Being Valentino Rossi...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Dec 13 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]104237[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Yes.

Of course, using iniquitous is redundant because having ill-conceived notions is already a moral abomination. But stupid people wouldn't know that, so you had to dumb it down for them. Genius!

Welcome back Jumkie.


Thanks for the welcome back Lex.


BTW: Its not that hard debating the iniquitous rationale (yes as you pointed out, having a moral connotation) and also the very different concept, ill-conceived (as in, not well thought out from the start thus not a successful conclusion) in their position contenting in favor of Rossi’s exclusive and favored treatment. Either way, every single position taken to try and justify the impartial treatment here is doomed by reasonable logical debate—easily exposed for the failed underlying principle being argued.

Have you noticed how the approach toward the rationale has changed several times, even with the same debater? The problem they are having is that the underlying principle is so flawed that they must subtly change the approach. Ha-ha, many are trying to distance there position from Rossi and more toward Dorna, cleverly trying to negate the real and actual effect of Rossi’s influence (forgetting that his demands were backed up with actual threats, in public for the record, and most likely, even more aggressively behind closed doors).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 13 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]104241[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
It's really amusing that Rossi changing tire to the same as the current WC is using will taint anything.

When something is an ill-gotten gain, then yes its “tainted.” He (Rossi) got favored treatment by virtue of his strong armed influence and favor, if it where anything less, at least two other riders would have made the change. That’s what makes it “tainted”. Because it was obtained by a partial process.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 13 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]104241[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Dorna's behaviour in this case does raise some question marks but what ever they did or did not do, they did ikt out of their own will and out of their own interest, not directly by Rossi's demand.

Its rather contradictory to say they (Dorna) did it out of their own will, there by relieving the effect of Rossi's influence, but in the same line of reasoning say it had nothing to do with Rossi "directly". Why, because by saying this you are conceding that in fact Rossi's "demand" did have an effect "indirectly". However, I still think you are underestimating Rossi's power to coerce his will on the process.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 13 2007, 09:43 AM) [snapback]104241[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I agree that Rossi does have the most power among the riders, mabe too much, but he is still more than anything a racer that want to win. If he is convinced by studiing the trie battle closer than anyone else out there, that he need the stones to win, should he choose not to go for them because he has so much influence? Me think not.



Well, at least you concede in your very next paragraph that perhaps Rossi has too much influence and power. So that’s fine, but your next point is a little too much to bare buddy. To say Rossi wants to win is obvious, but the implication is others may not want to win as much as him. This of course is a un-debatable opinion, but I will concede that he is definitely among the top riders on the grid that have this champion’s quality. But it’s your next point that is weakest. You make a statement that Rossi has studied the tire issue more closely than others, wow. How can I dispute this? Can I say, the only guy who has studied this tire issue the closest is Team KR?--since they are most likely to scrutinize every element of their racing package to see if they can squeeze out more? How about Honda’s engineers, since they have bikes running both tires. Wouldn’t they be in the best position to study this tire issue the best? Crvlvr pointed out that Hayden mentioned only after a couple of races that he knew the tires where going to be an issue this year. But actually he is wrong. (Crvlvr, check the video again, you will notice a clip of Hayden saying the tires will play a greater role than anybody thinks before the season even started in Qatar.) It wasn’t after a couple of races, it was actually before the season even began that he (Hayden) knew tires would play a major role in the season. Is he a prophet or perhaps he was the guy that most studied the “tire battle closest”? Who knows who studied it more or who has the most will to win, that’s totally un-debatable! But what I do know are the facts that I outlined on a previous post regarding the events surrounding the tire issue near the close of the season. And guess who is at the middle of the series of events?

At least two other riders’ requested/demanded a change in tires, perhaps they didn’t have the influence to have their request/demands met. Now that’s not very equitable, is it? Perhaps its because as you say, they had not “studied the tire battle closer” or perhaps they lacked the will to win…


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Dec 13 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]104239[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
However, if he wins this year it will be tainted b/c it's obvious the governing body intervened to get him the tires he wanted.


