BAR Honda & Button banned for 2 races

[OSFlanker]

From the BBC :BAR and Button get two-race banThe BAR team has been banned for two races for running an underweight car at the San Marino Grand Prix.An appeal court of motorsport's ruling body the FIA also stripped BAR of the 10 points won by Jenson Button and team-mate Takuma Sato at Imola.But it stopped short of meeting the FIA's request that BAR be thrown out of the Formula One championship.Button and Sato will now have to sit out Sunday's Spanish Grand Prix and the Monaco Grand Prix on 22 May.And the decision to exclude BAR's San Marino results means the team and its drivers will have no points when they return for the European Grand Prix at the Nurburgring on 29 May.A further six-month ban has been suspended for a year.Button took third place behind Renault's Fernando Alonso and Ferrari's Michael Schumacher at Imola, while Sato finished fifth.It was the first time either BAR driver had finished a race this season.But Button's car was examined after the race and found to have a secondary fuel tank, which when drained left the BAR 5.4kg under the minimum weight limit.He was confirmed in third place by the stewards but the FIA appealed against the decision, arguing that BAR had deliberately broken rules by using fuel as ballast to allow the car to run light during the race - giving it a speed advantage.The four-judge panel announced its verdict in Paris in a seven-page document."The presentation of the team of fuel consumption data cannot guarantee that the vehicle complied at all times with the minimum weight requirements," it said."It is not possible for the court to find, on the basis of the evidence that it was provided with, that Lucky Strike BAR Honda deliberately committed fraud."But the court decided that BAR's decision not to ask for clarification as to whether their system was legal amounted to "a highly regrettable negligence and lack of transparency".FIA president Max Mosley said: "The facts in this case are very clear."The team was asked to pump the fuel out of their car. They left 15 litres in the tank and told us it was empty."Under the circumstances, we feel they have been treated rather leniently."The exclusion of Button and Sato changes the San Marino finishing order.McLaren's Alex Wurz, who was racing as a replacement for the injured Juan Pablo Montoya, is elevated to third.Sauber's Jacques Villeneuve is now fourth, Toyota's Jarno Trulli fifth, Williams pair Nick Heidfeld and Mark Webber sixth and seventh, and Red Bull's Vitantonio Liuzzi eighth.

 

[E46Fanatic]

If you follow the case, closely I don't believe that they are guilty. The again its well known that FIA is very biased to Ferrari, so it comes as no surprise on the outcome of the verdict.

-------------
The FIA Court of Appeal met in Paris this morning to discuss the case of BAR Honda at the San Marino Grand Prix. The judges present for the case were Xavier Conesa (Spain), Vassilis Koussis (Greece), Erich Sedelmayer (Austria) and Pierre Tourigny (Canada). The FIA was represented by its general secretary Pierre de Coninck, Charlie Whiting (listed as a technical assistant), Jo Bauer (the FIA F1 Technical Delegate) and two of his assistants Kris de Groot and Alan Fuller. The BAR party included 10 members of the team, plus three legal counsels and one observer while both Williams and McLaren sent along observers to watch proceedings.

Much of the evidence was in written form with submissions from both sides. The FIA's statement was uncompromising and charged the team with "bad faith", "fraudulent behaviour" and claimed that the team "set out deliberately to gain an illegitimate and unfair advantage over other teams". The federation asked the court to exclude BAR Honda from the 2005 Formula 1 World Championship and to find the team at least $1.3m.

The curious thing was that the FIA Stewards from San Marino (Paul Gutjahr, Katsutoshi Tamura and Giuseppe Muscioni) were not called to explain why they ruled on Sunday night at Imola that the BAR was legal. The FIA says that this is because the Stewards are judges of the first instance and appeal courts do not question judges but rather judge on the issues involved.

The case began to get interesting when Bauer took the stand and was asked a series of questions by the BAR lawyer David Pannick QC. Bauer was asked if he knew about a second collector tank inside the main BAR fuel area.

"We have been aware of that since the Malaysian Grand Prix this year," he said.

Asked whether he accepted that the tank had a legitimate use and whether he accepted it was not a sham, Bauer said that he did. He added that he had no concerns at the time about the collector tank and when asked if the team had cooperated fully in allowing examination replied: "Yes, they did."

