The High Court in London will hear Felipe Massa’s case over his 2008 world championship defeat in October this year, according to multiple reports.
The first hearings will take place over the last four days of October.Massa is seeking compensation from the FIA over its handling of the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, during which he lost six points to rival Lewis Hamilton, who clinched the world championship by a single point three rounds later at the season finale.
The former Ferrari driver believes the FIA could have taken swifter action in response to suspicions Renault acted to manipulate the outcome of the race. The following year the FIA ruled Renault ordered its driver Nelson Piquet Jnr to crash in order to trigger a Safety Car period which his team mate Fernando Alonso benefited from.
Although the FIA banned Renault’s team principal Flavio Briatore and technical director Pat Symonds for their role in the conspiracy, the team was allowed to keep its victory and the points which came with it. Massa believes, based on a claim made by former Formula 1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone last year, that the FIA could have acted before the 2008 season ended by annulling the result of the race. Had that been the case, Massa could have won the championship instead of Hamilton.
Massa is understood to be seeking financial compensation and an acknowledgement from the FIA that, had the governing body followed its rules, he would have been the champion that year.
“We are fighting because of something that wasn’t fair, because of what happened,” he said last year. “What I’m definitely looking for is to be recognised – recognised as a champion because I deserve it. It wasn’t fair what happened to me, because of something that happened in the race and is not part of the sport.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Formula 1
- Hamilton making “drastic shift” in driving style to master Ferrari’s car
- Verstappen: Frustration over Bahrain result behind manager and Marko’s ‘garage row’
- Drivers’ multi-year contracts ‘don’t mean anything if there’s an exit clause’ – Russell
- Verstappen rumours are good for Aston Martin, says Alonso
- Reid received support “from the very top of motorsport” after leaving FIA
Bob
25th February 2025, 16:39
Oh Felipe, you are the moral champion, and you are right in most case. But let it go. You are making a fool of yourself. Fans love underdogs and moral champions, but they don’t like fools.
N
25th February 2025, 17:25
“Oh Felipe, you are the moral champion”
No.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
25th February 2025, 17:32
A sad denouement that in hindsight was a mediocre career, someone who got a shot and blew it but cant help himself but dilute whatever is left. He may as well sue the fuel rig guy for leaving it on the car in Singapore
Ben
25th February 2025, 17:58
What on earth is a moral champion?
I’d say someone dragging this up nearly 20 years later, wasting time and money is actually immoral at this point. Setting a higher standard would be to drop this nonsense and donate the money to charity.
This is all ego, waste and desperation. Sad little man.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
25th February 2025, 21:57
He’s not suing because he wants the title but he’s suing because missing that championship for him results in a huge amount of money he didn’t win, a lot of deals he could’ve gotten as a champion and so much more. He didn’t just lose, he lost because of a cheating scandal which was punished.
David BR (@david-br)
26th February 2025, 0:08
@fer-no65 Entire races aren’t annulled because a team has broken the rules during the race in question. Is their any proof FIA would have done so, exceptionally, had they acted sooner? If not, then you can’t say Massa lost because of Renault’s cheating.
I also think his claim falls apart rapidly if you consider that it’s based on the baseless presumption that he would have won the 2008 Singapore 2008 without Piquet Jr’s intervention. The fact is that random events occur in most GPs and teams and drivers have to respond as best they can. Renault and their drivers should have been disqualified, sure. But the other teams competed fairly and invested huge amounts of time, money and effort in competing at the GP. What possible justification is there for cancelling races because of one team cheating? That would have to be applied to many other races, and, in reality, entire seasons when some teams were breaking the regulations (no names mentioned).
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:06
We would have to think about other cases where cheating happened and someone got damaged by it; we have a sort of similar example where masi broke some SC rule and hamilton lost out because of it, the race wasn’t cancelled, but even if it had, verstappen would’ve still been champion.
I wonder if there’s other examples in the past where a driver cheating and being punished ruined someone else’s chance, like with massa in 2008.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
26th February 2025, 8:15
Fair point and I agree. But I think he’s looking at what I’ve said as basis for his demand, plus the fact that the powers that were knew full well what had happened before Piquet Jr talked, as Bernie Ecclestone admitted.
