Cheers.
I think you've misunderstood my position on PI 15. I don't think MM was toying at PI. I think Rossi's accusations are incorrect. Please re-read my posts on that matter.
That's a good argument. There is a counter-argument, however: \yYou're looking at the race with the benefit of hindsight, knowing the ultimate result.
During the race, MM didn't know how far VR was from Dani (Dani ultimately had an incredible late race surge), whether he was closing Dani down, or whether Dani would ultimately crash.
For example, if Dani crashed (or Rossi passed him), Rossi would have another three points. If Marquez relegated Jorge to second, Rossi would win the title...
He's certainly averse to relinquishing a win, as a matter of course. But I think anyone can reasonably agree that MM's motivation to hurt Rossi's championship would be much higher after Sepang, so to portray this as merely another race is not a reasonable position to take.
But can you at least admit that you've never seen MM sitting so close to another guy without even attempting a pass? Please bring up another example of him doing this. I cannot, but my memory may be betraying me.
Yes - I explicitly noted that this is an element that goes against my argument. I don't pretend that my theory is flawless (unlike you, with respect). I realise that it has flaws, which is why I don't argue it with great confidence.
Except that I never said this (I must admit that I find it quite strange that you're suggesting I did). In case there's any doubt, I believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that MM93 did nothing untoward at PI15. I even suggested earlier that, watching the race live, MM appeared to gesture to Rossi to sit on his tail (i.e. let's stop passing each other non-stop - it's unproductive! Let's get Lorenzo then we'll have the dice) to catch Lorenzo 2 or 3 laps to the end.
This is the worst part of your argument (and, I think, given the similarity between Spanish and Italian, willful blindness on your part).
You have completely changed the grammatical structure of the words to support your argument. Again, this is a clear example of ignoring evidence when it does not suit your case.
Lorenzo did not say "it helped me". He said they helped me.
Marquez e Pedrosa avevano capito che mi giocavo moltissimo, magari in un altro tipo di gara potevano rischiare di più e sorpassarmi. Invece sono stati molto bravi perchè il titolo rimanesse in Spagna. Li devo ringraziare del piccolo aiuto senza cui non ce l'avrei fatta. Il titolo è nostro»».
Marquez and Rossi had understood that I had a lot on the line. In another type of race, they could risk more and pass me. Instead, they were great because the title remained in Spain. I have to thank them for the small help without which I wouldn't have managed it. The title is ours.
I think MichaelM's interpretation is quite reasonable: Pedro and MM didn't expose Lorenzo to risk in passing him, as they ordinarily would have, knowing how much he had on the line.
Rossi would've probably finished fourth at Valencia, even without the penalty. He's never had good races there.
Heh. The irony drips from this sentence.