Burgess defends Rossi's tyre move

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Jan 6 2008, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>----
It seems some are really, really scandalized about Rossi getting the tyres he wanted. I wonder why?

He has not got an unfair advantage over his rivals, has he? He has not twisted anybody's arm to let him have a bigger engine or more fuel in the tank...

He has just got the SAME tyres as Stoner, Capirossi, Vermeulen, West, Melandri, Guintoli, Elias, Hopkins... Not better tyres but just the same, assuming Bridgestone are fair....! So what's wrong?

There is no rule in MotoGP racing forbidding riders to change tyres (or even the whole bike!). Still, some insist that he has been 'bending' the rules!

If he had used all his contacts and influence to get a factory Ducati ride in 2008, nobody would have said anything... But if he manages to get just Ducati's tyres, it is unfair for some... It really does not make any sense


Geez it sure gets frustrating around here.
Yes you're right - There is no rule stopping riders from changing tyres, but usually it's teams that make that decision not one rider.

1 - I don't give a fat rats arse if he is on Bridgestones or Michelins
2 - I do care that when he says jump, Dorna asks " How High "

What part of that concept don't you understand?

This also bothers me.
From Autosport

Rossi says hindered by electronic aids

By Jonathan Noble Thursday, December 13th 2007, 17:23 GMT

And exactly 7 days later

MotoGP considering move to standard ECU

By Jonathan Noble and Michele Lostia Thursday, December 20th 2007, 14:12 GMT


Again I have no problem with changes to the Tc rules, I just don't like the way it's being handled.

They dont get it or they choose to play dumb.

Dorna has sacrificed the integrity of one of the largest spectated sports in the world to appease 1 participant.It doesnt matter how many ways you spin it,its real and its wrong. I dont know how to say it any clearer.They wouldnt have taken as big a hit if they had mandated a spec tire.At least they could have pretended they didnt intervene on Rossi's behalf if everybody got the Stones.Its not about Rossi getting tires.Its about ONLY Rossi getting the tires that so many coveted.If that wasnt enough,Rossi started hedging his bets with the talk of retiring on a Ducati after saying earlier in his career that Ducati was not an option because they have a similar philosophy towards riders that made him leave Honda.Its amazing the metamorphisis that has taken place after 2 years of no crowns for the King.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 5 2008, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well put.
There are Rossi fanboys and there are Rossi bashers. Both are as bad as each other IMHO.
Haha. That's funny only because it's such an old argument but yet it appears as if its new and clever here. When people hold Rossi to account for his actions, its called "Rossi Bashing". <u>But by who</u>? Ah, the real irony--the "fanboy."

Really there is nothing left to dispel. I have addressed every single angle and point of debate on this very simple issue. As if J4rnO and the rest of you forgot the thread: Being Valentino Rossi... Well its right there, you can refresh your memory by clicking on it. You guys keep saying the same things, why can't you see you will get the same answers? Your argument and all those that agree are simply not listening. Why? It’s really simple. ...! How many times must it be shown to you that the ....... guy (Rossi) got preferential treatment? It doesn't matter if one tire is better or "perceived" to be better, that’s not the ....... point! What does matter is that several competitors requested the change and only ONE got it by virtue of a <u>skewed process</u> that favored Rossi.--which the entire world got to see when Dorna took on his cause to get him whatever he wanted at the expense of denying the same to others. The governing body is not suppose to play favorites, even if it’s Jesus Christ the Lord himself in the ....... racers grid. Do you understand why this is important in an equitable contest? (Obviously not from what I keep reading).

Just put yourself in the shoes of the other competitors. What if YOU, yes YOU are the ....... guy wanting the same tires as the current champ (Casey) and YOU are denied that request while another guy gets his demand. (Considering that nobody else was suppose to get ...., which was made public when Bridgestone announced for the whole entire universe to know that they would NOT provide more of their tires.) What would be YOUR reaction?!? Would it be reasonable to say YOU were not given equal treatment and consideration? How can you ....... miss this point??? Are you going to sit there and say, well its cool, let the other guy get what he wants since he’s won so much in the past, and YOU are willing to accept second rate .... based on what is “perceived” to be the better product, even if its just a mental confidence thing? Holy Jesus, what the .... is the problem with you guys, yes all you guys (and some gals) not understanding this very simple and fundamental truth about authentic contests????

