Being Valentino Rossi...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Frizzle @ Dec 14 2007, 11:07 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? Come on man not even you believe that garbage.


English is not my native language but last time I checked you shouldn't read the word or phrase in it's literal meaning when between "these signs". "Cash" in this situation is all the factors summed up that make a team giving an offer to a rider, or a tire-suplier with shortage select who will be allowed to buy their tires.
In this case Honda were not in the equation, or rather, I suspect they stoped any real "bid" (again not a literal bid) from pedro and Hayden.

/teaspoon mode off

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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

Nah, not at all. If you check my posts I really try to make a distinction. Look for words like: 'some' fans, and 'not all his' fans, and 'not to be confused with' fans of the sport. I do try to qualify it, I know that there are reasonable Rossi fans.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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.

I think I already addressed this point, check previous posts. You are correct in pointing out this issue of viewership/popularity being the fundamental reasons behind Dorna's decisions. My point is, to make decisions based on the popularity of a rider then to skew the decision making toward the rider is preferrred treament of one of the competitors--this is the problem. I don't understand why this point continues to be missed.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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.

No, I'm not suggesting Rossi shouldn't have requested a change in tires. However, he went BEYOND requests. He consciously leveraged his influence and "popularity" in addition to threats to provoke the decsiions that were made in his favor. This is entirely different than a mere, 'asking'.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
You are usually reasonably well informed and B.stones also said they couldn't fit another team.

Yes, of course I knew. Which makes the idea of shortages even more interesting as I will state below.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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?

As you correctly ponted out, Bridgestone said they couldn't take on another team, so how could the appearance of them caving into Dorna/Rossi's pressure "look good"? So here it sounds like you are saying Bridgestone changed their mind because of the possibility that he (Rossi) would beat them on Michelins because they might not "kindly stay ...."? Ok, that's a new one. Very interesting. So now they may have given him the Bridgestones because perhaps Michelin will get their act together and with Rossi's help will beat Bridgestone? So now they rather take Rossi because they want to eliminate this possibility? Wow, you are a cycnic. It seems the approach to this debate keeps widening.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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.
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.

"Squeezing" out a "few extra" tires is not that easy. This is a major point that I cannot be overestated. The operation of "squeezing" racing tires is a very tedious and complex proposition, now increase this exponentially to the level that is the premier MotoGP prototype series. Its not like you go down to the Bridgestone dealer and ask them to produce a few extra tires this week. Producing a MotoGP tire is an extremely labor intensive task that is fine tuned not only to each bike manufacture, but also the individual rider characteristics and needs. Now imagine the new task of having to supply the guy with arguable the most scrutiny. So lets put this into perspective. Now they have to stretch their resources and engineers they have to now start from scratch with the guys who's performance is under a microscope. They now have to develop all the complex data with a new rider (who happens to be the most scrutinized) while still providing all this engineering support to the riders they were already contracted to help. Now lets just say I'm right for a moment, just pretend, now if you were one of the other riders being supported by Bridgestone, who do you think they would listen to more if the time comes that they have to curtail their efforts to maximize the production--Rossi or that 2nd tier rider?

It is not like it was suggested that the tire companies treat this as a profit making venture. Not any more than the bike manufactures do, but rather a racing effort to develop technologies and marketing value to push their product--it is simply the cost of doing business, yet the resources are not limitless.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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.

Hayden's not Jesus, but some do think Rossi is God.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 14 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]104382[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
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.



Well, first of all, what has led you to these conclusions. What was said publicly to make you think "Honda" wasn't able or willing to put up this "cash". (Assuming that the bike manufactures were suppose to put up "cash" in the first place?

Maybe he didn't get the tires because that would stretch the very specialized race production capabilities of Bridgestone beyond their limit. Maybe, eh.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(J4rn0 @ Dec 18 2007, 04:46 AM) [snapback]104624[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
So you really did not know that race tyres (like race suspensions or race brakes) are SOLD to the teams, not given for free?



No .... I know they have ... "partnerships" ..... what that means in money terms I am not at liberty of knowing ..... as they yend to keep their agreements pretty hush hush.

Do you have figures?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 17 2007, 11:28 PM) [snapback]104664[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
English is not my native language but last time I checked you shouldn't read the word or phrase in it's literal meaning when between "these signs". "Cash" in this situation is all the factors summed up that make a team giving an offer to a rider, or a tire-suplier with shortage select who will be allowed to buy their tires.

