Japanese 2007 Race Thread

[Piotr 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuxOv2kvjA4&NR=1

That Kubica is a bit of a kamikaze driver, he just kept driving into other drivers

Yup, U R right as always. He really zeroed in on Hamilton, when LH went wide and cut acros the apex because his" mirrors were steamed up" and he "couldn't see anyone behind him." And the second time when Massa pushed him wide in turn 6. Ya right, a regular Butcher.

And let's not forget at the beginning when he lost a place NOT to run into Heidfeld who had a misfire.

[Piotr 0]

I'm bored so what the hell....

1. In the wet, drivers use different "racing lines". Kubica was at fault because he was behind, came in too fast from a long way back, and slid into LH, who didn't move across that much. Whether he deserved the penalty is another matter. I think it's a matter of opinion, but I will not argue it
   
2. I don't remember the details very clearly tbh, and clearly they are crucial. From memory I would say the Sepang clash was a racing incident, whereas Fuji was a little more serious, and RK lost out any way in Sepang. This does not answer my question about Heidfeld crash
   
3. Kimi was faster than Kovi. I haven't heard his explanation tbh, but he was only one place behind his team mate, so I would be inclined to accept it. Well, it's partly attrition, and partly penalties, but to go from 11th to 2nd? And enhance dry setting by ultra wet tires???? come ON!
   
4. Nope. Yeah, that passed after a few seconds.
   
5. Perhaps he made a minor mistake, but he can't be blamed for the Webber-Vettel crash. You might equally well ask why Ferrari weren't penalised for blatant disregard of the rules regarding tyre choice. No, he is not to blame, but he surely contributed. Ferrari's WERE penalised .
   
6. I haven't followed them closely, so no, but why not focus on next year? And they made plenty of mistakes at the start of the year too. Well, it's throwing RK to the wo;ves. He is only 5 points ahead of Kovi, and the Renaults were better than BMWs in the last 2 or 3 races.
   
7. Because of the word "almost". And I want them to attack each other. Oh, so do I, but I like the fact that it stayed on track. I don't need the "Hamilton soap opera" after the race.
   
8. Hamilton has admitted making mistakes, notably in Hungary. But any decent racing driver will defend his interests rather than give a fair summary of the facts. Why on earth would he do the latter? Well, at least don't point fingers. There ARE just racing accidents out there, and he DID gone wide in that turn.
   
9. I don't think the FIA is particularly biased in LH's favour. Certainly not to the extent you, perhaps jokingly, suggest. Well, there was an instant of the "private Hamilton crane" this year...
   
10. I didn't notice. Do you have a video? If he was, don't assume it's because he has favoured Lewis from the start. Perhaps Fernando's threats which lead to Ron's reputation being dragged through the mud and his team being fined and stripped of the WCC they would have earned is the reason, if what you say is true. I'd like to see it though! Actually, this is all over news and racing blogs. I did not see that, but Alonso conspiracy fans are harping on it-that and the wrong tire pressure again...
    

Overall, I accept your answers, except I don't buy the Renault's performance explanation. Hey, here is an advice for Toyota - next time, set up your car for the conditions opposite those on track, and just run the correct tires, you'll pick up points for sure...

[Max Mosley 2]

1. OK
   
2. I can't remember the Heidfeld crash very well I'm afraid, though I think I said at the time that Nick was to blame for it (and for crashing into Ralf later on if I am remembering the right race).
   
3. Going from 11th to 2nd isn't that unusual for a wet race. Especially when you consider that every single person, with the possible exception of Fisi(?), who qualified ahead of him had problems, penalties or retired. Remember that they can change the setup during the race to some extent too.
   
4. 
   
5. Ferrari weren't really penalised, they simply had to correct their "mistake".
   
6. I think it's silly to worry about RK's championship position this year. He'll do better next year.
   
7. Hamilton's soap opera or Webber's nice turn of phrase are part of F1 for me. I wouldn't ever not want to have them. And you don't have to follow all the gossip about Hamilton.
   
8. I thought Hamilton was pretty fair when questioned about Kubica. He did his best not to point the finger, but the interviewer got the wrong idea so he had to defend himself a bit. He wasn't pointing the finger at anyone, much less his friend.
   