Tell me, what would be YOUR reaction if you were the guy who didn’t get his request? Wouldn’t you say, ...., it looks and smells like this ....... other guy got preferential treatment? If you are lap dog, you would sheepishly accept that only one guy deserves his demands while you, a deserving challenger who deserves his right to equality is not given equal consideration. As for me, I would have been denouncing this ....... outrage if I was talented enough to take the grid with such an elite class of racers. Hell if I would be good enough to make the grid, then hell yeah I deserve what ever any of the other guys get in terms of the process by which decisions are made about who gets what and why. Its elementary.

Ah forget it, I give up. I think I'm gonna go do something fun like water-board myself

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 6 2008, 12:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well put.
There are Rossi fanboys and there are Rossi bashers. Both are as bad as each other IMHO.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 6 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Haha. That's funny only because it's such an old argument but yet it appears as if its new and clever here. When people hold Rossi to account for his actions, its called "Rossi Bashing". <u>But by who</u>? Ah, the real irony--the "fanboy."

Really there is nothing left to dispel. I have addressed every single angle and point of debate on this very simple issue. As if J4rnO and the rest of you forgot the thread: Being Valentino Rossi... Well its right there, you can refresh your memory by clicking on it. You guys keep saying the same things, why can't you see you will get the same answers? Your argument and all those that agree are simply not listening. Why? It’s really simple. ...! How many times must it be shown to you that the ....... guy (Rossi) got preferential treatment? It doesn't matter if one tire is better or "perceived" to be better, that’s not the ....... point! What does matter is that several competitors requested the change and only ONE got it by virtue of a <u>skewed process</u> that favored Rossi.--which the entire world got to see when Dorna took on his cause to get him whatever he wanted at the expense of denying the same to others. The governing body is not suppose to play favorites, even if it’s Jesus Christ the Lord himself in the ....... racers grid. Do you understand why this is important in an equitable contest? (Obviously not from what I keep reading).

Just put yourself in the shoes of the other competitors. What if YOU, yes YOU are the ....... guy wanting the same tires as the current champ (Casey) and YOU are denied that request while another guy gets his demand. (Considering that nobody else was suppose to get ...., which was made public when Bridgestone announced for the whole entire universe to know that they would NOT provide more of their tires.) What would be YOUR reaction?!? Would it be reasonable to say YOU were not given equal treatment and consideration? How can you ....... miss this point??? Are you going to sit there and say, well its cool, let the other guy get what he wants since he’s won so much in the past, and YOU are willing to accept second rate .... based on what is “perceived” to be the better product, even if its just a mental confidence thing? Holy Jesus, what the .... is the problem with you guys, yes all you guys (and some gals) not understanding this very simple and fundamental truth about authentic contests????

Tell me, what would be YOUR reaction if you were the guy who didn’t get his request? Wouldn’t you say, ...., it looks and smells like this ....... other guy got preferential treatment? If you are lap dog, you would sheepishly accept that only one guy deserves his demands while you, a deserving challenger who deserves his right to equality is not given equal consideration. As for me, I would have been denouncing this ....... outrage if I was talented enough to take the grid with such an elite class of racers. Hell if I would be good enough to make the grid, then hell yeah I deserve what ever any of the other guys get in terms of the process by which decisions are made about who gets what and why. Its elementary.

Ah forget it, I give up. I think I'm gonna go do something fun like water-board myself

Jumkie,

I don't want to get into the whole fanboy - basher thing with you. I don't think I am or behave as a fanboy and I don't think you are a Rossi basher.

I don't agree with some of your posts but that is what this whole forum game is about.

However, I don't know where you get your facts from when you state that Rossi got B'Stones but Pedro and Hayden didn't, meaning that Rossi must have used some underhand means as all three riders wanted B'stones.

How do you <u>know</u> that Honda (famous for their "it's the bike not the rider" attitude) didn't override their riders and choose Michelin. If that is the case the Rossi is just one of three riders who asked to change tyre brands at the end of their contract and he is the only one that his team (Yamaha) backed.

Sure, he "blackmailed" the sport by threatening to quit, but he's at least consistent - his attitude to Yamaha is the same. If they can't/don't want to produce a bike he feels is competitive this year then he'll consider other options.

I have no idea what you do for a crust, but I, as an engineering contractor, have been in a position where I have "threatened" employers that if they verbally guarantee a new contract when my old one expires whilst I am on holiday and then I come back to find I have not been renewed as promised, I will take a dim view of things, even to the extent of once telling my boss that I knew where he lived...

