"I like them all"... Truer words never spoken...

RCV600RR said:

Genuine question: At Sepang, do you think MM was being more aggressive with VR than he would be with any other rider in that circumstance? Have you ever seen 14 passes between two riders in three laps, with the leaders checking out, when the race has just started?

Rossi irritated MM in the presser at Sepang. MM and VR spent FP3 and FP4 eyeing each other off on the track. Tension was very high. During the race, MM thought he'd show VR what it means to be stifled.

You have to view things in context.

Click to expand...

Here is what I honestly think, and I've said as much, but I'll summarize it for you: I believe Marquez was out to BEAT Rossi, with an added motivation in light of Rossi's McCarthyist paranoid baseless accusations. The pivotal difference is that many believe, like Oxley, that Marquez was out to DISTURB and DISRUPT Rossi. Beat a guy and disrupt a guy are world's apart. A PIVOTAL DIFFERENCE, which makes all the difference in how the battle on the track is perceived!

Why do I think Marquez set out to 'beat' him, because first of all, that's Marc's nature, and second, that nature was magnified to subdue as much as possible the real bike issues he was experiencing where at that moment, seeing Rossi ahead was unacceptable. Moreover, the contrasting characteristics between the Honda and the Yamaha were part of the picture that emerged from the passing and retaking. A reality repeatedly glossed over is that ROSSI was a participant in the overtaking sequence!

I'm not even going to entertain pointing out X amount of passes in X laps, as if this carries any meaning. If Rossi didn't want to get into a scrap, he could have followed for a couple of laps to see what might materialize, or scrap it out for position as he has done in the past. He wasn't attacked! He ended up being the person who executed an attack outside of what is called normal racing. But you want to make a statement of Marc's 'intent ' that he would teach Rossi a lesson on being stifled? Respectfully, I disagree.

Gaz said:

Was it Rossi that irritated MM or was it MM that irritated Rossi?

Click to expand...

Not quoting you to accuse you of anything Gaz, this is just a general statement based on this belief that MM was annoyed and decided to "show Rossi".

A majority believes that MM acted out upon a supposed irritation over the Thursday press conference.

But this is why I have a difficult time believing that because MM may have been irritated, he decided to act out upon VR by racing him hard as he could.

Think about your own life, and when you get irritated at someone. Do you act out against the other person every time you get irritated? Of course not.

So to automatically think that MM acted out on VR because of irritation, is another one of these conspiracy theories that sound great because of how neatly everything fits into place to support the idea.

If riders acted out over irritation, we would see a whole ton of .... going on the circuit every race.

JPSLotus said:

Why does Oxley even bring up VR's statement that he shouldn't have said anything on Thursday, or that he should have taken the normal line, when he closed out Valencia by going back to the same line of thought in Sepang?

Oxley also lumps Stoner in with Biaggi and Gibernau as guys who felt the "sting of his killer instinct."

Certainly I agree with him on the point as it relates to Biaggi and Gibernau, however to lump Stoner in there is to ignore what went on from 2007 to 2012 with regards to VR's career trajectory, and how it was influenced directly by Stoner. If anything, a stronger case can be made for VR feeling the sting from Stoner since he thought the Ducati was underperforming with CS on the bike.

This feels like a partial love affair of an article that never really asks the questions that matter. Too bad. Kropo's piece was a far better read than this.

Click to expand...

I agree on CS. He proved to be the better rider. VR won the battle in '08 but Casey won the war.

Jumkie said:

Here is what I honestly think, and I've said as much, but I'll summarize it for you: I believe Marquez was out to BEAT Rossi, with an added motivation in light of Rossi's McCarthyist paranoid baseless accusations. The pivotal difference is that many believe, like Oxley, that Marquez was out to DISTURB and DISRUPT Rossi. Beat a guy and disrupt a guy are world's apart. A PIVOTAL DIFFERENCE, which makes all the difference in how the battle on the track is perceived!

Why do I think Marquez set out to 'beat' him, because first of all, that's Marc's nature, and second, that nature was magnified to subdue as much as possible the real bike issues he was experiencing where at that moment, seeing Rossi ahead was unacceptable. Moreover, the contrasting characteristics between the Honda and the Yamaha were part of the picture that emerged from the passing and retaking. A reality repeatedly glossed over is that ROSSI was a participant in the overtaking sequence!

I'm not even going to entertain pointing out X amount of passes in X laps, as if this carries any meaning. If Rossi didn't want to get into a scrap, he could have followed for a couple of laps to see what might materialize, or scrap it out for position as he has done in the past. He wasn't attacked! He ended up being the person who executed an attack outside of what is called normal racing. But you want to make a statement of Marc's 'intent ' that he would teach Rossi a lesson on being stifled? Respectfully, I disagree.