9. It was more the Mercedes crane I think.
   
10. And I would pay absolutely zero attention to rabid Alonso fans.
    

[Piotr 0]

1. OK
   
2. I can't remember the Heidfeld crash very well I'm afraid, though I think I said at the time that Nick was to blame for it (and for crashing into Ralf later on if I am remembering the right race).
   
3. Going from 11th to 2nd isn't that unusual for a wet race. Especially when you consider that every single person, with the possible exception of Fisi(?), who qualified ahead of him had problems, penalties or retired. Remember that they can change the setup during the race to some extent too.
   
4. 
   
5. Ferrari weren't really penalised, they simply had to correct their "mistake".
   
6. I think it's silly to worry about RK's championship position this year. He'll do better next year.
   
7. Hamilton's soap opera or Webber's nice turn of phrase are part of F1 for me. I wouldn't ever not want to have them. And you don't have to follow all the gossip about Hamilton.
   
8. I thought Hamilton was pretty fair when questioned about Kubica. He did his best not to point the finger, but the interviewer got the wrong idea so he had to defend himself a bit. He wasn't pointing the finger at anyone, much less his friend.
   
9. It was more the Mercedes crane I think.
   
10. And I would pay absolutely zero attention to rabid Alonso fans.
    

DAMN YOU AN YOUR LOGIC!!! Ok, I think I would be in a better mood if Kubi DID beat Massa. As it was, well, it's like you are ready for this great Scotch, but get Sprite instead...

I guess Hamilton was pushed into a finger pointing by a loaded question, and he DID have a great race. I really hoped that Rob will have a good race, and he actually stood a good chance for a podium until his penalty. Like I said- it's like eating hot but tasteless oatmeal... And I do hope he'll finish behind heidfeld

[Quiet One 15]

I'm bored so what the hell....

1. 
   Perhaps Fernando's threats which lead to Ron's reputation being dragged through the mud and his team being fined and stripped of the WCC they would have earned is the reason, if what you say is true. I'd like to see it though!
   

Tu quoque, Brutus...

The team was fined and stripped of the WCC for Coughlan's spy saga, iirc. Now, we have three ways to look at this:

1) It's Nando's fault: why? because he gave the FIA the proofs of an illegal operation at McLaren? So...the correct thing would have been Nando keeping his mouth shut, and Ron, that wonderful, uncorruptible gentleman would have kept it all hidden...mmmmh nope...that doesn't sound quite right....

2) Nando did the right thing, even if for the wrong causes: He is a mad, psychotic, child-abusing, whining blackmailing monster. I'll give you that if its what it takes to understand this idea. He knew about the spy saga, he didn't say a word, and when he got all bitter went to the FIA with the evidence. That would mean that Ron is a liar (he said he was the one to bring the evidence to FIA's attention). Anyways, bringing evidence of a wrongdoing is the right thing. The fine and the stripping of points were not decided by him, right?

3) Nando did what he was forced to do. Once Ron (or Bernie, or Nando, or the Holy Ghost) told Mosley about the emails, there wasn't much else to do. The FIA threatened the drivers very strongly. Even without immunity he would not have much choice but to give the emails.

The fact that Ron decided not to appeal casts an even bigger shadow of doubt about his real ignorance of all this. Of course, you might always think that he accepted the biggest fine in sport's history, plus losing a WCC he had already in his hands, and let the world (outside the Commonwealth) think he is a cheating liar, or a total idiot, just "for the sake of sport".

[Max Mosley 2]

As it was, well, it's like you are ready for this great Scotch, but get Sprite instead...

Yeah I can imagine how you feel. But the only thing that matters atm is how Kubica drives, learns and improves. In time he will have opportunities much better than anything in the last race.

Tu quoque, Brutus...

No no no. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Hang on a sec......

Honestly, I was only offering an alternative explanation, to something that I don't think even happened. I started off by saying "perhaps" just to show it was only a hypothetical possibility, designed to show the more rabid Alonso fanatics that there could be any number of explanations, for the thing that probably didn't happen at all. Also, we have to imagine events from Ron's perspective, not our own, when trying to explain why he might (or might not) have been smiling! I'm not saying that whole fiasco was Alonso's fault - it clearly wasn't, and I agree the whole team was right to be penalised. But from Ron's pov, Alonso won't have emerged very well from it after threatening Ron himself.