Getting the tires in and of it self isn't a problem. (This is the approach some are sticking with failing to couple it with)... When the "governing body intervenes" for one competitor, then yes, there is a problem. This is what happened.

Had Rossi been the only guy asking for the tire change and he gets it then all would have been a fairly moot point. But when you got three guys (on public record) asking for the same thing, and only one gets his way, even to the point of splitting the team, then what can we fairly conclude?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crvlvr @ Dec 13 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]104244[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
In other words the performance gap between the worst bike and the best bike on the grid was narrower than the gap between stones and Michelin (over the entire course of the season).

Hi Crvlvr.

I'm gonna disagree with your statement above. Think for a moment the "performance gap" between the best Ducati and the KR bike. Do you really think the gap is "narrower" than the difference between the Bridgestone and Michelin tires? You are saying that the tires had a greater performance “gap” than these two bikes. Even if we throw out this comparison. Do you think the "performance gap" between the top Ducati and the lowest Tech3 Yamaha were closer in performance than the Bridgestones and Michelins this year? Absolutely not. Both tires traded podium finishes and race wins. Both had tracks that they dominated and both had tracks where they were fairly evenly matched or at least spread out enough at the conclusion of the race. This is not the case with the best and worse bikes. You never saw the best and worse bike compete for a race win.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(crvlvr @ Dec 13 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]104244[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
I thought the stones were good, but did not realize show good they were till I saw the Nicky Hayden special on MTV. By race 2 (or 3) Nicky already knew that the stones were far far better Michelin.


That was a good show. It was amazing that they began shooting it in Portugal 06. Who would have known that the season would have ended in so much drama? But as you pointed out, yes Hayden did mention that the tires would play a major role. Check the tape again, you will be amazed that he said this much sooner than you think. It really is amazing that he knew about this issue so early. Its too bad he doesn't wield the influence or benefit of the doubt that another champ gets, eh.

Racejumkie said:

When something is an ill-gotten gain, then yes its “tainted.” He (Rossi) got favored treatment by virtue of his strong armed influence and favor, if it where anything less, at least two other riders would have made the change. That’s what makes it “tainted”. Because it was obtained by a partial process.

Click to expand...

The problem I have with that is that he didn't gain any particular advantage, he switched tires. His current tires are allready used by the majority of the grid.
If there is shortage of equipment the prosess of deciding who will get it will never be "fair". Not all riders can ride factory Hondas so a few are picked for various reasons. When Rossi or yamaha suggested a one rider deal I bet that was something B-stones never considered. They had all the reasons to say no to a total of four riders more for a number of reasons. Getting Rossi on a one rider deal must have been equally tempting for a number of reasons.

Its rather contradictory to say they (Dorna) did it out of their own will, there by relieving the effect of Rossi's influence, but in the same line of reasoning say it had nothing to do with Rossi "directly". Why, because by saying this you are conceding that in fact Rossi's "demand" did have an effect "indirectly". However, I still think you are underestimating Rossi's power to coerce his will on the process.
Well, at least you concede in your very next paragraph that perhaps Rossi has too much influence and power. So that’s fine, but your next point is a little too much to bare buddy. To say Rossi wants to win is obvious, but the implication is others may not want to win as much as him. This of course is a un-debatable opinion, but I will concede that he is definitely among the top riders on the grid that have this champion’s quality. But it’s your next point that is weakest. You make a statement that Rossi has studied the tire issue more closely than others, wow. How can I dispute this? Can I say, the only guy who has studied this tire issue the closest is Team KR?--since they are most likely to scrutinize every element of their racing package to see if they can squeeze out more? How about Honda’s engineers, since they have bikes running both tires. Wouldn’t they be in the best position to study this tire issue the best? Crvlvr pointed out that Hayden mentioned only after a couple of races that he knew the tires where going to be an issue this year. But actually he is wrong. (Crvlvr, check the video again, you will notice a clip of Hayden saying the tires will play a greater role than anybody thinks before the season even started in Qatar.) It wasn’t after a couple of races, it was actually before the season even began that he (Hayden) knew tires would play a major role in the season. Is he a prophet or perhaps he was the guy that most studied the “tire battle closest”? Who knows who studied it more or who has the most will to win, that’s totally un-debatable! But what I do know are the facts that I outlined on a previous post regarding the events surrounding the tire issue near the close of the season. And guess who is at the middle of the series of events?

