Joined Aug 2016
113 Posts | 72+
Ljubljana
He always gives good interviews and this is no exception. Truth be told...they're a lot easier to read than listen as it is hard to concentrate on his monotonic speach.
Also it is always better to have in interview in first language, you can imedialtely see how much more they say.
And he always gives a straight answer to the question, he does not dance around or change the subject.
Thank you for pasting this
Also it is always better to have in interview in first language, you can imedialtely see how much more they say.
And he always gives a straight answer to the question, he does not dance around or change the subject.
Thank you for pasting this
Joined Nov 2015
2K Posts | 582+
A caravan on an island
Joined Jan 2016
801 Posts | 401+
Uk
He mentions Ducati are happy and can't wait to see him on the bike and says he feels the same.
He's not going to spell it out... he's still got a job to do at Yamaha.
Opinions are opinions...
Allowing for your and my bias and that this is translated from Spanish I thought there was the odd barb directed at Valentino as well.
Joined Jan 2016
801 Posts | 401+
Uk
He's also likely hoping to return to Yamaha after his time is up at Ducati. Jarvis does seem keen to leave the door open for him. Makes sense I still am not sold on Vinaeles and I'm not so sure the rest of the paddock is sold on him being a Lorenzo level talent.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
"Valentino has always been a master of psychological warefare."
Lin Jarvis
Does this statement sound denigrating, disparaging, condemning? Is there a negative connotation?
Or, is the statement complimentary, flattering, and a form of acclaim?
This statement by Lin Jarvis reveals and reflects the environment within the Yamaha racing team, it also relects a similar Rossi-centric environment in the sport when you analyze statements from respective officials. Can you imagine your boss saying this of a coworker of yours acting like an .......? The bottom line is the Yamaha team, MotoGP, the sport's media, and overwhelming fandom revolves around Rossi.
It's quite disturbing to read across the spectrum people brush away this reality, this forum is an oasis in that sense. Though I'm compelled to shake my head at the recent positive comments regarding Mat Oxley. This is the guy who published a piece no less than a few months ago where he used his platform to lambast Lorenzo whilst saying he was calling out the journalists corps for shamelessly seeking click bait. Oxley is of the same caliber of hack as is Lin Jarvis, with an equal measure of a snake's tongue. I once heard it said, 'paper is oblivious to who writes on it'.
When asked in this interview above whether Lorenzo left because of Rossi's toxicity, he replies "no". The reporter followed it up to press the issue, but Lorenzo didn't bite. So there you have it folks, Lorenzo left for other reasons unrelated to Rossi and his enablers. This is a classic example of how reading between the lines is the message not the actual words, though it's a concept seldom employed. Lorenzo also said he wanted to race his entire career with Yamaha, I suppose the events of Sepang 2015 and it's aftermath had zero to do with his decision. (Sarcasm).
The artificial records in MotoGP have in the last 15+ years been a function of Rossi-centric's impact upon the sport. He has weaponized the willing media and his peculiar type of fandom (of which often the media is indistinguishable). Rossi's influence could have been limited to popularity, though his popularity is a function of the organization's allowances for results, therefore on this front, the sport's officials are to blame for the artificially inflated records hence the disproportionate popularity. In this regard, the organizers are responsible. Despite the reality of deck stacking being consistently reaffirmed throughout the years, not just in the sport, but as a general reality in all human political systems, the hope or expectation for some mitigation is futile. Quite the contrary actually, the power structure is increasingly solidified by sophisticated means.
In the words of the International Road Racing Association's President Herve Poncharal:
"Valentino Rossi is our Emporer."
If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Lin Jarvis
Does this statement sound denigrating, disparaging, condemning? Is there a negative connotation?
Or, is the statement complimentary, flattering, and a form of acclaim?
This statement by Lin Jarvis reveals and reflects the environment within the Yamaha racing team, it also relects a similar Rossi-centric environment in the sport when you analyze statements from respective officials. Can you imagine your boss saying this of a coworker of yours acting like an .......? The bottom line is the Yamaha team, MotoGP, the sport's media, and overwhelming fandom revolves around Rossi.