[Quiet One 15]

Yeah I can imagine how you feel. But the only thing that matters atm is how Kubica drives, learns and improves. In time he will have opportunities much better than anything in the last race.

No no no. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

Hang on a sec......

Honestly, I was only offering an alternative explanation, to something that I don't think even happened. I started off by saying "perhaps" just to show it was only a hypothetical possibility, designed to show the more rabid Alonso fanatics that there could be any number of explanations, for the thing that probably didn't happen at all. Also, we have to imagine events from Ron's perspective, not our own, when trying to explain why he might (or might not) have been smiling! I'm not saying that whole fiasco was Alonso's fault - it clearly wasn't, and I agree the whole team was right to be penalised. But from Ron's pov, Alonso won't have emerged very well from it after threatening Ron himself.

Ahhh ok! Now I see your point! I feel relieved that you didn't buy that story

And imho, Brutus address was one of Shakespeares finest works.

[maure 1]

Tu quoque, Brutus...

The team was fined and stripped of the WCC for Coughlan's spy saga, iirc. Now, we have three ways to look at this:

1) It's Nando's fault: why? because he gave the FIA the proofs of an illegal operation at McLaren? So...the correct thing would have been Nando keeping his mouth shut, and Ron, that wonderful, uncorruptible gentleman would have kept it all hidden...mmmmh nope...that doesn't sound quite right....

2) Nando did the right thing, even if for the wrong causes: He is a mad, psychotic, child-abusing, whining blackmailing monster. I'll give you that if its what it takes to understand this idea. He knew about the spy saga, he didn't say a word, and when he got all bitter went to the FIA with the evidence. That would mean that Ron is a liar (he said he was the one to bring the evidence to FIA's attention). Anyways, bringing evidence of a wrongdoing is the right thing. The fine and the stripping of points were not decided by him, right?

3) Nando did what he was forced to do. Once Ron (or Bernie, or Nando, or the Holy Ghost) told Mosley about the emails, there wasn't much else to do. The FIA threatened the drivers very strongly. Even without immunity he would not have much choice but to give the emails.

The fact that Ron decided not to appeal casts an even bigger shadow of doubt about his real ignorance of all this. Of course, you might always think that he accepted the biggest fine in sport's history, plus losing a WCC he had already in his hands, and let the world (outside the Commonwealth) think he is a cheating liar, or a total idiot, just "for the sake of sport".

Yeap, RD is a crook. No surprise here really. Everyone in F1 cheats as much as they can BUT he was the one caught.

RD is also a coward. Instead of owning up to his responsibilities in the team (were he personally guilty or not), he elected Alonso as the fall guy. And yes, considering that when Alonso sneezes, the FIA penalizes him, he truly had no choice.

I've never liked Alonso that much (bar some races). But McLaren's lynching has managed to get my sympathy to his plight.

I always liked Hamilton, his sense of grip is enough to enjoy watching him. But his "I deserve everything" plus actually getting it from both McLaren and FIA, well, has managed to make him look like a..... fraud, unjust as that is. I fear the guy will end up going up in flames the moment he doesn't get his way... and, as we have seen, he has minimal tolerance. The UK press, the lewisterics, and the Eager Boys are doing nothing but encouraging this behaviour. If Hamilton doesn't win, they will eat him alive.

[Autumnpuma 0]

The fact that Ron decided not to appeal casts an even bigger shadow of doubt about his real ignorance of all this. Of course, you might always think that he accepted the biggest fine in sport's history, plus losing a WCC he had already in his hands, and let the world (outside the Commonwealth) think he is a cheating liar, or a total idiot, just "for the sake of sport".

Perhaps it's because the sporting rule they were in violation of is so vague as to have no real defense. To appeal would have opened the team up to a possible exclusion from the 2008 championship. It's called 'cutting your losses' not 'admitting guilt'.

As for 'cheating', in order to 'cheat' you have to break the rules. McLaren broke no rules except a vague one that can be applied to anything in any situation. The cars and strategy McLaren have used all season have been proven to be legal for competition according to the articles of the Formula One Technical Regulations. If it's legal, then there was no cheating. Ferrari, however, have cheated a few times this season on-track from the illegal floorboard to the obvious team orders in Fuji and the whole 'I didn't get the email' crappola about the wet tyres. Also I seem to remember Massa accepting a flag from a marshal after he won which is blatantly against the rules. If we want to talk cheating, lets define the term correctly, shall we?

