Speaking for the first time since it was confirmed that Piquet crashed on purpose in Singapore last year to help team-mate Fernando Alonso win, Massa has not held back in his belief that the result of last year’s title should change.

Massa was leading the race before Piquet’s crash brought out a safety car where a botched pitstop by Ferrari cost him any chance of a points finish. In the end he lost the world title by a single point.

“All of what happened was robbery – but regarding the race nothing has happened, the result remains the same. This is not right,” Massa said in an interview with Globo television in Brazil. “The robbery changed the outcome of a championship and I lost (the title).”

Massa believes that F1 should have followed the example of football, where matches that have been fixed have been declared null and void.

“I have seen in football how a referee took money to throw a game and all the suspect results were annulled,” said Massa. “In Italy, Juventus were relegated. But here they just sent Briatore home. I don’t get it and I don’t think it was right.”

Massa believes Piquet would struggle to find his way back to F1, as he reckons it wrong for the Brazilian to have come forward about what he did only after he was dropped by the team.

“In general it was a very ugly attitude for a team to come up to you and say that you have to crash in order to renew your contract,” he said. “A driver who knew he was going to be fired.

“Nelsinho knew he was going to be fired. I believe that admitting a mistake is a good thing, because the guy told the truth. He shouldn’t have waited so long to tell the truth. He told [the truth] because he was fired, this is not cool.

“He is in a very difficult position in Formula 1. You can be certain that if someone from a team says, ‘Let’s hire Nelsinho’, it won’t go down well. I don’t think I would do this. I think that I would have to think very hard about it [and] I think that I wouldn’t be able to do it.”

Source: Autosport.com

The team had been accused of asking driver Nelson Piquet to crash deliberately during last year’s Singapore Grand Prix in order to cause a safety car period that would work to his team-mate Fernando Alonso’s advantage. The Spaniard went on to win the race.

“The ING Renault F1 Team will not dispute the recent allegations made by the FIA concerning the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix,” said a statement from the team.

“It also wishes to state that its managing director, Flavio Briatore and its executive director of engineering, Pat Symonds, have left the team.

“Before attending the hearing before the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Paris on 21 September 2009, the team will not make any further comment.”

Shortly before losing his drive with Renault, Piquet approached the FIA with the allegation that Briatore and Symonds had asked him to cause a deliberate accident that would bring out the safety car in Singapore, and that his heavy crash on lap 14 of the race had therefore been pre-planned.

Alonso – who had been a contender for pole until a qualifying fuel pump failure left him only 15th on the grid – had made a very early pitstop just before the caution caused by Piquet’s crash and duly vaulted to the front of the field, from where he delivered Renault’s first victory of a difficult season.

FIA investigators quizzed Briatore, Symonds and other team members over the incident during the Belgian GP weekend, and subsequently announced that the team would face a World Motor Sport Council hearing in Paris on 21 September.

Evidence, including Piquet’s statement, telemetry details and radio transmissions, was leaked to the media during last weekend’s Monza event, which also saw Renault announce that it would take legal action against Piquet and his triple world champion father Nelson, accusing both of blackmail.

The saga then took another twist when it emerged that the FIA had offered Symonds immunity at the hearing in exchange for full disclosure of the facts surrounding the Singapore incident.

As the Renault team – rather than Briatore and Symonds themselves – has been charged over the allegations, today’s announcement by the team is unlikely to have any bearing on next week’s hearing.

Source: Autosport.com

The diagram is being used by the FIA’s technical department to help in the investigation into what Nelson Piquet Jr was doing in the moments before he collided with a wall on lap 14 of last year’s Singapore Grand Prix.

Piquet’s telemetry at the exit to Turn 17 reveals that he applied throttle earlier than expected which caused his rear wheels to spin. He then eased off the accelerator before reapplying pressure to cause the car to lurch into a spin and hit the wall.

Piquet’s earlier laps in the grand prix did not feature such early acceleration on the same turn.

