Brno GP 2013: RACE (spoilers)

[quote name="barbedwirebiker" post="359804" timestamp="1377691114"]
Jum's you make me laugh, but chill the .... out dude. We get it you hate Pedrosa and despise the politics of our sport, but ....; the kid is quick. I'd say his level of talent and confidence right now on debut is greater than that of any other rider in their debut year. We know he's on the RC, probably greatest lineage of machine ever, but the kid can ride like not many others in the sport.
Enjoy man.[/quote]


I agree, Barb I do get carried away sometimes. In my defense, if you read what I've said, really understand what I'm saying, you will find its not to far from what you are stating. Its this over the top description of Marc's debut as if he has re-invented the wheel that I'm refuting. It helps to describe Marquez within context of parity and the sport's history. He is as good as some of our above average rookies. I guess I just despise this tendency of fanboyism to make outlandish claims. As I said above: "Those of us who admire the feats of racing especially admire the feats of talent on a MotoGP bike, have no problem enjoying what we witness. U confuse this with the ability to put results in perspective!"

And about being pissed off, yes, I am. Because the sport has been highjacked. Its obvious, but for the most part, few detect it or give a ..... The prevailing argument is, yeah yeah, Marc and other Spanish riders are treated with favoritism, but Marc is really fast so, the rationalization goes, its ok. Check out how Stoner is still very much part of our discussions, as perhaps the only one being able to challenge Marc. Yet, we are ignoring the very reason he left! He understood the nature of the politics and the way the League plays its own machinates. The rookie rule was positively removed to usher in Marc Marquez. It wasnt enuf that hes supertalented, he needed an additional helping hand, while sheep willing to celebrate it accept without objection (or worse tow the Dorna line). That is, the ushering in of some talented riders while others are frustrated and detrimentally effected by this system of favoritism. Gullible people subscribe to this myth that the CEV and the lower GP categories are the ONLY place where deserving riders must be plucked from to make it into GP. So they swallow it whole and rationalize in their minds why this is true, after all, the three categories have for the most part, Spaniards at the front of the field. Well then, it must be true. These people are O'Briens (1984).

The 'Rookie Rule' reasoning is ......... They got rid of it because LCR and other Satellite teams didn't want Marquez on a one year deal. No rider was ever advantaged or disadvantaged by that rule during the time it was applied.

Sloth_27 said:

The 'Rookie Rule' reasoning is ......... They got rid of it because LCR and other Satellite teams didn't want Marquez on a one year deal. No rider was ever advantaged or disadvantaged by that rule during the time it was applied.

Click to expand...

Ah come on Sloth, u know thats BS. That's the line Kropo fed u and u swallowed buddy. The rule was created to give satellites top talent. Even then your explanation means Marquez's sponsors and contractual demands trumped rules! Either way it was done specifically to accommodate Marc! Changes had to be made because of such a high profile promotee, the likes that never before was it necessary to change this specific rule as a one-off because of political forces and consequences, he was now bigger than the sport. (This is the part ur not getting). And the rest of ur rationalization is simply irrelevant.

I'm the first to hate on kropos mistress but realistically fark fuckez would have been the first rookie to not get the job the market has on offer. Don't make me laugh and go on and say yamaha would have gotten rid of Lorenzo or rossi for spies

Irrelevant

Rookie rule was BS when it was introduced.


Rookie rule was BS when it was revoked.

Jum, you are acting like the fact that the lower classes of GP are the best breeding ground for the 'big' class was something new. since Crivillé, every world champion came through the lower categories (even KRJR did some 250 gp). the rising relevance of CEV might be worrying to some, but I believe it's at least equally worrying that you don't seem to be able at all to realize that the level in many national feeder series - in particular the US series - is ridiculously low, and that this fact is not related to the importance of CEV or the sport being 'hijacked'. I see your point, but you should be able to think a little bit beyond it.

Jumkie

3598621377759658

Irrelevant

Click to expand...

........


 


or are things only relevant when they can be somehow linked to pedrosa sucking?

Jum, you have several points for which I mostly agree.


