Lorenzos Dad - Simoncelli Comments

To quote Chicho, "Read first before judging"

http://chicholorenzo.dailymotos.com/2011/10/28/primero-lean-despues-juzguen/

Anyone care to translate any of that?

Timing is the problem with his comments, or perhaps there was also a context issue. I don't know Lorenzo's dad or heard much about him, but his comments have a bit of merit. I know its hard to stomach while people are grieving, but before people go on saying Lorenzo's dad is the worst person in the world, Simoncelli did have a history of pushing beyond the limit posing danger to others and himself at times. I know people don't want to hear this right now, I like the kid too, but I also believe he did push a bit too hard sometimes. His first years in 250, he struggled, then suddenly it seemed he learned and was a regular visitor to the podium. Very similar to the premier class, his many crashes this year was part of his learning curve. I think he was actually learning though, and a few more races I think he would have had more success. Its socially not acceptable to talk about the dead in certain ways, and certainly not during the man's funeral, so the timing is bad, but his comments are technically not that far off base.

Tom said:

Anyone care to translate any of that?

Click to expand...

Yeah, google will.

Tom said:

Anyone care to translate any of that?

Click to expand...

Its a bit long, I'll try to give you the highlights. Stand by.

No doubt Lorenzo snr made some valid point's but his timing stinks.

You should never speal ill of the dead, if you have nothing nice to say STFU !

chopperman said:

You should never speal ill of the dead, if you have nothing nice to say STFU !

Click to expand...

Adolf Hitler? Osama bin Laden?



Or even Harold MacMillan? Clement Attlee? Dodi Al Fayed? Kaiser Wilhelm II? Richard Wagner? Ronnie Kray?



Sorry, but that "never speak ill of the dead" is just ......... Sometimes it is good to be sensitive to timing and context, but we can't discuss history if we can't speak ill of the dead.

Kropotkin said:

Adolf Hitler? Osama bin Laden?



Or even Harold MacMillan? Clement Attlee? Dodi Al Fayed? Kaiser Wilhelm II? Richard Wagner? Ronnie Kray?



Sorry, but that "never speak ill of the dead" is just ......... Sometimes it is good to be sensitive to timing and context, but we can't discuss history if we can't speak ill of the dead.

Click to expand...

You liken marco to these people? You think its right to speak ill of someone on the day of their funeral ? Get off your high horse you ponce !

The gist-



That he was misquoted, or quoted in an exaggerated way in a radio show. He has been writting in the past of ways to implement more strict security measures. There should be a proper training/exam process to acquire a racing license, and not how it is now, that with an ID and $ you buy one. There should also be a point system to this license where you are docked points mistakes, such as in driving real world. Crashing alone, crashing in group, causing accidents should be more heavily enforced and punished to better form young and old riders.

When Sufoglu came into Moto 2, Chicho believed he was a very talented rider that needed work with inteligece, and look what it got Simone. There was nothing done about this and nothing has been learnt.

He rants a while about the increased dangers in GP, and racing as a whole and how these points are not being looked at. 500 cc would max at 300kph and weighed 130 kilos. now the bikes are at 160-180 kilos and go near 350 with the new 1000cc. This is added mass/danger that will cause more catastrophic accidents.

The whole "show" is a money making ploy and the riders have no group uniting them. (Union type) They are being put at risk in circuits that are outdated and thrown into danger by managers who would not put their own sons in the same risks.



In his own racing school/league he is trying to impliment more security by having an experience level similar to martial arts with belt ranks to compete with people in the same category instead of 8-9 year olds screaming around Mini GPs with no intellect behind what they are doing, just going fast. We should not be in a hurry to form the next champ, we should teach them more understanding and better form our riders. THere are many riders that work out, train their body's all week, but not their mind.

We must better educate the riders, and be strict in their mistakes to make sure lessons are learnt.







Then I trailed off. It gets, long and Google does it quicker!! Well, it's a gist.

chopperman said:

You liken marco to these people? You think its right to speak ill of someone on the day of their funeral ? Get off your high horse you ponce !

Click to expand...

He wasn't speaking about him on the day of his funeral but before it. The story ran on the Tuesday: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2011/10/25/baleares/1319527331.html



The whole point of the blog was to clarify what he said, as he claimed his comments were being taken out of context.