It's quite disturbing to read across the spectrum people brush away this reality, this forum is an oasis in that sense. Though I'm compelled to shake my head at the recent positive comments regarding Mat Oxley. This is the guy who published a piece no less than a few months ago where he used his platform to lambast Lorenzo whilst saying he was calling out the journalists corps for shamelessly seeking click bait. Oxley is of the same caliber of hack as is Lin Jarvis, with an equal measure of a snake's tongue. I once heard it said, 'paper is oblivious to who writes on it'.
When asked in this interview above whether Lorenzo left because of Rossi's toxicity, he replies "no". The reporter followed it up to press the issue, but Lorenzo didn't bite. So there you have it folks, Lorenzo left for other reasons unrelated to Rossi and his enablers. This is a classic example of how reading between the lines is the message not the actual words, though it's a concept seldom employed. Lorenzo also said he wanted to race his entire career with Yamaha, I suppose the events of Sepang 2015 and it's aftermath had zero to do with his decision. (Sarcasm).
The artificial records in MotoGP have in the last 15+ years been a function of Rossi-centric's impact upon the sport. He has weaponized the willing media and his peculiar type of fandom (of which often the media is indistinguishable). Rossi's influence could have been limited to popularity, though his popularity is a function of the organization's allowances for results, therefore on this front, the sport's officials are to blame for the artificially inflated records hence the disproportionate popularity. In this regard, the organizers are responsible. Despite the reality of deck stacking being consistently reaffirmed throughout the years, not just in the sport, but as a general reality in all human political systems, the hope or expectation for some mitigation is futile. Quite the contrary actually, the power structure is increasingly solidified by sophisticated means.
In the words of the International Road Racing Association's President Herve Poncharal:
"Valentino Rossi is our Emporer."
If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Last edited:
I think we can all see this happening,i don't think there's any doubt he would have stayed but for having Rossi as a teammate,perhaps i'm wrong, but i remember him saying a while back he wanted to stay with Yamaha for his whole career.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Generally, I've always liked his books and journalism - and I've been reading them for thirty years. Often he writes opinion pieces - so naturally this polarises opinion and one is not always going to be inclined agree.
I don’t see why he has to be automatically vilified - most writers garner praise and derision in equal measure. What are you saying compa? Is there now an 'unwritten rule' on this forum that any approbation of Matt Oxley as a journalist and a human being is now forbidden?
Perhaps it was his biography of Valentino that offended you?
Admittedly, I didn’t see the Lorenzo piece you are referring to – could you post a link? – I’d like to read it.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Generally, I've always liked his books and journalism - and I've been reading them for thirty years. Often he writes opinion pieces - so naturally this polarises opinion and one is not always going to be inclined agree.
I don’t see why he has to be automatically vilified - most writers garner praise and derision in equal measure. What are you saying compa? Is there now an 'unwritten rule' on this forum that any approbation of Matt Oxley as a journalist and a human being is now forbidden?
Perhaps it was his biography of Valentino that offended you?
Admittedly, I didn’t see the Lorenzo piece you are referring to – could you post a link? – I’d like to read it.
Good point compa, it should be a written rule, one to lambast Matt Oxley's articles, a sticky perhaps, at very least a rule to poke fun at him regularly whenever a piece is quoted or posted. Oxley rubs me wrong, so as you know that makes him a villain for life. He may write nicely in your estimation, I don't see it, given your command of English, you'd be in the best position to know. But if he does write good, then it's nicely written .........
This article had been posted here, and I did my best to crap on it. I can't recall the thread, but it wasn't that long ago. In a nutshell my gripe with it was his use of his platform to paint Lorenzo as a whiner at the expense of proping up Rossi, tge anti-whiner. Oxley chastised his fellow journalists corps for click baiting by saying they were frothing at the mouth seeking sensationalism, yet his piece sensationalizing Lorenzo's answer to a reporter regarding his take on the aggressive nature of Rossi’s pass had no other purpose than for click bait.
Let me see if I can find it.