 


The revoking of the rookie rule will have to go down as one of the major eye-openers for the rather obvious persuasion to certain riders. As far as a smart promotional move, it has been a cracker for Dorna with Marc not failing to disappoint, particularly with Rossi flailing about down the order with Jorge's 'one track' bike, and lets face it-Jorge and Dani aren't the most exciting of riders ever to grace the paddock. 


 


To be honest, if we had Stoner, Dani and Jorge playing nice little boys again in 2013 without Marc there I probably wouldn't be following this series (and thats after 23 years of avid interest).


 


The regs and Bridgestone have strangled the spectacle and jaded any honest perspective of the results, but at least Marc (however wrong his promotion) is creating excitement and interest. Which you have to admit is great for Motogp.


With any luck, Yamaha might find the missing few tenths in braking for Rossi, and Jorge won't do a 2011 and give in.


 


Which brings me to my next point-Krop maybe? What is going on in the factory Yamaha garage? Rossi's form is bazaar to say the least, I know we are seeing a decaying champion, however he's not that far off, and on his day like at Assen and Qatar, 2nd half Indy etc he's right on. Do they not have the resources to go back to the triple clamp set-up they had in 2009-10 for the Bridgestones-or similar? Or was that Developed out? Spies 2012, though far worse, probably the worst factory effort in years actually, was also extremely bazaar........? 


And why do we read official press releases from Jorge's crew chief Wilco under the title 'Yamaha Team Manager' and he only ever speaks of Jorge's results/performance even when Rossi finishes ahead? In this case, should we also be hearing from Jeremy Burgess? When we read releases from other teams the official spokes person almost always references all riders in the team...? 

Good post, Talpa. Don't agree with the way the spectacle was created, but do agree that it's been an interesting year.

I suspect the JB quietness may be down to getting burnt in the press concerning certain commenys made re: the Duke. He's just head down in the garage now.

Dr No

3598721377765070

Good post, Talpa. Don't agree with the way the spectacle was created, but do agree that it's been an interesting year.

I suspect the JB quietness may be down to getting burnt in the press concerning certain commenys made re: the Duke. He's just head down in the garage now.

Click to expand...

 


Yeah, there's not really a lot for Rossi and JB to say. At Ducati they could comment about the bike, but the M1 seems capable enough in Lorenzo's hands so the last few tenths are really down to them now.

Jumkie

3598491377754653

Ah come on Sloth, u know thats BS. That's the line Kropo fed u and u swallowed buddy. The rule was created to give satellites top talent. Even then your explanation means Marquez's sponsors and contractual demands trumped rules! Either way it was done specifically to accommodate Marc! Changes had to be made because of such a high profile promotee, the likes that never before was it necessary to change this specific rule as a one-off because of political forces and consequences, he was now bigger than the sport. (This is the part ur not getting). And the rest of ur rationalization is simply irrelevant.

Click to expand...

 


This is what Kropotkin had to say when the rule was introduced.  Pretty correct I'd say, especially given Yamaha's insistence on signing Pol Espagaro this year.


 


http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/03/28/the_rookie_rule_a_paper_tiger.html


 


Marques is the hottest thing to move up to the main show for quite some time and to not allow him to ride the bike vacated by Stoner because of some BS rule made up in 2009 would have been madness for both Dorna & HRC.  Making HRC sign either Bradl or Bautista from their "satellite" teams and forcing Marques to ride there would have meant that HRC would have had to give him real factory support a la Rossi in 2000,  and that would have seen the "satellite" bike beating at least one (and as it has turned out, probably both) of the "factory" Hondas. 


 


I still maintain that the rule was BS when brought in, affected no-one whilst in place and so to have Marques being the first rider to be affected by it ever would have been just as "unfair" as you perceive that it was to scrap it, ie not allowing Marques to do exactly what Pedrosa and Lorenzo did before him, take the best seat available.  Note that availability is key here IMO.


 


IIRC, you have previously argued that Rossi's factory "satellite" bike in 2000 was unfair too, so if they hadn't scrapped the rule and HRC had gone the same route would you really have been happy with that state of affairs either?