David BR (@david-br)
26th February 2025, 10:22
@fer-no65 I’m sceptical about Ecclestone’s motivation and the exact veracity of what he claimed (and later fell silent about). Though I remember many thought Piquet Jr’s crash suspicious at the time (especially as he rehearsed it!!) and undoubtedly FIA wouldn’t be oblivious to those suspicions.
Dane
26th February 2025, 13:23
I think Massa is trying to get the 2008 Singapore GP results annulled. Since Lewis finished 3rd, he loses 6 points thereby leaving Massa as champion.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:03
This is a good point, it’s economical damage too.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:02
Let it go or continue and get a title? I’d say continuing makes more sense, as the hearing draws near.
Would be interesting if hamilton won the title this year after losing the 2008 one, going back to 7!
Ben
26th February 2025, 10:56
I disagree. This is 17 years ago! He’s become obsessed and this is doing nothing but damaging his reputation. One of the things I liked about Massa was how he handled himself after Brazil 08. That’s now gone. He’s a complete ego maniac who’s too blind to see those dragging this out are doing so for their own greed.
Regardless of outcome of this nonsense, the final championship result will never change. Even if the FIA admit they should have nullified the race (which isn’t even remotely true or ever going to happen) the result won’t be overturned. Massa might be able to claim for loss of earnings (although he kept his Ferrari drive and sponsorships for another 6 years so what did he really lose out on) There would need to be specific offers/contracts which specify if he were world Champion he’d get £x amount of money. Those won’t exist from sponsors, so the best he can hope for is a bonus from Ferrari.
The very likely outcome is the FIA admit Renault should be disqualified. Championship wise it changes nothing and I doubt they’d even change the result officially.
As is often the case the only winners are the lawyers.
builtInYorkshire (@olpeculier)
25th February 2025, 16:48
This is the F1 version of the guy who threw a hard drive with his bitcoin wallet in the tip.
Just please let it go, you are making yourself look foolish and probably making yourself and others sick.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:07
These people who say to let it go, are they hamilton fans afraid he’s gonna go down to 6 titles? Because the hearing is coming soon now, so there’s no going back.
Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
26th February 2025, 8:28
Not a Hamilton fan, but I still wish Felipe baby would slink back to oblivion where he belongs.
Ben
26th February 2025, 10:59
@esploratore1
I don’t think any Hamilton fan is worried at all. If you think theres any way the FIA will or can be made to change the championship result from 17 years ago then you’ll be sadly disappointed.
You seem very excited by the prospect. I’d limit your expectations as nothing is going to happen.
matt90
26th February 2025, 11:28
How would Hamilton lose the title? Best case for Mass is Hamilton will increase his points lead by 2 as a result of Renault being disqualified from the race they manipulated.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th February 2025, 16:50
What a long process.
Craig
25th February 2025, 16:52
This is so far beyond sad. His case holds no water whatsoever and even if the FIA “followed it’s own rules” as he seems to think they go there would be no race annulment, just Renault disqualified from the results of that race which would have meant Hamilton won the championship by a bigger margin and Rosberg would have gotten his first win sooner.
People used to respect Massa for how he handled himself when he lost by so little at the last second, but now people will only hold him in contempt.
SteveR (@stever)
25th February 2025, 19:21
Exactly, you’ve said well what I was thinking. This is just embarrassing for Massa.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
25th February 2025, 19:26
I know there are people who think Glock intentionally slowed down for Lewis, but they forget that he stayed out on slicks during mixed conditions, and got caught up by the end. Even with the last race, there are still other races that year where Lewis was screwed over on.
When I remember Massa, I remember the guy who left Michael Schumacher in the dust (Brazil / 2006), in his last year to take the win in Brazil, instead of trying to help his teammate win the championship. And thats the same guy who is only in it for himself, and being picked apart, most likely by a law firm looking to exploit him and his condition.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:09
Oh, I think you mean massa should’ve held up alonso in brazil 2006, since he was 2nd, so potentially if he had pulled an abu dhabi 2016, we’d have had a quartet of cars within 2 seconds: massa, alonso, button, schumacher, but unlike rosberg in 2016, alonso had no reason to take risks, in order to lose the title, he’d have had to crash out at least.