Click to expand...

How you made that into a suggestion that others dont't want to win as much is beyond me. He wants to win, so he ask for the equipment he think he needs to win. Making those choises his will to win are stronger than his concerns for what others might do or not do to grant his request.

Geezz, don't you read the treads here anymore.
By being the one who studied the tire issue closest was simply a reference to an earier statment of mine, that he is the one with the most laps right behind Stoner this year. I have no proof of this but I think it is a fair asumption. Btw, initeresting info on Nicky "the prophet"
Haydens tire concerns.

At least two other riders’ requested/demanded a change in tires, perhaps they didn’t have the influence to have their request/demands met. Now that’s not very equitable, is it? Perhaps its because as you say, they had not “studied the tire battle closer” or perhaps they lacked the will to win…

Click to expand...

Well, see above.

Getting the tires in and of it self isn't a problem. (This is the approach some are sticking with failing to couple it with)... When the "governing body intervenes" for one competitor, then yes, there is a problem. This is what happened.

Click to expand...

Had Rossi been the only guy asking for the tire change and he gets it then all would have been a fairly moot point. But when you got three guys (on public record) asking for the same thing, and only one gets his way, even to the point of splitting the team, then what can we fairly conclude?
[/quote]
That there is a shortage in supply. The one with the most "cash" got them. I think the system is called capitalism. It's the same system handing out rider contracts and all other supplied goods.
It's not allways pretty, but unfair? not more unfair than all the other trades within any motorsport.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]104278[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>


That there is a shortage in supply. The one with the most "cash" got them. I think the system is called capitalism. It's the same system handing out rider contracts and all other supplied goods.
It's not allways pretty, but unfair? not more unfair than all the other trades within any motorsport.



Wow now I've heard everything. You're actually making stuff up as you go.
So they bid for Bridgestones and Dani and Nicky @ Honda lost out to Vale huh? Come on man not even you believe that garbage.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Dec 14 2007, 06:40 AM) [snapback]104273[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Had Rossi been the only guy asking for the tire change and he gets it then all would have been a fairly moot point. But when you got three guys (on public record) asking for the same thing, and only one gets his way, even to the point of splitting the team, then what can we fairly conclude?

Whilst rossi on bridgestones is not unfair to stoner, I agree and have argued previously that it is quite possibly unfair to pedrosa. I don't recall hayden, edwards or lorenzo asking for bridgestones.

I think at the time he wanted to change, rossi was concentrating on stoner exclusively as his rival for 2008, and wanted to remove one variable. This obviously may have been a mistake, as others (particularly pedrosa) may be an equal or greater threat.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]104278[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The problem I have with that is that he didn't gain any particular advantage, he switched tires. His current tires are allready used by the majority of the grid.

Good morning Babel. Thanks for taking up the debate. I know its not that important in life, but it sure is fun and entertaining, eh.

There seems to be a shorage of willing debaters taking your position. Where are all members that had a similar position that I've read in so many other threads back in October and November. I haven't got to them, yet. Perhaps every point of contention has been eradicated one by one by reasonable and lucid logic, eh.

