Secondly; if you decide to make your living in an area which is totally controlled by one authority and whose very terms of admittance implicitly specify your acceptance of said total authority, then you cannot expect to be able to go outside it to complain. Flav should have gone through the FIA appeal process if he felt he had even half a leg to stand on. (a knee perhaps) The fact that rightly he may become disqualified from his position in football is incidental and a consequence of of his FIA rule breaking and bringing the sport into serious disrepute.
If he is innocent, let him prove it to the FIA and let all the evidence be published.

Just to clarify, the ISCode starts off as follows:

“1. International regulations of motor sport
The Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, hereafter termed
the FIA, shall be the sole international sporting authority entitled
to make and enforce regulations for the encouragement and
control of automobile competitions and records, and to organise
FIA International Championships and shall be the final
international court of appeal for the settlement of disputes arising
therefrom; it being acknowledged that the Fédération
Internationale Motocycliste shall exercise the same powers
insofar as vehicles with one, two and three wheels are concerned.”

Then much later after a jalfreisi with onion bhaji, bomay aloo, keema nan and pilau rice, the bit affecting Flav:

123. Joint responsibility of competitor and driver
The entrant (see Articles 68 and 69) shall be responsible for all
acts or omissions on the part of their driver, mechanic, or
passengers, but each of these shall be equally responsible for
any breach of this Code or of the national rules of the ASN
concerned.

If you decide to take up sailing as a profession, do you expect to be able to overrule the established international sailing competition body? Conversely do you expect a French court to decide that you must use yellow sails or can only tack to port on Thursdays. Or for any other court to interfere.

Suppose Flav wins (perish the thought) it means that the FIA is not in control of the sport. Ok they have made some breathtakingly bad moral decisions which are deeply disturbing and do not sit well upon their shoulders; in particular in establishing the principle that if you own up and can shop your boss and a few others you will get immunity. That obviously needs to be changed, and is a sad reflection of the American judicial influence on morality (plea bargaining/immunity) invading the sport. BUT they (the FIA) are still the governing body, if you don’t accept that, then don’t play in their sport.

Renault had a duty to protect Renault and no obligation to any individual employee (Briatore). This is THE classic conflict of interest, and the very reason why individual defendants obtain seperate counsel from that of their employers in civil and criminal cases against corporations.

On this basis alone (as you say, putting aside ultimate guilt or innocence), he should have strong grounds for appeal, to the extent that he might at least get a rehearing – IF this does in fact violate EU laws and regulations. If and the verdict is overturned, and a rehearing ordered, must it be retried by the FIA? I’m wondering who would have jurisdiction otherwise.

The idea that Briatore’s (effective) lifetime ban is ‘administrative’ rather than ‘disciplinary’ is even more poorly founded, in my opinion. This suggests the FIA has the right to interfere with other organisations contracts and business relationships and to exercise a veto over their employees. I don’t think so.

The FIA needs to license senior figures in much the same way as it does drivers. This would solve many of today’s problems and give a workable and visible framework for policing management and design.