BasCB (@bascb)
26th February 2025, 7:28
Yeah, the jump from “hey Renault cheated at that race and it was punished only partly and only a year later” to “I would have won the championship if they had acted immediately” falls apart in so many places.
Massa still failed to finish that race due to a mistake by his own team. Others would have achieved results and gained points had Renault been DSQed immediately. With different race results others would have adopted their approach to the following races too. So it is in no way certain that Massa would actually have won the championship.
And then, there is a huge leap to basing an amount of monetary damages upon that, because that would be about speculating on how much Massa would have earned. Would we or wouldn’t we take into account his later accident that would have halted his career anyway? How to calculate any of it.
I wholly expect this case to end at the first hurdle of showing that the FIA should have acted differently, but if not, it will most likely fail on both showing how the one MUST or would have most likely led to the other (Massa becoming champion AND making a lot more money) and not even get to how much money would theoretically been his “damages”
Red Andy (@red-andy)
25th February 2025, 17:14
Clearly the case is not as clear cut as you suggest. If Massa’s claim was completely groundless, the defendants could have applied for summary judgment – these applications are typically heard in a matter of weeks, rather than the months it takes for a full trial. That it’s taking this long suggests there is a substantive case that can’t be disposed of so easily.
Jojo
25th February 2025, 18:57
It is possible that Massa will get a big sum of money, due to damages etc if he has a case at all.
It was Bernie that said it was in the statutes, that any fixed race would be cancelled and that they knew about it but chose to cover it up. But then Bernie since conveniently forgets saying that, so who knows if he said it or if there was any truth to it.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th February 2025, 19:05
Jojo, if it’s in the statutes, it’s open-and-shut in the prosecution’s favour – regardless of Bernie’s memory. This is because the statutes are a set document that some people will have on their hard drives, even if it was nearly 20 years ago. Doubly so, since clauses about results not being changeable after a set point don’t hold if the reason is because the governing body itself broke the regulations.
Craig
25th February 2025, 19:15
If it was in the statutes it would have been brought up years ago, rather then waiting for Eccelstone to “remember” (and he’s hardly a reliable source of information).
SteveR (@stever)
26th February 2025, 0:34
Isn’t there some sort of statue of limitations beyond which it’s just over? Where I live the statute of limitations for grand theft is six years……. After that, no prosecution is possible.
SteveR (@stever)
26th February 2025, 0:35
Reply to myself: I guess this is a civil not criminal matter, so no limit.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
26th February 2025, 9:11
Yes, in ordinary civil actions in England there is a six-year statute of limitations. If I were advising the defendants, this would be line one of any defence – the complained-of actions occurred more than six years ago so any claim must fail.
There are limited circumstances where the limitation period can be extended. The most relevant here is if the claimant didn’t know they had a claim because of a fraud by the defendants. I expect this is what Massa will be arguing, and it explains why his public statements about the case have emphasised that there was a cover-up. But it is an additional evidential hurdle his case needs to surmount before it can even be argued on its merits.
Jojo
26th February 2025, 1:19
I think the reason that Ecclestone’s testimony matters is because up until he opened his mouth, it was believed that no-one responsible was aware of the race fixing and therefore the championship had already been declared before they could have done anything. If what Ecclestone said was true, it means they covered up and failed to act which ultimately had an impact on the WDC. I could see Massa getting compensation in that case. If Ecclestone goes back to claiming that he knew nothing until it was too late, then their proof could be a bit thin. I can’t see Massa being awarded the WDC though.
BasCB (@bascb)
26th February 2025, 7:30
The issue with relying on Ecclestone for testimony is 1. why did he conveniently come out with this info only this late? And more importantly, the man has been found by earlier court procedures to be a highly unreliable witness.
MacLeod (@macleod)
26th February 2025, 7:48
That is possible but it’s already so long ago it could be too late… So Bernie made an call which costed Massa his problem is more Renault lose his points removing Alonso from the result then the total result is cancelled.
