Schumi deliberately blocks Monaco quali

[Tom]

Sorry it was me that brung up Senna I think, although I still believe it is a valid point.

[NickT]

I knew we had to have patience. Finally, a perfectly logical explanation: it was Pamela Anderson's fault.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type ... O_ID=36104

Excellent the truth finally emerges on page 21 of this thread

[jgredline]

I knew we had to have patience. Finally, a perfectly logical explanation: it was Pamela Anderson's fault.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type ... O_ID=36104

Excellent the truth finally emerges on page 21 of this thread

Trully it was good to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

[RH1300S]

Sorry it was me that brung up Senna I think, although I still believe it is a valid point.

Not you Tom, I already confessed several pages back.........

[jgredline]

May as well keep this going. Here is another article
http://www.speedtv.com/commentary/25964/

[manchild]

Sorry it was me that brung up Senna I think, although I still believe it is a valid point.

Not you Tom, I already confessed several pages back.........

Are you two masochists?

No one blamed any of you

[saam]

Manchild, if you can find any posts in which i disrespected senna or any other driver on this site you can show me...

Im not like who who just bags MS or ferrari becasue of your own stupid reasons,

otherwise your opinion of me i dont give 2 shi@s about.... GOT IT

[manchild]

Manchild, if you can find any posts in which i disrespected senna or any other driver on this site you can show me...

Here it is in this thread....

I never knew just how close the nature's of SENNA and MS are

Saying that Senna or any other driver has close nature as MS is a sign of disrespect to that driver. If you're saying that someone is similar to person with bad reputation than it must be attempt to show disrespect. Since MS is moral 0 (zero) and sportsman 0 (zero) when someone says that some other driver is like him no one thinks about 7 titles he won using FIA sporting and technical regulations as toilet paper but on his on-track behavior and personality best described as constant tendency to play dirty, cheat and lie when he can't reach his aim using allowed methods.

[Hudsonhawk.]

saaaaaam wrote:

I never knew just how close the nature's of SENNA and MS are

Not to mention that Senna didnt like shoie

[saam]

There you have it folks, if you read these comments you would know that i dont really have to defend myself against disrespecting anyone.

Just boils down to another stupid opinion.......

[West]

What saam meant in that comment (IMO) is that they share that drive to win. What has been seen though is that both drivers have made contraversial moves and hence it is arguable that they can be considered "fine" or "true" champions, whatever you want to call it. Whether or not both drivers thought their moves were ok, due to their mindset, is also debatable.

Manchild may have had a point in saying that comparing someone to somebody that generally immoral is wrong, but then again everybody knows that he has a bias against Ferrari and MS. That clouds his point and opinion. It is unfair to MS and Ferrari fans at this point to say Schumacher really is a dirty person. That's where the whole Senna thing probably came up.

Unless somebody close to him discloses to the public he is an embezzler or serial killer, it's hard to believe that anybody could act that inappropriately.

Calling somebody's opinion stupid, without an appropriate rebuttal, however smacks of ignorance. Like somebody said in another forum, we don't need "I-want-facts-but-don't-have-any-of-my-own"-type of people.

[NickT]

Calling somebody's opinion stupid, without an appropriate rebuttal, however smacks of ignorance. Like somebody said in another forum, we don't need "I-want-facts-but-don't-have-any-of-my-own"-type of people.

Here here, but I would like to add that we are generally very good as a forum and those of us who cross the line occaisianly, myself included, whether intentionally or otherise, are usually respectful enough to appologise.

[RH1300S]

With thanks to Autosport - Nigel Roebuck had a thing or two to say on the subject and, as ever balanced with a liberal sprinkling of a historical perspective.

"Probably only Michael himself knows why he does these things - and, having said that, I'm not sure that even he could provide an answer.

He is, of course, fiercely competitive, even by Formula One standards, but there is more to it than that. As I wrote in a recent Fifth Column, so also was Gilles Villeneuve - but no one ever accused Gilles of doing anything even remotely underhand.

"He was the hardest bastard I ever raced against," said Keke Rosberg, "but fair, absolutely fair. He'd never even think of running another driver off the road. He was a giant of a driver - and, of course, a giant of a man, too..."

As I wrote in Autosport magazine, since time immemorial there have been some drivers more ethical than others. Giuseppe Farina, the first World Champion (in 1950) was a man no one liked to get too close on the track, and Stirling Moss described him to me as, "A great driver - but a complete bastard. Ruthless - in fact, plain dangerous. He'd do things that Fangio would never think of doing."

Nothing new under the sun, therefore, but as far as I'm concerned it was Ayrton Senna who was more responsible than anyone else for the complete reappraisal of ethics on the race track. Recently I saw some footage of the early laps of the 1993 British Grand Prix, and some of the stunts Ayrton pulled to keep Alain Prost (his nemesis) from passing were literally shocking.