When questioned about Imola specifically, Bauer confirmed that BAR had told him that the car could not operate properly without engine malfunction below 600kg and confirmed that the team had produced charts and documents to establish that the car had been legal at all times.

The questioning revealed that "fewer than 10%" of the 250 weighings made each year involve the draining of the fuel tank and that the Imola inspection was the first time ever that "a hoover" had been used to get fuel out of the tank.

Pannick then asked whether there were similar systems used by other F1 teams but Bauer declined to answer the question on the grounds of confidentiality.

Bauer confirmed that he had had meetings with the stewards and, when asked to confirm that there had not been any suggestion that BAR Honda was guilty of fraud, bad faith or deception, replied that "this was not part of the discussion.".

When asked by one of the judges whether the system was legal according to the regulations, Bauer replied that it was.

There followed a questioning of de Groot, the man who had been responsible for doing the fuel check at Imola.

It was clear from this that De Groot's interpretation of events was different to that of BAR and that the contention was over what the team was asked to do. Asked whether there was an allegation that the team had defied the request, he replied: "I asked for a full drain out and afterwards I found more fuel." He added that "most teams take it as a matter of course that the collector will be drained." BAR clearly interpreted his instruction as being to do what is called a "lifted pump", a procedure by which the front of the car is raised and the fuel in the tank is pumped out and the car weighed.

Asked whether he was seeking to mislead or failing to act to help the FIA the BAR chief mechanic Alistair Gibson replied: "Not at any time".

BAR technical director Geoff Willis spoke of the team's "strong culture of integrity" and said that "at no time would I allow the team to do anything illegal".

There followed questioning of Willis by Whiting from which it was clear that the crux of the matter was what the team had been asked to do by de Groot.

"In my experience," said Willis, "the draining of a collector and the draining of the main fuel tanks are separate activities".

He added that for the car to operate normally it was necessary for there to be fuel in the forward collector.

"We believe that the weight of fuel in the collector is part of the weight of the car," said Willis.

Whiting then asked how much fuel should be allowed if fuel could be counted towards the weight of the car.

"That is a difficult question to answer," said Willis, "because I am not aware of individual requirements of different fuel systems. It is not that significant amount but there is an amount of fuel."

Willis explained that the BAR's collector tank was designed to hold nine kilos of fuel and had been designed in response to the introduction of a high pressure fuel system on the Honda engine. When asked if the fuel was used as ballast Willis replied that "we put enough fuel to get to the end of race while maintaining the car in a runnable condition" and added that a number of other fluids are in the car, notably oil and water, and are not used as ballast. Willis went on to describe what happened when there was not enough fuel in the collector tank and explained that at Imola there was more fuel left at the end of the race than normal because Button was in a safe third place and was told to back off in order to protect his brakes and so used less fuel in the last stint than normal.

This concurs with what Button told this website after the race, before the legal problems began.

Whiting argued that the Technical Working Group in 1994 made it clear how fuel should be measured. Pannick said that this was not reflected in either the sporting or technical regulations.

In his summing up the FIA's Pierre de Coninck said that BAR had broken Article 2.6 of the Formula 1 Technical Regulations which states that "no mechanical design may rely on software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance". The argument was that the data the team supplied to the stewards after the race was "unacceptable" because it came from the team.

Clearly, if this was the case, this was forgotten at the time by all concerned.

De Coninck argued that BAR should not be allowed to include fuel as part of the weight of the car and that the case had added nothing to modify that position. He said that the accusations of bad faith and fraudulent conduct were very grave allegations and that they would not have been made "without real and serious grounds".

He went on to state that BAR's position that it had found a loophole in the regulations was not acceptable.

Pannick laid out the case in his summing up in a very clear fashion.

"There are two main issues before the court," he said. "The first is whether we complied with the regulations relating to the weight of the car. The second issue, even if we were wrong on the proper interpretation, should this court make a finding of fraud, bad faith and deception?"

He laid out the fact that there is no provision in the technical and sporting regulations which expressly defines how the weighing should be done and pointed out the F1 rules are not consistent with the rules in other formulae where the weighing process is very clearly defined.