Click to expand...

What I saw were two bikes that had their strengths negated by their weaknesses, and could not get away from each other because their riders could not will the bike to do more than it could at that given moment.

On the start/finish straight, neither man could open up much of a gap on the other.

Had this battle occurred in the first half of the season (minus the conclusion of it) everyone would have been extolling it as a magnificent event that showed off the best grand prix motorcycle racing has to offer.

I actually intended that statement rather differently .......


To me, the person irritated was Rossi who had become irritated by 'his perceptions' of the actions of Marquez.

Marquez may have become 'irritated' by the accusations made (and really, most people would).

What I am well over is the single blame game that somehow, MM was the only one irritated and/or the only one to act on the 'irritation' as personally I saw VR act on an irritation he felt against both MM and JL.

I remain unconvinced (but can accept that some can see suspicion in some aspects, although most of the suspicion can be argued against) that MM did anything out of the ordinary at PI, Sepang or Valencia as, afterall, he was not penalised and if stories are true of RD having an individual chat, thence that is indeed poor form as the same warnings should be issued to all, or none.

Gaz said:

I actually intended that statement rather differently .......


To me, the person irritated was Rossi who had become irritated by 'his perceptions' of the actions of Marquez.

Marquez may have become 'irritated' by the accusations made (and really, most people would).

What I am well over is the single blame game that somehow, MM was the only one irritated and/or the only one to act on the 'irritation' as personally I saw VR act on an irritation he felt against both MM and JL.

I remain unconvinced (but can accept that some can see suspicion in some aspects, although most of the suspicion can be argued against) that MM did anything out of the ordinary at PI, Sepang or Valencia as, afterall, he was not penalised and if stories are true of RD having an individual chat, thence that is indeed poor form as the same warnings should be issued to all, or none.

Click to expand...

I made my post using yours just to segue into something else, hence the disclaimer.

The comment about Simoncelli was speculative, cheap sentimentality and appallingly bad journalism. Considering he's so close to Rossi why speculate? Why not ask his mate if it was true? And what possible purpose could he have in speculating about it? Insightful regurgitated scuttlebutt? Is that a thing now? In the context of his deferential myopia about Stoner's skills compared to Rossi, it looks a lot like a VR PR stunt.

JPSLotus said:

If riders acted out over irritation, we would see a whole ton of .... going on the circuit every race.

Click to expand...

Even worse, imagine if, as has been the new JUSTIFICATION (Oxley's word) and throughout the Rossi nation to justify Rossi’s action, that the standard for retaliation is a mere PERCEIVED attack. In other words it doesn't need to entail 10 passes or 5, but 1 pass to be enough for a rider to 'perceive' an attack. And that rider then would be justified to retaliate because he perceived some provocation. Oh I know people who believe this will come back and say no no there were 14 passes in 3-6 whatever laps. But if we follow the reasoning to its logical and absurd conclusion then any PROVOCATION PERCEIVED is enough for retaliation. That is the new standard.

Gaz said:

I actually intended that statement rather differently .......


To me, the person irritated was Rossi who had become irritated by 'his perceptions' of the actions of Marquez.

Marquez may have become 'irritated' by the accusations made (and really, most people would).

What I am well over is the single blame game that somehow, MM was the only one irritated and/or the only one to act on the 'irritation' as personally I saw VR act on an irritation he felt against both MM and JL.

I remain unconvinced (but can accept that some can see suspicion in some aspects, although most of the suspicion can be argued against) that MM did anything out of the ordinary at PI, Sepang or Valencia as, afterall, he was not penalised and if stories are true of RD having an individual chat, thence that is indeed poor form as the same warnings should be issued to all, or none.

Click to expand...

I read your statements to RCV600RR to mean, Rossi irritated MM.

Anyway, and I'll add to your post, Marquez was reportedly in tears in the Race Insurrection interrogation room. Where it turned out his account was dismissed as lying while Rossi's account was thoroughly believed. Talk about context!

Add to that when he was asked what he had learned over the season his reply was: I've learned that a win or bin strategy is not good! Perhaps he had reflected upon how and why he had lost a championship where most races he had finished he had WON while contemplating that Rossi the slowest of the top four was on the cusp of a championship because he took podiums when a win was not possible. But we are supposed to believe that Marcos on the track was sandbagging, after he had a tongue lashing by race direction, and would dismiss all that, to employ the same strategy in Valencia behind a blistering Lorenzo ( whose most wins had come from leading start to finish, as a record of Fact) to attempt a high risk maneuver at a track with a razor thin race line, risking a crash to the contender? I do think the kid isn't the most cerebral rider but for .... sake he's not a complete .......