On many occasions Senna should have been punished, but he never was, and of course that got across to a whole new generation of drivers (Schumacher included) that you could do pretty much what you wanted.

Michael has continued in that tradition, so much so that it is no surprise to see him moving over on drivers with the cheek to try and pass him. Indeed, I think that he - let alone those he chops - has been phenomenally lucky not to have been involved in many a big accident over the years.

It hasn't helped, of course, that some years ago it was decided by the powers-that-be that 'one move' was acceptable, in protecting your position. If someone were trying to pass, in other words, it was OK to change your position on the race track once, to block him.

This has been abused countless times, of course, with some drivers veering all over the place - particularly away from the start - to keep rivals behind them. But I think that to say even one move was acceptable was a big mistake, for it tacitly accepted that blocking - what used, in the olden days, to be known as 'dirty driving' - was permissible.

If Michael has routinely moved other drivers to the edge of the track (and sometimes beyond), his most blatantly unacceptable actions seem to have come under moments of very severe stress, or panic.

At Adelaide in 1994, under pressure from Damon Hill, he hit a wall, and damaged his car, which he then brought back on to the track - immediately colliding with Hill. Had there been no collision, the World Championship would have gone to Damon, rather than Michael. As it was, the Williams, too, was damaged, and Schumacher's title was safe - by a point.

Fast forward three years, to Jerez, where Jacques Villeneuve went to pass Schumacher for the lead. Again, the World Championship was at stake - and again Michael simply drove into Jacques. Fortunately, on this occasion the biter got bit - the Ferrari retired, and the Williams continued on to take the title.

Later the matter was discussed at length by the World Motor Sport Council, and in announcing its findings, FIA President Max Mosley said that, "Although the act was apparently deliberate, it was instinctive, and not premeditated".

That, perhaps, is the truth of it - but it does not, in any way, excuse it. Perhaps Michael, in moments of the severest pressure, when a great deal is on the line, does these things on instinct, other than by plan. But I have to say that what I witnessed at Monte Carlo the other weekend looked like something that had been calculated.

As Jackie Stewart put it, "If he'd at least taken the front wing off, we might have felt a bit more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. But a driver of Michael's class doesn't make a mistake like that. I'm sorry - he just doesn't..."

The stewards, after much deliberation, concurred with that opinion, and put Schumacher to the back of the grid. As JYS said, "That was the least they could have given him". At least, though, Michael was finally punished for something, and that was good to see. "

I don't agree that the move was pre-meditated and, of course, Michael has been punished before..........otherwise, as ever Nigel puts it well.

Now, on both sides of the Senna/Schuey argument - guys please accept that there is much truth in the above statement both camps have their failings. Interesting that the FIA "one move" rule was mentioned - that, in itself, is a silly idea and sends out a message.


BTW a few posts back I ventured that I have a view as to why the actions of both men seem to be viewed differently:

I think that it is not the actions that are so different; with Senna he was very much able to stand up and say that he did chop & intimidate - although he originally denied Suzuka was deliberate - pre race he made a clear threat that he would not be responsible for the outcome and AFIK much later he did own up. Michael, on the other hand seems to go into back-tracking & denial - maybe that rankles more than the actions themselves? The charitable side of my nature would like to think that this is where the "nice" Michael Schumacher is fighting with the demons in the "win at all costs" Michael Schumacher. Ayrton wasn't afraid of those demons.............

[NickT]

Thanks RH1300S, I think Nigel Roebuck has presented a very well balanced view of the situation.

[Jason]

SCHU: I'M NOT APOLOGISING

Michael Schumacher has warned his fellow competitors not to expect an apology from him in this weekend’s Grand Prix Drivers Association meeting at Silverstone.

Several of the Ferrari star’s contemporaries want an explanation for his on-track actions during qualifying for the Monaco Grand Prix where he was deemed to have deliberately stopped his car on the track.

“I am happy to talk to the drivers at the meeting,” he said.

“I've already said sorry to people for their laps being spoiled but if someone wants me to get down on my knees that’s ridiculous.”

But the seven-time champion maintained his innocence on Thursday and added that while he had already apologised for the incident at La Rascasse corner, he consider the incident to have been blown out of proportion.

“Monaco was an opportunity for people to create something,” he continued.

“What happened, happened. I’m sorry it happened and by that I mean I am sorry for the casino that was made out of it.

“It doesn’t change anything by talking about it.”

Asked if he could have won the Monaco GP had he not been given the punishment of starting from the back of the grid, he replied: “Yes we had every opportunity to do so.”

Does anyone believe in this?