He argued that it is not permissible for the FIA to make new technical regulations by way of the Court of Appeal and said that while Whiting had referred to a Technical Working Group discussion in 1994, that body exists "to consider and formulate possible amendments and no such amendment has been brought forward" and went on to argue that the weighing procedures in the rules state that one should add nothing to nor take anything out of the car and that by removing fuel from the collector tank the FIA had created a car that could not be raced.

"One must at the very least include in the minimum weight the amount of fuel which is needed to ensure that the cars engine can operate without a technical malfunction," he said. "And you have heard evidence from Mr Willis that this car simply cannot operate without a minimum of six kgs of fuel."

He also rejected the use of Article 2.6 saying that the rule was not dealing with the weighing of the car but rather with "the design of the car, its components and its systems. Which are entirely different matters."

"We respectfully submit that we have complied with the regulations and that the FIA is asking the court to write into rules something that is not there," he said. He added that maybe it is desirable that there be a clear regulation in the future and that the court might lead to that.

The more serious issue of the allegations of fraud, bad faith and deception was Pannick's final target.

"There is no dispute that the collector has a proper purpose, there is nothing in any way deceptive. It is a normal piece of machinery. There is no dispute that the FIA inspected this car after the Malaysian GP and that the FIA was aware of the collector and of its function. There was no suggestion that the team failed to co-operate or sought to conceal the collector."

"It is," he added, "a very unpromising start to allege that we are guilty of fraud or bad faith."

Pannick argued that the complaint against the team was that de Groot asked for the fuel to be drained and what actually happened was a lifted pump procedure.

"It is plain that the FIA cannot establish that this is more than a misunderstanding," Pannick argued. "The mechanic understood what had been done on every previous occasion for fuel to be removed. Unfortunate as this may be, it was a misunderstanding."

He added that it would have been "a remarkably stupid thing to do when they team knew that Bauer was aware of the collector".

Pannick went on to point out that on Sunday night de Groot's concerns did not form any part of the discussions with the stewards and did not lead to any finding by them.

"It is quite remarkable that these serious allegations should now be made," he continued. "It is my submission that the general principles of law are that the more serious the allegation, the stronger the evidence required."

He concluded by saying that the problem was "at worst, a minor misunderstanding which was followed by BAR taking every step possible to assist the FIA."

Pannick argued that if BAR's interpretation of the rules was the wrong interpretation the team should be fined rather than having points taken away.

It was clear after the court that the journalists watching had different views on the subject, some believing that it has long been understood by everyone that the weight of the cars is without fuel on board. That may be so but you cannot find that written in the regulations. The court must now rule whether established practices are the same as regulations.

Our feeling is that BAR's interpretation is adventurous.

If the established practices are upheld, then it would be wise for the FIA to clarify the rules so that this cannot happen again.

On the question of BAR being engaged in fraud, bad faith and deception, the evidence put forward by BAR and statements made by Bauer were very persuasive and it would be a major surprise if the court was to rule that these grave allegations are true. Indeed it is not clear why they were there at all as Bauer clearly indicated that he did not have a problem with the system and there was clearly a difference of opinion about what De Groot said. If de Groot had a problem with BAR's activities, he did not mention it to the stewards. Nor for that matter did anyone tell the stewards that they could not rely on BAR data, which clearly they did.

The court thus left a number of questions unanswered about how decisions were made at Imola.
-------

 

[E46Fanatic]

One more.... read it at Grandprix.com
---
The FIA International Court of Appeal has ruled that BAR-Honda should be suspended from the next two races and has been given a six-month suspension, suspended for a year. The judges of the court ruled that the team failed to comply with Articles 1.9, 4.1, 4.2 and 2.6 of the Sporting Regulations and also violated Article 151-c of the International Sporting Code.

This is an extraordinary statement in that Articles 1.9, 4.1, 4.2 and 2.6 are actually Technical Regulations rather than Sporting Regulations and it is hard to see how a team can fail to comply with a rule that states "Weight is the weight of the car with the driver, wearing his complete racing apparel, at all times during the event". That is a definition.

Article 4.1 states that "the weight of the car must not be less than 605 kg during the qualifying practice session and no less than 600 kg at all other times during the event".

Article 4.2 states that "Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate".