Source: The Guardian

That said, the world governing body’s transcript of the radio transmissions from the Renault pitwall team during last year’s Singapore Grand Prix makes for interesting reading, not least because it gives us an insight into what goes on in a part of Formula One that the teams like to keep close to their chests.

On one level the transcript reads uncontroversially. The Renault team start the floodlit race with one set of strategies for their drivers, they change the plan for one of them, Fernando Alonso, bring him in for a fuelling stop and are shocked when their second driver, Nelson Piquet Jr, piles his car into a wall. If you did not know of the allegations of race-fixing and an agreement with Piquet to crash deliberately, you would be none the wiser.

But when you know what is being alleged, the exchanges take on a different hue. Why did Pat Symonds, the director of engineering, drop the three-stop strategy for Alonso in favour of two? Isn’t it curious that Piquet has to ask, and be told, what lap he is on? Isn’t it odd that a senior engineer questions Symonds’s decision to change Alonso’s strategy? And what about the reactions of the team after Piquet had crashed? Were some of them thinking ahead, knowing that what they said at that point might one day be the subject of detailed investigations and analysis?

Either way the radio transcripts do not convict Renault. But it is increasingly clear that the FIA’s report suggests that there is a case to answer. The impression given is that the French team go to Paris not only fighting to prove their innocence but also fighting to limit the scale of any punishment.

The offer of immunity to Symonds leaves Flavio Briatore, the Renault team principal, in an exposed position, should Symonds accept it and provide the World Motor Sport Council with damning testimony against his principal.

So far the Italian has denied all knowledge of a conspiracy to fix the race and has initiated legal action against Piquet and his father, Nelson Piquet Sr, claiming that they have tried to blackmail him.

Few are coming to Briatore’s aid and the FIA is pressing on with him firmly in its sights.

Today (September 15th) The Times can reveal extracts from the radio conversations between key Renault personnel during last year’s controversial Singapore Grand Prix leading up to, and including, the moment when Nelson Piquet Jr crashed on lap 14.

This radio traffic between the Renault pitwall and Piquet, as well as among members of the pitwall, is a fascinating insight into the minutes leading up to the crash and the chaotic moments after it.

The transcript will form part of the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council’s deliberations on Monday when it decides whether Piquet was told to crash his car, an allegation Renault and Flavio Briatore, the team principal, deny.

The Renault group on the wall at races includes two race engineers, plus Briatore and Pat Symonds, the director of engineering who runs the management of the race.

Symonds has been offered immunity from prosecution by the FIA in return for full disclosure about the alleged scheme to have Piquet crash on purpose.

The aim of the conspiracy alleged by the FIA was for Renault to cause a safety car interruption immediately after Fernando Alonso, who has said he was not party to any scheme to cheat, had made an unscheduled and early pitstop. Alonso pitted on lap 12 of the race, four laps earlier than originally intended, and Piquet’s car hit the wall two laps later.

The safety car duly appeared and circulated for six laps. During that time almost all of Alonso’s rivals pitted, enabling the Spaniard to climb steadily through the field and win the race from fifteenth on the grid.

In the early part of the race, there were several exchanges between Symonds and the engineers about Alonso’s race strategy, with Symonds preparing the ground to drop the original three-stop approach and change it to a two-stop strategy that would better fit with any plan for Piquet to crash.

“I can tell you now we are not three-stopping,” Symonds is heard to say on the transcript made by the FIA as part of its evidence in the case, a copy of which has been seen by The Times.

Later Symonds adds to an unnamed engineer: “Don’t worry about fuel because I’m going to get him [Alonso] out of this traffic earlier than that.”

Not long afterwards comes an unusual intervention from Piquet, who was running towards the back of the field in the early stages of Formula One’s first night race. But the novelty factor for him was not the floodlights. It has now been suggested that he was worried about which lap he was on because he knew he had special instructions for lap 14.

Piquet says: “What lap are we in, what lap are we in?”

