From: mpconmy@gmail.com   
      
   scole  wrote:   
   > In article <10fpft8$3jerl$1@dont-email.me>, Mark  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> I think he has a point about dodgy decisions by various FIA   
   >> officials...but I would categorically reject any suggestion that he can   
   >> rewind and selectively cancel races well after the fact and in a way   
   >> that doesn't reflect the rules or the precedents.   
   >   
   > In fairness, and based on what I've read (which hasn't been much,   
   > admittedly), I don't think he is actually pushing for retroactive   
   > cancellation of the race result/rewriting history, he's after compensation   
   > for lost earnings from potentially being crowned champion had the FIA   
   > taken action at the time, when they allegedly knew about it.   
      
   Well, that wasn't the case originally...but since I wrote that, I have   
   read the preimlinary judgements handed down. The attempts to rewrite   
   history have effectively been thrown out. The judge explicitly said that   
   his wish to have the points wiped and/or the WDC awarded to him were not   
   within his jurisdiction and also that the effect of the other request   
   would have been presented to the public as somehow proving he was the   
   rightful WDC. He has outright rejected that whole part of the case,   
   leaving just the question of the FIA behaviour and any subsequent   
   financial relief due to him to go forward.   
      
   I think that's fair enough. Not that you have seen Massa or his lawyers   
   admitting that the WDC question is over - let alone shouting it as   
   loudly as they were claiming it at the start - but it is what it is.   
      
   >> So if he were looking for some sort of vindication and compensation from   
   >> the individuals or groups involved, I would support him.   
   >   
   > Yup, that's what I think is absolutely fair and proper - if TPTB knew in   
   > season and chose to keep it hush-hush, then as far as my sense of natural   
   > justice is concerned Massa has a case - at least an apology, and some   
   > level of financial compensation.   
      
   Oh, I think he deserves all that. I think the scale needs thinking   
   about. It would also be nice to see who actually was involved. I'd be   
   slightly happier if this was a small, limited conspiracy than to find   
   out that half the FIA was involved. I still think demonstrating clear   
   evidence that is incontrovertible is hard. So far, the only "evidence"   
   is the ramblings of Ecclestone in an interview that he's already   
   denied...but Ecclestone is a known troublemaker who has been ruled to be   
   unreliable in an English court back when he was done for tax evasion.   
      
   While I think he deserves _some_ apology and some (reasonable)   
   compensation, I still think it's an uphill struggle and, if he wins big,   
   the people responsible are likely *not* to be the ones who will pay.   
      
   >> He (and others) fell foul of an awful bit of cheating and, had it been   
   >> caught at the time, action would have been taken. I expect that would   
   >> have been similar to the Spygate situation where Renault would have lost   
   >> all of their points and (in line with the Schumacher precedent) Piquet   
   >> would have lots his points. Here are the three parts of Massa's court case   
   >> that I really can't support...   
   >>   
   >    
   >   
   > As above, I don't think he's expecting or asking for history to be   
   > rewritten. To your point 3, though, I believe the judge in the case has   
   > ruled that time limit for claim has not expired as Massa would not have   
   > known that he could sue on these grounds until Bernie's interview in 2023   
   > saying that they knew the crash was a scam in 2008 not long after it   
   > happened. I think that's reasonable logic for the court case/compensation   
   > claim, although I still agree with you that history should not be   
   > rewritten even so.   
      
   I wasn't suggesting that he was out of time, so we agree. My point about   
   time is that courts are (rightly) dubious about single sources of   
   evidence, particularly when relying on memory. Add 17 years and an   
   unreliable witness who is 95 and claiming he can't remember, it doesn't   
   look "solid". Briatore is even less reliable. The one (likely) direct   
   witness that would have been interesting (IMO) was Mosley - not least   
   because of his legal background - but obviously he's dead. There could   
   be others who can testify...but I am not aware of any being mentioned by   
   Massa's team. There is time.   
      
   The alternative is that he's found some documentary evidence. If there's   
   that, he might have a solid case.   
      
   My view - and I am not a lawyer - is that so far the evidence he's   
   bringing to the court is very "thin" given the range of reliefs he's   
   seeking. Even now the results issue has been taken out, the scale of   
   compensation being sought based on a senile troublemaker's comment years   
   after the fact feels like a stretch to me.   
      
   In fact, even though the issue isn't in play, I don't know how you claim   
   such massive losses unless you can _still_ demonstrate that you were   
   more or less a sure thing for the WDC if that race hadn't be corrupted.   
   And I don't think you can demonstrate that. IMO.   
      
   >> The whole case is going to be a circus. Bernie is a difficult person at   
   >> the best of times, and age has not helped. Finding credible witnesses   
   >> from that period is going to be nigh-on-impossible:   
   >>   
   >>     - The passage of time is likely to make any evidence that isn't   
   >>       supported by contemporaneous records - written or recorded - open   
   >>       to challenge on the basis that memories alone are not reliable.   
   >>     - Ecclestone's 95, and the story he told in an interview that triggered   
   >>       this case he has since said he can't really remember what he said.   
   >>       He's a difficult person at the best of times, he's not seen as   
   >>       reliable *and* he's being sued, so he'll be a hostile witness at   
   >>       best.   
   >>     - Mosley's dead   
   >>     - Briatore is also a hostile witness if called, and is hardly known   
   >>       for honesty.   
   >>     - Pretty much anyone else who might know what happened or   
   >>       who-knew-what-and-when is similarly compromised and can't be   
   >>       relied upon.   
   >>   
   >> Unless he's got smoking-gun documents or a whistleblower - who he can   
   >> demonstrate doesn't have a personal stake in this *and* who can back it   
   >> up with hard evidence - this is going to be a tough case to prove in   
   >> court.   
   >   
   > Yup, agree with the above, it'll be a freak show. But Mosley being dead   
   > shouldn't be an issue - he was President of the FIA at the time, and any   
   > claim against actions he took while President is a claim to be defended by   
   > the FIA.   
      
   Agreed. The death of Mosley comment is about the loss of someone who   
   would have been an interesting witness not about absolving the FIA.   
      
   >> Even if he won - which I seriously doubt he can - I don't think his   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)