You do realize you just argued against yourself there right?
Presupposing Dovi's MO of getting stronger (he hasn't always anyway) as proof that Lorenzo couldn't have won (because you say his MO is to drop off) is essentially arguing in a roundabout way that Dovi's win was guaranteed with 6 laps to go.
Without team orders in play, we'll never really know whether Lorenzo could have recovered and made an effective challenge to Dovizioso. While history would say no, he also ran one of the best races of the year on the Ducati up to that point...in the wet no less. So engaging in a logical fallacy of presumption kind of torpedoes your entire argument in short order.
That's clever pal... you just employed a logical fallacy, a flaw in your reasoning, in an attempt to conflate these two separate points: likelihood vs "guarantee". These two are NOT the same. Let's use these in a statement to highlight just how different they are buddy:
Likelihood: she tells you, she's 'feeling' pregnant but hasn't been tested, you MIGHT be the father. (Hey, I feel pretty good about my 'chances').
Vs
Guarantee: she tells you, I just had a DNA blood test, you're 'GUARANTEED' to be the father!
Same .... JP? It would be a fallacy to equate these two, which you've attempted.
---------
Pal, i dont know why you've taken these untenable positions lately, honestly I'd prefer not to debate you because we've agreed in the past about various takes, but like your "aero advantage" at Motegi contention, I'm afraid you'll need to resort to misquotes (I never said Dovi's an "alien"), conflation (see above), and fallacies (see above) to advance your position that Dovi is not a 'contender.'
Let's examine this further.
Statement in dispute: Lorenzo gave up a "guaranteed win" (full stop regardless of team orders, or the fairy godmother whispering in his ear to slow down). This is the position you've now endorsed.
My statement: Saying wins in rain conditions are "guaranteed" is absurd, considering the 'pattern' of Dovi's habit (MO) in managing and getting stronger, therefore a guarantee is UNLIKELY (the reverse is possible but improbable, the opposite of guarantees). This is the position you've argued against, worse, you've misidentified it as a "logical fallacy."
Here is your mistake:
Dovi's 'pattern' (documented) of managing races produces 'likelihood' this does NOT equate to "guarantees." You might want to brush up on what a logical fallacy is pal.
As much i respect and often agree with my friend Pov's takes (and P.) he really left me scratching my head on this one, and to read others agree with it is head shaking, i would never say something like wins are guaranteed in the dry much less in RAIN; yet, you have taken up this position rather than call it out. There are plenty of examples of riders crashing out from the lead in sketchy condition (Zarco, Marc, Pedrosa, LORENZO, list goes on) in fact that's why when we watch 'rain' races its with tenuous emotion, especially when we see the leader with a gap we are thinking "don't crash don't crash".
I read this post as an extension of your continued skepticism for Dovi pal. You've consistently taken the position Dovi is not the difference in being a contender, pointing to supposed Ducati advantages and in this case team orders. I suspect you need to take this position because you insisted Dovi was not a "contender". Rather than retract you've doubled down, even going so far as to 'suggest' Dovi's win over Marc was do to some aero advantages on the Ducati at Motegi--Honda's personal track. Seems to me it stems from your skepticism of Dovi as I said, but frankly I take no pleasure in debating this with you because I've agreed with many of your opinions, this one is definitely odd pal.
Let me repeat again to dispell your erroneous use of fallacy: i did NOT say Dovi's win was "guaranteed" by pointing out his racecraft MO, to support my position I simply reminded you why Dovi's race was 'likely' stronger given his strength in the closing stages. That's not logical fallacy, that's just logic. You however have attempted circular reasoning to paint it as though I've said Dovi's win was a guarantee!
Let's look at it another way, as I'm not keen to let you off the hook so easily since you've chosen to debate this position. Why aren't you citing team orders to explain why 'pole man' Pedrosa 'let Marc past" and not challenge for the 4th position? Is it because you believe that Honda are beyond team orders? Or because Marc is so superior to Pedrosa (a pattern) that he wouldn't need the assistance even if team orders were discussed/imposed? Why is the notion of team orders between Marc and Pedrosa so absolutely dismissed? Because in fact Pedrosa has as a matter of record let a contending teammate 'take' the position, Valencia 06, not that Nicky would have needed it, as he said, he was prepared to do everything to win the race. So there IS precedent (or as some might call it "proof") of Honda teammate Dani Pedrosa willing to help out his employer's championship possibilities (fact). Why is it such a foregone conclusion then that Marc beat Pedrosa straight up? Given...wait for it, this PATTERN (MO) of Marc besting Pedrosa, YET, the same reasoning does NOT apply to Dovi because....?
HONDA TEAM ORDERS!
Ok,let me declare now: Marc's 4th position was a gift of Honda team orders, to extend the championship to Valencia; Pedrosa chose to slow down from his pole position and let Marc past. Pole man Pedrosa was "guaranteed" his FIRST wet win of the season against his teammate Marc who's MO was to best Dani all year, notwithstanding, this was the exception...the "proof": Pedrosa sat on pole position. The precedent: Pedrosa has helped a teammate get by before, which in fact Pedrosa did at Malaysia.
No, that doesn't sound ridiculous.
If you live in a glass house don't throw rocks.