso was involved in this needs to step back and look at the matter again. The article loudly states Alonso was the “prime beneficiary” of the conspiracy, while he was anything but. He was fairly out of WDC contention so a win would have done him no good except increase his points tally – and who cares about statistics except Vettel fans? I wasn’t around watching F1 then, but I have done a fair bit of research on the “crashgate” and simply found no ways this would have benefitted Fernando.
As to the article – very neat and organised, even though its premise was somewhat biased against Alonso.
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:13
A simple answer…
When a ‘top’ driver is not in contention for the Championship the thing he most desires is wins… regardless…!
arki19
28th September 2013, 22:04
“We have also seen examples of Alonso’s team mates being sacrificed for his needs in a manner which does not happen with other teams.”
There is a world of difference between asking someone to deliberately crash and the other things referred to (being ordered to let a team mate go past / manipulating grid positions etc.) and i do not agree that this suggests Alonso was probably involved. The only thing we can say for sure is that the guy is a supremely bad judge of character. How he can stand to have that smarmy, revolting Briatore anywhere near him is unimaginable.
The whole Crashgate scandal has to be one of the most revolting things ever to have happened in Formula One and your excellent article @keithcollantine, ensures we all are reminded just how low things can get. Let’s hope it was a wake up call for the sport ( and the FIA) and nothing like this is ever allowed to happen again.
ever to have happened in F1 and the guilty parties should have been banned for life.
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:15
“How he can stand to have that smarmy, revolting Briatore anywhere near him is unimaginable.”
+101
Nomore (@nomore)
28th September 2013, 22:22
So all this thread to say I don’t like Alonso (my perception after reading)?
That’s fine but it’s not what formula 1 fanatic fan like me wants (and honestly I rate this site as very high). For me personally the most notorious piece of cheating was Mclaren in 2007, cheating on Ferrari…yep I know truth hurts
Anyway this article for me personally deserve a dislike for 3 reasons :
1. Timing.
2. Making implication without facts.
3. Personal opinion.
So sorry, but it’s a… -1
David-A (@david-a)
28th September 2013, 22:50
@nomore
I don’t really think the article made any real implications about what happened. It just summarised the events. If it was saying anything, it was “Alonso didn’t deserve to win Singapore 2008”. The author went on to give him much more credit for his podium the following year.
Interestingly, that involved Fernando too.
Nomore (@nomore)
28th September 2013, 22:54
@david-a
How ?
mnmracer (@mnmracer)
28th September 2013, 23:41
*facepalm*
scunnyman (@scunnyman)
29th September 2013, 3:50
Did the very same thing M8.
Paul Sainsbury
29th September 2013, 5:12
A sort of ‘double facepalm’, if such a thing exists……..
Albert
29th September 2013, 17:27
I wonder if it’s a case of not actually seeing or not wanting to see.
Nomore (@nomore)
29th September 2013, 12:48
@david-a
I’m still waiting to see how Fernando Alonso was involved in Mclaren cheating on Ferrari in 2007.
David-A (@david-a)
29th September 2013, 13:28
@Nomore You can’t seriously be denying he (and De La Rosa) knew some of Ferrari’s confidential information, as revealed in the case. That’s why at least @mnmracer and @scunnyman are facepalming.
Nomore (@nomore)
29th September 2013, 14:51
@david-a
First of all I hope that you didn’t forget that F.Alonso was a employee of Mclaren F1 team as De la Rosa, Hamilton or 700 engineers that have worked there.
Now if you have worked/working for a company, you should know that if a company give you a tool to work on it, you have just to do it, it’s not your responsibility where did they get this or that tool … the other option that you have is to quit the job (but in regard to yours contract, you have to buy the break out.)
Now the question is (and I want a fair answer from you) was Alonso or Mclaren who stole design papers from Ferrari ?
I think we all know the answer to that question (..at least I hope) but i’ll wait for your answer?