If you think that my behaviour is unacceptable on this kind of thing, then I can see why you think that Rossi's is. But really all I am trying to do is ensure the best environment for me to do my job.

Is Rossi really any different?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 6 2008, 06:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Jumkie,

I don't want to get into the whole fanboy - basher thing with you. I don't think I am or behave as a fanboy and I don't think you are a Rossi basher.

I don't agree with some of your posts but that is what this whole forum game is about.

However, I don't know where you get your facts from when you state that Rossi got B'Stones but Pedro and Hayden didn't, meaning that Rossi must have used some underhand means as all three riders wanted B'stones.

How do you <u>know</u> that Honda (famous for their "it's the bike not the rider" attitude) didn't override their riders and choose Michelin. If that is the case the Rossi is just one of three riders who asked to change tyre brands at the end of their contract and he is the only one that his team (Yamaha) backed.

Sure, he "blackmailed" the sport by threatening to quit, but he's at least consistent - his attitude to Yamaha is the same. If they can't/don't want to produce a bike he feels is competitive this year then he'll consider other options.

I have no idea what you do for a crust, but I, as an engineering contractor, have been in a position where I have "threatened" employers that if they verbally guarantee a new contract when my old one expires whilst I am on holiday and then I come back to find I have not been renewed as promised, I will take a dim view of things, even to the extent of once telling my boss that I knew where he lived...

If you think that my behaviour is unacceptable on this kind of thing, then I can see why you think that Rossi's is. But really all I am trying to do is ensure the best environment for me to do my job.

Is Rossi really any different?

As you can tell I rarely post I normally just come here to read everyones thoughts on my favorite sport....but sometimes I really think some of you can't read. Since Junkies post are so long maybe you just get confused. Why are you even arguing the fact that Rossi isn't wrong for threatening to quite. I don't think no one is debating that. It might sound like he is being a little ..... but who cares...he can do/say what he wants. What junkie is saying and I agree with if its true is - If Dorna had anything to do with Rossi getting the Stones by threatening a Spec tire then that is preferential treatment plain and simple. Rossi can threaten to quit all he wants. Why the hell would bridgestone care if he did? Fact is they wouldn't. Who would lose if he quit? The Fans would and that equals to $$$ being lost. Who would lose such said money? Yamaha for sure, Rossi's Sponsors but overhaul Dorna would suffer the most. So I would say that I'm sure they had something to do with the Spec Tire threat. If so, yes it's wrong.

I say they should have called Ross's bluff or let him/yahmaha work it out with Bridgestone on his own. It paints a bad light on the sport. Besides do you really think he would have quit? To end your career with two losing seasons while giving up on your fans cause you didn't get your way......I don't think he would have done it.

I do have a question though... was it Dorna that threatened the Spec tire or the FIM? I'm sure Dorna has some influence but they can't just change the rules on their own, right?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Jan 6 2008, 07:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>They dont get it or they choose to play dumb.'play'?

Allow me to quote Jumkie from 'Being Valentino Rossi.....' ( with a few of my own embelishments )
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Dec 12 2007, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Fact: Rossi was contracted on a two-man team.
Fact: Rossi was contracted to run Michelins.
Fact: Michelins have perennially been the dominant tire.
Fact: Bridgestone has made major development strides.
Fact: Bridgestone announced to the world they would NOT supply more.
Fact: Rossi demands Bridgestones. As a few others do.

edit:
Fact: Bridgestone re-affirm their previous position NOT to supply more.
Fact: Rossi threatens to walk
Fact: Yamaha remain tight-lipped to the press( not surprising considering they've just done a deal with Michelin to supply FOUR Yamahas instead of TWO )
Fact: While Burgess says it's the wrong move

Fact: Dorna threatens a spec tire.
Fact: Bridgestone reneges on previous stand, supplies Rossi only.
Fact: The two-man team is dissolved.........and the Rossi camp, in their helpless blind faith declare that all this is normal and equitable, and draw all sorts of hilarious parallels with totally unrelated circumstances in an effort to prop up a shakey argument.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 6 2008, 09:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ah forget it, I give up.Don't give up now man



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 6 2008, 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How do you <u>know</u> that Honda (famous for their "it's the bike not the rider" attitude) didn't override their riders and choose Michelin. If that is the case the Rossi is just one of three riders who asked to change tyre brands at the end of their contract and he is the only one that his team (Yamaha) backed.Alice in ....... wonderland

will this issue ever end??? would be funny if the stones were'nt the answer & he wanted to go back to michelin

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Jan 6 2008, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>----
It seems some are really, really scandalized about Rossi getting the tyres he wanted. I wonder why?