[Piotr 0]

2) Nando did the right thing, even if for the wrong causes: He is a mad, psychotic, child-abusing, whining blackmailing monster.

Alonso is a child-abusing monster? Wow, I always knew there was something wrong about him. Wait, are you alleging that there is a child-porn ring among the F1 drivers??? This is huge, almost as big as inbreeding and incest among the participants of this forum!

[Damn, there MUST be money to be made here somehow... does ITV pay for their stories?? ]

[Jean Todt 4]

Perhaps it's because the sporting rule they were in violation of is so vague as to have no real defense. To appeal would have opened the team up to a possible exclusion from the 2008 championship. It's called 'cutting your losses' not 'admitting guilt'.

As for 'cheating', in order to 'cheat' you have to break the rules. McLaren broke no rules except a vague one that can be applied to anything in any situation. The cars and strategy McLaren have used all season have been proven to be legal for competition according to the articles of the Formula One Technical Regulations. If it's legal, then there was no cheating. Ferrari, however, have cheated a few times this season on-track from the illegal floorboard to the obvious team orders in Fuji and the whole 'I didn't get the email' crappola about the wet tyres. Also I seem to remember Massa accepting a flag from a marshal after he won which is blatantly against the rules. If we want to talk cheating, lets define the term correctly, shall we?

Ferrari are acting like as if they are the only ones who know to build a car. I doubt they would be even second next season.

[Halfie 0]

I think Ron couldnt appeal it, we all know that most of the time in these appeals the fine is just made even bigger. Had he actually appealed he risked the team bring thrown out of next year too, the only sensible course of action was to accept the fine from a business point of view.

[Quiet One 15]

Perhaps it's because the sporting rule they were in violation of is so vague as to have no real defense. To appeal would have opened the team up to a possible exclusion from the 2008 championship. It's called 'cutting your losses' not 'admitting guilt'.

As for 'cheating', in order to 'cheat' you have to break the rules. McLaren broke no rules except a vague one that can be applied to anything in any situation. The cars and strategy McLaren have used all season have been proven to be legal for competition according to the articles of the Formula One Technical Regulations. If it's legal, then there was no cheating. Ferrari, however, have cheated a few times this season on-track from the illegal floorboard to the obvious team orders in Fuji and the whole 'I didn't get the email' crappola about the wet tyres. Also I seem to remember Massa accepting a flag from a marshal after he won which is blatantly against the rules. If we want to talk cheating, lets define the term correctly, shall we?

I was not discussing the legal nuances of the case. Again, we can argue all day whether the punishment or the proceedings made any sense or not. I don't care. The fact is: McLaren received confidential info via Stepney. They could have used it or not. Ron could have known about it or not. Nando could have used that to blackmail Ron, hinder Lewis and bring forth the Apocalpsys, yet it is still at least unethical.

Of course we can think that Ron swallowed his pride, a 100million fine and all that for the sake of sport. Alonso could have also bring into light the e-mails for the sake of sport. Fair is fair, right?

And as far as Ferrari goes, god forbid me of thinking they are any better than McLaren!!! They are masters at cheating. Like I said before, FIA put themselves in a tricky situation now. If they want to be fair and balanced, they will have to penalize Ferrari's antics as well. If McLaren got this punishment, then Ferrari should get no less than the gas chamber.

[pabloh20 1]

I was not discussing the legal nuances of the case. Again, we can argue all day whether the punishment or the proceedings made any sense or not. I don't care. The fact is: McLaren received confidential info via Stepney. They could have used it or not. Ron could have known about it or not. Nando could have used that to blackmail Ron, hinder Lewis and bring forth the Apocalpsys, yet it is still at least unethical.

Of course we can think that Ron swallowed his pride, a 100million fine and all that for the sake of sport. Alonso could have also bring into light the e-mails for the sake of sport. Fair is fair, right?

And as far as Ferrari goes, god forbid me of thinking they are any better than McLaren!!! They are masters at cheating. Like I said before, FIA put themselves in a tricky situation now. If they want to be fair and balanced, they will have to penalize Ferrari's antics as well. If McLaren got this punishment, then Ferrari should get no less than the gas chamber.

