Indeed. Either way, the rest of the season should be one for the ages. Spielberg should be interesting, but I have a strong suspicion that one of the Ferraris will be driven by Antonio Giovinazzi.
Printable View
This is very true. There has been more debate and passion in this microcosm of a forum then there has been in a long time. Everyone's juices are flowing and I imagine there will be a bigger audience for the next race than there would have been otherwise. Bad for the sporting image, but good for the sport, which has been seeing declining interest for a while. It's the WWF of auto racing. Can everybody say NASCAR ya'll? :D;)
Personally this season had my full attention before this clusterf#$k. If Vettel didn't go "mental" he would have won the race (assuming his initial contact with LH didn't dislodge his neck support)and increased his lead in the WDC. So now we have this polarizing event. I was pulling for "The Boss", now I'm still pulling for him, maybe a little harder. The key for me is that the future races resemble Baku, not the processions that have become all too common.
Roll on Austria!
The purpose of the penalty should have been to say what is and isn't acceptable. Deliberately taking out your rivals should not be acceptable, period. I would have banned Senna after Suzuka, I would have banned Schumacher after Jerez and I would have banned Vettel after Baku. I don't care if the incident happened at 200mph or 2mph - the principle is identical.
You can never fully judge intent. No one actually knows if Schumachers intent was to take JV out 100% except Schumacher. Maybe he just wanted to make him hobble and finish second. You can only base it upon what you see the action was. Once you start bringing in interpretation to the rules which have been set out, which is the main reason why we have such inconsistency in F1 to begin with, then you will never have consistency. For consistency he should he excluded from the championship.
And why did he lose the championship, because he hit JV. JV was likely to end up on the gravel otherwise. Schumacher ruined his chance of the championship by what he did and had 0% chance of winning so, for consistency, so should Vettel. A 2-3 race ban would be enough to guarantee he doesn't win this years championship anyway, but probably be enough to keep people interested. And since the purpose of removing him from the championship was humiliation, then there is no better way of doing it to Vettel than a season ban.
My gut is that he will get an extra 3 points on his license and be banned for racing in Austria. My only hope would be that he isn't allowed race under appeal in that circumstance. My real hope is that he will be remove from the season. Whether there is close rivalry this season should not factor into the decision of the punishment he receives.
That's hardly a surprise. Despite what people think, the purpose of the media isn't to tell the news, it is to sell a story to keep people interested and coming back for more. CNN has made millions from the fictitious Der narrative over Trump and Russia. There are videos out there which have just been released which clearly show CNN officials saying the Russia new story is a "Nothing-burger" and another stating that it probably is untrue but they have been given a directive by their CEO to harp on about Russia. The reason for it is ratings. The story has made CNN millions, they don't care about the truth, they care about profit. It's no different with any other news network or F1 journalist.
I really would like to know, what Vettel did to you, when you met him. Must have been something terrible to justify all this hatred towards him. Tell you what, I ve also had many bad experiences, meeting some of mine idols. Well, I didn't start to hate them, or stopped to support them or stopped to buy their music. People are different and not everyone has a nice attitude when you meet them. So If I were Vettel, right now, I would be more afraid of you, than the FIA...:eek:
Sure you can judge intent - The Man On The Clapham Omnibus test.
1. Would a reasonable person have forseen the natural and probable consequence of those actions?
2. Could a reasonable person have foreseen that result, with reference to all the evidence?
Sure, no one actually knows if Schumacher's intent was to take JV out 100% except Schumacher but you can ask if a reasonable person based on the evidence could have forseen it.
Aside: Everyone knows what Senna's intent was at Suzuka in 1990. He said as much before the race. He should have been banned forever.