Correct, the tires may or may not be an “advantage”. That wasn't my point, and I did point this out several times in my posts on this thread. How did you miss it? The tires in and of themselves are not the "advantage". What is the "advantage" and "ill-gotten gain" is the way he was awarded his request. It was granted as an "advantage" because the other riders where not granted the same. In other words, (yes, I'm repeating myself) it was an inequitable process, that is to say, his(Rossi's) "advantage" is in the process of it not being fair. Now think for a moment what the message is to the other riders that didn't have their order filled. Not to mention that Lorentho was under the impression that he would have equal equipment to his teammate. It was an extraordinary accommodation if you look at it in two perspectives: In his teammate’s perspective as well as the perspective of the other riders who requested Bridgestones.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]104278[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
If there is shortage of equipment the prosess of deciding who will get it will never be "fair". Not all riders can ride factory Hondas so a few are picked for various reasons. When Rossi or yamaha suggested a one rider deal I bet that was something B-stones never considered. They had all the reasons to say no to a total of four riders more for a number of reasons. Getting Rossi on a one rider deal must have been equally tempting for a number of reasons.

Haha. That’s a new one. I hadn't read this one before yet by another member, but I might have missed it. So you are saying that there just wasn't enough to go around. Well Bridgestone said it wanted to keep the parity of the tire war balanced, so that Michelin wouldn’t leave. Incidentally, I don’t see how the ‘parity’ of the “tire war” could be aided by having the perceived top riders on the same tire. It would make more sense to keep them separate, if this was infact the aim of a “tire war”. Don’t you think?

If there was a shortage, I don't think anybody else would have been supplied Bridgestones in addition to the teams they already had contractual agreements with. Now lets speculate for a moment that there is a supply shortage as you say, wouldn't supplying Rossi under special circumstances then put a undue strain on the supply whereby effecting the other recipients of this supply? In other words, by supplying Rossi, this has now caused detriment to the other teams who had already contracts in place and increases the risk of having their orders filled to optimum potential? After all that is how a “shortages” work. Wow, you just created another reason why giving Rossi ‘preferential treatment’ was not only detrimental to the integrity of the sport, but also an imbalance in the system. Damn, I would stop while you’re only so far behind rather than continue digging the hole.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]104278[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Geezz, don't you read the treads here anymore.
By being the one who studied the tire issue closest was simply a reference to an earier statment of mine, that he is the one with the most laps right behind Stoner this year. I have no proof of this but I think it is a fair asumption. Btw, initeresting info on Nicky "the prophet"
Haydens tire concerns.
Yeah, I admit, I've been out for a while. As you can see I'm still catching up. I'm a bit rusty still; I'm not in full swing yet buddy.

Yeah, did you get a change to see the MTV special? Its pretty good. (Keeping in mind that motorcycle racing isn't remotely as popular as it is in Europe, we are a bit behind in this regard). Much of it was like a reality show, but you do get a glimpse into Hayden's life a bit. I think it goes a long way in revealing the humble character he has. But some people will never be convinced he's just a good hardworking normal guy and not some beneficiary of undeserved accolades--as he was portrayed last year when he won the title fair and square.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 12:57 AM) [snapback]104278[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
That there is a shortage in supply. The one with the most "cash" got them. I think the system is called capitalism. It's the same system handing out rider contracts and all other supplied goods.
It's not allways pretty, but unfair? not more unfair than all the other trades within any motorsport.


Haha, this one is too easy man. C'mon. If anybody had the money to throw "cash" it would have been Honda. "Geezz" I think they may have more money than the Lord Himself.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Frizzle @ Dec 14 2007, 02:07 AM) [snapback]104289[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Wow now I've heard everything. You're actually making stuff up as you go.
So they bid for Bridgestones and Dani and Nicky @ Honda lost out to Vale huh?

Yeah, this one made me laugh too. It seems the only "shortages" around here are proficient debaters. But Babel is one of the best, so this is an indication that they have nothing. Nada.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(michaelm @ Dec 14 2007, 05:23 AM) [snapback]104297[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Whilst rossi on bridgestones is not unfair to stoner, I agree and have argued previously that it is quite possibly unfair to pedrosa. I don't recall hayden, edwards or lorenzo asking for bridgestones.

I agree, being on the same tire as your rival is not unfair. But it is unfair, as you pointed out, that others who requested the same didn't get it. Pedrosa demanded it, and Hayden requested it to a lessor degree. Loretho was under the impression that he would have the same package as Rossi, his teammate.