Cool Blue said:

The comment about Simoncelli was speculative, cheap sentimentality and appallingly bad journalism. Considering he's so close to Rossi why speculate? Why not ask his mate if it was true? And what possible purpose could he have in speculating about it? Insightful regurgitated scuttlebutt? Is that a thing now? In the context of his deferential myopia about Stoner's skills compared to Rossi, it looks a lot like a VR PR stunt.

Click to expand...

Oxley has a habit of this .....
He'll write the odd "I will try to be objective" article, then scuttle quickly back into the yellow tent to pump out some turgid prose.

Matt was one of the cheerleaders, no, promulgators of the anti Biaggi PR campaigns.
He was all pro500 before suddenly wanking endlessly over the Diesels.
Consistent? hardly. But it's his living so he does what he has to. I don't really expect much of sports journos, except not to insult my intelligence.

Jumkie said:

Even worse, imagine if, as has been the new JUSTIFICATION (Oxley's word) and throughout the Rossi nation to justify Rossi’s action, that the standard for retaliation is a mere PERCEIVED attack. In other words it doesn't need to entail 10 passes or 5, but 1 pass to be enough for a rider to 'perceive' an attack. And that rider then would be justified to retaliate because he perceived some provocation. Oh I know people who believe this will come back and say no no there were 14 passes in 3-6 whatever laps. But if we follow the reasoning to its logical and absurd conclusion then any PROVOCATION PERCEIVED is enough for retaliation. That is the new standard.

Click to expand...

That's what makes the pro-Rossi defenses so much worse.

These writers have essentially laid the ground work for the justification of running other riders off of the circuit or whatever else can be done if there is the perception of an attack upon that rider. It's precisely why the black flag should have been put out for VR at Sepang, it would have been as much a punishment, as it would have been a preventative action for the future in MotoGP.

While I say justice was done in JL winning the title, the issue still remains that the actions at Sepang were not properly punished.

I hate all of them.

JPSLotus said:

That's what makes the pro-Rossi defenses so much worse.

These writers have essentially laid the ground work for the justification of running other riders off of the circuit or whatever else can be done if there is the perception of an attack upon that rider. It's precisely why the black flag should have been put out for VR at Sepang, it would have been as much a punishment, as it would have been a preventative action for the future in MotoGP.

While I say justice was done in JL winning the title, the issue still remains that the actions at Sepang were not properly punished.

Click to expand...

Sete Gibernau said in an open letter, ( I'll summarize and paraphras as it was in Spanish):

'Children will learn to behave based on the rules and parameters, punishment, and admonish, as well as encouragement set by the parents. When those rules and parameters have not properly and consistently been imparted, corrected by proper means, the child will not be aware or educated to what is acceptable, that child will not have learned what is proper behavior.'

This I believe is an indictment on Race Direction's inconsistency and incompetence to uphold a strict safety standard. Instead of erring on the side of safety they chose to err on the side of championship implication. We may be upset with Rossi for lashing out of order, but the responsibility (and the proper aim of our concern) should be directed at Race Direction first.

Jumkie said:

I read your statements to RCV600RR to mean, Rossi irritated MM.

Click to expand...

Ah my bad.

The reverse was the intent as I do believe history will show that it is MM that seems to so irritate VR but (I believe) that by his actions and comments, VR then irritated MM (but only 1 acted on the irritation and the first initial is found late in the alphabet)



EDITED TO ADD.
I had also heard of the MM reaction and that the suggestions that he had not given 100% had greatly upset him as it was attacking his integrity and the very reason he races which to me is an unfortunate (but dare I say, expected) consequence of the actions of another person

The fact that RD are said to have singled him out for a ;further' chat shows me two things.
1. They knew that MM would be one of the front runners
2. They are not being objective and nor unbiased

However, if the chat was as the result of a formal complaint or approach from Yamaha, I have no issues with the extra chat as that is the way these types of issues (formal complaints) should be handled. But I do suspect otherwise and further suspect that perhaps RD had no choice (think pressure from above), and yes that is an attempt to add to the conspiracy theories

RCV600RR said:

Genuine question: At Sepang, do you think MM was being more aggressive with VR than he would be with any other rider in that circumstance? Have you ever seen 14 passes between two riders in three laps, with the leaders checking out, when the race has just started?

Rossi irritated MM in the presser at Sepang. MM and VR spent FP3 and FP4 eyeing each other off on the track. Tension was very high. During the race, MM thought he'd show VR what it means to be stifled.