A few seconds later an engineer tells the others on the wall: “He just asked: ‘What lap are we in?’ ”

Symonds intervenes: “Yeah, tell him that he’s about to complete lap 8.”

Symonds insists Piquet is then told something he should know from his pitboard, which is shown to him at the end of every lap. “No, just tell him, he is about, he’s just completing, he’s about to complete lap eight.”

After Piquet is given the information, the discussion returns to the timing of Alonso’s first stop and Symonds makes his decision. “Right, I’m going to . . . I think we’re going to stop him just before we catch him [a reference to the Williams driver, Kazuki Nakajima, who was ahead of Alonso] and get him out of it, the reason being we’ve still got this worry 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.”

This decision prompts an engineer, who wants assurance from Symonds that a tactical option that would drop Alonso to last is the right thing to do. “Pat, do you still not think that this is a bit too early?” he asks a few minutes later. “We only did six tenths that lap.”

Symonds replies: “No, no it’s going to be all right.”

“OK, OK, understood,” the engineer responds.

Once Alonso has made his stop, Symonds tells everybody that it is time to “concentrate on” Piquet. After assessing the Brazilian’s position, he and Briatore decide Piquet has to quicken up as the fateful lap draws near.

Symonds to the engineer: “OK right, you’ve got to push him really bloody hard now. If he doesn’t get past Barrichello, he’s going nowhere, he’s got to get past Barrichello this lap.”

“Tell him, push . . .,” Briatore says.

Piquet’s race engineer gives him the hurry-up: “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.”

Moments later Piquet crashes at turn 17, where there are no cranes to lift the wreckage, making a safety car inevitable, and at the point at which he alleges Symonds told him to do the deed during a meeting before the race.

Multiple voices: “Nelson’s off. F***ing hell. Nelson’s had a crash. I would say that would be a red flag. It’s huge [all speaking at the same time] .

Piquet: “Sorry guys. I had a little outing.”

Engineer: “Is he all right, Is he all right?”

Symonds: “Ask him if he’s all right.”

Engineer: “Are you OK? Are you OK?”

Engineer: “Fernando’s just gone past it.”

Engineer: “OK, yellow flag.”

Piquet: “Yeah, I hit my head in the back. I think I’m OK.”

Engineer: “OK, understood.”

Symonds: “Right [inaudible], stop him.”

Engineer: “Safety car, safety car, safety car, safety car. Fernando, safety car, mixture three.”

Symonds: “Tell him to be careful, turn 17 I think it is.”

After several exchanges about Alonso, an engineer expresses concern, presumably after seeing the crash on the television monitor, but Briatore seems unconcerned and is angry with Piquet.

Engineer: “F***ing hell that was a big shunt.”

Briatore: “F***ing hell . . . my every f***ing disgrace, f***ing, he’s not a driver.”

Then Symonds asks about Alonso’s suddenly improving prospects.

Symonds: “What position is Fernando in?”

Engineer: “Well, we were 20, and we’re first guy to pick the safety car up.”

Symonds: “Yeah, we’re not . . .”

Engineer: “He will get away past it but he’s got to wait.”

Later Briatore and Symonds discuss Alonso’s chances. “What position we are now in all this?” asks Briatore.

Symonds replies: “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.”

In the final part of the transcript, several minutes after the crash, the Renault team return to the subject of Piquet and his condition and at this stage Briatore adds his own concern for the young Brazilian driver’s welfare.

Engineer: “Where is Nelson? Have you seen him?”

Briatore: “Is he OK, Nelson? Is he OK?”

Alonso: “The pitlane is closed until we arrive?”

Engineer: “He climbed out, mate, and ran across the track.”

Engineer: “Yeah, the pitlane is still closed.”

Taken as a whole the transcript does not provide a killer-blow against Symonds or Briatore and could be read either way.

The FIA, the sport’s governing body, is known to be particularly concerned that the alleged conspiracy not only amounted to cheating but also involved a reckless act that could have resulted in injury or loss of life.

The pitwall recording shows that, on this score, the Renault team were also extremely concerned about Piquet’s safety.