The point I was making (especially by including Dodi al Fayed and Clement Attlee) is that there can be no debate if we may never speak ill of the dead. What about Le Mans? Is Simoncelli absolved of his actions just because he's dead? If we are not allowed to speak ill of the dead, there can be no discussion of Le Mans. It means Simoncelli wins that argument by default, or rather, and this is much worse, by dying. His actions can never be defended again - and even though I believe Simoncelli is in the wrong, I believe that a case can be made that it is Pedrosa's fault - as we cannot discuss them.



That is not honoring the dead. That is not honoring Simoncelli's memory. That is covering his life in lies, and he does not deserve that treatment.



I'll get off my high horse now, but I'll be careful not to tread in the .........

rickyduck said:

The point is why would it need to be bought up and rejoice sic's life for the good not the bad. No need to be so negative about it.. it's negative enough whats happened.

Click to expand...

A journalist interviewed Chicho Lorenzo, and asked him questions specifically about the danger of MotoGP, and Simoncelli's riding. What is he supposed to answer?

Its titled: First read then judge



First of all, I’m only gonna try and give the highlights, sorry, it’s a bit long. I suppose if you google translate it will be just as good as my highlights.





Lorenzo’s dad basically says his comments were taken way out of context, some stuff even fabricated and totally misrepresented. So he decided to write down in his column to clarify the situation.



Says the accident should not have happened, but nothing we can do now will bring him back or change the situation. The news hit us all hard. The media has been able to provide many messages and opinions by many people.



Of all the opinions, there are two that stand out for him, the first of Paul Butler, and then quotes him saying there is an investigation into the cause of the accident. The other opinion is of Giacomo Agostini, which said, ‘we should pause before so much progress, before we continue to do things as before, without going to extremes measures.’



He goes on to say, he has not confidence in Paul Butler, since we still don’t clearly know the causes of Kato’s death nor Tomizawa’s. Not only have we not explored the causes, but no real solutions have been addressed.



Regarding Ago’s reflection, he says it will probably just remain a reflection. He says for most, it will go unnoticed, but within his reflection lies a great philosophy of what we should and should not do, for which he agrees one hundred percent.



He says he (Lorenzo’s dad) is obsessed with the safety and as its my job, but more importantly it is his conscientious. This obsession has mean he spends hours and hours thinking about the incidents and analyzing them and discovering many interesting things.



Part of this analysis he says, is the very important aspect of the formation and preparation of a motorcycle racer. He puts in parenthesis (ojo al dato) a comment not easily translated, but in Spanish its like saying, “heads up”, or like saying, “take an extra moment to see what I mean here” (translated literally it means “eye the point”.) [Btw, my own comment, I think he says this because perhaps this is what may have been misrepresented]. He goes on to say, this preparation and formation lacks licensing, which in effect can be bought in the sport.



He asks, can you imagine if somebody could by a license to transport people? Then he goes on to say, if we eliminate accidents that were caused by some external cause, then we remain with accidents caused by errors of rider judgment and lack of control. He argues that some of these deficiencies can possibly be address if there was a system in place for riders to earn some kind of a license.



He says there are many red flags and symptoms of problems in the sport, but most go unnoticed and unmentioned. Partly he says because when riders to speak out, they are crucified for their comments.



But somebody should be in charge of reminding riders that there should be an acceptable margin of safety while racing, and suggest a point deduction system like a regular license.



Ok, it’s a bit long. I’ll continue later.



Btw, so far I agree with most everything he's saying. And again, as some journalist do, they go to extremes to get a bit of sensationalism. Which is what I think happened to Lorenzo's dad. I retract, I don't think he was talking ill of Simoncelli. Btw, Kropo, that list of dead people, dude, that was extreme, your point got a bit lost by going there imo I'm pretty sure you understood the idea of not talking ill of the dead in general terms.

Kropotkin said:

He wasn't speaking about him on the day of his funeral but before it. The story ran on the Tuesday: http://www.elmundo.e...1319527331.html



The whole point of the blog was to clarify what he said, as he claimed his comments were being taken out of context.



The point I was making (especially by including Dodi al Fayed and Clement Attlee) is that there can be no debate if we may never speak ill of the dead. What about Le Mans? Is Simoncelli absolved of his actions just because he's dead? If we are not allowed to speak ill of the dead, there can be no discussion of Le Mans. It means Simoncelli wins that argument by default, or rather, and this is much worse, by dying. His actions can never be defended again - and even though I believe Simoncelli is in the wrong, I believe that a case can be made that it is Pedrosa's fault - as we cannot discuss them.



