Did Ferrari cheat in Korea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

Ferrari have proved time and time again that a clear #1 / #2 driver policy is the most successful. I don't know what the issue is.

I think it is quite probable that Butt Monkey is towing the line and offering every assistance he can to Alonso as he should do. He has no chance at the championship and is being paid to tow the line.

I think Jenson will decide to assist Lewis if he possibly can now and would suggest Vettel should get behind Mark although there's not much chance there.

---

I agree :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

And if that order had remained the same then the points margin at the top of the WDC would look rather different.

But it's all ifs and buts :s mokin:

---

The way Fred got the inters to work all the way to the end of the race, I think there was a high probability that He would have passed both The Boss and Massa on merit in the closing stages of the race. Although It's hard to gage Massa's late race pace as he had probably turned the wick down. But with his tyre situation Hamilton was a dead duck :arrowed:
And Felipe Baby is already on Engine #9

:s ailor: #9 #9 #9 #9... Lennon and McCartney on acid :burn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Tosh & piffle. As the author's source cannot be proved or disproved (wihout MH's source being revealed) we may draw our own conclusions.

---

You may draw a conclusion without a shred of evidence to support it if you so wish.

Until Mr Hughes provides the transcript of the radio message telling Massa to back off, so by proving that Ferrari told him to do so, then I will treat his claim with the contempt it deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

You may draw a conclusion without a shred of evidence to support it if you so wish.

Until Mr Hughes provides the transcript of the radio message telling Massa to back off, so by proving that Ferrari told him to do so, then I will treat his claim with the contempt it deserves.

---

:s ailor: Don't start going mental!
Who ever wins the wdc will deserve it!! that's fair to say with only 2 races to go!

:grenade:
:grenade:
:grenade: :love:

I think everyone is entitled to their own pov, this isn't about I agree or disagree, in wet Felipe might struggle and by its nature drives a bit slow..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjuna

I think everyone is entitled to their own pov, this isn't about I agree or disagree, in wet Felipe might struggle and by its nature drives a bit slow..

---

He was excellent in Interlagos 2008. Did everything he could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Until Mr Hughes provides the transcript of the radio message telling Massa to back off, so by proving that Ferrari told him to do so, then I will treat his claim with the contempt it deserves.

---

Why so touchy? No-one has a problem with Massa being asked to help his team leader in the way Mark Hughes has evidenced because Ferrari have made clear that Alonso is their #1 and they are doing everything they can to aid his fight for the title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

The "no team orders" rule has got to go.

---

Exactly. Stupid rule.

Until I see the second driver actively blocking a championship competetor with dangerous or prohibited blocking moves, I could casre less about team orders. Build a faster car, it won't be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Why so touchy?

---

Because stronzo journalism should have no credibility given to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by henners88

Asking someone to produce evidence for something you can't prove on the contrary is equally amusing.

---

Hughes made the initial claim, it is up to him to prove it.

He cannot. You cannot. It has now no credibility. Until proven, it is not a fact.

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie. An unsubstantiated falsehood.

If we except the poor level of supposed evidence given by Hughes, then we must accept every uncoroborated claim put forward.

I am sure that you would agree that this would be unacceptable, as I expect you would not wish to see unsubstantiated claims made against, for example, Mr Lewis Hamilton or the Mclaren team.

Anybody who stands in the paddock could claim to have been told something by a team insider. Just being in the paddock is no evidence that what is claimed is true.

It is weak journalism at best, scandal-mongering by any other name and, at worse, a cynical attempt to denigrate.

Mr Hughes needs to report facts he can prove or not report. He has been unprofessional.

It is disappointing that apparently intelligent people give credibility to such a bad piece of professional work, but refreshing that enough intelligent people have taken Hughes to task about it and forced him to admit that there is no substantive substance to his words.

Goodnight Irene :s nore:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

...forced him to admit that there is no substantive substance to his words.

---

You're very clear with your opinion (stated as if it were fact) that you don't believe what Hughes has written, which is fair enough.

However, I am more interested in the above. Where exactly has Hughes admitted there is "no substantive substance to his words"?

Quote:

---

I wasn't claiming that Massa held up Schumacher (though admit wording in report wasn't very precise on that). Michael was too far back for that to have been the case. That claim was made on someone else's web site. I was claiming that in slowing down as instructed, Massa was preventing HIMSELF from passing Alonso.

I repeat I have absolutely no problem with what they did. It's the most logical and natural thing in the world given that they are fighting for the world title. But it did happen.