Source: The Times

With less than one week to go before Renault faces the FIA World Motor Sport Council to answer charges that it asked Nelson Piquet to crash deliberately to help Fernando Alonso win, sources have confirmed to AUTOSPORT that Symonds has been given the chance of an amnesty.

The development comes on the back of interviews between Symonds, FIA representatives and members from the Quest agency at the Belgian Grand Prix where it was deemed his evidence was ‘central’ to finding answers to what happened in Singapore.

In the stewards’ report about that interview, a copy of which has been seen by AUTOSPORT, Symonds confirms that the race-day meeting between himself, Briatore and Piquet did take place.

The stewards reports added: “Mr. Symonds accepted that he had discussed with NPJ (Piquet) the possibility of a deliberate crash at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, although he said the suggestion was raised by NPJ.”

However, Symonds then refused to answer questions about specific allegations about the events that took place that day.

It is understood, however, that the reason to offer Symonds immunity has come from the fact that he indicated at the time that he may have further useful information.

The stewards report stated: “Mr. Symonds suggested at his interview on 27 August that he might wish to revert to the Stewards with further information, including information responsive to the various questions he had declined to answer.

“However, no such further information was provided on 27 August. On 28 August, Mr Symonds was summoned back before the Stewards to be asked if he wanted to give further information on the questions he had declined to answer. Mr Symonds again declined to answer the questions.”

It is not clear if Symonds has accepted the immunity from punishment offer, but should he do so it means only Renault boss Flavio Briatore will face the FIA’s WMSC without any such deal in place. FIA president Max Mosley confirmed at the Italian Grand Prix that Piquet would be exempt too.

This if the official transcript of the relevant parts of an interview between FIA representatives and Pat Symonds, at the Belgian Grand Prix, discussing the Singapore Grand Prix race-fix allegations and the race morning meeting between himself, Flavio Briatore and Nelson Piquet.

FIA adviser: In your own words Mr. Symonds what do you recall being said to Nelson Piquet Jnr at that meeting? This is shortly before the race.

Symonds: I don’t really remember it.

FIA adviser: You don’t remember?

Symonds: No.

FIA adviser: Nelson Piquet Jnr says that he was asked by you to cause a deliberate crash. Is that true?

Symonds: Nelson had spoken to me the day before and suggested that. That’s all I’d really like to say.

(…)

FIA adviser: Mr Symonds were you aware that there was going to be crash at Lap 14?

Symonds: I don’t want to answer that question.

(…)

FIA adviser: There is just one thing that I ought to ask you and put it to you so you can think about it at least. Mr. Piquet Jnr says that having had the initial meeting with you and Flavio Briatore you then met him individually with the map of the circuit. Do you remember that?

Symonds: I won’t answer, rather not answer that. I don’t recall it but it sounds like Nelson’s talked a lot more about it.

FIA adviser: Mr. Piquet Jnr also says at that meeting you pointed out a specific place on the circuit where he was to have the accident and said it was because it was the furthest away from any of the safety or lifting equipment and gave the most likely chance of a safety car being deployed.

Symonds: I don’t, I don’t want to answer that question.

FIA adviser: [Referring to the pre-race meeting] Was it you that did the talking at that meeting Mr. Symonds?

Symonds: I’m sure it would have been both of us but I don’t know for sure. Sorry that’s a contradiction. I would imagine it would be both of us that would be normal. Actually probably more often it’s Flavio that does the talking himself. I wouldn’t necessarily always agree with what he’s saying but the majority.

FIA adviser: Because just to be absolutely clear here what Nelson Piquet Jnr has said is that at that meeting it was you that asked him to have a crash deliberately?

Symonds: I can’t answer you.

FIA adviser: Can I say 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 for you in the long term to tell these stewards to hear that today?

Symonds: I fully understand that.

FIA adviser: Yes.

Symonds: I have no intention of lying to you. I have not lied to you but I have reserved my position just a little.