Also the owner was Bernie so Bernie has to pay any fines the judge comes up with not the current owner.
SteveP
25th February 2025, 19:14
Sort of yes, and sort of no.
Is there evidence that Renault were involved in cheating?
Yes, but the claim isn’t against them.
Is there evidence that the FIA had knowledge of the cheating, and could they have taken action against Renault earlier?
Hearsay. Two of the three players are deceased, and the living one has a somewhat distant acquaintance with the truth.
Is there a rule that should have been applied to remediate the situation?
Yes, the FIA should have DQ’d the Renault team and competitor drivers from that event. Annulling the event because one competitor cheated is not a valid application of any of the rules, then, or now.
Is the claimant complicit in the actions that left him out of the points in that event
Yes. Head shakingly, mildly amusing at the time.
Is the claimants team complicit in the actions that left him out of the points
Yes, An excellent imitation of the Keystone Cops.
Sorry Felipe, but every other team and driver dealt with the situation and only you and your team are to blame for the points loss incurred from failing to deal with it
El Pollo Loco
25th February 2025, 20:20
You’ll notice it’s mostly all the usual Hamilton super fans who are saying his case is groundless. It’s pretty ironic considering how obsessed they are with AD21 and confident in proclaiming Lewis the real 2021 champion. They think admitting the case isn’t baseless would mean somehow diminishing LH’s legacy.
If it’s about the title rather than financial reasons, I don’t think Massa should be doing it because he will never be considered the champion regardless. However, it’s true that he would have made a lot more money had he had a WDC to his name. So, the case has merit there.
Craig
25th February 2025, 21:40
What are you rambling about?
El Pollo Loco
25th February 2025, 23:09
It should be self-evident, unless your power of self-delusion is of cyclopean scale.
Craig
26th February 2025, 10:23
Sounds like you’re projecting there.
David BR (@david-br)
26th February 2025, 0:16
Also noticeable: you don’t actually make a coherent argument for why there are grounds to the case.
The rest of your comment is indeed rambling fluff. There’s a world of difference between one team cheating and the FIA steward intervening in a way against the regulations and precedent (FIA: ‘human error’) to hand the title to another driver in the very final laps of the season when there is no hope of redress. Even so, I don’t think Hamilton or Mercedes should have litigated. They made an appeal and it was rejected. FIA’s later inquiry admitted it had been the wrong decision by Masi but, correctly, they didn’t try to rewrite history and Verstappen’s first title stands.
David BR (@david-br)
26th February 2025, 0:26
* race director
SteveP
26th February 2025, 7:05
In which case, Massa should raise a suit against the team that cost him points in that race = Ferrari or allowing away from the pit with the fuel host still attached.
Ferrari should raise a counter-suit against Massa for pulling away with the hose still attached and driving the full pit lane before stopping.
MacLeod (@macleod)
26th February 2025, 7:51
Oh Not only Lewis fans but the average ranfan(s) like me are saying this is waste of Massa time. The most he could get is a small amount of money.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
26th February 2025, 13:30
More proof of your mindset. I couldnt care less if LH lost a WDC, he has a whole stack. WHomever was doing this and whatever driver would in theory lose a title i would be against it. If you think different you have no understanding of what sport should be about. Just the value.
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 22:42
More proof of what mindset?
The only proof of any mindset I see is that is always almost only Hamilton’s biggest fans writing entire novels of their own interpretation of events and possibilities of why Massa has zero case and that what happened in Singapore couldn’t have changed the outcome of the title.
If a different demographic joined Team 44 I might be less suspicious of their motivations and objectivity. Instead it’s always only people like DavidBR, Broderick Harper, the Craigs, SteveP, Carl, etc. It’d be like taking the objectivity of Max’s biggest fans on this website at face value when arguing over controversial cases that involve him.
