<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ May 7 2008, 10:29 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So are you wishing him death too? Sounds rather equally harsh Odessa (correct me if I'm reading you wrong).
Lex, that post was way over the top and uncalled for.
Tom, you continue to show that you know zero about life and motorcycle racing. Debating you on anything is a waste of time. Let it suffice to say your opinions expose the person behind them as a pathetically prejudiced & biased individual whose jealousy for the AMA and the Hayden's drive your posts.
Gary, I agree for the most part with your assessment regarding this incident. But I'm a bit puzzled from some of the other comments in your posts. You say you are not gonna make assumptions but you have no problem making the suggestion that perhaps the "vitriolic" calls have their foundation on an undeserved lofty perspective of fans holding the Haydens as racing "royalty." Yet you concede that this incident was beyond the pale for a professional rider like Cardenas. It sounds like you think this particular incident was evident of Cardenas’s lack of race craft, then you question why such "vitriolic" the reaction? Well you should have gathered from those following and observing Cardenas’s riding style, which has become excruciatingly apparent that a pattern of reckless, selfish, dangerous, and detrimental to others has been the characteristic of his riding. I’m still puzzles why people who chalk up all crashes to simple “racing incidents” refuse to accept that humans in whatever field and status of life have flaws that present themselves, and sometimes detrimentally.
Fine, you say you're not gonna pass judgment until you see the video on other incidents, but please spare me the judgment on us who have been making the "vitriolic" calls for penalty and restriction are not talking "rubbish" (as you put it) just for the sake of spite, but rather since we have seen the tape on other incidents, we are actually making a judgment on a pattern of recklessness. I agree with your assessment of this particular incident. Now what would be your opinion if similar lack of race craft were shown in other cases and a pattern emerged? And yes, a few others have been near misses, but does a near miss constitute a moot point that his riding style is not dangerous? Its a bit like NOT calling a near miss from somebody running a red light barely missing plowing into you a reckless blunder because he “missed” you. When this guy has done that several times, some nearly misses, but its still no less a dangerous blunder. Perhaps you missed in a previous race at this same round in Fontana (the race before he torpedoed Tommy) where he tried to pass the rider in front of him and was going almost double the speed into turn 3 (off the high speed chicane coming off the front straight) he had to take evasive action and ran wide, luckily there were no riders there, but again this is characteristic of his lack of ability and judgment. Did you see the previous round to this one, at Barber; he cut off of a Kawasaki rider who had to take evasive action. Not to mention last year at the last round (effectively only 4 rounds ago counting back) where he tried a bonsai move to pass TWO riders at once, one of which was Roger Lee, the points leader at the moment, in an extremely technical part of the track (Corkscrew), he blundered again, both riders went off-line causing a crash behind him from the check up of the two riders in front of him. Now that’s three to four incidents in just as many races. I call that a pattern. On top of that, I’d say the “vitriolic” calls to have him restricted are mild in comparison to the damage and potential damage he has caused and can cause.
Jumkie,
I think you have read to much into my 'Racing Royalty' type comment and have drawn a bow connecting that approach with the comments of some on here. The two comments 'Racing Royalty' and 'vitriolic' are used in separate posts and no bow should be drawn between the two. Nor do I use the term 'Racing Royalty' in any derogatory terms to the Haydens but instead use it (or at least intended to) as a descriptor of the regard in which they are held and therefore as a way to explain that I understand their popularity.
As for passing judgement for those that may have seen all incidents, where do I say that as it was not the intention and if it reads that way then I apologise. I will however say that I am a person that does not enjoy reading posts that get overly personal (ie. abusive to the rider or poster) as a means of making an argument or stating a position, it is these for which I use the term 'vitriolic' and in most part, it applies to only part of the posts. That said, there are some insightful posts and the fact that a common theme existed (ie. a few posters saying the same type of things) led me to go searching for the videos and other etxt (unfortunately can't find to much text). So I think you have misunderstood, misread my posts or just that I typed them and gave a wrong impression on their intended message.
I fully recognise that many would have seen previous instances and therefore seen a pattern of similar behaviour by Cardenas which is why I have asked if the first video is also him.
If there is a pattern then there is a problem that goes beyond technique and/or judgement as a pattern would indicate that he is either not learnin from his mistakes or does not see them as mistakes. This then enters the realm of your personality flaw argument from another thread and is something I would agree fully with under these circumstances and I would fully support a heavy sanction.
Is Lex right in his post stating that Cardenas is a 'favourite' of Ulrich and thus no action will be taken?
Further, what are riders saying with regards to Cardenas, is he seen as dangerous and a liability (difficult to get comments with the libel laws)?
I know it may look as though I disagree in some ways with your general message in regards to rider behaviour, but I don't. If a rider is dangerous and there is a pattern of recklessness or negligence than action has to be taken whether it be by the series (AMA), riders or the Motrcycle Racing Body (in Oz, Motorcycling Australia can remove licences). If a rider is dangerous once then you can say that was an accdent, twice you may say coincidence, three times or more is negligence, recklessness or just outright lack of ability in that circumstance.
It is very difficult for me to comment on patterns as in Oz we don't get any real coverage of the AMA rounds, although occasionally it will appear months afterwards (geez, we even got some 2007 stuff the other week) so I am reliant on common sense posts and videos to make judgement.
This is why I am very interested to identify if the first video I posted is indeed Cardenas (the crasher) as the similarities are there for all to see, but thus far nobody can tell me (the video apeared searching for Cardenas, but which of the two is he).
One thing that should be appreciated however is that there is discussion surrounding the AMA and the fact than many feel that incidents of this type do need to be looked into even if they can't agree on sanctions.
Garry