We don't know who else asked for it behind closed doors if any. We can only go by the public record of who did.



Which brings me to another point that has not been championed by Rossi supporters that purport his extraordinary racing skill—and that is what ever happened to racing what you got to show everybody just how good you are? It sure was a theme when he won with Yamaha. I keep hearing people say that being on Bridgestones is not an “advantage”. Ok, lets concede that for a moment. Then why not stay on Michelins and show everybody just how good you are? Oh I know people are going to say, well its because the tires failed his effort. Then how do these same people explain that it is “equitable” to allow the other top riders like Hayden and Pedrosa to run this perceived “inferior” tire? Is it only inferior when Rossi is on them? I do not see how anybody can argue that its ok to let Rossi get the Bridgestones and use as their premise, ‘its because the tires were ....’, but then not realize that allowing other worthy competitor to be on that ‘....’ brand is a dilemma. Doesn’t anybody who takes this position see the inequity in this logic?

I'd rather be Rossi on his WORST day than ME on my BEST day.

Stay on them Junkyard Jumkie,i carried the torch while you were gone and im tired.And yes,i about spit coffee thru my nose on the Yamaha outbid Honda for the use of the Stones statementThat might be the most misinformed statement ive read on this board since ive been here

What's all this crap about fairness. Sport is inherently unfair, and it is supposed to be otherwise every match would be a tie.

Rossi situation is one of inequity, like a couple people have mentioned. The problem isn't that he obtained an unfair benefit that no rider has available to him, the problem is Valentino Rossi is no longer bounded by the equity of contracts. Everyone else lives/dies by their decisions/bargaining moves/performance in the paddock, Rossi can now enter in and opt out of contracts at his leisure.

That is an unfair advantage extended to him by the governing body and it has ruined the equity of the sport.


Curve you must be crazy. When you ride like a pro you feel like a million bucks, when Rossi rides like a 5th place motogp contender he probably feels like killing himself. The only cure is to drown his sorrows in a bottle of wine and a piece of Italian ...................................... yeah I'd rather be Rossi too.

Power comes from Success but also in Rossi's case its alot about the viewers he brings to the sport.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(an4rew @ Dec 14 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]104333[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Power comes from Success but also in Rossi's case its alot about the viewers he brings to the sport.

Your statement is clear enough, but what is your point?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(povol @ Dec 14 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]104322[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Stay on them Junkyard Jumkie



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Dec 14 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]104326[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
What's all this crap about fairness. Sport is inherently unfair, and it is supposed to be otherwise every match would be a tie.

Actually, sport is suppose to be "fair" and in this climate the better competitors rise to the top. That is the merit in the accomplishment--that they rose above the rest in a fair and balanced contest.

But I get what you are saying, you dumbed it down for them, right? Genius.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Dec 14 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]104326[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

That is an unfair advantage extended to him by the governing body and it has ruined the equity of the sport.


Well said Lex.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Dec 14 2007, 06:35 PM) [snapback]104318[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Good morning Babel. Thanks for taking up the debate. I know its not that important in life, but it sure is fun and entertaining, eh.


Yeah, when everyone else are working their ... of preparing for the holliday season we meust have something to do as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

There seems to be a shorage of willing debaters taking your position. Where are all members that had a similar position that I've read in so many other threads back in October and November. I haven't got to them, yet. Perhaps every point of contention has been eradicated one by one by reasonable and lucid logic, eh.


Nah, you got two categories, the grand majority are just worn out. Then you have the few silly ones, you know, the ones you love to quote to show how all rossi fans are
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

Correct, the tires may or may not be an “advantage”. That wasn't my point, and I did point this out several times in my posts on this thread. How did you miss it? The tires in and of themselves are not the "advantage". What is the "advantage" and "ill-gotten gain" is the way he was awarded his request. It was granted as an "advantage" because the other riders where not granted the same. In other words, (yes, I'm repeating myself) it was an inequitable process, that is to say, his(Rossi's) "advantage" is in the process of it not being fair. Now think for a moment what the message is to the other riders that didn't have their order filled.