Talpa

3598701377764427

Jum, you have several points for which I mostly agree.


 


The revoking of the rookie rule will have to go down as one of the major eye-openers for the rather obvious persuasion to certain riders. As far as a smart promotional move, it has been a cracker for Dorna with Marc not failing to disappoint, particularly with Rossi flailing about down the order with Jorge's 'one track' bike, and lets face it-Jorge and Dani aren't the most exciting of riders ever to grace the paddock. 


 


To be honest, if we had Stoner, Dani and Jorge playing nice little boys again in 2013 without Marc there I probably wouldn't be following this series (and thats after 23 years of avid interest).


 


The regs and Bridgestone have strangled the spectacle and jaded any honest perspective of the results, but at least Marc (however wrong his promotion) is creating excitement and interest. Which you have to admit is great for Motogp.


With any luck, Yamaha might find the missing few tenths in braking for Rossi, and Jorge won't do a 2011 and give in.


 


Which brings me to my next point-Krop maybe? What is going on in the factory Yamaha garage? Rossi's form is bazaar to say the least, I know we are seeing a decaying champion, however he's not that far off, and on his day like at Assen and Qatar, 2nd half Indy etc he's right on. Do they not have the resources to go back to the triple clamp set-up they had in 2009-10 for the Bridgestones-or similar? Or was that Developed out? Spies 2012, though far worse, probably the worst factory effort in years actually, was also extremely bazaar........? 


And why do we read official press releases from Jorge's crew chief Wilco under the title 'Yamaha Team Manager' and he only ever speaks of Jorge's results/performance even when Rossi finishes ahead? In this case, should we also be hearing from Jeremy Burgess? When we read releases from other teams the official spokes person almost always references all riders in the team...? 

Click to expand...

 


Forcada is Lorenzo's crew chief

yamaka46

3598781377772789

This is what Kropotkin had to say when the rule was introduced.  Pretty correct I'd say, especially given Yamaha's insistence on signing Pol Espagaro this year.


 


http://www.motogpmatters.com/opinion/2009/03/28/the_rookie_rule_a_paper_tiger.html


 


Marques is the hottest thing to move up to the main show for quite some time and to not allow him to ride the bike vacated by Stoner because of some BS rule made up in 2009 would have been madness for both Dorna & HRC.  Making HRC sign either Bradl or Bautista from their "satellite" teams and forcing Marques to ride there would have meant that HRC would have had to give him real factory support a la Rossi in 2000,  and that would have seen the "satellite" bike beating at least one (and as it has turned out, probably both) of the "factory" Hondas. 


 


I still maintain that the rule was BS when brought in, affected no-one whilst in place and so to have Marques being the first rider to be affected by it ever would have been just as "unfair" as you perceive that it was to scrap it, ie not allowing Marques to do exactly what Pedrosa and Lorenzo did before him, take the best seat available.  Note that availability is key here IMO.


 


IIRC, you have previously argued that Rossi's factory "satellite" bike in 2000 was unfair too, so if they hadn't scrapped the rule and HRC had gone the same route would you really have been happy with that state of affairs either?

Click to expand...

 


With all due respect, this seems an odd post for somebody of your obvious intelligence and experience.  Basically you have made the case the rule change would have negatively impacted ONE of the participants, the one with the most influence, therefore the rule needed to be changed.  How is this impartial when as soon as a rule negatively impacts the most influential participant the rule must change?  Maybe they should have introduced a rule that all chassis needed to be part of the stress member of an engine, you know, to help Ducati in their predicament?  Do you remember when Dorna attempted to move toward a rev ceiling when Ducati were making more power with their desmodronic system?  They found a way to mitigate the perceived Ducati advantage by later eliminating their ability to work exclusively with Bridgestone, which in essence had the same effect of limiting what ever technological valve advantage they 'might' have enjoyed.  Do you think Ducati proposed such a rev ceiling or the Japanese?