In case Mclaren the debate is closed
In case Alonso, can you provide some documents or references because all the search that I did never pointed to Alonso but this :
In the week beginning 17 June 2007, at the 2007 United States Grand Prix Ferrari filed a formal complaint against Stepney, leading to the commencement of a criminal investigation by the Modena district attorney in Italy
Ferrari announces it has recently presented a case against Nigel Stepney and an engineer from the Vodafone McLaren-Mercedes team [named by Autosport.com as Coughlan] with the Modena Tribunal, concerning the theft of technical information. Furthermore, legal action has been instigated in England and a search warrant has been issued concerning the engineer. This produced a positive outcome
Anyway i’m waiting for your sources … but also the one from @mnmracer or @scunnyman In case they can support your cause
mnmracer (@mnmracer)
29th September 2013, 18:07
FACT is Alonso knew about it.
FACT is Alonso only went to the FIA with this knowledge because he didn’t get what he want from Ron Dennis, not because his morals were bugging him.
David-A (@david-a)
29th September 2013, 19:14
@nomore – I never said he was the first to steal or share the info. I said he was involved in the ensuing scandal. It was proven in a court of law that he was aware of emails about the F2007’s weight distribution, and proven that he wanted to use that info to improve his MP4-22, well before this all came to light. You can rationalise what he did any way you want, but I don’t see how anyone, especially a Ferrari fan could vehemently deny his exchanging of illegal information about a Ferrari car, when it was proven.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/09/14/spygate.newrevelations/
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:20
‘Nomore’ (good name, incidentally… – lol.)
You’re still waiting “to see”… – We’re all waiting for you to open your eyes, so you can see… lmao.
Oskar (@oskar)
29th September 2013, 12:50
Exactly my thoughts.
me
30th September 2013, 6:27
What about Toyota caught with Ferrari tech details…their following car was a Ferrari clone, nothing happened to them yet the employees involved were prosecuted. Compared to this the McLaren saga was pretty small considering there car was already made.
Gosjean
29th September 2013, 8:01
I think it is ridiculous to say Alonso was the one person to benefit the most. That’s not journalism but sensationalism. The man was cleared. It was one win. He’ll have many more. The team meanwhile benefits tremendously from the points and accorded money. They benefited the most…. or would have. That’s just facts.
Chalky (@chalky)
29th September 2013, 9:24
Thank you for the article Keith. I remember this all too well.
I worked for Steria who also sponsored Renault F1 at the time.
We used to have pictures of their F1 cars appearing on posters and wallpapers and even had a replica F1 car appear at the office on charity fund raising days.
At the same time ING pulled funding, I can only assume that Steria did the same and I don’t blame them. Just a bit of a downer for me, as it was no more F1 eye candy at work anymore. Just back to the usual motivational posters instead.
JamieFranklinF1 (@jamiefranklinf1)
29th September 2013, 14:13
Crashgate would never be able to work these days. It doesn’t matter who crashed when or where, the safety car would still benefit Vettel :P
Oletros (@oletros)
29th September 2013, 14:35
Yes, like SC benefited Vettel last Singapur race /s
mnmracer (@mnmracer)
29th September 2013, 18:11
JamieFranklin is sarcastic, but sadly there are people a delusional as that. You have people suggesting Vettel’s performance in Abu Dhabi 2012 was only due to the safety car, disregarding that the first safety car put him right at the back of the field again. Of course, those are usuall the same people who think Button won in Canada 2011 despite 6 safety cars.
Sometimes, I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
puneeth Bharath (@puneethvb)
29th September 2013, 18:54
Planet earth is so full of evils.. the last nice soul living here does nt want to be here anymore .. so sad :P
puneeth Bharath (@puneethvb)
29th September 2013, 14:49
The bottom line is Alonso was found to have no knowledge of the plan by the official investigation.. To me it seems like one’s opinion on Alonso’s involvement in Crashgate finally comes down to one question whether he/she likes Alonso?
For people who like him (myself included) will think that he did not know about this and people who don’t like him will think that he was part of the entire plan or at least knew about it beforehand… I dont think another 1000 articles on this subject are going to change people’s opinion on this..
mnmracer (@mnmracer)
29th September 2013, 18:15
The problem is Alonso specifically claiming not to have been involved in the strategy, while everyone knows he always is. It doesn’t add up. If he had just said “yes we took a gamble with a strategy” or whatever, sure, that makes sense. But he makes himself a suspect by claiming not to have any involvement in something (the strategy itself) which he always has involvement with, and that does not add up.