Your english is alot better than my norse. I can barely get by in french, but would have no chance in an argument against a native french speaker.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Dec 17 2007, 04:18 PM) [snapback]104669[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
No .... I know they have ... "partnerships" ..... what that means in money terms I am not at liberty of knowing ..... as they yend to keep their agreements pretty hush hush.

Do you have figures?

Hi Barry,

Well I doubt anybody on this forum has hard figures, money wise if that's what you are asking. However, the following quotes are from Randy Mamola that shed some light on this subject.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>"For more than a decade we had an unforced single tyre rule in premier-class Grand Prix racing. Apart from a runaway victory for Simon Crafar and Dunlop at Donington in 1998, Michelin won pretty much everything in sight and had taken the title every year since 1992 with Wayne Rainey, Kevin Schwantz, Mick Doohan, Alex Criville, Kenny Roberts and Valentino Rossi. Their decision to support Honda and Yamaha but charge everybody else for lesser quality tyres eventually pushed Ducati, Kawasaki and Suzuki towards Bridgestone – tyres that even Honda were happy to help develop because they weren’t seen as a serious threat." RM

Its not a secret that the tire companies have agreements with the top teams to provide them with the tires free of charge. While charging other teams for less quality product!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>"Sure, it would seem harsh to drop Michelin after just one bad year and the truth is that if Valentino had 10km/h more top speed at the start of the season, if his engine didn’t blow up at Misano and Dani and Nicky weren’t taken out on the first lap by Randy de Puniet, or even if the weather had stayed dry at Motegi then we might not even be having this discussion." RM

In short, what he is saying above is that it might not even be the tires. (Those fans insisting on promoting the idea that Michelin are the cause of Rossi's problems. Yeah, some members here on the forum have said the Michelins are "...." and say they let down poor oh Rossi. You don't have to dig so far into the threads to find this recurring gripe.) But one can easily make the case that it was a power issue coupled with happenstance this season to account for Rossi's woes.


BTW, I am not of the camp that thinks it was either of these, I think the Yamaha/Michelin package was good enough to win, but Casey Stoner was just that much better. There is a difference in saying, Rossi is not winning because his package is deficient; compared to saying, Rossi is not winning even though he has a great package but Stoner is just a little better rider this season (something that 'some' Rossi fans refuse to accept, so naturally point to equipment). In other words, why point at Rossi's equipment as the problem when it was really good enough; but Casey was just a bit better--simple as that. As you see, this is a fundamental difference.

Now I could write a novel on this quote but lets go on to see some other interesting things he says on this subject.

Lets take a look at a few more quotes:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>"Certain fans and team bosses might also think that not having these three riders (Rossi, Pedrosa, and Hayden) able compete for victories on a regular basis is not their problem." RM

This is the point I've been trying to make that it is rather unfair to other competitors to have one guy have so much influence as to effect the decision making of the governing body of a sport. As you see, everybody is trying to win. Now in the interest of full discloser, Mamola does say it is important for Rossi to win on a larger scale in the aspect of the sport's popularity.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>"Valentino, in particular, is the golden goose right now and MotoGP, as a business and a spectacle, cannot afford to lose him. Carmelo Ezpeleta knows this and that is why had no choice but to force this proposal."

I think this quote was interesting because here at least one other person (a person who might know a thing or two about MotoGP) acknowledges that Rossi has a tremendous amount of influence in the decision making of the sport . Can somebody remind me who is Carmelo Ezpeleta?








Cue up the he night noises of lonely crickets……cherp, cherp, cherp……



……there seems to be a “shortage” of Rossi apologists (and a few honest but misguided fans) now? Is Babel the only one that thinks Rossi’s preferential treatment is defensible, that there was no foul play, and good for the sport? I seem to remember way more Rossi cheerleaders in a few threads before. Perhaps I need to aide memoire of their ramblings by quoting them here, perhaps...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Dec 18 2007, 03:57 AM) [snapback]104676[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
BTW, I am not of the camp that thinks it was either of these, I think the Yamaha/Michelin package was good enough to win, but Casey Stoner was just that much better. There is a difference in saying, Rossi is not winning because his package is deficient; compared to saying, Rossi is not winning even though he has a great package but Stoner is just a little better rider this season (something that 'some' Rossi fans refuse to accept, so naturally point to equipment). In other words, why point at Rossi's equipment as the problem when it was really good enough; but Casey was just a bit better--simple as that. As you see, this is a fundamental difference.