 


The rookie rule was eliminated in emergency fashion exactly for the reasons you state...THAT IS THE PROBLEM! That is hilarious to suggest the rule change if not eliminated would have "unfairly" negatively affected Marc.  That is like saying the elimination of the SNS negatively impacted Valentino disproportionately, therefore it was "unfair" to Rossi.

Jumkie

3599091377807161

With all due respect, this seems an odd post for somebody of your obvious intelligence and experience.  Basically you have made the case the rule change would have negatively impacted ONE of the participants, the one with the most influence, therefore the rule needed to be changed.  How is this impartial when as soon as a rule negatively impacts the most influential participant the rule must change?  Maybe they should have introduced a rule that all chassis needed to be part of the stress member of an engine, you know, to help Ducati in their predicament?  Do you remember when Dorna attempted to move toward a rev ceiling when Ducati were making more power with their desmodronic system?  They found a way to mitigate the perceived Ducati advantage by later eliminating their ability to work exclusively with Bridgestone, which in essence had the same effect of limiting what ever technological valve advantage they 'might' have enjoyed.  Do you think Ducati proposed such a rev ceiling or the Japanese?


 


The rookie rule was eliminated in emergency fashion exactly for the reasons you state...THAT IS THE PROBLEM! That is hilarious to suggest the rule change if not eliminated would have "unfairly" negatively affected Marc.  That is like saying the elimination of the SNS negatively impacted Valentino disproportionately, therefore it was "unfair" to Rossi.

Click to expand...

Hardly.


 


I said that no other rider had ever been affected by the rule, but that Marques would have been the first.  Why should he suffer consequences no-one else had?


 


Rossi had the SNSs when other riders (not all) did not, hence it was unfair.  Getting rid of SNSs was no more unfair than getting rid of this rule. 


 


To recap - SNSs were unfair as some riders had them others did not.  Rookie rule - no-one had been denied a possible better seat than they got until Marques.  Not getting rid of the rule would have affected one rider only.  That is unfair.

yamaka46

3599171377809756

Hardly.


 


I said that no other rider had ever been affected by the rule, but that Marques would have been the first.  Why should he suffer consequences no-one else had?

Click to expand...

 


First of all, this is irrelevant.  We should stop here and have you explain the relevance.


 


It was a rule, period, FACT.   This rule was then eliminated with great haste by your own admission influenced by Marquez's profile, no not the sport, but rather one of its participants.  How you don't see this as grossly inconsistent with impartiality is beyond me!  Second, even what you are saying is not fact, as the rule has become known as the Spies rule because it was forced to apply to him, regardless whether or not the teams would have wanted to sign him or not to a factory ride.  Third, an exception had been made to the rule.  Yes, and EXCEPTION for Alvaro Bautista.  You know why an 'exception' had to be made?  Well, to state the obvious, because a RULE EXISTED!  In addition, you don't know what might have been the consequences had this rule not existed in regards to Simonchelli and Bradl, as this may have changed the entire dynamic given that Stoner had already been in the looking glass for HRC, and given his immediate success made Pedrosa's stock plummet.  It was Stoner's departure that made the elimination of the rule an emergency for HRC.  It wasn't an emergency for Yamaha or any of the satellites or CRTs, right?  Again, you are first trying to argue something irrelevant, and second, unable to extrapolate the consequence of such a rookie rule in terms of latitude and the factory's negotiation attitude in its absence.  So no, it was certainly applied; but was then suspended temporarily (not eliminated at the time).  


 


Furthermore, you can try and rationalize that Ducati and Suzuki are not "factory" efforts by virtue of their uncompetitiveness, that is, they are unapplied as in functionally (which is the irrelevant argument you are attempting here); but the fact remains, they are/were factory efforts.  Same goes with the rookie rule, you can rationalize it wasn't applied (functional), but it was a rule nonetheless, a FACT of its existence.  That rule was then eliminated to usher in Marquez to factory HRC, which according to you, was such a high profile promotee as to merit such a change.


 


 
yamaka46

3599171377809756

Rossi had the SNSs when other riders (not all) did not, hence it was unfair.  Getting rid of SNSs was no more unfair than getting rid of this rule. 


