The barrister continued to say the defendants were trying to mischaracterise his client’s case in order to argue he is out of time and of trying to reopen the results of the race. He argued that for the FIA now to say it has no responsibility to deliver sporting fairness is contradictory.

“The FIA owed a duty and to other members to enforce its regulations,” De Marco said.

“The FIA recognised that duty when they belatedly investigated the crash in 2009.” De Marco added it had failed in its duties in 2008 when Nelson Piquet’s father first approached the governing body saying the shunt may have been deliberate.

“Mr Ecclestone’s interview confirms this when he said the FIA had sufficient evidence to investigate the crash and should have done so then,” De Marco continued.

“The international sporting governing body whose whole purpose and reason it has powers is to protect the integrity of the sport.”

De Marco alleged that the September 2009 World Motor Sport Council report into Crashgate, signed by the then-FIA President, the late Max Mosley, was worded deliberately so as not to implicate those in charge of F1 (i.e. Mosley and Ecclestone) for not acting as soon as they were told of the scandal.

“After the race, the sequence of events described above, giving rise to such an obvious benefit for Renault F1 and Mr Alonso, had raised suspicion and there was a degree of speculation that Mr Piquet Jnr’s crash had been deliberate,” the report read.

“Rumours continued to circulate in the weeks that followed the race.

“Mr Piquet Jr’s father, Nelson Piquet Sr, indicated privately to an FIA official that the crash may have been deliberate, though at that time Mr Piquet Jnr was still under contract with Renault F1 and it was understood that he would not be prepared to make a statement to the FIA.

“The FIA considered its position and concluded that it did not have sufficient evidence at that time to launch a detailed investigation.”

De Marco built to a crescendo as he argued that the Ecclestone interview contradicted the ‘insufficient evidence’ argument, as well as the report saying the crash “may have been deliberate.”

“That was a lie, that’s the opposite to the truth!” he thundered. “The people who wrote this report, Ecclestone and Mosley, knew they had sufficient evidence but were worried about the consequences so covered it up.”

De Marco repeatedly highlighted that it was only the 2023 interview that gave Massa the legitimacy of a claim.

In the interview Ecclestone had added “he felt sorry for Mr Massa and he was cheated out of the title.”

“Pausing there, he was cheated by Ecclestone and Mosley,” said De Marco.

“There was nothing to put him on alert that Mr Ecclestone and Mr Mosley had all the information they needed to act, when they said quite the opposite.

“That 2023 interview was the first time, as you will see, that there was evidence of a deliberate concealment.”

The hearing as to whether to strikeout the Massa vs F1 and other continues.