Maybe we all lack a sense of humor and don't see what you find humorous about this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Printable View
Maybe we all lack a sense of humor and don't see what you find humorous about this?!Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
That one was never proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
And he got punished for the other ones even if the proof wasn't really there either.
As for Senna, I'm still amazed that someone got away with such a premeditated action and was also handed the title on a plate after that. Just shows that the approach the FIA are having now is more down to earth than what we had 20 years ago.
Let's keep Schumacher and Senna off here, thank you !
Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Not quite...a crock of excrement with no proof is not the basis for a sensible debate.
It's still not very cricket , but I would suggest that Flavio may have ordered young Piquet to spin and stall , rather than spin and crash .
He would have achieved the same thing , but without the skills , he crunched the car .
This does not excuse the cynical nature of the order , but it makes it a little less sinister .
"Spin , and cause a safety car so that your team-mate can win" is not so different an order to , "hold the others up , so your team-mate can win" .
Given that orders are forbidden , they would need to be stated differently , but , though a dirty trick , not so far from the rules , really , if Nelson could have kept it off the wall .
I think it would be pretty hard to convince any driver to deliberately crash in F1 , no matter who it was , but you might ask them to spin .
they only proof they could have would be Piquet talking sh!t. But I guess in the land of Islam you are guilty until proven innocent. So they will try and deball Flavio and he will buy the Italian mafia who will sever the FIA is many places and life will go on in the name of money and power with the little twerps always trying to cause problems.
I saw this article today from longtime F1 writer Adam Cooper and found it interesting.
http://formula-one.speedtv.com/artic...e-2008-affair/
Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Sorry Pino but I believe it has some relevance.Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
I am sure ioan and I will be happy to ignore whether there was any malice intended or whether the incidents were imagined or real ;)
I agree with ioan that it's amazing Senna was "rewarded" for crashing into his rival.
Then we have Schumy who (argueably) did the same thing twice; getting away with it once and being hammered the 2nd time.
Lots of (typical) inconsistency here from the FIA as you would expect.
However, as I said, neither involved anything apart from the drivers. If a team were to request a driver crash to benefir other drivers then it's a whole new bag.
The Schumacher & Senna incidents were relevant to the point I was making and relevant in Knockie's reply. The fact that certain other members couldn't resist the opportunity to rake up old arguments is their problem.
Autosport's latest news story on Crashgate (as it inevitably will become) suggests it was Piquet Jr who came up with the idea of crashing out, and Piquet Sr who ran to Max with the story. Bearing in mind some of the stories I've heard about Piquet Jr's time in Brazilian F3, with some, er, interesting interpretations of rules, and gun-toting race promoters threatening rival drivers and the like, this remarkably seems the most plausible theory...