I feel this is a tad harsh, me old mucker!

[Autumnpuma 0]

I was not discussing the legal nuances of the case. Again, we can argue all day whether the punishment or the proceedings made any sense or not. I don't care. The fact is: McLaren received confidential info via Stepney. They could have used it or not. Ron could have known about it or not. Nando could have used that to blackmail Ron, hinder Lewis and bring forth the Apocalpsys, yet it is still at least unethical.

Legal nuances? You called them 'cheaters'. In order to cheat, you must break a rule of competition to gain an advantage in said competition. That didn't happen. McLaren didn't cheat. They behaved badly but that isn't the same thing.

Of course we can think that Ron swallowed his pride, a 100million fine and all that for the sake of sport. Alonso could have also bring into light the e-mails for the sake of sport. Fair is fair, right?

Is this your response to my stating that McLaren likely decided to cut their losses? I don't think you parried my thrust very well. Also, it's clear that Alonso brought the e-mails to light in order to blackmail his boss, who then took those emails to the FIA, as was proper.

And as far as Ferrari goes, god forbid me of thinking they are any better than McLaren!!! They are masters at cheating. Like I said before, FIA put themselves in a tricky situation now. If they want to be fair and balanced, they will have to penalize Ferrari's antics as well. If McLaren got this punishment, then Ferrari should get no less than the gas chamber.

The point I was making is that under the correct definition of cheating (ie breaking a rule of a competition to gain advantage in said competition) Ferrari have cheated in competition multiple times while McLaren have not. Possessing documents belonging to another team may be considered bad, unethical behaviour, but it's hardly equal to actually cheating during a race weekend.

[Quiet One 15]

Legal nuances? You called them 'cheaters'. In order to cheat, you must break a rule of competition to gain an advantage in said competition. That didn't happen. McLaren didn't cheat. They behaved badly but that isn't the same thing.

Nah, I didn't call them "cheaters", in fact, it wasn't even central to my point whether they cheat or not. I was talking about how they are perceived. Somebody else pointed in another thread the difference between perception from the public and the actual situation. The whole point of discussing whether they actually used the technology or not still amazes me. Maybe it makes sense for most people, but for me it doesn't. Never thought that a crime (or bad deed, or unethical behaviour) can only be considered if there is any actual gain from the perpetrator's point of view. Yes, I know the code say nothing about spying without using it and all such. Now, not for the FIA, but for me, if you do something unethical (like knowing confidential data from another team. No matter how you got it, the mere posession is unethical) then you are to blame. I fyou had no gain from that, then you might also be stupid on top of it, but never innocent.

That's just my theory on ethics, sorry for the rambling Ok, they behaved badly. I agree with you there.

Is this your response to my stating that McLaren likely decided to cut their losses? I don't think you parried my thrust very well. Also, it's clear that Alonso brought the e-mails to light in order to blackmail his boss, who then took those emails to the FIA, as was proper.

Actually I was recalling someone posting how good is Ron because he did all that for the sake of sport. Again, it all comes to interpretation. You might think that Ron did that to cut his losses. I might think he did it because he knows he is guilty. You might think Alonso tried to blackmail his boss. I might think bringing the emails to light was the right thing (no, I don't think that).

In the world of assumptions, you might think I didn't parry your thrust. I just assume there was no thrust

The point I was making is that under the correct definition of cheating (ie breaking a rule of a competition to gain advantage in said competition) Ferrari have cheated in competition multiple times while McLaren have not. Possessing documents belonging to another team may be considered bad, unethical behaviour, but it's hardly equal to actually cheating during a race weekend.

This is very true. In theory. If you bring an example maybe you will find yourself in the same position as you are now, only arguing this with some Ferrari fan. Schumi parked his car at La Rascasse? Or did he just have a mechanical failure? Did they cheat with the tire choice? Or they just didn't receive the e-mail?

We only get fragments of information. We try to fill in the blanks with our assumptions. Nothing bad about that, just prone to cause controversy.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Andres, you dance around better than Muhammad Ali! After reading most of your posts on this subject (in this and other threads) it's clear you believe McLaren cheated simply by possessing Ferrari documents. That is the point I'm mostly arguing with here. McLaren behaved badly, but they didn't cheat. If they would have put Ferrari-designed parts on their car, and ran them in competition, they would have been cheating.