You have to view things in context.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt Marquez had a hard on for Rossi and was going to show him [within the limits of the rules] what he thought of his press conference. Rossi has never had a rider takes his mind games and shove them back up his ...,he always ...... with inferior riders who couldnt do anything about it. This time he tried to mindfuck a superior rider and it backfired. Not knowing what to do with this scenario, he lashed out and wrecked another rider on purpose.

povol said:

I have no doubt Marquez had a hard on for Rossi and was going to show him [within the limits of the rules] what he thought of his press conference. Rossi has never had a rider takes his mind games and shove them back up his ...,he always ...... with inferior riders who couldnt do anything about it. This time he tried to mindfuck a superior rider and it backfired. Not knowing what to do with this scenario, he lashed out and wrecked another rider on purpose.

Click to expand...

To add to that Rossi was pushing with everything at Sepang. He nearly high sided twice during the race while they battled. He knew he either had to concede to Marquez or would most probably crash.

You know, with all the talk over MM being irritated, and supposedly harboring a grudge since Argentina and Assen, why is no one talking about Laguna 2013?

VR tried that whole post-race contrived choke on MM for the corkscrew overtake, but it never struck me as genuine congratulations. It was another attempt at sportsmanship on his part to keep selling his image. Rossi was smarting over that move in my opinion since that was close to what he did to Stoner in 2008 --only it was missing the run wide move at the bottom-- because in that moment I believe he suddenly saw the future in front of him. That's a hell of a thing to have to come to grips with, seeing the future that is about to relegate you to the history books as nothing more than a part of the past that eventually ran out of time.

JPSLotus said:

That's what makes the pro-Rossi defenses so much worse.

These writers have essentially laid the ground work for the justification of running other riders off of the circuit or whatever else can be done if there is the perception of an attack upon that rider. It's precisely why the black flag should have been put out for VR at Sepang, it would have been as much a punishment, as it would have been a preventative action for the future in MotoGP.

While I say justice was done in JL winning the title, the issue still remains that the actions at Sepang were not properly punished.

Click to expand...

Gaz makes a similar point in the post following yours.

Part of the undercurrent to all this is supposedly that MM saw injustice in the decision concerning, and believed he had been cheated in regard to, his attempted pass and Rossi going off track on the last lap in the Assen race this year.

I was in agreement with RD and thought VR was in the right in regard to that incident, even though MM winning would have helped Jorge, since a successful pass would have involved forcing Rossi off the track. But I can see why MM might have considered his move to be legitimate, given similar moves by him at Jerez 2013 and by Rossi on Gibernau at Jerez 2005 were allowed. Come to think of it, even current RD would have had trouble being so inconsistent as to allow Rossi's Sepang move (as some of the crazier Rossi fans apparently consider should have been the case) given the ruling they made in regard to MM's Assen move.

JPSLotus said:

, but it never struck me as genuine congratulations. It was another attempt at sportsmanship on his part to keep selling his image. .

Click to expand...

I have been saying for years that Rossi is a fake and all of his so called sportsmanship looked contrived. He is a snake in the grass that will smile at you while plunging a blade in your side.

michaelm said:

Gaz makes a similar point in the post following yours.

Part of the undercurrent to all this is supposedly that MM saw injustice in the decision concerning, and believed he had been cheated in regard to, his attempted pass and Rossi going off track on the last lap in the Assen race this year.

I was in agreement with RD and thought VR was in the right in regard to that incident, since a successful pass would have involved forcing Rossi off the track. But I can see why MM might have considered his move to be legitimate, given similar moves by him at Jerez 2013 and Rossi on Gibernau at Jerez 2005 were allowed.

Click to expand...

Two things...

I actually believe Rossi took out MM in Argentina. It was so subtle that no one picked up on it. I've rewatched that overtake and subsequent contact hundreds of times, and there's two things I've noticed that have stood out for me.



At 1:20 when they first make contact, Rossi initiates the contact. It's such a subtle moment because it could be attributed to him trying to get the bike vertical, except for the fact that the bike wouldn't be vertical in normal circumstances. I think that was a warning to back off of him.

The second is when MM goes down. Rossi knew MM was still there, not fully alongside, but enough that he was not going anywhere yet, so he chopped right across MM's front and took him down. That was not a move VR should have done knowing a guy was right there. MM had nowhere to go at that moment, sort of like what we saw in Sepang later on.

Assen was a calculated move by Rossi to let MM run into him. It's an eerily similar incident as Prost-Senna, Suzuka 1989 where Senna goes up the inside, and Prost turns in on him to prevent the overtake. Only instead of locking together, Rossi bolted upright and went straight through the gravel. I knew MM was going to attempt the overtake in that final chicane, and I knew it, surely a guy like Rossi knew it as well.

I wrote both of these off at the time when they happened, but the more I watched Argentina in particular, the more I became convinced that there was nothing innocent about that entire sequence that led to MM down on the track.