Article 2.6 states that "it is the duty of each competitor to satisfy the FIA technical delegate and the stewards of the meeting that his automobile complies with these regulations in their entirety at all times during an event. The design of the car, its components and systems shall, with the exception of safety features, demonstrate their compliance with these regulations by means of physical inspection of hardware or materials. No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance".

The judgment is not going to do anything for the already poor reputation of the FIA International Court of Appeal as issuing a final report quoting the wrong regulations is a extraordinary gaffe for a group of supposedly professional judges.
---

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Oh boy.... I think this judgment is a bit drastic and perhaps, only the last grand prix's results should be affected. BAR Honda's absence in the next 2 grand prixs will be sorely felt!

 

[3er]

What happened to the "secret fuel compartment" thingy?

 

[chaiks]

Originally posted by E46Fanatic@May 5 2005, 10:45 PM
If you follow the case, closely I don't believe that they are guilty. The again its well known that FIA is very biased to Ferrari, so it comes as no surprise on the outcome of the verdict.

What benefit Ferrari in banning BAR? Won't deducting points & banning Renault more obvious. U r sure one heck of a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Originally posted by chaiks+May 6 2005, 05:16 AM-->QUOTE (chaiks @ May 6 2005, 05:16 AM)

 

[E46Fanatic]

Well, if you follow FIA and the Stewards decisions in the past few years, they have always favored decisions which will help out Ferrari and MS. Double standards, and its well known in the F1 community man. Banning BAR will give Ferrari a better chance to score some points in the coming races, and BAR has proven to be the most improved team in the past 3-4 weeks. They current hold the track lap record in Barcelona set a couple of weeks ago by Button and Sato.

btw.. dont take it just from me. See what Ron Dennis and Frank Williams has to say about this..

"Williams' and Dennis' actions have stemmed from their belief that the FIA is biased towards Ferrari. This feeling has prevailed for several years, but was brought to a head by the reinstatement of the Ferraris of Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher after they were disqualified from last season's Malaysian Grand Prix. " Ron and FW statements


And it is hard to believe that Ferrari have been using team orders for seven years now, but slightly easier to believe that both the FIA and Ecclestone have done nothing about it - also for seven years. But this is a case of pure double standards. Why? Read on.

At the Australian Grand Prix in 1998, David Coulthard slowed down to let his team-mate Mika Hakkinen past on the penultimate lap of the race. Afterwards, there was uproar from both the fans and the FIA, who swiftly issued McLaren with a warning not to do it again. They didn't, but Ferrari marched on with their team orders throughout the year, which continue to this day. So if this isn't a case of double standards by Ecclestone and the FIA, then we don't know what is! Double standards

 

[E46Fanatic]

Originally posted by 3er@May 5 2005, 11:20 PM
What happened to the "secret fuel compartment" thingy?

The fuel collector system found in the BAR 007 is also likely used by other F1 teams. The issue BAR was banned was not because of the fuel collector (as stated it is legal by FIA), or running the car lighter than 600 kilos in the race (they did not). FIA says that it was because BAR mechanics told the stewards that the car had been drained of fuel when there was still fuel left in the collector. The common practice of draining fuel in most cases in F1 is a lift technique which was done on the BAR car. That technique does not fully drain the fuel left in the collector.

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Originally posted by E46Fanatic@May 6 2005, 05:51 AM
Well, if you follow FIA and the Stewards decisions in the past few years, they have always favored decisions which will help out Ferrari and MS. Double standards, and its well known in the F1 community man. Banning BAR will give Ferrari a better chance to score some points in the coming races, and BAR has proven to be the most improved team in the past 3-4 weeks. They current hold the track lap record in Barcelona set a couple of weeks ago by Button and Sato.

Yeah, that's my personal view too considering how many times MS and Ferrari have been let off for misdemeanours of the years. Look at how MS whacked Heidfeld off the road. Even the drivers voted unanimously that MS was wrong yet the authorities dismissed it as a racing incident!!. I'm worried that this bias also extends to their scrutinising of cars and wonder if this is why the Ferraris are always so darn fast!!! Perhaps, this is also the motivation why Ferrari is the only team that wanna stick to the current F1 arrangement and not compete in a breakaway series with Mercedes, BMW, Renault, Toyota and Honda are advocating....