And you are fundamentally in diagreement with most commentators of the sport in that one. As usuall you slightly change weight depening on what suit your personal opinion. A few posts ago the tires were so important that it is no less than a scandal that Rossi got his will through his influence, while the HRC guys didn't. Now the tires are suddenly not important enough to be taken into consideration. Amazing.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
there seems to be a “shortage” of Rossi apologists (and a few honest but misguided fans) now? Is Babel the only one that thinks Rossi’s preferential treatment is defensible, that there was no foul play, and good for the sport? I seem to remember way more Rossi cheerleaders in a few threads before. Perhaps I need to aide memoire of their ramblings by quoting them here, perhaps...
[/i]


Just for the record Jumkie, I never said it would be ok if Dorna used pressure on B.Stone. But that's still a big "IF" right?
The rest is just tired of the subject after all the whining aussis (with the honest exceptions of course)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 19 2007, 12:30 AM) [snapback]104692[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
The rest is just tired of the subject after all the whining aussis (with the honest exceptions of course)


Yeah !!!! they were all whining cos their boy won!! ..... oh wait .....

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Dec 17 2007, 11:52 PM) [snapback]104666[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>

As you correctly ponted out, Bridgestone said they couldn't take on another team


that sounded like a smokescreen, they have been steadily expanding their presence in motogp after starting out with one team.

also all their teams where paying for the tyres.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(an4rew @ Dec 19 2007, 02:17 AM) [snapback]104704[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
that sounded like a smokescreen, they have been steadily expanding their presence in motogp after starting out with one team.

also all their teams where paying for the tyres.


Yes I agree it seemed a smokscreen to me, but just a semi polite way of saying they did not want to supply Rossi ....

Best possible senario ..... Rossi wins WC on Bridgestones ....... whoop de doo ... they did that last year.

Bad senario ..... Rossi does not win ....... look how Rossi treated Michelin this year ........ Bridgestone must be worried.

Worst case...... Rossi gets worse than 3rd ....... gone backward ..... "its the Bridgestones!!!"

Mind you I think the way it is at present is the best ever advert Bridgestone could ever get. There must be a few Rossi fans out there and they are all gunna want Bridgestones now ( thats who will pay for the tyres )


are the teams paying for the tyres? wow thats interesting ..... how much?

And then how much is Ducati charging for the advert space on their bike?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Dec 18 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]104703[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Yeah !!!! they were all whining cos their boy won!! ..... oh wait .....




Yeah, thats the strangest thing. Despite the fact that Stoner won he and you are whining when Rosis change tire suplier. Add the continously gloating and, by most standards, underestimation of Rossi's expected performance and the rest get a little tired. To much ........ I guess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 18 2007, 05:30 AM) [snapback]104692[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
As usuall you slightly change weight depening on what suit your personal opinion. A few posts ago the tires were so important that it is no less than a scandal that Rossi got his will through his influence, while the HRC guys didn't. Now the tires are suddenly not important enough to be taken into consideration. Amazing.

Ok, there seems to come a time in a debate where a lack of standing draws one of the debaters to use unproductive tactics, then the debate ceases to be reasonable or fun to continue. (You should know this about me, I write and reread everything several times before I press the post button.) So when you say or suggest something I have said before to be inconsistent from what I say in a latter post is easily refuted. Not just by me, but you can go back and read it and quote me yourself. Here you say that I had previously said that the tires were "so important". I think you chose your word carefully, because the word "important" is loaded but elusive. But here is what you are really doing, you are suggesting to the casual reader of our debate that I said the tires were "so important" here to mean that they made the difference in Rossi's poor performance. I will send you five bucks if you can quote me saying or suggesting this in any of my previous post on this thread! How do I know I didn't do this? Because you, Babel are the king of suggesting that Rossi's Michelins have been the downfall of Rossi all year! And it has been me who has challenged you at every corner on this point.

I heard you say English is not your native language, well neither is it for me. (Spanish if you must know). But do you expect me to believe that you missed my point repeatedly even though I have been reiterating it several times? I have qualified that the Bridgestones are the "perceived" superior tire. No, I don't think it was the difference in Rossi not winning. And the point I have made about "scandal" (I'm very glad you used this word, because really that is a better description of Rossi's preferential treatment) is that He (Rossi) was the only ONE awarded the "switch" while others also requested it.

