Renault has not admitted guilt in Crashgate, but then it has no requirement to enter a plea, the WMSC conducts hearings, not trials. The outcome of a hearing may be similar to that of a trial, ask McLaren, but it is still not a trial. By saying that it will not contest the evidence, it has admitted culpability, but that is not the same as guilt.

Renault will have conducted an internal enquiry, of course. Piquet Secundus has already admitted guilt, and has been granted immunity. Pat Symonds was offered immunity and there has been no notice of the offer having been withdrawn. Since, at present, he does not work in motor sport, he cannot be summoned to the hearing of the WMSC. He can, however, be banned from working in motor sport.

Bear this in mind, however, Flavio Briatore continues to have interests in motor sport, through the GP2 Series and as a manager of drivers.

Like the governing body of any sport, the FIA exists on the willing compliance of the participants. When McLaren was in difficulty, it suspended Mike Coughlan, but did not sack him. Since Coughlan had a contract, McLaren could, and possibly did, refuse to accept his resignation. This meant that Coughlan could still have been disciplined by the WMSC.

It does not matter whether Symonds has been sacked, or allowed to resign, the WMSC cannot ban him from working in motor sport unless the hearing on 21st September implicates him fair and square and, without his testimony, the WMSC is unlikely to be able to do that.

We may therefore be left with sanctions against the team and no definitive account of what happened. To judge by the copious leaks by person, or persons, unknown within the WMSC, Piquet agreed to crash to assist the team's strategy and Symonds knew in advance that an accident was on the cards.

The affidavit made by Piquet Mk II specifically fingers Flavio Briatore and Renault is not prepared to contest that allegation. As I pointed out in my last piece, Briatore's claim that he was instigating legal proceedings for blackmail and extortion is nonsense and it is disappointing to see that so many hacks have repeated his claim as though it had substance. I cannot think of a single democratic country where a private citizen may prosecute.

In France and most of Europe, you have an examining magistrate. America has the District Attorney's Office and the UK has the Crown Prosecution Service. In effect, all act as a buffer between the citizen and the police. In America, a DA is an elected official. but the principle remains the same. There is a buffer.

If you see a sign in a store saying, 'Shoplifters Will Be Prosecuted', it is bluff. A shoplifter can be held until the police arrive, and the store can press charges, but it cannot prosecute. In Britain it is common to see signs saying. 'Keep Out. Trespassers Will Be Prosecuted', but that is bluff as well. By itself, trespass can be a civil offence, not a criminal offence, but a sign saying, 'Trespassers Will Be Sued' does not carry the same weight.

Briatore is at liberty to employ investigators to gather evidence to disprove the testimony of Piquet Minor in a civil action. He will not, of course. When Briatore next gets into a huddle with his lawyers, the Piquets will be a side issue. The main point of discussion will be keeping him from gaol.

Legal systems vary, but conspiracy is usually judged to be a mighty offence because it involves premeditation and that can be the difference between between murder and manslaughter. Guy Fawkes caused no actual harm to anyone, but he conspired and that meant hanging, drawing and quartering. Also castration, the entire wedding tackle, which occurred between being revived from near-fatal strangulation and having his bowels burned on a brazier while he was still alive.