He has not got an unfair advantage over his rivals, has he? He has not twisted anybody's arm to let him have a bigger engine or more fuel in the tank...

He has just got the SAME tyres as Stoner, Capirossi, Vermeulen, West, Melandri, Guintoli, Elias, Hopkins... Not better tyres but just the same, assuming Bridgestone are fair....! So what's wrong?

There is no rule in MotoGP racing forbidding riders to change tyres (or even the whole bike!). Still, some insist that he has been 'bending' the rules!

If he had used all his contacts and influence to get a factory Ducati ride in 2008, nobody would have said anything... But if he manages to get just Ducati's tyres, it is unfair for some... It really does not make any sense
well put mate, i agree.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 6 2008, 02:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Rossi wanted Bridgestones. Bridgestone said no. Rossi has Bridgestones.

Can it be put any more simply?

That is an unfair advantage. He didn't use his contacts to get a business deal. He had his friends at Dorna rough B-stone up and threaten the future of their motogp program. You know, as far as I'm concerned, Rossi's real mistake is that he didn't ask Ezy to make a rule allowing Vale to mount whatever bike he wants on any given weekend.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Rossi's 2008 "Yamaha" looks like a Ducati with different colored fairings. But hey, it would be fair because other riders have Ducati's too.
are you 100% sure this was actually the case, mabe that was a bridgestone pr stunt or just media .... stiring. its funny how you believe some press without question yet as in another thread mock people who state as fact what they have read in the media

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jan 6 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>'play'?

Allow me to quote Jumkie from 'Being Valentino Rossi.....' ( with a few of my own embelishments )
........and the Rossi camp, in their helpless blind faith declare that all this is normal and equitable, and draw all sorts of hilarious parallels with totally unrelated circumstances in an effort to prop up a shakey argument.

Don't give up now man



Alice in ....... wonderland
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>QUOTE (Racejumkie @ Dec 12 2007, 06:01 PM)
Fact: Rossi was contracted on a two-man team.
Fact: Rossi was contracted to run Michelins.
Fact: Michelins have perennially been the dominant tire.
Fact: Bridgestone has made major development strides.
Fact: Bridgestone announced to the world they would NOT supply more.
Fact: Rossi demands Bridgestones. As a few others do.

edit:
Fact: Bridgestone re-affirm their previous position NOT to supply more.
Fact: Rossi threatens to walk
Fact: Yamaha remain tight-lipped to the press( not surprising considering they've just done a deal with Michelin to supply FOUR Yamahas instead of TWO )
Fact: While Burgess says it's the wrong move

Fact: Dorna threatens a spec tire.
Fact: Bridgestone reneges on previous stand, supplies Rossi only.
Fact: The two-man team is dissolved.

you forgot.

fact, burgess said rossi switching to stones was the proffesional thing to do.
fact, how do you no what threats dorna made. dorna are always looking at ways to make closer racing inc spec tyres.
fact, no one here has read rossis contract so dont quote facts from it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (roger-m @ Jan 6 2008, 05:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>you forgot.

fact, burgess said rossi switching to stones was the proffesional thing to do.
fact, how do you no what threats dorna made. dorna are always looking at ways to make closer racing inc spec tyres.
fact, no one here has read rossis contract so dont quote facts from it. No Rog old bean, I remember very well, but I do suspect you've got a selective memory.

The facts are, when all of this first started to happen, before the season ended, JB said that VR switching to Bridgestone wasn't the best move, that he was in favour of tackling the problems they had with Michelin. Going forward on that basis was, in his opinion, the best way for Fiat Yamaha to proceed. It was all over the web. Seemingly now, he has changed his opinion, see top of this thread. You must have forgotten too then that, Carmelo did indeed threaten that he would impose a control tyre, and that Rossi was in fact contracted to Michelin, proven by the fact that he was not permitted to ride on Bridgestone tyres at the post Valencia test due to his contratual obligations to Michelin. I hope I didn't forget anything

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jan 6 2008, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Alice in ....... wonderland
Hahahaha! Thanks that was much needed comic relief.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 6 2008, 05:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Jumkie,

I don't want to get into the whole fanboy - basher thing with you. I don't think I am or behave as a fanboy and I don't think you are a Rossi basher.