Let me slow it down so you can get the point again, I am repeating myself. The "SCANDAL" is that Rossi got the tires (notice I'm not saying or have said, the BETTER tires, but that he got the tires when it had already had been announced to the entire world that <u>nobody</u> would get them; despite at least three riders requesting them, only ONE got them by virtue of his mighty influence. I didn't say BETTER or "IMPORTANT--too mean better tires because I don't think this is the point in the SCANDAL, however, it is even more SCANDALOUS that the Bridgestone is "perceived" as the 'better' tire, so him getting his way even casts more outrage. Do you understand the difference? Look back to where I refuted you when we were talking about the tires being an "advantage". Notice I make clear that the "advantage" was not in the tire, but the "advantage" was Rossi's preferred treatment by the governing body.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Dec 18 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]104707[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
There must be a few Rossi fans out there and they are all gunna want Bridgestones now


my tyres are getting very baldy, might go for some bridgestones

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarryMachine @ Dec 18 2007, 04:41 PM) [snapback]104707[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Yes I agree it seemed a smokscreen to me, but just a semi polite way of saying they did not want to supply Rossi ....

Best possible senario ..... Rossi wins WC on Bridgestones ....... whoop de doo ... they did that last year.

Bad senario ..... Rossi does not win ....... look how Rossi treated Michelin this year ........ Bridgestone must be worried.

Worst case...... Rossi gets worse than 3rd ....... gone backward ..... "its the Bridgestones!!!"

Mind you I think the way it is at present is the best ever advert Bridgestone could ever get. There must be a few Rossi fans out there and they are all gunna want Bridgestones now ( thats who will pay for the tyres )
are the teams paying for the tyres? wow thats interesting ..... how much?

And then how much is Ducati charging for the advert space on their bike?


Much simpler than that... Come 2008, Stoner on Bridgestones wins, Rossi on Bridgestones loses - Rossi's fault, Bridgestones wins anyway.
The only 'bad' outcome for Bridgestone is if Michelin wins. No?

Yes... The teams are paying for each and every item they use. Or, if you prefer, the brand names using the advert space on their fairings are paying their bills. We can not have the figures of course, but there is little doubt about how this works

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Racejumkie @ Dec 18 2007, 07:25 PM) [snapback]104726[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Ok, there seems to come a time in a debate where a lack of standing draws one of the debaters to use unproductive tactics, then the debate ceases to be reasonable or fun to continue. (You should know this about me, I write and reread everything several times before I press the post button.) So when you say or suggest something I have said before to be inconsistent from what I say in a latter post is easily refuted. Not just by me, but you can go back and read it and quote me yourself. Here you say that I had previously said that the tires were "so important". I think you chose your word carefully, because the word "important" is loaded but elusive. But here is what you are really doing, you are suggesting to the casual reader of our debate that I said the tires were "so important" here to mean that they made the difference in Rossi's poor performance. I will send you five bucks if you can quote me saying or suggesting this in any of my previous post on this thread!

Oh god, NO, I wouldn't even suggest that you would turn from the dark side my friend.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

How do I know I didn't do this? Because you, Babel are the king of suggesting that Rossi's Michelins have been the downfall of Rossi all year! And it has been me who has challenged you at every corner on this point.

I heard you say English is not your native language, well neither is it for me. (Spanish if you must know). But do you expect me to believe that you missed my point repeatedly even though I have been reiterating it several times? I have qualified that the Bridgestones are the "perceived" superior tire. No, I don't think it was the difference in Rossi not winning. And the point I have made about "scandal" (I'm very glad you used this word, because really that is a better description of Rossi's preferential treatment) is that He (Rossi) was the only ONE awarded the "switch" while others also requested it.

Let me slow it down so you can get the point again, I am repeating myself. The "SCANDAL" is that Rossi got the tires (notice I'm not saying or have said, the BETTER tires, but that he got the tires when it had already had been announced to the entire world that <u>nobody</u> would get them; despite at least three riders requesting them, only ONE got them by virtue of his mighty influence. I didn't say BETTER or "IMPORTANT--too mean better tires because I don't think this is the point in the SCANDAL, however, it is even more SCANDALOUS that the Bridgestone is "perceived" as the 'better' tire, so him getting his way even casts more outrage. Do you understand the difference? Look back to where I refuted you when we were talking about the tires being an "advantage". Notice I make clear that the "advantage" was not in the tire, but the "advantage" was Rossi's preferred treatment by the governing body.