 

[ALBundy]

Remember in year 99 (or what is 2000) when the Ferrari infringed some rules which is clearly in conflict with FIA rules (the side barge boards were bigger/higher than the specs)?? Yup, they got off scot free.

I do believe the penalty on BAR is pretty harsh, points deduction (that's money!), suspension for the next couple of races (more money!) and don't forget the 6 month suspension penalty which may or may not be enforced (more more money!!)

Rgds

 

[Juan Powerblow]

[05/05/05 - 17:01]

BAR Honda fight race ban
The team looking for a way to race this weekend





BAR Honda want to race this weekend


BAR-Honda plan to go to court to claim their place on the grid for the Spanish Grand Prix after being thrown out of the event here Thursday afternoon.

The team were banned from this weekend's race and the next race in Monaco after a court of appeal hearing in Paris concluded they had failed to comply with the regulations at the last race in San Marino.

But they are determined to continue racing this weekend and in a statement team principal Nick Fry said: "BAR- Honda is appalled at the decision of the FIA International Court of Appeal.

"The team asserts that the judgement is contrary to all of the evidence heard yesterday. The team proved that it complied with the current regulations and the FIA now acknowledges that the regulations are unclear. We repeat that at no time did BAR Honda run underweight at the San Marino Grand Prix and this was also unchallenged by the FIA."

While the International Court of Appeal rejected the FIA's original accusations of fraud and deception, BAR Honda believe that this penalty is wholly and grossly disproportionate.

The team are advised by their legal counsel that the judgement is plainly wrong based on the evidence presented and are currently examining their options.



The team is already set up in the Barcelona paddock and Fry confirmed that they have some of the best sporting lawyers in the world working on their case. "It's the team's objective to race here this weekend," he added. "We need to get some judgement from a court pretty soon, probably tomorrow (Friday) morning. I think we need to get the car into qualifying so I think that will be our final deadline.

"I've spoken to (race drivers) Jenson (Button) and Takuma (Sato) and they are fully aware of the situation. Obviously what they want to do is go racing. Our practice times at the last test were impressive so we came here to win a race.

"It's especially disappointing for both of them. The next two races are crucial to us and given our performance in the last race and given our performance in testing, these are both races we can win."

Australian Minardi team chief Paul Stoddart took the FIA to court at the Australian Grand Prix in March to protest their decision not to allow his 2004-specificaion cars to race in Melbourne and won the case. But his team, who are consistently at the back of the grid, subsequently changed their plans and ran to the 2005 regulations after the future of the Australian Grand Prix was threatened due to the court's decision.

Spaniard Fernando Alonso, the world championship leader who drives for Renault, said that any team failing to observe the regulations should be appropriately punished.

"We all know there are regulations and if you break them this is what happens. Jenson (Button) drove a terrific race at Imola and it must be very disappointing for him, but I am sure they will be back," said Alonso.

Source AFP

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Ooooops!! The above news is outdated. The latest news is BAR Honda will not be competing in the Spanish GP as they are unable to find a court that can hear their application for an injunction against FIA Court of Appeal's decision and penalty. So, for this GP, there will only be 18 cars!!

 

[E46Fanatic]

Originally posted by ALBundy@May 6 2005, 03:07 AM
Remember in year 99 (or what is 2000) when the Ferrari infringed some rules which is clearly in conflict with FIA rules (the side barge boards were bigger/higher than the specs)?? Yup, they got off scot free.

Rgds

Not to mention that so many drivers complained of hearing the Ferrari misfire away coming out from slow corners during a time when traction control was banned. What did the FIA do about the complaints? They legalized traction control halfway through the season with the excuse it was "too difficult" for them to monitor who had them and who didn't haha.

Anyway, BAR has pulled out and is not going to contest the FIA's decision. There were threats from the FIA of random inspection changes which will allow them to strip every bolt from cars in the point after the race to make live hell for "somebody"..

----
The hearing centred around a second fuel tank, which was not fully emptied when the scrutineers asked for the car to be fully drained of fuel at the end of the San Marino race. Fry still insists the team are innocent.