Edit: found it compa. I'm laughing because you posted right after I went classic Jumkie, tearing apart Oxley whilst you were having your own debate with Daniboy.
Article link posted in 808.
http://motogpforum.com/showthread.php?p=423822
See posts: 810, 827, 828.
If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.
Last edited:
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Why not indeed? - It happened with Rea, then Marquez for five years and now Crutchlow. Can you spot the common denominator?
What about acknowledging two decades of utter buffoonery behind the scenes...why not a thread lampooning the Tavullian village ..... and ultimate free rider Ucci...oh, one minute.
Agree.
You see, this is why you immediately sprang into the offensive when I mentioned that he called Rossi's conspiracy theory out as ........ at the time and that he lambasted the 'unwritten rule' garbage on Twitter - which he did.
Technically, my written English is atrocious...which is precisely why my posts are edited so often. I do like Oxley's style of writing though and his humour. As for ........, as I say much of his column space is opinion piece, exactly what he's employed to do -completely different to clickbait which is also incited at source. You regard it as ........ because you disagree with it which is your prerogative and you are perfectly entitled to do so.
I'm not sure debate is the right word - but at any one instance on this forum someone is invariably disagreeing with the guy. I do admire his resilience and thick skin though.
Apologies for missing this. Given that it is referring to Misano I don't disagree with the sentiments and found it a fair assessment of events. The article is not written about Valentino, it's written about Jorge's frankly unwarranted reaction to Rossi's pass. It also duly acknowledges that historically Lorenzo is his own self fulfilling P/R nightmare and needs to learn the dignified art of silence whilst doing his talking on the racetrack. To the objective observer that isn't delirious with yellow fever, this is precisely what Marc did post PI and as a consequence Rossi's incendiary tactics blew up in his face and not only did he get burned but it blackened his reputation to the impartial, rational onlooker.
I have no problems with this article whatsoever, which may every well be down to the fact that as I said, it is an opinion piece and that is my opinion.
We'd all be ...... if we encountered him on a racetrack though now Maise8 and Harry Jones have departed.
Did I recommend 'Stealing Speed' at any point? Possibly a more engrossing stocking filler that the 2017 LCFC annual comps.
Last edited:
I too give Oxley credit for this particular article, given the continuing preponderance of Rossi fans among followers of the sport and that he could have made no comment, let alone negative comment about Rossi, at this juncture had he chosen. He certainly attracted negative reaction in the comments on the article and must have known he would.
Your prose leaves his for dead, btw.
My current view is pretty much his. Valentino (or Uccio) was plain delusional about PI and any attempted pass on Lorenzo at Valencia could only have been by means of a high risk move, after Valentino had just contrived to have MM admonished for racing him legally at Sepang. Oxley actually (in a reply to a comment) says Sepang 2015 was revenge by MM for being personally insulted/being called a cheat by Rossi, but I wouldn't go that far. I believe MM (by his own fairly out there standards) did try not to interfere with the title contenders at PI 2015, and perhaps decided if he and Rossi came into conflict in the race he would apply Rossi's own previous standard i.e. how Valentino raced Lorenzo at Motegi 2010.
Last edited:
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Yes my brother, I do see the common denominator: crashing. These riders at the time were crashing with noteworthy regularity due to rider error and posing a danger to others and themselves on the track. Something that was generally accepted as occurring far too frequently.
God, I hope Uccio continues offering interviews.
I sprang into the offensive my friend because the general bias of Oxley's editorials are to paint Rossi in a favorable light for purposeful consumption, something that has ruined the sport, and I consider him decidedly a willing partner in that propaganda machine. If he makes a rather self-evident assessment of an incident that was, well, self-evident, I suppose he is deserving of kudos...I guess, but that won't come from me especially knowing that for Oxley it is usually wrapped in Yellow journalism. His books aside, the overwhelming tinge to his blog is orchestrated to build up the theme that Rossi is the hero in this saga, and for that I'm happy to point it out, even in the odd occasion he describes an incident accurately.