---

The question is: is there any proof to back this this journalist's words? ( I mean except "someone told me that..."). If not than pall's words are a fact and not an opinion. I don't see the point of bringing it up if you can't back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eu

The question is: is there any proof to back this this journalist's words? ( I mean except "someone told me that..."). If not than pall's words are a fact and not an opinion. I don't see the point of bringing it up if you can't back it up.

---

There wouldn't be much information disclosed to the public if it weren't for undisclosed sources. It's always been part of journalism. It's always up to the person receiving the information to decide whether it's trustworthy or not.

I'm willing to say that there's a possibility that Hughes' source is correct. The situation, and hence unwillingness to be named as a source, is plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie.

---

:laugh:

I am currently drinking a can of Coke. Because I don't have proof, am I therefore lying to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Hughes made the initial claim, it is up to him to prove it.

He cannot. You cannot. It has now no credibility. Until proven, it is not a fact.

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie. An unsubstantiated falsehood.

If we except the poor level of supposed evidence given by Hughes, then we must accept every uncoroborated claim put forward.

I am sure that you would agree that this would be unacceptable, as I expect you would not wish to see unsubstantiated claims made against, for example, Mr Lewis Hamilton or the Mclaren team.

Anybody who stands in the paddock could claim to have been told something by a team insider. Just being in the paddock is no evidence that what is claimed is true.

It is weak journalism at best, scandal-mongering by any other name and, at worse, a cynical attempt to denigrate.

Mr Hughes needs to report facts he can prove or not report. He has been unprofessional.

It is disappointing that apparently intelligent people give credibility to such a bad piece of professional work, but refreshing that enough intelligent people have taken Hughes to task about it and forced him to admit that there is no substantive substance to his words.

---

Wow, so, when faced with factual evidence of;

The gap between Alonso and Massa pre pit stop, and the gap post pit stop, given Alonso's delay in the pits while the pit crew fumbled for a nut (how many times have you done that when working on your car...???)......

And yet, Massa was still behind.

I would hazard a guess that, unless time stood still a bit for all those cars behind Lewis, or the Langolears are in town again, that Massa slowed down.

And, if Massa slowed down, in order to avoid rear ending him, the car behind would have had to slow down, and so on (assuming they were close enough to him to have to do that, but as it was the Shoe, we can summise that he was 'miles behind').

In other words, Massa bunched the pack up.

It's really quite simple when you engage the grey matter......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eu

The question is: is there any proof to back this this journalist's words? ( I mean except "someone told me that..."). If not than pall's words are a fact and not an opinion. I don't see the point of bringing it up if you can't back it up.

---

A journalist, motorsport or otherwise, relies on 'sources'. Without them all we would have are press releases from the teams which present the stories as the teams want us to read them.

There's no substantiated reason to doubt Mark Hughes's story, or that he has a source within Ferrari. pallone col bracciale knows very well that, as a journalist working in the F1 paddock, Hughes will not reveal his source. That does not mean Hughes has no credibility. Far from it. The opposite is true because without credibility 'sources' within the F1 paddock would not talk to him or anyone from the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pallone col bracciale

Hughes made the initial claim, it is up to him to prove it.

He cannot. You cannot. It has now no credibility. Until proven, it is not a fact.

I will go further. It is, without proof, a lie. An unsubstantiated falsehood.

---

So unless you can prove something, it is a lie? :crazy: Can you prove your claim that Hughes' claim is a falsehood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

A journalist, motorsport or otherwise, relies on 'sources'. Without them all we would have are press releases from the teams which present the stories as the teams want us to read them.

There's no substantiated reason to doubt Mark Hughes's story, or that he has a source within Ferrari. pallone col bracciale knows very well that, as a journalist working in the F1 paddock, Hughes will not reveal his source. That does not mean Hughes has no credibility. Far from it. The opposite is true because without credibility 'sources' within the F1 paddock would not talk to him or anyone from the media.

---

In my opinion, I will take the opinion and claims of a Journalist as something to be considered and judged on it's merits. This article makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

A journalist, motorsport or otherwise, relies on 'sources'. Without them all we would have are press releases from the teams which present the stories as the teams want us to read them.

There's no substantiated reason to doubt Mark Hughes's story, or that he has a source within Ferrari. pallone col bracciale knows very well that, as a journalist working in the F1 paddock, Hughes will not reveal his source. That does not mean Hughes has no credibility. Far from it. The opposite is true because without credibility 'sources' within the F1 paddock would not talk to him or anyone from the media.

---

But that means any journalist could say whatever he wants 'quoting' secret inside sources. I simply don't want to give them that power. What they say should always be available to be checked