I get what you say, but I think you fired on my reply to povol about a tainted championship and with that in mind, and that the tires are no advantage, how can the chapionship be tainted?

We, yes both of us, doesn't really know what went on in that process. IF that process were only about Rossi bossing Yamaha to allow him to go solo, and Dorna carefully suggesting to Bridgestone that it might be in their own interest to help out Rossi when the one rider plan came up, then there is little to critizise. You may of course question Dorna, but they do what their shareholders expect them to, to care for their busisness.
Also, before you totally slaughter this lets consider what would happen with another B.stone domination year, without Rossi. What would that do to the viewer and spectator numbers? What would that do to B.stone, the ones that denied Rossi the tires he wanted? This is very much a political thing for Dorna. I'm sure they don't want the same problems FG got into with Pirelli and they probably analysed far more senrios than we ever will do, and all of them are about giving Rossi advantages, in fact, I suspect they coudn't care less about him except he is a big part of the reason for the raise of the popularity of the sport. How much they probably only realized this year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

Not to mention that Lorentho was under the impression that he would have equal equipment to his teammate. It was an extraordinary accommodation if you look at it in two perspectives: In his teammate’s perspective as well as the perspective of the other riders who requested Bridgestones.



He is not really a part of the equation or are you seriously suggesting that Rossi shouldn't have asked for new tires in solidarity to Lunatic. I suspect you just thougth this 3 page post were bellow your standard of average 10 page postes and filled in a few extra words

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

Haha. That’s a new one. I hadn't read this one before yet by another member, but I might have missed it. So you are saying that there just wasn't enough to go around. Well Bridgestone said it wanted to keep the parity of the tire war balaned, so that Michelin wouldn’t leave.


You are usually reasonably well informed and B.stones also said they couldn't fit another team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

Incidentally, I don’t see how the ‘parity’ of the “tire war” could be aided by having the perceived top riders on the same tire. It would make more sense to keep them separate, if this was infact the aim of a “tire war”. Don’t you think?


I never said it helped the parity, it helped B.stone look good.
And yes it would make more sense to hold rossi off in that regard but do they trust that michelin kindly stay .... for the next year as well?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

If there was a shortage, I don't think anybody else would have been supplied Bridgestones in addition to the teams they already had contractual agreements with.


I never said (or ment tosay) there was a shortage with their contracted teams, they just said they didn't have resources for another team not to mention two of them, both also being top teams expecting full suport of both rubber and personel.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

Now lets speculate for a moment that there is a supply shortage as you say, wouldn't supplying Rossi under special circumstances then put a undue strain on the supply whereby effecting the other recipients of this supply? In other words, by supplying Rossi, this has now caused detriment to the other teams who had already contracts in place and increases the risk of having their orders filled to optimum potential?


Absolutly a possibily, and I suspect that was one (the smaller) of the reasons for Stoners silly outbrake about Rossi stealing the long earned development from Ducati. But again, it's nothing new under the sun. The big shots get the best support, as allways. But O suspect that the largest suplier, by a margin, are able to squeeze out a few extra tires for one rider without affecting the rest too much. Look at it the positive way instead. Even JT and Edwards will probably get excellent service from 10 michelin engineers that work their ... off afraid for loosing their jobs.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, did you get a change to see the MTV special? Its pretty good. (Keeping in mind that motorcycle racing isn't remotely as popular as it is in Europe, we are a bit behind in this regard). Much of it was like a reality show, but you do get a glimpse into Hayden's life a bit. I think it goes a long way in revealing the humble character he has.

No I didn't see that one, but the more I hear and see the more I belive you are right, or more precisly as humble as a racer can be. I don't by it all the way simply because I've never met a very humble racer. It's an ego sport and that kind of limit the humbleness. But non the less a very nice guy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Haha, this one is too easy man. C'mon. If anybody had the money to throw "cash" it would have been Honda. "Geezz" I think they may have more money than the Lord Himself.