You claim this is all 'nuances' but I say you're painting this whole thing with too wide a brush. The truth is in the little nuances. I'm trying to wipe off your broad brush strokes to expose the true, fine brushwork underneath.

Nobody's thoughts here are very provable, but while you are willing to assume, rather emotionally I might add, that Ron's failure to appeal the decision is a proof of guilt, I have put forth a more likely story, considering McLaren is a business and is run as such. In a business you sometimes take a hit to ensure future profits. To appeal and lose (which would have been very likely) would have meant sanctions on McLaren through 2008 where now the sanctions are only through 2007.

Andres, you can flit from position to position, but your thoughts on this matter are clear, even if your actual phrasing is not!

Nice dancing with you, though! A bit intimidating, but you step on nobody's toes!

[Quiet One 15]

Andres, you dance around better than Muhammad Ali! After reading most of your posts on this subject (in this and other threads) it's clear you believe McLaren cheated simply by possessing Ferrari documents. That is the point I'm mostly arguing with here. McLaren behaved badly, but they didn't cheat. If they would have put Ferrari-designed parts on their car, and ran them in competition, they would have been cheating.

You claim this is all 'nuances' but I say you're painting this whole thing with too wide a brush. The truth is in the little nuances. I'm trying to wipe off your broad brush strokes to expose the true, fine brushwork underneath.

Nobody's thoughts here are very provable, but while you are willing to assume, rather emotionally I might add, that Ron's failure to appeal the decision is a proof of guilt, I have put forth a more likely story, considering McLaren is a business and is run as such. In a business you sometimes take a hit to ensure future profits. To appeal and lose (which would have been very likely) would have meant sanctions on McLaren through 2008 where now the sanctions are only through 2007.

Andres, you can flit from position to position, but your thoughts on this matter are clear, even if your actual phrasing is not!

Nice dancing with you, though! A bit intimidating, but you step on nobody's toes!

I don't want to step on anybody's toes! And comparing me with one of my most admired personalities in every sport is flattening, despite the mild derisive implication.

Allow me to further clarify my idea. I know, another dance step. It really costs me a lot to express an idea, I apologize for that. I will try not to ramble too much:

- I think McLaren acted in an unethical way. Whether they cheated or just behaved stupidly might be important for some, for me is not. Why? Because my central argument isn't "The punishment was fair", or "Ferrari is worse". My point this whole time was "Alonso is to blame, but so is Dennis, with the same degree of responsibility, even if for different reasons". As usual, once you spend enough time trying to convince everybody of Ron's responsibility, people starts to think that I am somehow relieving Alonso of his share. I am not.

- "a more likely story", based on what? "McLaren is a business and is run as such"? You assume that "rather emotionally" as well. I fail to see why your assumption is any better than mine. I fail completely to see why any of these assumptions should be taken like anything else besides assumptions, both yours and mine. I am ready to accept that my assumption is just that. In fact I keep saying that I only make assumptions, most of the time just to prove that many "facts" are just assumptions as well.

- Again I apologize for my phrasing. And I don't think my idea is clear at all (my fault, again) because you keep replying to me on things that are not central to my position.

[sliderule 0]

Shouldn

[Autumnpuma 0]

I don't want to step on anybody's toes! And comparing me with one of my most admired personalities in every sport is flattening, despite the mild derisive implication.

Allow me to further clarify my idea. I know, another dance step. It really costs me a lot to express an idea, I apologize for that. I will try not to ramble too much:

- I think McLaren acted in an unethical way. Whether they cheated or just behaved stupidly might be important for some, for me is not. Why? Because my central argument isn't "The punishment was fair", or "Ferrari is worse". My point this whole time was "Alonso is to blame, but so is Dennis, with the same degree of responsibility, even if for different reasons". As usual, once you spend enough time trying to convince everybody of Ron's responsibility, people starts to think that I am somehow relieving Alonso of his share. I am not.

- "a more likely story", based on what? "McLaren is a business and is run as such"? You assume that "rather emotionally" as well. I fail to see why your assumption is any better than mine. I fail completely to see why any of these assumptions should be taken like anything else besides assumptions, both yours and mine. I am ready to accept that my assumption is just that. In fact I keep saying that I only make assumptions, most of the time just to prove that many "facts" are just assumptions as well.