Sorry Jumkie, you can't have it both ways. Either the tire(brands) are of importance, and then the process of getting them may or may not be a scandal, allthough what kind of scandal would again depend on who pushed who.
But you can not say the tires are of no real importance because then the process also is of no importance.
What if we swaped tires with paint, would any one make a fuzz about Rossi's bikes paint and where they bought it? And would any PROCESS short of buying it with drugs create any fuzz?

Look, Babel, I completely understand exactly what you are trying to say.

I believe this entire thing COULD actually be the work of normal motogp proceedings. I believe Bridgestone may have said misleading things about their ability to supply tires probably to hide the fact they have been in cahoots with Ducati for some time. I believe this entire B-stone Rossi thing could be the work of free-market contract. I think B-stone could have been secretly wishing they could get Rossi on board. I realize Rossi has not gained an on-track advantage.

BUT

Ezpeleta, Dorna, Rossi, Yamaha, and Bridgestone went behind closed doors and brokered a deal without subjecting it to a variety of outside forces.

Their choice. They wrote the history books. I'm not going to make excuses for what they did and I won't listen to any ends-justify-the-means assessments when it comes to the rules. The deal was unsportsmanlike and dishonest.

I guess that's the way you have to do things when you have a closet full of skeletons.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mylexicon @ Dec 19 2007, 08:24 PM) [snapback]104859[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Look, Babel, I completely understand exactly what you are trying to say.

I believe this entire thing COULD actually be the work of normal motogp proceedings. I believe Bridgestone may have said misleading things about their ability to supply tires probably to hide the fact they have been in cahoots with Ducati for some time. I believe this entire B-stone Rossi thing could be the work of free-market contract. I think B-stone could have been secretly wishing they could get Rossi on board. I realize Rossi has not gained an on-track advantage.

BUT

Ezpeleta, Dorna, Rossi, Yamaha, and Bridgestone went behind closed doors and brokered a deal without subjecting it to a variety of outside forces.

And with that you assume that Ezpeleta where in it all the way. Yamaha, Rossi and Bridgstoen brokering a deal would have been business as usual, right? That two others didn't get what they wanted are as it allways have been. There is allways a shortage on the presumed best stuff in this sport. And particulary on tires as I mentioned in an earlier post.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>
Their choice. They wrote the history books. I'm not going to make excuses for what they did and I won't listen to any ends-justify-the-means assessments when it comes to the rules. The deal was unsportsmanlike and dishonest.

I'm not trying to suggest that the ends justify the means, but first of all I try to remind peopele here that any pressure form Dorna are so far plain rumors, and even if they did put the pressure on it was most probably out of what they thought were out of their own interest. But lots of people here seems to blame Rossi for that part, allthough as I see it he asked for new tires and if that resulted in Dorna pressuring Bridgestone, thats bad, and suggest that he might have too much influense on things, but the blame still fall on Dorna. The above is just a play with Jumkie. I don't think tires are unimportant and as a consequnce I also belive they have an influence on results.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 19 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]104873[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
And with that you assume that Ezpeleta where in it all the way.

I'm not trying to suggest that the ends justify the means, but first of all I try to remind peopele here that any pressure form Dorna are so far plain rumors...

You continue to attempt to rewrite what is on the public record. This is why whatever you say and the positions you take are so easily refutable. And so now you resort to the tactic of attempting to inject doubt that perhaps this was only a rumor perhaps we assumed it or it was a figment of our imagination.

The following is from the public record, Speed TV article:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<div class='quotemain'>

The Bridgestone company motto is “It’s Bridgestone or nothing!” and that is the message Bridgestone themselves got yesterday from Dorna CEO Carmelo Ezpeleta.

Hiroishi Yamaha, Motorsport Manager for Bridgestone, told Italian journalists in Sepang, Malaysia, that Ezpeleta pressured him on Saturday to either supply Bridgestone tires to Valentino Rossi or he would make good on his threat to impose a single tire system in MotoGP (Michelin intends to bid “whatever it takes” to obtain exclusive rights, Ezpeleta said last week in Australia).

Yamada passed this message on to his boss, Hiroshi Yasukawa, the overall competition director of the world’s largest tire manufacturer. It is unlikely that Yasukawa, the man who directed Bridgestone’s Formula 1 efforts prior to the withdrawal of Michelin and the subsequent acquisition of role of sole supplier in F1, has ever received such a frank ultimatum, even from the likes of Bernie Ecclestone.


Any questions as to rumors and assumptions?

Colin speaks on Rossi leaving for Bridgestone....