Hell, just recently Broderick Harper argued that if Alonso were British and Hamilton Spanish, the volume and tone of coverage in the press and on the world feed would not have been any different. So, yeah, my mindset in questioning objectivity and motivation is crazy.
anon
25th February 2025, 22:59
@red-andy given that it’s been very difficult for people to actually find any of the details of the original filing or any of the subsequent events, we do not actually know what exactly has been happening behind the scenes and whether any consideration might have been made by any parties for applying for a summary judgement.
The lack of detail about the nature of Massa’s claims do also make it difficult to ascertain whether the FIA would necessarily have been able to apply for a summary judgement under the way that those applications work under UK law, or if such a request would have been accepted by the courts.
It seems that the grounds for making a request for a summary judgement are different under UK law compared to other common law jurisdictions, which is perhaps what you are more used to. Whilst the UK does have procedures in place to allow for summary judgements to be made, it seems that it’s comparatively rare for courts in the UK to accept requests for summary judgements than in other common law jurisdictions, and the procedures appear to be quite a bit more onerous for the party that requests the summary judgement compared to other countries.
Overall, it seems that there are a number of factors under UK law which means that it might not actually have been that advantageous for the FIA to try applying for a summary judgement to begin with.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
26th February 2025, 9:32
I’m not a lawyer, but I work in a role that requires me to have some familiarity with the English courts and legal system. So I hope I am not talking completely out of my hat when I give my views on these issues.
I think we can infer that no summary judgment application has been filed, because of the timescales for the first hearings. It is not especially difficult to obtain summary judgment if you can show that the claim has no reasonable prospect of success (this term is quite well defined by case law so usually well-understood by opposing teams of lawyers). Courts would normally encourage summary judgment applications to be made and heard early, as doing so would reduce costs for all parties.
From what limited detail we have of the case, there are two obvious defences that I would be running:
1. Limitation – the events occurred more than six years before the claim was brought, so it is out of time. There are exceptions to this rule, for example in the case of fraud, so I assume this is where one of the arguments is;
2. Jurisdiction – at least one of the defendants to the case (the FIA) is not normally subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts. It is not clear why Massa has chosen to bring this case in the English courts so I can only assume it has to do with various commercial agreements that were in force at the time.
Either of those defences would be suitable for summary judgment if made out, so if this isn’t being argued then it would suggest that the case is far more complex than many people are assuming.
Yes (@come-on-kubica)
25th February 2025, 17:25
It’s going to be interesting to see lewis battling for his 7th title this season.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th February 2025, 19:05
@come-on-kubica Or 9th/10th, depending on the result of other potential cases.
grat
25th February 2025, 19:19
No– because if Massa is successful, Lewis can claim HE won Spa in 2008, then claim he won the 2021 championship by “annulling” the last two laps of the Abu Dhabi grand prix.
I mean, if we’re going to be silly……
JeroenJ
25th February 2025, 19:26
I say bring on those lawsuits as well then and we will see 😁
Chris Horton
26th February 2025, 0:28
He didn’t win Spa 2008. He overtook illegally and received a penalty. Raikkonen crashed and Massa finished first, after Hamiltons penalty was applied.
It’s very simple.
Craig
26th February 2025, 10:28
You missed out a lot of rather significant details to come to that “simple” conclusion, such as Hamilton giving the place back immediately as the rules of the time demanded and later on losing the place anyway, so no ‘lasting advantage’ was ever gained.
Chris Horton
26th February 2025, 11:38
The pass put Raikkonen in a position he never should have been in at a high pressure point of the race, the last laps.
He did give the place back immediately, but would he have been in a position to overtake into La Source had he negotiated the Bus stop on the circuit? That’s the point.
Hamilton cut the bus stop, came out ahead, eased off the throttle, ducked straight under Raikkonen’s rear wing and then repassed.
In my opinion, you’re being disingenuous if you’re suggesting you can’t see how that is unfair.
Craig
26th February 2025, 12:20
I’m not being disingenuous, I’m merely pointing out the details you omitted and the fact the “advantage” was given up twice.
matt90
26th February 2025, 12:43
When Raikkonen crashed Hamilton was behind and nowhere near him. Raikkonen’s position relative to the rainy section of track that caused him to crash was unaffected. It’s a nonsense to suggest Raikkonen was impeded in a lasting way or one that caused his accident.