As I said, I don't find his writing style and satire particularly noteworthy. If I'd scale you a 10, which I do, then Oxley is somewhere between minus 50 and minus 70. Wait, maybe I should reconsider, does laughing at his writings count as humor? Actually, now that you mention it, I do find myself laughing quite a bit, often at how his blog can be passed off as serious journalism. You can read my poorly written takes on the article he wrote about Lorenzo in the link to the Misano thread, I did so in detail, I'm be happy to read your rebuttal, in my opinion it was one of the worst pieces by a supposed journalist of his calibre I've read.
Global Climate Change is a hoax.
Compa, maybe you're being funny and I'm not getting it, but I find your assessment of Oxley's piece disturbing.
As I said above, in the Misano thread I broke down Oxley's article with particular quotes from his piece for which I took issue with and made my case why it is less than rubbish. You say his was a "fair assessment", I assume you're not talking about the pass in question. The pass itself was not the contention, but rather Oxley's take that precipitated an exchange between Lorenzo and Rossi. I understand the article was written about Lorenzo, that is exactly why I'm taking issue with it. What was unwarranted about Lorenzo's reaction? He is supposed to stay "dignifiedly quiet" when asked a direct question about it? This is his crime, "Jorge's frankly unwarranted reaction to Rossi's pass" that you and Oxley feel must be chastised? I reject that Lorenzo making comment is a PR nightmare, it only has become so because of journalist exactly like Oxley, which astonishingly in this case you are in support. Consider why Rossi speaking his mind was not a "PR nightmare". Why would that be? Did you miss the fact that in that very press conference, the one that Oxley is using to chastise Lorenzo, Rossi did the exact same damn thing, that is, not exercise dignified silence when he spoke about Pedrosa's pass as Marquezesk. Oxley conveniently left that part out when he was imparting his brand of what is acceptable to whine about. This is acceptable to you? It is clear that Oxley's piece was an attack on Lorenzo, not sure how this got missed with you compa. Why should Lorenzo be the one to shut up?
Oxley is not offering his take because he is imparting sound advice to Lorenzo. His tone is smug and condescending. He even blames Lorenzo for stealing poor old Pedrosa's limelight. Yet Rossi did the same thing. Impartial much? Again, the fact it is a "PR nightmare" for Lorenzo as you say IS because of hacks like Oxley who twist the words of riders that dare speak anything contrary to Rossi, particularly Lorenzo. Why are you supporting such an article that is oozing with the yellow tinged journalism that has created this very climate, a hostile environment for those who should never challenge Rossi's moves or words, a prevailing atmosphere where you consider it best Lorenzo should shut up? Who is reading Oxley piece "objectively" you are I?
As I said at the time, Lorenzo came off looking like a chump because hacks like Oxley are looking for moments to write such pieces with their peculiar prejudice and partiality. Rossi didn't come off looking like a chump because "journalist" like Oxley didn't write an article pointing out that Rossi had just 'stole Pedrosa's limelight by conjuring up the object of his hate, Marquez, in describing the pass Pedrosa made on him. Had Lorenzo wrapped his comment in smiles, maybe it wouldn't have been noticed like it happened for Rossi. Certainly Oxley didn't run to his keyboard to chastise Rossi for stealing Pedrosa's limelight by calling his pass, like the cheater Marquez. Lorenzo would have been better served by fielding the question about the pass by saying, well, 'if Rossi is going to make passes like that he shouldn't cry that Marquez was out to rob him.' I said this repeatedly in the Misano thread. Can you imagine the piece that would have come out of Oxley's computer? Assuming it didn't burn to ashes from his frothing.