MotoGP: Colin Edwards - Valentino Rossi no major loss for Michelin
By Matthew Birt

MotoGP

19 December 2007 12:24


Valentino Rossi’s former factory Yamaha team-mate Colin Edwards believes Michelin still has a big enough talent pool to win back the MotoGP world championship crown in 2008, despite the Italian’s defection to rivals Bridgestone.

Valentino Rossi’s switch to Bridgestone next season leaves Colin Edwards and Repsol Honda duo Nicky Hayden and Dani Pedrosa as the three most experienced riders on the French rubber in 2008.

Texan Edwards believes Michelin won’t be seriously harmed by Valentino Rossi’s departure, with the 28-year-old running always running completely different rubber to Michelin’s big three before his move.

The double World Superbike champion, who will ride for the Tech 3 Yamaha squad with James Toseland next season, told MCN: “I couldn’t run Valentino’s tyres.

“Take him off Michelin to where me, Nicky and Dani are left, we can kind of develop what we want because nobody can run Valentino’s tyres.

“He grew up on mini-motos and 125 and 250s with stiff and hard tyres where it’s like riding a piece of concrete. He got so accustomed to that and he’s carried that through.

“I want something with a bit of play. I try and ride his tyre and I’m a second and a half slower than what I normally use. I just can’t get any traction.

“Dani and Nicky can’t use his stuff either. So is it good for us? I think yeah, I think its good he’s going to Bridgestone, simply for the development.

“I don’t think Bridgestone will be overly concerned in developing the number one best Yamaha tyre on the planet. I think it will be ‘here is the Suzuki, Kawasaki and the Ducati tyre, take you’re pick of which one works on the bike.’

“At the end of the day Casey (Stoner) and Ducati are going to lead most of development.”

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Duc999 @ Dec 20 2007, 05:15 AM) [snapback]104876[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Colin speaks on Rossi leaving for Bridgestone....
MotoGP: Colin Edwards - Valentino Rossi no major loss for Michelin
By Matthew Birt

MotoGP

19 December 2007 12:24
Valentino Rossi’s former factory Yamaha team-mate Colin Edwards believes Michelin still has a big enough talent pool to win back the MotoGP world championship crown in 2008, despite the Italian’s defection to rivals Bridgestone.

Valentino Rossi’s switch to Bridgestone next season leaves Colin Edwards and Repsol Honda duo Nicky Hayden and Dani Pedrosa as the three most experienced riders on the French rubber in 2008.

Texan Edwards believes Michelin won’t be seriously harmed by Valentino Rossi’s departure, with the 28-year-old running always running completely different rubber to Michelin’s big three before his move.

The double World Superbike champion, who will ride for the Tech 3 Yamaha squad with James Toseland next season, told MCN: “I couldn’t run Valentino’s tyres.

“Take him off Michelin to where me, Nicky and Dani are left, we can kind of develop what we want because nobody can run Valentino’s tyres.

“He grew up on mini-motos and 125 and 250s with stiff and hard tyres where it’s like riding a piece of concrete. He got so accustomed to that and he’s carried that through.

“I want something with a bit of play. I try and ride his tyre and I’m a second and a half slower than what I normally use. I just can’t get any traction.

“Dani and Nicky can’t use his stuff either. So is it good for us? I think yeah, I think its good he’s going to Bridgestone, simply for the development.

“I don’t think Bridgestone will be overly concerned in developing the number one best Yamaha tyre on the planet. I think it will be ‘here is the Suzuki, Kawasaki and the Ducati tyre, take you’re pick of which one works on the bike.’

“At the end of the day Casey (Stoner) and Ducati are going to lead most of development.”


This makes sense. Stoner uses 'concrete' tyres too, like Rossi. Michelin has been developing for Honda and Pedro already, more than with Yamaha and Rossi. In this light, better for Rossi to switch to Bridgestone, at least he can use the same hard rubber Casey is using.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Babelfish @ Dec 19 2007, 02:42 AM) [snapback]104708[/snapback]<div class='quotemain'>
Yeah, thats the strangest thing. Despite the fact that Stoner won he and you are whining when Rosis change tire suplier. Add the continously gloating and, by most standards, underestimation of Rossi's expected performance and the rest get a little tired. To much ........ I guess.


But I actually don't give a damn if Rossi goes Bridgestone .... or even think its a good thing ( there's only one way to prove whether "the tyres" were a problem ). You have a one track mind ..... thats my problem