"We know that the other teams have got a similar system because the fuel tank supplier who supplies us is the same as many of the teams. They have confirmed there's nothing unusual about or system. There have been rumours other people have been looking at their cars overall. This is a very draconian interpretation of the rules. I think it's made everyone look carefully at what their doing."

In a statement the team added: "The FIA court of appeal was unable to prove the team acted in bad faith so the team is unclear why there was the penalty. The team contests anything that could tarnish its reputation. BAR are so enraged with the decision that they have decided to publish their entire submission to the court of appeal on their official website later Friday afternoon."

They also confirmed that they will discuss the ramifications of the decision with their fellow teams and engine manufacturers on the Grand Prix grid and Fry added: "We are going to ensure we are completely transparent. During the course of the afternoon, we are posting everything from the court of appeal, all our witness statements, all our technical data (on our official website). Even though we are giving away some information to our competitors it's better that we do that to show everyone what we've done because we have nothing to hide."
-----------

 

[erica34]

"... It was clear from this that De Groot's interpretation of events was different to that of BAR and that the contention was over what the team was asked to do..."

maybe it was a simple case of miscommunication but some opportunistic parties turned it into this real serious pos... meaning somebody already target them already la... you know how it is right sometimes you tell some people to do something, they just hah-hah-hah like that but never actually pay attention... then do already later find out wtf... innocent mistake... could be same here what...

unless the mechanic who got the instruction quickly go and radio the boss and check, "ei boss, they suspect us already now want us to remove fuel for checking, how ar?" the boss say, "fark them la, we bar honda everyday smoke free cigarette scared what, u just pretend never hear nicely and do your usual sheet... anything just let me handle"... then the boss immediately call his friend the lawyer who's not doing so well... "ei bro, u got to belanja me big time already this time, i got one case for u, but don't tell anybody first..."

 

[Juan Powerblow]

Angry F1 rulers issue BAR threat
FIA, motorsport's world governing body, has warned BAR to accept their two-race ban gracefully or face further penalty.
BAR were banned after Jenson Button's car was found to be underweight following the San Marino Grand Prix.

They vowed to fight the decision of the FIA's International Court of Appeal before opting to criticise the severity of the punishment instead.

Now the FIA have claimed they are looking at BAR's comments to see if they can be charged with disrepute.




"Statements attributed to the management of BAR-Honda are currently under investigation in the light of the team's obligation to do nothing 'prejudicial to the image and dignity of Formula One racing' or 'prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally'," said a FIA statement.

The FIA have also batted off criticism of their appeals court, which five of the Formula One engine manufacturers want replaced by the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport.


The manufacturers look forward to meeting with the FIA in the near future to discuss this and other matters
Carmakers' statement

The statement added: "The manufacturers concerned came into Formula One for their own reasons.

"They were not invited - they invited themselves. Each of them accepted the rules and structures of the sport as they had done on many previous occasions."

The FIA issued the statement after BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Renault, Toyota and Honda, which owns 45% of BAR, had called for an "independent appeals process administered by an internationally recognised body" to settle disputes.

Officials apparently took that as a sleight on the integrity of the appeal court.

The five companies, who represent the Williams, McLaren, Renault, Toyota and BAR teams, have been at odds with the FIA over a number of issues.


Don't the teams ever recognise importance of the term called 'fans'?
From S

And they have threatened to set up a breakaway series in 2008 if they are not granted a greater say in how Formula One is run.

The bitterness intensified in January when Ferrari signed a deal with commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone and the FIA committing to F1 until 2012.

Although the rebel manufacturers intend to lobby the FIA on the appeals issue, they have agreed to stick with another controversial proposal.

FIA president Max Mosley demanded a cut in engine capacity for next season to 2.4 litres, and the five carmakers indicated that shoud remain in place post-2007 "to ensure stability for engines for three years".

"Beyond 2008, the manufacturers will jointly develop a new engine proposal for the sport," the statement said.

Two recent meetings with Mosley were shunned by the rebel manufacturers and their teams, but they appear to have softened their stance.

"The manufacturers look forward to meeting with the FIA in the near future to discuss this and other matters concerning regulations post 2007 and will continue to work in conjunction with the nine teams," the statement added.

Story from BBC SPORT:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport2/hi...one/4529603.stm

Published: 2005/05/09 16:09:38 GMT

© BBC MMV