Hamilton gave up that position once immediately, and in case that wasn’t sufficient he did it again to a much greater degree soon after, and I don’t think the wording of the rule suggests it needed to be intentional.
Also if there’s an argument that a competitor cheating means an entire trace should be annulled (Massa’s entire unprecedented argument), shouldn’t Spa be annulled because of Hamilton supposedly breaking the rules?
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:21
Then verstappen will file a claim for race fixing in hungary, when bottas took out both red bulls and norris!
SteveP
26th February 2025, 7:14
ROFL.
Overtaken, left with too little braking distance leading into the corner, didn’t brake earlier than normal to compensate and caused a collision. After that, I’d say it would be a major challenge for a team of top league physicists and mathematicians to calculate approximately where each car would go, even if you ignore human actions in all the other cars.
I’d bet my life that Bottas isn’t that clever.
You’re normally more grounded than this, what happened?
MacLeod (@macleod)
26th February 2025, 8:02
He doesn’t mean it… British humor
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 23:00
His Hamilton cult goggles were on. So, he immediately see red.
El Pollo Loco
27th February 2025, 0:12
sees* (or even better, saw*)
BLS (@brightlampshade)
25th February 2025, 17:29
The FIA must be bricking it with where this could lead to.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th February 2025, 19:06
@brightlampshade Depending on how this case is constructed, it may need to be more scared than it currently is.
FlyingLap (@flyinglapp)
25th February 2025, 18:06
E = MC2. Ego = Massa X Crassness Squared.
El Pollo Loco
25th February 2025, 20:23
Who are you kidding? Massa was one of the least egotistical drivers in recent F1 history let alone compared to the other main drivers who aren’t of this case like Alonso and Hamilton (and even Piquet Jr. for that matter). It’s probably one of the reasons he wasn’t a better driver.
SteveP
26th February 2025, 7:17
I thought Massa was just getting to his best when someone threw a heavy spring at him.
After that, his peripheral vision seemed to very suspect – both sides
Craig
26th February 2025, 10:46
I still stand by being told to let Alonso through did more damage to him then a spring to the head ever could.
David BR (@david-br)
26th February 2025, 17:39
Alonso diving into the pits ahead of Massa was the defining moment perhaps? I’ve never seen anything remotely similar between team mates. It said simply ‘my team.’ After that, the ‘Alonso is faster than you’ message had its own inevitability.
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 22:46
Maybe the fact he almost always was faster and then when Massa did find himself ahead he would inevitably slow down Alonso justified the Fernando’s faster. Particularly since Massa could have a great race followed by five mediocre races meant that it made no sense to allow him to take points off FA when Felipe was already out of the title running.
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 23:03
You’d also be celebrating that as a sign of a champion’s killer instinct had Hamilton done that to a slow moving Rosberg, Bottas, Alonso, Russell, etc.
BasCB (@bascb)
26th February 2025, 7:39
Yeah, well he ruined that image by this petty battle for money. I really don’t even know what went on there. Did Bernie use Massa to try and get a dig in at the FIA here? Or did he become so turned in on himself that he imagines the only reasonable outcome (if the FIA would have known about the cheating right away) would have been annulment of the whole event instead of just DSQing the team and driver(s) who did the cheating?
And did he forget the reason why HE didn’t get points that race was a mistake by his team that could just as well have happened regardless (or not, but there is no way to prove it would not have happened). The claim then also ignores that even IF the race would have faced annulment after the fact but before the championship was over, there is no way to be certain Massa actually WOULD have won the championship because it would have affected the approach of others.
And even if the court would go along with all this conjecture (the race would have been annuled , Massa would have won the Championship), you still have to come up with a plausible direct link to how much money Massa would have made from it.
FlyingLap (@flyinglapp)
26th February 2025, 20:24
I seldom listen to chickens, particularly the crazy ones. I do eat them, though.
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 22:48
Case closed then!
Can you how us many examples of Massa’s huge ego? I’d love to see it.