I don't agree with some of your posts but that is what this whole forum game is about.

However, I don't know where you get your facts from when you state that Rossi got B'Stones but Pedro and Hayden didn't, meaning that Rossi must have used some underhand means as all three riders wanted B'stones.

How do you <u>know</u> that Honda (famous for their "it's the bike not the rider" attitude) didn't override their riders and choose Michelin. If that is the case the Rossi is just one of three riders who asked to change tyre brands at the end of their contract and he is the only one that his team (Yamaha) backed.

Sure, he "blackmailed" the sport by threatening to quit, but he's at least consistent - his attitude to Yamaha is the same. If they can't/don't want to produce a bike he feels is competitive this year then he'll consider other options.

I have no idea what you do for a crust, but I, as an engineering contractor, have been in a position where I have "threatened" employers that if they verbally guarantee a new contract when my old one expires whilst I am on holiday and then I come back to find I have not been renewed as promised, I will take a dim view of things, even to the extent of once telling my boss that I knew where he lived...

If you think that my behaviour is unacceptable on this kind of thing, then I can see why you think that Rossi's is. But really all I am trying to do is ensure the best environment for me to do my job.

Is Rossi really any different?
Yam46, thanks for your reply. I ‘m sorry if I sounded a bit brash. (If you check my post time it was 2am in my neck of the woods, yes I’m aware I spend too much time here, I’m a bit of a nerd). Anyway, you make some good points to question what “really” happened behind closed doors; however, what we know from the public record is substantial and enough to question the impartiality of the process. Do you remember the quote I posted from Speed TV regarding how Mr. Ezp felt he was forced to give Bstone an ultimatum? Yeah, imagine that, an ultimatum—and for whom? Click here for the quote.this is what I would call the smoking gun. I agree with what you said about Rossi having the right to demand. Sure, I get that, but he did go beyond simple and good faith demands wouldn’t you say? We all pressure our employers for better equipment, work conditions, and such. I get that. Now lets take your example. Suppose you and a colleague with EQUAL SENIORITY demand the same “perceived” upgrade, lets just say for a moment it nothing better, but it just will make you more comfortable. Now suppose your employer gives your colleague his demand and doesn’t give it to you; you are overlooked and a reasonable explanation for his decision is absent. Even though your example is still missing the element that your boss is suppose to be equal; which is why professional sports have a governing body whose DUTY it is to be neutral--this is astronomically more imperative. Note that this neutrality is EXPLICIT (as opposed to implied). If you can imagine, what if your colleague made more money for the company, then I think your boss might be more inclined to give him, not you, his demands—but this is not the case in an authentic contest which is why they have a governing body, to buffer this very thing.

BTW, thanks for acknowledging that this isn't just Rossi bashing. I know my style of debate can come off this way. Some of it is intentional to add flavor to the debate and get a predictable rise out of the Rossi fans (sorry, I can be a bit of an ... sometimes). But as you might imagine, we hold our favorite riders up to a high standard, and we never want to think that they are capable of doing anything other than the highest ultraistic intentions. But sometimes they do act outside of good faith, and when you got a governing body apparently aiding and abating this behavior then its reasonable that this will be pointed out. This is why I think they are both culpable. But if you must know, the greater blame is on the governing body who caved in for him. Regardless, the damage is done to the integrity of the sport by skewing the decision making toward one rider.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (skidmark @ Jan 6 2008, 07:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Don't give up now man
I have no will power to give up. hahaha.

I think Crazy isn't so Crazy. Worth quoting him again.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Crazyc @ Jan 6 2008, 06:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>As you can tell I rarely post I normally just come here to read everyones thoughts on my favorite sport....but sometimes I really think some of you can't read. Since Junkies post are so long maybe you just get confused. Why are you even arguing the fact that Rossi isn't wrong for threatening to quite. I don't think no one is debating that. It might sound like he is being a little ..... but who cares...he can do/say what he wants. What junkie is saying and I agree with if its true is - If Dorna had anything to do with Rossi getting the Stones by threatening a Spec tire then that is preferential treatment plain and simple. Rossi can threaten to quit all he wants. Why the hell would bridgestone care if he did? Fact is they wouldn't. Who would lose if he quit? The Fans would and that equals to $$$ being lost. Who would lose such said money? Yamaha for sure, Rossi's Sponsors but overhaul Dorna would suffer the most. So I would say that I'm sure they had something to do with the Spec Tire threat. If so, yes it's wrong.