 


To recap - SNSs were unfair as some riders had them others did not.  Rookie rule - no-one had been denied a possible better seat than they got until Marques.  Not getting rid of the rule would have affected one rider only.  That is unfair.

Click to expand...

 


No, the correct analogy is, like SNSs, only favored riders were issued an exclusive competitive edge, exactly like Marquez, who's favored status was issued an exclusive dispensation.  

Jumkie

3599221377814869

First of all, this is irrelevant.  We should stop here and have you explain the relevance.


 


It was a rule, period, FACT.   This rule was then eliminated with great haste by your own admission influenced by Marquez's profile, no not the sport, but rather one of its participants.  How you don't see this as grossly inconsistent with impartiality is beyond me!  Second, even what you are saying is not fact, as the rule has become known as the Spies rule because it was forced to apply to him, regardless whether or not the teams would have wanted to sign him or not to a factory ride.  Third, an exception had been made to the rule.  Yes, and EXCEPTION for Alvaro Bautista.  You know why an 'exception' had to be made?  Well, to state the obvious, because a RULE EXISTED!  In addition, you don't know what might have been the consequences had this rule not existed in regards to Simonchelli and Bradl, as this may have changed the entire dynamic given that Stoner had already been in the looking glass for HRC, and given his immediate success made Pedrosa's stock plummet.  It was Stoner's departure that made the elimination of the rule an emergency for HRC.  It wasn't an emergency for Yamaha or any of the satellites or CRTs, right?  Again, you are first trying to argue something irrelevant, and second, unable to extrapolate the consequence of such a rookie rule in terms of latitude and the factory's negotiation attitude in its absence.  So no, it was certainly applied; but was then suspended temporarily (not eliminated at the time).  


 


Furthermore, you can try and rationalize that Ducati and Suzuki are not "factory" efforts by virtue of their uncompetitiveness, that is, they are unapplied as in function (which is the irrelevant argument you are attempting here); but the fact remains, they are/were factory efforts.  Same goes with the rookie rule, you can rationalize it wasn't applied (functional), but it was a rule nonetheless, a FACT of its existence.  That rule was then eliminated to usher in Marquez to factory HRC, which according to you, was such a high profile promotee as to merit such a change.


 


 


 


No, the correct analogy is, like SNSs, only favored riders were issued an exclusive competitive edge, exactly like Marquez, who's favored status was issued an exclusive dispensation.  

Click to expand...

I agree that Dorna made a mockery of themselves, something they are not unknown for, by changing the rule for MM. I also think it was a stupid rule in the first place though, devised to suit a different set of circumstances ie to help satellite  teams which was their paradigm that week rather than  CRTs or whatever. We now have only 4 satellite rides worth anything, hence the satellite teams have not much trouble attracting talent. And as you said they had already made an exception to the rule the only other time it was really going to affect anything, in regard to Suzuki.


 


My problem with favouritism towards MM was with the leniency towards him for on track incidents, which certainly imo did occur when he was in moto2. From my point of view Dorna's attitude towards Honda did suddenly seem to change once a certain rider was not contending for the championship on an HRC bike, with a rule change being made to help rather than hinder them.

michaelm

3599241377816430

I agree that Dorna made a mockery of themselves, something they are not unknown for, by changing the rule for MM. I also think it was a stupid rule in the first place though, devised to suit a different set of circumstances ie to help satellite  teams which was their paradigm that week rather than  CRTs or whatever. We know have only 4 worthwhile satellite rides worth anything, hence the satellite teams have not much trouble attracting talent. And as you said they had already made an exception to the rule the only other time it was really going to affect anything, in regard to Suzuki.


 


My problem with favouritism towards MM was with the leniency towards him for on track incidents, which certainly imo did occur when he was in moto2. From my point of view Dorna's attitude towards Honda did suddenly seem to change once a certain rider was not contending for the championship on an HRC bike, with a rule change being made to help rather than hinder them.

Click to expand...

 


I'm laughing because somebody said in response to a quip that many were unfairly being anti-Marquez, the quip being: "did you ever watch him race in Moto2?"  Certainly, the kiddy gloves he was treated with in the face of possible (and not exaggerating here) possible murders suicides was a tell tale sign of things to come.  