- Again I apologize for my phrasing. And I don't think my idea is clear at all (my fault, again) because you keep replying to me on things that are not central to my position.

The mild derision isn't there, my friend! My apologies if it sounded that way! I would not use a great sportsman to deride a person I respect. To me it seemed like a fine dance you were having with words, but I could be mistaken.

You and I have our own assumptions, but not all assumptions are equal. When looking at a thing such as McLaren's decision to not appeal, there are more likely reasons for it and less likely reasons for it. I've backed up my assumption with a very likely reason. You haven't provided a very likely reason aside from 'he knows he's guilty and won't argue the point'. That's actually true, in an odd way. By the vague definition of the rule McLaren was charged with, there is no arguing out of it. The FIA could use that same rule in regards to Flavio smoking and then ban him for a season...and Flavio would have no credible defense against it.

I accept that you don't distinguish between cheating on-track and bad behaviour off-track. I wonder at your opinion of the rest of the paddock with that broad view of bad behaviour? There is no team that doesn't engage in this sort of thing. If there are no degrees or nuances to it, then you must hang everybody...700 page dossier or a few photographs. It's all the same, right? It's all unethical behaviour. Why bother to praise anyone if they are all equally as guilty as McLaren?

Taking that view to it's conclusion, you must begin to see that the nuances are indeed important. Equally important is correctly apportioning blame. All of the evidence points to Alonso, Pedro, Coughlan and a few others in the McLaren team engaging in the unethical behaviour. Ron was not one of those proven to have engaged in that behaviour, yet he's being smeared with the same broad brush as Alonso. That brush should rightly cover Alonso, but should miss Ron.

[Quiet One 15]

The mild derision isn't there, my friend! My apologies if it sounded that way! I would not use a great sportsman to deride a person I respect. To me it seemed like a fine dance you were having with words, but I could be mistaken.

Apologies accepted, of course, and please accept mine No fine dance, though. I feel more like convulsing on the floor and hoping someone will take that for a clear statement I am usually this confusing in Spanish, too, so I can't even use the language barrier argument!

You and I have our own assumptions, but not all assumptions are equal. When looking at a thing such as McLaren's decision to not appeal, there are more likely reasons for it and less likely reasons for it. I've backed up my assumption with a very likely reason. You haven't provided a very likely reason aside from 'he knows he's guilty and won't argue the point'. That's actually true, in an odd way. By the vague definition of the rule McLaren was charged with, there is no arguing out of it. The FIA could use that same rule in regards to Flavio smoking and then ban him for a season...and Flavio would have no credible defense against it.

A very likely reason? If the punishment had been a slap on the wrist (loss of some points, a 1m dollar fine, being forced to have a dinner with candles with Bernie and Todt), cutting his losses would be perfectly understandable. But when you are being given a punishment more severe than what Exxon would have gotten for an oil spill, the total loss of a year's (or more) work and the obvious impact it would have on your public image, I would have expected either an appeal or at least a stronger position. If somebody accused me of molesting childs (besides Muzza) I would appeal, and take it until the last consequences. Anything but quiet resignation. That doesn't sounds like the logical actions of an innocent man. If he is so innocent and this punishment is so unfair, why not appeal? If appeal if useless because the whole body is corrupted, why suffer all this humiliation? Why not slam the door, threaten to leave a cave of pirates and look for greener, less unfair pastures? Again, he could be innocent. But his actions "cast a shadow of doubt" (as I said in my first post).

The rule is vague, I give you that. I am not here to defend FIA's arguments (which I found terribly weak). I just try to picture a scenarion were Ron is guilty, not because I give a rat's arse whether he is guilty or not (personally, I think he is, but your theory is also possible and I have not enough information to judge your opinion inferior to mine in any way), but to show that there are many ways to view this story, and some of them are plausible (of course, you can blame all this on martians, but I think both your theory and mine are more plausible)

I accept that you don't distinguish between cheating on-track and bad behaviour off-track. I wonder at your opinion of the rest of the paddock with that broad view of bad behaviour? There is no team that doesn't engage in this sort of thing. If there are no degrees or nuances to it, then you must hang everybody...700 page dossier or a few photographs. It's all the same, right? It's all unethical behaviour. Why bother to praise anyone if they are all equally as guilty as McLaren?