FIA adviser: And you’re aware that the stewards may draw conclusions from your unwillingness to assist them in relation to what went on in that meeting?

Symonds: I would expect them to. I would absolutely expect that.

FIA adviser: I think I haven’t got any further questions.

Source: Autosport.com

I was reading this interesting article off Autosport.com (posted below in full) featuring Patrick Head, that this World Motor Sport Council hearing will be the most important in terms of the future of the sport. Is Renault guilty? Does Nelson Piquet Jr have an agenda against his former team? Let’s wait and see.

Williams co-owner Patrick Head thinks it vital for Formula 1 that Renault is dealt with ‘pretty firmly’ by the FIA if found guilty of fixing last year’s Singapore Grand Prix.

Ahead of the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council hearing in Paris on September 21, where Renault will answer charges that it asked Nelson Piquet to crash deliberately in Singapore to help Fernando Alonso win, Head thinks the case is a test for the integrity of the sport.

“Firstly I have to say that I don’t know any of the details and I don’t know [if what is alleged] actually did happen or not,” said Head. “All of my comments are made without really knowing the detail or the real circumstances, but it will all be investigated on September 21 and dealt with appropriately.

“There were all sorts of rumours at the time, but to me it’s a pretty extraordinary situation.

“Young drivers, before they have established their name in F1, are in quite a difficult position, but if young Nelson was asked to deliberately crash or spin his car, regardless of his contractual position, in my view he should have said no at the time.

“If that did happen, then the people responsible should be dealt with pretty firmly.”

Head believes that if the FIA does not act in a strict manner over the matter then it could damage the credibility of F1 for years to come.

“There are all sorts of ways if you are professionally going to pull the wool over the FIA that you could probably gain advantage and get away with it,” he said. “If that proved to be happening in a consistent way I think rightly nobody would have any interest in Formula 1 racing because you couldn’t believe what you were looking at.

“Equally, if someone has used operational procedures to gain an advantage as has been suggested, then it needs to be dealt with quite firmly because you wouldn’t believe anything that you were looking at – and you couldn’t write an article saying that whoever wins the race did a fantastically good job because you’d think how were they cheating.

“It’s a complex sport. Some people say it isn’t a sport. But if all the cars are designed to the same rules and the engines are to the same rules, for all the shenanigans that go on beforehand and all of the commercial deals and everything, when the lights go out at the start one would like to think that was a straightforward race.”

Head also backed FIA president Max Mosley’s assertion that race-fixing is a more serious offence than straight cheating – and therefore could carry a harsher penalty than the Toyota ban from world rallying or the $100 million (USD) fine that McLaren had.

“First of all, if the thing comes down to the word of one man against another, it might be quite difficult to provide sufficient proof to impose those sorts of penalties,” he said.

“I’ve got no knowledge of what information is available and how well the various parties will stand up under questioning. The thing that’s emotive about it is actually a car crashing.

“It has in the past been that one car has deliberately held up another car in order to give favour to the team-mate and that isn’t very sporting. But it’s hardly something on which one would impose a $100 million fine.

“When you start going as far as requesting that one car does something that brings out the safety car, it goes to another level.”

Piquet has been guaranteed immunity for his part in the matter by the FIA, in exchange for his co-operation, and Head thinks it right that it is the team that receives punishment if it committed an offence – even though the Brazilian driver agreed to the plan.

“Young people when they are under pressure do make mistakes,” he explained. “I would put 99 per cent of the blame on the people that asked him to do that, if that’s what happened.

“Ultimately, if that’s what happened and that’s what he did then in my view he made a mistake to agree to do it. But young people under pressure do make mistakes and I don’t necessarily think they need to be crucified as a result.”

Head also said that he was told by a journalist that Piquet first revealed the alleged plot privately shortly after the Singapore GP.

“I became aware of a journalist who told me that he was told about it by Nelson Piquet 15 minutes after the race. It’s a difficult one. If a journalist was told that by a driver he should have said: ‘look, stop. If you carry on with this I will have to…’

“As I said, we push the limits on the design of our car to as much as we can, but we don’t push the limits to the point that if something were found out we’d be thrown out.