Sure, so why didn't Perdrosa get his tires? The answere is obvious: Honda never put the "cash" on the table. They never wanted to go with B.Stones and therfore never pushed for them, but perferred to stay with Michelin. In that matter not even Pedrobot's programmer could do anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 15 2007, 12:20 AM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Sure, so why didn't Perdrosa get his tires? The answere is obvious: Honda never put the "cash" on the table. They never wanted to go with B.Stones and therfore never pushed for them, but perferred to stay with Michelin. In that matter not even Pedrobot's programmer could do anything.


This is a very good point and one not really made during the previous lengthy tyre discussion. Of course yamaha and honda are the ones who ultimately decide on tyres and sign the contracts, not their riders. Rossi certainly has more influence with yamaha than pedrosa does with honda. It is perhaps vaguely possible this is why rossi changed teams . You can criticise rossi and to a lesser extent pedrosa for using the press to put pressure on their teams; hayden never does this and I don't think even stoner criticised honda or michelin till after he left them. I agree with you that it was silly for stoner to complain about rossi getting bridgestones.

If rossi has such power, why did he let them change the tyre rules in the first place? The new rules were never likely to advantage him, and quite likely to disadvantage him.

"Being valentino rossi" is a double-edged sword; sure you have influence, but your actions and utterances are also subject to much greater attention, analysis and re-analysis and criticism. Casey stoner who is much less comfortable and adroit with the press is starting to find this in his new position of prominence.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(J4rn0 @ Dec 10 2007, 05:18 PM) [snapback]103960[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
How does Rossi feel now with himself, does he really believe he can win again? Interviewed on Italian TV, he said:

“It's fun being Valentino Rossi, in more ways than one - it is a high-level life, not ordinary. However, it's already difficult enough when everything goes well, so when things go bad…

These last two years have been full of problems but they've been important for my personal growth and maturity. There are always positive aspects in bad things. Unfortunately one cannot decide when things happen, I could have waited another 15 years…!

People have good feelings towards me, they seem always happy to see me. Even with all the recent problems, my true fans are still backing me, I think…

When you change bike it's more exciting, but a rubber change is interesting as well. When you ride on different tyres, it's almost like riding a new bike. I'm happy, I needed new challenges, new motivations; I have won a lot with Michelin over many years, I had a great time, but in the last two years I suffered too much. I had too many problems.

So now I feel good, let's see what I can do”.




Rossi will never ever win another world championship EVER!!! He will be the harlequin of motoGP!!! You know when he wins he will be like the world champ that he thinks he is??? But he’s NOT!!! I feel sorry for all the Rossi fans in the future because HE’S only GOING TO BE A COMPETITOR!!!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cremem @ Dec 14 2007, 11:59 PM) [snapback]104395[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Rossi will never ever win another world championship EVER!!! He will be the harlequin of motoGP!!! You know when he wins he will be like the world champ that he thinks he is??? But he’s NOT!!! I feel sorry for all the Rossi fans in the future because HE’S only GOING TO BE A COMPETITOR!!!

Lord, God help us.

WTF, I need a translation of this .....

Ben, I think you need to install one of those breathalyzers for this site, like the kind they use for drunk drivers. Maybe you can include a breath test before you log on.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cremem @ Dec 15 2007, 07:59 AM) [snapback]104395[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Rossi will never ever win another world championship EVER!!! He will be the harlequin of motoGP!!! You know when he wins he will be like the world champ that he thinks he is??? But he’s NOT!!! I feel sorry for all the Rossi fans in the future because HE’S only GOING TO BE A COMPETITOR!!!



ohhhh dear looks like pinky invited his family members on here to backing him up??? ohhh ...............

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jazkat @ Dec 15 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]104424[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
ohhhh dear looks like pinky invited his family members on here to backing him up??? ohhh ...............

you people type too much