SteveP
27th February 2025, 17:17
Possibly not a good idea – Mad Chicken Disease maybe another prion thing to match Mad Cow Disease.
grat
25th February 2025, 19:15
Why would the FIA have annulled the race, when they simply could have thrown out Renault’s points from the race, and moved everyone up?
Rosberg would have won the race, and Hamilton would have won the WDC by 3 points instead of 1.
Punishing the entire grid for Renault and Alonso’s malfeasance seems unreasonable.
El Pollo Loco
25th February 2025, 20:29
lol, Alonso’s. The idea was literally Piquet’s. Briatore and Symonds agreed to it and put it in motion. There would have only been added risks and negatives if they told Fernando. But slandering Alonso is basically a past time for Hamilton cultists. So, I wouldn’t expect any better.
But, by all means, show us evidence that he knew besides “of course he knew!” Piquet would have had no reason to deny Alonso knew in his depositions. His F1 career was already dead.
El Pollo Loco
25th February 2025, 20:29
lol, Alonso’s malfeasance*
David BR (@david-br)
26th February 2025, 0:23
Sure Alonso might not have been told or involved before the Piquet crash. But do you really think they’d presume he wouldn’t have found out in some way afterwards? It seems a huge risk to plot such a scheme without getting some kind of approval from your lead driver.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th February 2025, 2:24
Yes, and I was also thinking: why would alonso agree to an unusual strategy otherwise?
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 22:23
Because he was starting way back out of position. Running a contra strategy was the only way to move up the field.
grat
26th February 2025, 6:22
I’m not a huge fan of Alonso’s. But I have never suggested he wasn’t highly intelligent. What was the one radio transmission no one heard?
“Hey Guys!!! Why are we pitting so early?”
I know everyone claims he didn’t know anything about it– but I have difficulty believing it. Alonso’s too good to have *not* known about it.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th February 2025, 9:30
I think it’s fairly likely that Alonso was suspicious after the event – 99% of people watching the race at the time were.
The moral questions are: did he know going into the race? Did Alonso query the management and was told the truth after the event? Should he tell the FIA as soon as he was suspicious?
My belief is that Alonso didn’t know going into the race, which is supported by multiple sources at the time, an interview with a police interrogator, and no further evidence in the past 16 and a half years. My suspicion on question 2 is that Alonso worked out what had happened – particularly after the video of the warm up lap spin by Piquet (who was right behind Alonso at the time) and decided not to tell the FIA given that this would be 2 teams receiving a $100m fine within a year. Whether he should have volunteered that information is at one’s discretion – how many drivers have given their team up to the governing body when they were suspicious their car was illegal? The same accusations could be levelled at Alonso, Hamilton and de la Rosa at McLaren the year before.
I don’t think the strategy was all that suspicious – he’s on super softs and light fuel to try and jump those ahead at the start. Alonso is a well known quick starter and the idea of a SC at a street race is not unreasonable. Furthermore, there was no guarantee this would lead to a win – I’m not sure why Alonso would bet the house on one win given he’d won as recently as 19 races beforehand, and then won the next race on merit.
The late 2000s were ethically dubious in the sport at almost every turn. The drivers were ruthless, the teams and the management (of both FIA and F1) established a culture of winning at all costs. It’s much less intense now than it was then. I think a lot of teams and drivers took liberties and things to extreme levels. Does that absolve Alonso of responsibility for not unveiling the plot sooner – absolutely not. But do I think it’s out of line with the moral compass of the sport at the time? No.
The cold, hard truth is that unless Alonso confirms that he knew beforehand, which is unlikely – even if the race is annulled – then we will never know the full extent. In that scenario, we can only base our assumptions on the facts presented – Alonso didn’t know of the plan and wasn’t complicit in it.
SteveP
26th February 2025, 20:05
Maybe he did something similar to what he did at McLaren? – demanded better treatment, or he was going to take his info to the FIA.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
26th February 2025, 21:28
I’ve got reservations that Alonso would need favourable treatment against a driver he beat 27-1 in quali and 19-4 in races.
But, as I say above, it’s important that we deal with the facts presented – not speculation were we guess what someone thought 17 years ago and cannot prove.