“What I do hope is that after September 21, the FIA have raised this, I hope that what goes on in Paris and whatever punishments are handed out can be looked at and stand up to scrutiny. If the regulators of F1, which is not just the regulators of the car but the race, if they are not thought to be proper regulators then it calls into question lots of things.”

Nelson’s career is screwed whatever happens. If he’s lying, then his rep is gone for good. He wouldn’t get a drive in a lawnmower race!

Even if he was told to crash he’s screwed for being so stupid to crash on purpose. I know Lewis lied because he was told to, but teams to that all time ( albeit not quite so stupidly ). But crashing a car and risk your life, another drivers life and possibly spectators aswell.

But hey, unless the telemetry shows proof, or the find proof some other way, this is going to be nigh on impossible to prove because no-one is going to back out of this. renault wont to stay in F1 for as long as possible and Nelson wont to try and save his rep.

Its all a mess! I think piquet has ruined his own career by behaving in the manner he has. He should know that he hasn’t performed, even if he was put under pressure. I have no respect for a driver who crashes his car on purpose either off his own back or because the team told them to, its pathetic.

The whole relationship with a 50 year old man story sounds even more absurd! If it is true I suppose it shows how backwards the F1 society still is with its attitude towards certain ‘groups’.

I’m not sure if Renault are guilty or not, but remember that this is essentially the 1994 Benneton team who are still strongly suspected of cheating that year.

No doubt Janus will claim this was just as bad, and IF Renault were kicked out then why wasn’t Mclaren? TBF it’s not all that far off, though given the fact that this time round we are talking about crashing a speeding F1 car, and that anything could have happened, I can justify that if proven, Renault should face stronger punishment.

One thing that does bother though is this. As sure as sure Alonso is off to Ferrari what has Renault got to look forward to? I fear this could really be the last straw that broke the camels back.

Sigh, OK so did Nelson crash on purpose? Is he blackmailing Renault? Did Flav ask that most incredible favour?

Well just about on cue with the anniversary of 9/11, the hype, evidence and controversy is hanging in the air like a bad smell again. I’m getting sick and tired of the crap spewing from some “expert” about how the Twin Towers were blown up, rather than fell down. The excuses are largely stabs in the dark.

Piquet Jnr is also saying his moment it was more than meets the eye. Saying he was TOLD to crash. It was planned before hand and it was no accident. Now for me in both cases, I’d like to think the reasons behind them are complete rubbish and that Nelson has a serious case of sour grapes. He was rather vocally attacked by just about everyone inc Flav, so this I’m sure utter crap.

However, do I trust Flav? No. Did I trust G.Bush Jnr? Hell no. Is there an out side chance that these two outcomes ( though obviously 9/11 was ever so slightly horrific and heart breaking ) were not all that they seemed. Could it be possible that Renault asked their driver to crash on purpose? That the US government arranged the events off that fateful day?

Am I sure this is all a load of nonsense?

Nah, not at all. But is it enough to get off the fence and side with Nelson Piquet? I dont think i can say for sure. The prize for some is just too great. I mean, it’s not like Nelson to be strangers with the letters DNF. Who would question him crashing. Alonso was quick anyway. To do this and not be guarantee a victory is not very clever anyway.

Nelson said he “lost control”. Well wouldn’t the team keep all the telemetry for just a year ago? Depending on what he did to loose control, I think you could formulate a reasonably accurate opinion as to it was done on purpose. If Nelsons entry and exit speeds were fairly constant, a bit of “lift off” or “juice on” to start the crash, I think, would stand out, even by his varying stds.

Plus it was for just a race win. No drivers championship, no constructor title, an arranged crash for just a single win? Just don’t see it myself.

BUT, if it was proven that it was a purposeful crash of both cars and planes, would I be suprised? I’m afraid it would be of no suprise at all.