 


Again, its not anti-MM, but rather this system of partiality that makes rooting for the guy's so far amazing feats a bit difficult, and worse if you honestly put it into perspective.  But I suspect you know much about this tendency of pointing out the circumstance surrounding a rider like Stoner and hearing as feedback a total disconnect of what you were saying.  As I said in a previous post, we were robustly entertaining the speculation of how Stoner might have faired against Marc, the peculiarity being for me, the reason we don't know how he might have faired against Marc is the big ... white elephant in the room...apparently an invisible elephant.

Jumkie

3599221377814869

First of all, this is irrelevant.  We should stop here and have you explain the relevance.


 


It was a rule, period, FACT.   This rule was then eliminated with great haste by your own admission influenced by Marquez's profile, no not the sport, but rather one of its participants.  How you don't see this as grossly inconsistent with impartiality is beyond me!  Second, even what you are saying is not fact, as the rule has become known as the Spies rule because it was forced to apply to him, regardless whether or not the teams would have wanted to sign him or not to a factory ride.  Third, an exception had been made to the rule.  Yes, and EXCEPTION for Alvaro Bautista.  You know why an 'exception' had to be made?  Well, to state the obvious, because a RULE EXISTED!  In addition, you don't know what might have been the consequences had this rule not existed in regards to Simonchelli and Bradl, as this may have changed the entire dynamic given that Stoner had already been in the looking glass for HRC, and given his immediate success made Pedrosa's stock plummet.  It was Stoner's departure that made the elimination of the rule an emergency for HRC.  It wasn't an emergency for Yamaha or any of the satellites or CRTs, right?  Again, you are first trying to argue something irrelevant, and second, unable to extrapolate the consequence of such a rookie rule in terms of latitude and the factory's negotiation attitude in its absence.  So no, it was certainly applied; but was then suspended temporarily (not eliminated at the time).  


 


Furthermore, you can try and rationalize that Ducati and Suzuki are not "factory" efforts by virtue of their uncompetitiveness, that is, they are unapplied as in functionally (which is the irrelevant argument you are attempting here); but the fact remains, they are/were factory efforts.  Same goes with the rookie rule, you can rationalize it wasn't applied (functional), but it was a rule nonetheless, a FACT of its existence.  That rule was then eliminated to usher in Marquez to factory HRC, which according to you, was such a high profile promotee as to merit such a change.


 


 


 


No, the correct analogy is, like SNSs, only favored riders were issued an exclusive competitive edge, exactly like Marquez, who's favored status was issued an exclusive dispensation.  

Click to expand...

 


The fact that the rule became known as the Spies rule is pure journalism as it never affected him getting a factory Yamaha ride. Both seats were under contract signed in 2008 whereas the rule was first written in 2009.  You are normally the first to call such stuff, rather than rely on it for arguments


 


I already pointed out that an exception was made (and I understand that a RULE existed), but it was not made for Bautista per se, rather for Suzuki on the tenuous grounds that they had no satellite team. So the rule had been broken in its first year.  I've also already argued that if HRC had wanted Simoncelli on a factory ride then they would not have signed Dovi & Pedro for 2 years in 2009 - surely they'd have signed at least one of them for only 1 year to allow Simoncelli to enter the factory team asap.  Bradl, Pedrosa and Stoner were already signed for 2012 so no factory seat available, just like Spies.


 


Analogy? Exclusive competitive edge over whom? Not Lorenzo, nor Pedrosa for sure as they went straight to factory teams and that's who he's fighting for wins with. Who, in your opinion did he gain a competitve edge over?


 


You still haven't commented on the other point I made, ie if the rule had not been eliminated then would you have been happy for Marques to have a defacto "factory" team, almost certainly with Stoner's crew a la Rossi in 2000?  Or would that also have been proof of favouritism?  BTW who in your book, other than Hayden doesn't have an asterisk after his WC due to favouritism of one type or another?

Nicky went straight to the factory team from a domestic series.......on to the best racing bike ever made.....