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:26
I think you’re probably right about the FA lovers v. haters… as with the Hamfosi and the Tifosi… but what about those who neither like nor dislike him…? Are they not allowed a voice…? And if some of them should vote against FA why should you assume that they therefore hate him. It’s not good logic I fear…
Bloopie
29th September 2013, 20:28
I have to say you take serious liberties with your article. You include key details then completely undermine yourself by moving into ridiculous rhetoric about Alonso. Main benefactor….for a possible race win at best in a barren season? You think he would risk someones life for that? Please. He isn’t the main benefactor of a win, the team is. He’s already the best at that time. Absurd. There is a lot of suppositions here…he has been known to command 1st driver status, therefore he’s more likely to manufacture an accident and cheat in his dream sport? This article has some good information but a lot of ridiculous poorly thought out arguments. I’m sorry, the man was investigated, found innocent, and I think the only thing “lingering” is a slightly desperate attempt at a story, rather than an article, in a dull season. Tough cookies Kieth.
yoneya mineoki
30th September 2013, 6:40
Keith is anti-Alonso and He pushed this article to be like “Alonso knew that strategy”. But There is no proof, just a speculation. I read a lot of article that says Alonso is not involved in this matter., I believe those.
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:30
But your other articles are also speculation… lol.
You believe those which makes you pro-FA… What’s the difference…?
AldoG
1st October 2013, 2:45
This is a brilliant article. It really is. And those F1Fanatics who complain that Keith is “anti-Alonso” make me laugh, really.
I understand that it is necessary to prove Alonso’s involvement in the shameful episode before accusing him, but I understand also that Keith in this article put the issue in the right place: *perception* counts, and it is very difficult to avoid the *perception* that it would have been impossible for Alonso to realize that something was rotten.
IMHO, it requires a very particular form of naiveté to believe that the main heads at the team organized such a scam, and the main driver and MAIN BENEFICIARY of the scan was completely oblivious. And on top of that this driver goes to the press to say that all that is an “interpretation”.
It is very sad, in my opinion, that such a brilliant driver will pass to posterity as a cheater. His skills as a driver are since then shadowed and tainted by this episode.
Luca Nuvolari (@nuvolari71)
1st October 2013, 19:23
this article is the ultimate proof that this website cannot stand Alonso, come on. you need further evidence? Guessing is free but to write it this way is pushing beyond lines, far. How much more do you all know than a team of investigators? Do you know better than FIA and their men?
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:32
There is no logic in your comment.
Luca Nuvolari (@nuvolari71)
1st October 2013, 19:17
Keith, as usual you write excellent and well documented articles but, dear you how much pepper you add to your articles when you talk about the drivers you dont like or about drivers that dont represent your british flag!!! What is Alonso was a Maclaren driver….?
Again your source of data is very impressive but you like to provoke, dont you?
Ever thought of writing about the real biggest F1 scandal in history, the stealing of hundreds of pages of data of MACLAREN from Ferrari? I’d be curious to read how accurate you can be in providing horrible details and in igniting fire against your british teams. You’ll ban this article and possibly you’ll ban me too… but it’s ok, even here democracy and fair play is one side only….
What is the reason for all this?
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 5:39
Oh no… It’s the ‘democracy’ excuse again. And accusations of xenophobia…
This article doesn’t claim or even suggest that CrashGate was the biggest… and this discussion isn’t about which event was. And SpyGate wasn’t left in limbo with everyone denying everything, and so doesn’t ned to have the same journalistic investigation. Investigative journalists examine anomalies… by definition. As everybody wanted to deny all involvement, and others executed a cover-up, CrashGate deserves investigation.
It seems simple to me… but then I’m neither a FA lover or hater.
BlackJackFan
13th September 2018, 12:21
Luca… Oh dear, that old ‘democracy argument again… And xenophobia to go with it… Hahaha…
Nobody seems to be suggesting CrashGate is/was the biggest F1 scandal so comparing it with other scandals in this way is to ignore the point of the article… in order to bolster your weak argument.