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 22:52
You realize running a contra strategy at tracks like Singapore when you starts out of position is hardly novel, right?
BasCB (@bascb)
26th February 2025, 7:44
We have no evidence (or at least not seen any) that Alonso was involved, therefore he was not punished. The circumstances do give a very strong impression that while he was not involved in the planning, he must at least have had some hints, and certainly would have been able to find out after the fact from telemetry, since all teams normally evaluate accidents to prevent them for the future.
Piquet had very good reason not to include any information about Alonso knowing, simply because he had no direct evidence that Alonso knew (he himself hadn’t told him, wasn’t present when anyone would have informed him and Alonso had not been there for any of the planning), so there was nothing for him to testify about with regards to Alonso.
Velocityboy (@velocityboy)
25th February 2025, 20:26
I have to admit, a part of me wants Massa to win just to see how quickly the queue of athletes, fans, gamblers etc., forms to claim they suffered measurable harm due to a poor officiating decision in every sport known to man.
Chris Horton
26th February 2025, 0:40
Good luck Felipe.
In my opinion, Renault cheating skewed the race, affecting every competitors race position. The fact there’s no mechanism in the FIA’s rules that allow the annulment of a race result is beside the point, there should have been.
Imagine RB have one of their drivers crash to create a fortuitous outcome for Red Bull…I think most commenters above would have a very different opinion on whether the victor of the race was legitimate then and would be calling for the DSQ of both teams, despite Red Bull not being proveably responsible.
My point is, everybody’s race position becomes illegitimate, unfortunately because of the actions of one team. The only correct and just thing to do is chuck the whole thing in the bin.
I doubt that will happen, but again, good luck Felipe. He’s standing up for what is right.
Craig
26th February 2025, 10:34
Your “point” seems to be that if one team is found to have done something worthy of disqualification then all teams should be disqualified, which makes no sense at all.
Chris Horton
26th February 2025, 11:47
Would you like to elaborate?
I see your point, but this isn’t the same as a technical infringement discovered in Parc Ferme.
The deliberate crash caused absolute chaos, safety car/race order turned on its head etc in the immediate aftermath. It’s wrong.
Craig
26th February 2025, 12:28
What is there to elaborate? Perhaps a scenario is required;
A backmarker team has had a horrible season, they’ve not scored at all and could go bankrupt. They have a stellar race and finally manage to bag some points, but it then comes to light another team did something and the race is annulled.
How is that even vaguely fair?
If we start annulling races willy nilly, then why not in the event of a red flag, safety car or maybe even crowding a car off track? They cause “absolute chaos”, after all.
JustinC
26th February 2025, 5:21
Just wondering: why is this taking place in the High Court in London? The FIA headquarters are in Paris. Does the plaintiff have a choice of which court to appeal to? No implications or sub-text here. Just generally wondering!
JustinC
26th February 2025, 5:23
Oh wait…. might answer my own question. Is it because F1 headquarters are in London? Sigh… nevermind…
SteveP
26th February 2025, 7:18
One thing from this – maybe the error of not DQ-ing Alonso will finally be sorted
El Pollo Loco
26th February 2025, 22:55
I mean, that’s what’s really important after all. Making sure that dastardly Alonso pays! If possible, can we add it to Lewis’ win total?
SteveP
27th February 2025, 17:31
I think the general consensus is that he most likely knew there was a cheat in play, but what is important is that the team cheated and bringing Alonso in early was part of the cheat sequence.
The team benefited by the extra points, and points make prizes etc.
Rather late to redress the financial loss by other teams that didn’t finish in front of Alonso, but they could at least address the historical record anomaly by cancelling the points he accrued for the team at that event.
Would that take a title from Alonso? No, he wasn’t even in the running. Then the record is straight, Alonso DQ, Piquet Jr. DNF, every finisher moves up one place.
Robert Henning
26th February 2025, 18:46
Waste of everyone’s time. But you do you Massa.
SteveP
26th February 2025, 20:30
I’m sure Massa’s entire legal team would disagree with you for 1000s of reasons, £££