<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 11 2008, 08:09 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I believe vintage Rossi is a man who wins without lobbying the governing body for help. His greatness and graciousness have always been able to encourage other people to work with him.
During the 2007 season, Rossi had many Biaggi-esque tantrums and I think that caused fewer people to want to work with him, Bridgestone in particular. Bridgestone already had a champ and a championship winning manufacturer at the end of 2007, for once Rossi had no pull.
I believe he used the only ace up his sleeve (leaving the sport) to use Ezy to make Bridgestone comply.
My problem Lex, is that your conspiracy theories are so contradictory. Above you suggest that Rossi has no pull with the manufacturers; but does with the head of the governing body?
If the governing body think that MotoGP will lose revenue if Rossi leaves - then surely Bridgestone stand to gain revenue if he uses their tires? That way they will have the two top riders and will almost be guaranteed the championship.
Could it be that Bridgestone was giving into pressure from Ducati who didn't want their main rival to close the gap by using the superior tires they were running?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 11 2008, 08:09 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>On top of that I think there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence to suggest there were significant changes to the tire rules perhaps even an experimental control tire stint that allowed Rossi to have substantial advantage over Stoner at the beginning of the season.
Can you produce evidence in the way of official documents or statements from any of the parties involved? Had there been the changes to the tire rules that you suggest; how come no-one has come out and said it publicly? Are Stoner, Ducati and Bridgestone too afraid? You can be damn sure that if this was the case that Pedrosa and Puig would have been shouting loud enough for undiscovered tribes in the Amazon to hear them.
Stoner won the first race in much the same fashion that he dominated last season. Rossi struggled badly, missed the podium and was beaten by a rookie - hardly a substantial advantage.
Stoner's problems started when Ducati started to change the bike for newer bits. They (like most manufacturers) ran into development problems and as a result Stoner suffered; when they reverted to the older set up, Stoner became quick again. Didn't the camera box fall off of Stoner's bike at one round? Are you going to blame that on Rossi and Bridgestone too?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 11 2008, 08:09 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think Mugello and Laguna were Rossi at his best. This season has been far from the Rossi of old. This is the new Rossi who wins championships by historical entitlement.
Rossi hasn't won it yet. You say that he hasn't been at his best; however he has had to go to each race without tire set up data - which surely even you must admit is a disadvantage over last season? And Rossi and his team have had to work very hard to get improvement out of the Yamaha - without Colin's help this year. Could it be that Rossi is not as dominant because up until the last few races he has had more live rivals for the championship than ever before? Had Pedrosa not played on the slip'n'slide in Germany, then I think he would be a lot closer to Rossi and we could have a three way fight for the championship.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 11 2008, 08:09 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>He could easily have gone to Suzuki, Kawasaki, or even Ducati with a simple breach of contract, but he didn't. He threw a fit and lobbied Ezy to get what he wanted.
So it would have been acceptable to turn his back on a bike manufacturer when clearly it was the tires that were the problem? That's like curing a headache by cutting off the head! Had he changed bikes, then he would either of had to have Bridgestones anyway (if he had gone to Suzuki) or stick with the Michelins.
Why it it OK to break contracts with Yamaha but "disgusting" to change tires when his contract had run out?
His tire contract had expired; so why shouldn't he change supplier? He didn't sign a contract for life did he? In my opinion riders should be allowed to have whichever tire supplier they want - otherwise we should have a control tire. It's hardly fair that some riders can choose and others have to stick with one make is it?
Rossi said that if he couldn't win; then he didn't want to race - what's wrong with that? It's the attitude of making up the numbers that is no good for MotoGP. Rossi clearly doesn't need the money; so why risk your life to be an also ran?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Sep 11 2008, 08:09 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Then he rode around in circles, playing the hero while frequently riding a country mile behind the young kid who the governing body really can't afford to have win a second title.
Disgraceful.
Why can't the governing body "afford" Stoner to win a second title. I know that Stoner is hardly Mr Personality; but that's a bit unfair. A decent rival for Rossi makes the sport more exciting.
Stoner complains about pretty much everything; yet he hasn't complained about his formally faithful tire manufacturer (who were forced to supply someone they didn't like) giving him dodgy tires while the governing body ensure that Rossi wins
another title? Ducati sit idly back and let all their good work go to waste (and potentially lose bike sales) due to the governing body refusing to let them win? Do you really think that Bridgestone and Ducati are so gutless that they would let this happen?
Stoner has looked OK in every practice and qualifying session and in both of the last races, there has been nothing wrong with his race pace prior to binning it.
I would hardly call Laguna "riding around in circles" and neither 3 or 5 seconds is a "country mile" either