That is not honoring the dead. That is not honoring Simoncelli's memory. That is covering his life in lies, and he does not deserve that treatment.



I'll get off my high horse now, but I'll be careful not to tread in the .........

Click to expand...

You used extremes to try and force a point. Have you been taking lessons off Jill Singer ? When someone has died one should concider their loved ones feelings. By publishing negitive comments even if there true is not respecting those people and there grief hence my speaking ill of the daed comment.

And since you bring it up. The Le manns accident was 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other imo. I felt dani was as much to blame and stated this at the time. You notice i highlighted at the time, this is because it was a valid debate at the time but its not now. It serves no purpose what so ever to debate it now, its in the past.

chopperman said:

You used extremes to try and force a point. Have you been taking lessons off Jill Singer ? When someone has died one should concider their loved ones feelings. By publishing negitive comments even if there true is not respecting those people and there grief hence my speaking ill of the daed comment.

And since you bring it up. The Le manns accident was 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other imo. I felt dani was as much to blame and stated this at the time. You notice i highlighted at the time, this is because it was a valid debate at the time but its not now. It serves no purpose what so ever to debate it now, its in the past.

Click to expand...

The lessons from Jill Singer are "don't be so ....... lazy and short-sighted, and don't fight your own personal vendettas ignoring the facts, you moronic ......"



I strongly suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Speaker-Dead-Orson-Scott-Card/dp/0099503204/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1319823902&sr=8-2



It makes a compelling case for the truth over lies to appease our sensibilities. I am aware that it is politically correct to gloss over the faults of dead people.



And for what it's worth, I spoke to Simoncelli only a few times. He was always friendly and polite, and I never heard a bad word against him from anyone who worked with him regularly with fans. I believe he was a fundamentally good person.



To me, this is not about Simoncelli, it is about treating dead people the same way you treat living people: with the honesty and respect that they deserve. Producing a distorted version of them, in my opinion, and I am aware that I am virtually alone in this, does more harm to their memory and legacy than they deserve.

rickyduck said:

The point is why would it need to be bought up and rejoice sic's life for the good not the bad. No need to be so negative about it.. it's negative enough whats happened.

Click to expand...

Friend, I don't think he was being too negative about it, if anything, very real about a dead serious situation. Unless if you only take those comments as all he said. But there is a lesson here, and he tries to explain it. You start the thread by calling his comments "disgusting" but I think there was a greater message here. And by singling out something out of context is a bit of a disservice even to Simoncelli, the man we are trying to honor. It reminds me a bit of the picture where Rossi is seemingly having a certain expression, then jumping to the conclusion that his not not sad about his friends death. This is similar, you are quoting a snapshot of a larger explanation. And having read the man's explanation, I find it very insightful.

Kropotkin said:

The lessons from Jill Singer are "don't be so ....... lazy and short-sighted, and don't fight your own personal vendettas ignoring the facts, you moronic ......"



I strongly suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.co...19823902&sr=8-2



It makes a compelling case for the truth over lies to appease our sensibilities. I am aware that it is politically correct to gloss over the faults of dead people.



And for what it's worth, I spoke to Simoncelli only a few times. He was always friendly and polite, and I never heard a bad word against him from anyone who worked with him regularly with fans. I believe he was a fundamentally good person.



To me, this is not about Simoncelli, it is about treating dead people the same way you treat living people: with the honesty and respect that they deserve. Producing a distorted version of them, in my opinion, and I am aware that I am virtually alone in this, does more harm to their memory and legacy than they deserve.

Click to expand...

I understand what your saying but there is a time and a place for everything. This is not the time imo and thats not glossing over, its called respect !

Reading in the native language is needed here. It may seem insensitive to many but what he says needed to be said at some point and many ideas are valid, though I find a bit excessive.



Saying it now may not be easy on the most effected, but it gets the attention of everyone.

chopperman said:

I understand what your saying but there is a time and a place for everything. This is not the time imo and thats not glossing over, its called respect !

Click to expand...

I agree that there is a time and place. Labelling Simoncelli's riding at his funeral is definitely the wrong place. I suspect that what we disagree on is the amount of time that should pass. I realize that I am at an extreme end of the spectrum.