I don't for one minute believe Marquez employed any kind of tactic that included dignified silence as you suggest. I think it is a function of Marc's personality, a happier less profoundly introspective kid, this has inadvertently served him well against what Lin Jarvis flatteringly termed, "Rossi's psychological warfare". Rossi's "mind games" (aka being a complete .......) has been effective because of media's complicity. We are seeing riders being booed for crashing as you pointed out. This is a direct consequence of the media building Rossi into this faultless deity, one word, one sentence, and one paragraph, one article at a time, with subtle language, for example to disseminate a narrative. Years of pieces like this one here, where a mild disagreement between two riders over a maneuver that turns into a full fledged article. "Journalist" specifically like Mat Oxley, who devise ways to form the general fan's opinions and perceptions about the heroes and the villains. You say you found nothing wrong with this article, are you kidding me? It was a piece solely written to .... on Lorenzo. Or as Marquez described this entity, the media used as a weapon. Surely Rossi isn't calling Oxley into his motorhome and telling him to write .... about Lorenzo, is he? (I wouldn't doubt it). Oxley weaponizes his platform as a sport "journalist" to turn an otherwise disagreeing exchange between two riders that had reasonable points into a piece that decidedly painted Lorenzo as the bad guy. How is this being missed with you compa? I'm shaking my head.
That is what the article was about not as you say, Oxley's sentiments about the 'pass' itself. I read your take on the pass, which we are in agreement was within the parameters of an acceptable on track maneuver. But that is not what Oxley nor I are contending, is it?
Oxley's piece was such garbage that I would be happy to debate it with you, as you are expressing your support for it. We can go line by line if you like, or paragraph by paragraph. We can debate the overall arching sentiment, which I contend was designed specifically for effect.
Oxley used his platform to rehash it the day before the next race for clickbait, whist supposedly distinguishing himself from those less professional "journalist". On every count, I call ........ on Oxley.
If Oxley wrote it, I'm not bothering compa. My coffee table has limited space, as of right now there are only four books sitting on my coffee table, the Bible, a picture book of Shropshire, and the annuals of SHFC & LCFC.
Last edited:
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Mike, not sure we are referring to the same article. The one I'm debating with Arrabi is this here:
http://motogpforum.com/motogp/21927...d-circuit-marco-simoncelli-81.html#post423816
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
Neither would I. Clearly, Marc had not set out to interfere with Valentino's championship - which as you say, is delusional, but following the allegations post PI and the Sepang Thursday press conference he certainly intended to put some hard manoeuvres his way in the race. What so many outraged Valentino devotees are oblivious to, is the multitude of passing opportunities and unorthodox lines at the riders disposal at Sepang. Historically we have seen this on countless occasions and Márquez summoned and exploited these to the max in his battle with Valentino - to the chagrin of his support. To you or I, it was wonderful head to head racing. Both had pace and it made for a fascinating dogfight until Valentino uncharacteristically lost his composure on track. Significantly, there was a close up shot pre-race of Rossi squatting next to his bike when ordinarily he would smile and wave at the camera almost nonchalantly. I mentioned at the time he seemed agitated, unusually fraught with tension and anxiety, to the extent that the straw on his water bottle was quivering - an amplification of his shaking hands. Very un-Valentino. I sensed that something was awry - and looking like a coiled spring, actually feared for the consequences. For the first time, the psychological warfare had backfired - and quite frankly he arrived on the grid looking shellshocked.
You are correct, I am actually in the USA on an iPhone.
I was referring to the pre-Sepang 2016 article, linked to by multiple posters on recent threads (perhaps not this one) in which he says no-one outside Rossi's immediate circle (presumably meaning Uccio) believes there was a plot last year, much to the chagrin (as you put it) of some who made comments on the article.
Last edited:
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
No, the common denominator was your perception of events which ignited the torches and issued the pitchforks. Rea was overriding what was even then, antiquated machinery...and as I recall the entire witch hunt was precipitated by Levi and his objection to the coming together with Haga at Nurburgring. So in all cases you attribute the crashes of Marc, Cal and Johnny Rea 'at the time' to 'rider error'? and yet you accuse Matt Oxley of shoddy sensationalism, peculiar prejudice and bias?