I say they should have called Ross's bluff or let him/yahmaha work it out with Bridgestone on his own. It paints a bad light on the sport. Besides do you really think he would have quit? To end your career with two losing seasons while giving up on your fans cause you didn't get your way......I don't think he would have done it.

I do have a question though... was it Dorna that threatened the Spec tire or the FIM? I'm sure Dorna has some influence but they can't just change the rules on their own, right?

As to your last question, I'm not sure, but lets just call them the "governing body."


Yeah Frosty, its just to juicy of an issue. Its like the gift that keeps on giving.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Frizzle @ Jan 6 2008, 03:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Geez it sure gets frustrating around here.
Yes you're right - There is no rule stopping riders from changing tyres, but usually it's teams that make that decision not one rider.

1 - I don't give a fat rats arse if he is on Bridgestones or Michelins
2 - I do care that when he says jump, Dorna asks " How High "

What part of that concept don't you understand?

This also bothers me.
From Autosport

Rossi says hindered by electronic aids

By Jonathan Noble Thursday, December 13th 2007, 17:23 GMT

And exactly 7 days later

MotoGP considering move to standard ECU

By Jonathan Noble and Michele Lostia Thursday, December 20th 2007, 14:12 GMT


Again I have no problem with changes to the Tc rules, I just don't like the way it's being handled.

The part I do not understand is: if what Rossi has got does NOT amount to an unfair advantage, and does not break the current rules, who cares HOW he got it? Assuming any of us can really know that HOW...

In Rossi's case, nothing that amounts to an unfair advantage or head start has been got by him - so I suppose that what really burns is the WHO si asking and WHO is getting what he asks for... I even have the impression that if Rossi asked for a Coca Cola and Ezpeleta gave it to him, some would complain that Dorna is Rossi's slave

When Honda threw their weight around changing formula etc., nobody complained. When an individual like Rossi asks for something which is perfectly legitimate according to rules (and subject only to private contracts), and gests it, then there is an uproar. Sorry, I do not understand this

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Jan 6 2008, 10:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I do not understand this
Yes, you have made that clear.

Did you read this post? Click here Perhaps this can help you "understand".

Remember this>>Ultimatum

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 6 2008, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yes, you have made that clear.

Did you read this post? Click here Perhaps this can help you "understand".

Remember this>>Ultimatum

I already read all that.
It does not change the main point: if the outcome of all this is NOT an unfair advantage, then WHO cares???

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Jan 6 2008, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The part I do not understand is: if what Rossi has got does NOT amount to an unfair advantage, and does not break the current rules, who cares HOW he got it? Assuming any of us can really know that HOW...

In Rossi's case, nothing that amounts to an unfair advantage or head start has been got by him - so I suppose that what really burns is the WHO si asking and WHO is getting what he asks for... I even have the impression that if Rossi asked for a Coca Cola and Ezpeleta gave it to him, some would complain that Dorna is Rossi's slave

When Honda threw their weight around changing formula etc., nobody complained. When an individual like Rossi asks for something which is perfectly legitimate according to rules (and subject only to private contracts), and gests it, then there is an uproar. Sorry, I do not understand this Another dubious comparison J4rno, Honda threw their weight around the 800cc change, and yes, there were voices of disapproval that Honda had so much percieved input but it was after Kato's accident, he was employed by HRC and he was Japanese so why shouldn't Honda have their say? With all the respect in the world for Daijiro-san, it has nothing to do with the current argument either so the fact that you offer this a way of supporting your opinion in the current debate is, well, useless. Sorry. You're refering to a regulation change that was consulted on for a long period of time, with Dorna, MSMA and FIM all in agreement on all aspects. Hardly similar to what we're talking about here. Only proves my earlier point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Jan 6 2008, 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I already read all that.
It does not change the main point: if the outcome of all this is NOT an unfair advantage, then WHO cares???
Here is the answer: He got the tires because of his influence and favoritism--this is called "unfair advantage."

I don't mind making the posts shorter, lets just go one step at a time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Jan 6 2008, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Here is the answer: He got the tires because of his influence and favoritism--this is called "unfair advantage."
........................



WHY and HOW he got the tyres he wanted is immaterial, as long as WHAT he got is NOT something unfair or that can give him a headstart.

And it isn't. Most riders already have that same rubber!

One could easily reverse your logic and call the impossibility to get the Bridgestones an 'unfair disadvantage'