The ‘point’, as I see it, is that CrashGate was never properly investigated, nobody ever admitted guilt (but it didn’t happen on its own…), and so subsequent examinations are valid, as maybe a means to find some semblance of ‘the truth’.
SpyGate WAS investigated, people admitted guilt, and paid the penalty. CrashGate is still open. Two people were briefly punished, and subsequently returned to F1, still without admitting anything, while FA says it’s all “open to interpretation”… so articles like this are ‘interpreting’…!
To find fault with investigative journalism is to end up in Myanmar…
FOM Fan (@)
12th October 2013, 7:36
What a disgusting, inflammatory article.
I’ll tell you what I think re. the FIA apparently knowing beforehand:
The FIA can’t go accusing people willy-nilly. They need proof. If they didn’t have Piquet Jr’s statement and he was not willing to tell the truth, then he could have just said “well I spun at that corner cos I pressed the wrong pedal by accident.” Perfectly plausibile in a cramped cockpit and matches what’s shown on the team radio & telemetry. Only when they got the proof from Piquet 1 year later were they able to successfully mount a case.
And as for Alonso not questioning Symond’s strategy, well put yourself in his shoes. You’ve been in F1 for less than 10 years, on a track you’ve never been to. Who would you trust, yourself, or the whole group of engineers your team has, the leader of which has been working in F1 a darn sight longer than you, and probably has more experience from a strategy point of view, of street circuits. I’d probably trust the guy who seems a lot more experienced from me, from an engineering/strategy point of view, who will have access to the timings of the entire rest of the field throughout the race.
Gerry
10th January 2014, 0:45
Just take look at the video footage of the 2008 Singapore race. Concentrate on Piquet’s face from about 50 sec. onwards. If his facial expression doesn’t tell it all then I don’t know what will…. very fishy!!
Jackal
12th January 2014, 23:36
The fact that the FIA allowed these results to stand and that Alonso has openly stated that he counts this as any other win is an utter disgrace. The only person to profit from this (without any punishment whatsoever) was Alonso and he has the nerve to suggest that he should be commended for such a pathetic, morally bankrupt, and shameful victory. One of the many reasons why I will never support the guy.
Crocket
30th January 2014, 11:33
Great recap. The radio messages clearly shows that very few within the team knew about “the plan”.
The radio exchange shows the obvious difference between Nelson Jr. and Alonso’s behavior during those laps. While Nelson shows doubts and ask for constant feedback (count the laps!) from the team, Alonso is mute and even unresponsive, just giving very brief details about the behavior of the car and entering pits when he is told to do so. Only after the safety car comes out, Alonso asked for feedback from the team (info about the green light), which could show that he wasn’t sure what to do in regards to the safety car in the middle of all the confusion, as was surely the case with all the other drivers.
It is clear after reading this piece that he didn’t have to know anything for the plan to work. In fact, you could say the least he and the engineers knew about it, the better (i.e. Alonso or Bob Bell could have opposed it… I know, I know what many people think about Alonso (He’s a cheater!), so he would have been eager to play Dick Dastardly).
The only think I disagree with is this statement: “We have also seen examples of Alonso’s team mate being sacrificed for his needs in a manner which does not happen with other drivers.” Even during the time team orders were not allowed, that is not the case. In 2008 for example, we saw two instances (Malaysia and Germany, I think) where Kovalainen was sacrificed to let Hamilton pass. And mind you, I believe Hamilton when he says that he doesn’t want any advantage over his teammate, but his input was not needed in these two examples. The team only had to ask Kovalainen to ease a bit and leave some room for the overtake to take place. I believe the same modus operandi can be applied easily to the Crashgate, but I guess Alonso’s personality makes much more difficult for people to believe in his honesty, while I think it is precisely this blunt and often rude honesty which sometimes leave an ******** aftertaste in some of us).
Strontium (@strontium)
28th September 2014, 19:59
Complete coincidence I started investigating crashgate exactly 6 years to the day later, and stroll across this article, which I well remember it being published last year!