In the case of Márquez, I'm more referring to your contention that the entire series was rigged in favour of the Spanish and in particular Márquez since he first threw a leg over a 125 - hence the WWF Marquez avi at the time. Didn't he receive tricked up motors throughout his Moto2 campaigns too? Crutchlow - a danger to others? Oh bollocks - you don't really believe that and I challenge even the most vociferous anti-Cal fraternity on this forum to echo that sentiment. Himself? you may have a point...and at the very least, like Lorenzo, the greatest hazard - his own worst enemy is his gob. Find the Hodgy interview this weekend on BT for a case in point. Irrespective of your views on Cal as a rider, I entirely agree with Moto Vudu, the Crutchlow thread is utter hypocrisy and quite distasteful. Defend it with humorous intent if you will, but we could equally have had one for Marco Simoncelli - let me know how that would have turned out.
No, you disagreed with my entirely correct assertion that he had not only originally called Valentino out as deluded post PI, but had also rebuked Michael Laverty's 'unwritten law' nonsense on Twitter. I find Oxley to be one of the more balanced journalists in the paddock, but if you can provide some unequivocal examples of this bias - excerpts from his blog if you wish - then I will willingly reappraise my view. The Lorenzo article in question does not convince me in the slightest.
The pitfalls of logical fallacy and presupposition...which brings me to -
Where to begin, yeah, I think we should indeed debate this line for line -word for word if you wish, because I detect no such intent.
"What was unwarranted about Lorenzo's reaction? He is supposed to stay "dignifiedly quiet" when asked a direct question about it?" In the face of the goading and provocative gutter press, then yes, it would have been the best policy. They know precisely which buttons to press because as I said, Lorenzo is easily riled, which was precisely the point that Oxley was making and he was utterly justified in his condemnation of both the press and Jorge's ill judged response to the pass...and they knew precisely how to elicit this.
"It is clear that Oxley's piece was an attack on Lorenzo, not sure how this got missed with you compa. Why should Lorenzo be the one to shut up?"
Because, actually, he's an intelligent guy and rising to the bait wasn't the most prudent course of action which is precisely Oxley's point. Again, Matt's indictment of the press is utterly justified and was one of the immediate points raised on this forum post press conference, that they were simply enticing Lorenzo into a reaction. Oxley's piece isn't about taking sides in a Yamaha garage that is acrimoniously torn asunder once again. It focusses on Lorenzo because he was prodded like a dancing bear yet again for the amusement of the masses which is a great shame given that he lacks the requisite tough hide. This effortless choreography by the press was initiated knowing that Rossi was never about to sit this one out and they summarily danced clumsily and spasmodically for our entertainment, accompanied and punctuated by an embarrassing silence and wallflower Pedrosa wishing he was a continent away.
"Oxley weaponizes his platform as a sport "journalist" to turn an otherwise disagreeing exchange between two riders that had reasonable points into a piece that decidedly painted Lorenzo as the bad guy. How is this being missed with you compa? I'm shaking my head."
No he does nothing of the sort. His main issue, which you also seem to take umbrage to, is the needless stoking or more aptly, stirring, of an already heated simmering relationship within the crucible of a post race press conference, given that the Marquez Rossi feud appeared to be lukewarm. Lorenzo again fails to appreciate that revenge is a dish best served cold and should have or more importantly could have exposed them for the idiots that they are. "Two riders that had reasonable points?" Really? Must have missed that. As a consequence they both came across as a pair of petulant bickering infants.
"Oxley is not offering his take because he is imparting sound advice to Lorenzo. His tone is smug and condescending."
Then perhaps contrary to your assumption on another thread, he would indeed flourish on this forum.
I assume you mean he retweeted an article on his Twitter feed originally published in Motorsport magazine? Jeez...sharpen the knives, light the bonfires
Bullcrap - you have several, put it on your bedside table then. Also, have you not received your latest package yet buddy? - because the Saints annual may have to be consigned to the bookshelf for a while.
Last edited:
Joined Sep 2016
894 Posts | 557+
Queensland Australia
I think his paranoia seems to have started at Laguna Seca when MM passed him in the corkscrew. I had not seen this Italian pre 2015 Sepang Incident interview where he mentions his concerns of Marc at this race.
Having this paranoia already in his head explains why he blew his gasket when him and Marc were battling. Having this paranoia of his play out at Sepang has probably also given validity to him of all his other conspiracies theories involving Marc. Even though nothing happened and nobody else can see it.
