F1 » Ferrari denials made it impossible to prove guilt, says Todt

As he defends the World Motor Sport Council's seemingly lenient response to the Ferrari team orders controversy, FIA President Jean Todt insists there was insufficient evidence to warrant any greater punishment

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

Paul W - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 2:03 PM

So breaking the rules is okay if the culprit simply denies he broke them? I suppose if Vettel says he didn't run into Button then it didn't happen. What we actually see and hear no longer matters. Interesting way to "govern" a sport.

LAH - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 2:06 PM

we can't prove you're guilty of anything, but we're fining you $100,000 for the infraction which we can't prove you're guilty of...
f'ing lawyers.


September 09, 2010 2:08 PM

Here is what us ignorant fans didn't know.

"Massa was told that he was slower than Alonso to motivate him," said Gracia.

"Angered by the message, Massa decided to slow down, and this led to the suspicions (about team orders)," he added.

Gracia also revealed that he has spoken to Alonso, who knows "nothing" about the imposition of a team order.

Now it's clear to me. Alonso KNEW nothing AGAIN.

Calvin _

September 09, 2010 2:08 PM

It was pretty obvious that anyone from Ferrari was going to deny it.

For me, it was the words that were spoken and the way they were spoken as well as the subsequent actions by those involved. I think everyone watching it knew immediately what it was.

What interests me now is that the stewards found them immediately guilty, but the WMSC didn't have enough information. Who are we, the paying audience, supposed to believe?

Robbo - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 2:22 PM

It looked like a turd, it smelt like a turd and it tasted like a turd but it refused to admit it was a turd. Therefore, NOT GUILTY of being a turd but we will still uphold the turd fine. That reminds me of the jury verdict when the accused charged with cattle stealing was found not guilty by the jury but the jury added to their verdict that he should give the cattle back.


September 09, 2010 2:24 PM

so the fine was out of suspicion? well i guess they need to give that money back now if there not guilty. o jean, your just like Max now in many ways. hook those jackasses right up to a lie detector. if courts worked this way, where a murder could just deny murdering, we would have quite the situation on out hands. jean? your an idiot

Page 1 of 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.