Yes...and nope. Don't take my awful painting, copy it with even broader brushes, and then make fun of "your" copy of my picture as it if was my original. I believe that other teams actions are no excuse for a teams misdeeds. If Ferrari kills people, then they should be punished more hrashly than McLaren, that goes without saying. But if at the same time Briatore smuggles a dozen bottles of whisky, I don't think you could use Ferrai's crimes to turn Briatore from a smuggler into an angel. If he gets punished and Ferrari does not, then the courts and laws should be reviewed, but Briatore shouldn't be declared innocent. Because he isn't. McLaren isn't innocent. I am not saying they deserve the punishment, or that they are the only ones who deserve the punishment. FIA sucks, and this saga only showed how much they suck. But McLaren still was in possesion of illegal docs.

Maybe every team does it. My respect for each team with cases like this will fall accordingly, if reasonably proven or admitted. That's why I hate Ferrari, amongst other things. For the remaining teams I will give them the benefit of doubt. Because saying everybody does the same does not prove they do it.

Photographs...well...they are not the same. I would of course respect teams even more if they didn't do that. But photographs are not forbidden (I think), I didn't read anybody admitting they took them (besides de la Rosa, but I don't read much so maybe I missed something). And having all the info about a competitors car is not the same as some quick snaps while walking around the pits. There is a scale. The fact that I think that having a 700 page dossier is more important to me than to you does not mean that I can't distinguish those "nuances"

Taking that view to it's conclusion, you must begin to see that the nuances are indeed important. Equally important is correctly apportioning blame. All of the evidence points to Alonso, Pedro, Coughlan and a few others in the McLaren team engaging in the unethical behaviour. Ron was not one of those proven to have engaged in that behaviour, yet he's being smeared with the same broad brush as Alonso. That brush should rightly cover Alonso, but should miss Ron.

Back intgo the nunaces stuff Ok, I will assume Ron did not know anything about the saga. (I might say that there is no proof that Alonso knew, because FIA "assumed" from his mails that he knew about it, though all he does is ask for info about Ferrari...my humble contribution to "nuances", but you might ignore this).

In such case, yes, he will not be equally responsible. I would say he is responsible of incompetence, because if his drivers and some of his more important members of the staff were involved under his own nose yet he failed to notice anything suspicious, that doesn't say much about Ron's management skills. Anyways, that is just my opinion. You can still argue that he could easily have ignored all this and, again, I have nothing to prove you wrong. He is the main responsible of the team. "Responsible". That's what he gets paid for. He is still to blame. And so does the whole team. If its only that kind of responsiblity, he could very well fire Alonso, de la Rosa and Coughlan. And even sue them. But that won't erase his responsiblity. That's all.

[maure 1]

Is it so that you guys consider that Alonso deserves blame for the espionage sage because he didn't hide information and didn't lie to the FIA?

[goferrarigo 0]

Ahhh ok! Now I see your point! I feel relieved that you didn't buy that story

And imho, Brutus address was one of Shakespeares finest works.

I felt Anthony's address was better, the way he stirred up the crowd, after being presented on the podium by Brutus....

Godd posts btw, Andres....

I think Mclaren, just being caught with the documents make them guilty, had they used it or not doesn't matter, Pictures to me aren't very important unless they are on a spefic part or designs....(I am not saying the punishment is correct, all i am saying is being in possenion is enough to make them guilty...)

I agree with your post abt being suspious of RD not trying to uphold his image, so won't add anymore...

[Kay 0]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8hWIfBkVQUk

That's the Vettel & Webber incident, now you can appreciate that Vettel was honest!

(Sorry if it's been posted already - not enough time to check all the threads)

[Bazzil 0]

I just saw a video of the Speed overage of the Massa vs. Kubica bit. Pretty great stuff, but I wish I was watching it at the time.

But what sort of idiots do they have directing these telecasts, anyway? Here's two guys fighting tooth and nail, pushing each other off the track to gain a position, and the directer thinks it's a good idea to cut away to Hamilton waving to the crowd? That's just rediculous. Luckily they cut right back.