Rossi: "I paid too much for last year"

JKant, Lin Jarvis is not the guy I'd be quoting for an objective opinion on Rossi vs Lorenzo's treatment at Yamaha or why he left for Ducati. You might as provide us with a quote from Uccio.

If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.

Jumkie said:

JKant, Lin Jarvis is not the guy I'd be quoting for an objective opinion on Rossi vs Lorenzo's treatment at Yamaha or why he left for Ducati. You might as provide us with a quote from Uccio.

Click to expand...

Well, its his opinion. And prima facie it does appear to be... reasonable.

If Yamaha was trying to shunt him out, I imagine they would have been less lenient during contract negotiations.


"Yamaha's offer has a deadline, like everything else at this level. But we have a wide margin, beyond the race at Jerez or even Le Mans. Furthermore, Jarvis has made it clear that if Jorge needs more time to think about it, he'll have it." - Albert Valera

JKant said:

Well, its his opinion. And prima facie it does appear to be... reasonable.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that you argue fair treatment was exemplified at the point of offer, after they had dragged him through the mud. Oh, hey, yeah, don't pay attention to the fact we made you feel like a chump for 5 months, hey look, here's an offer so we can keep disrespecting you.

If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.

JKant said:

Well, its his opinion. And prima facie it does appear to be... reasonable.

Click to expand...

The primary criticism of prima facie intuition includes an assumption that a certain level of moral maturity must be attained so prima duties can be recognised, applied and acted upon when making moral evaluations. A secondary criticism includes the notion of intuition itself, because principles that claim to be self-evident are too vague which is why it is rejected outright by ethical theorists like JKant, I mean er, Immanuel Kant.

Jumkie said:

It's interesting that you argue fair treatment was exemplified at the point of offer, after they had dragged him through the mud. Oh, hey, yeah, don't pay attention to the fact we made you feel like a chump for 5 months, hey look, here's an offer so we can keep disrespecting you.

Click to expand...

What exactly did they do that was akin to dragging him through the mud? Why would he have felt like a chump for 5 months?

Arrabbiata1 said:

The primary criticism of prima facie intuition includes an assumption that a certain level of moral maturity must be attained so prima duties can be recognised, applied and acted upon when making moral evaluations. A secondary criticism includes the notion of intuition itself, because principles that claim to be self-evident are too vague which is why it is rejected outright by ethical theorists like JKant, I mean er, Immanuel Kant.

Click to expand...

Is it really an elitist phrase? I thought the police used it all the time? I imagine it would be quite common on detective shows and the like.

JKant said:

What exactly did they do that was akin to dragging him through the mud? Why would he have felt like a chump for 5 months?

Click to expand...

Friend, that's been the topic of conversation. I think MichaelM, Gaz, 22, JP, etal and myself have made the case.

From the moment Lin Jarvis took Rossi's side and decidedly against Lorenzo in a debacle that should have saw Yamaha reprimand their own employee for behavior unbecoming of their supposed brand standards, to the ........ contract offer that was meant for your consumption but had no genuineness to it. Have you not been reading the posts?

This debacle has a right and wrong side. Lorenzo was on the right side of this debacle, and Lin Jarvis, Yamaha took Rossi's side, the WRONG side of: integrity, respect, fairness, humility, justice. What are you not understanding?

If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.

JKant, I've read the ........ argument, even by buddies here, that Yamaha were right to back Rossi because it a "business " bla bla etc. And that Lorenzo was out of order for asking the disqualification of a Yamaha employee. The argument is that he was disloyal and complicated Yamaha's position. I utterly rejected this weak argument. When is it OK for one to suspend personal integrity, justice, and allow actions that affect him which are antithetical to competition for a team?

I've mentioned this example before, we had here a player who after he was rightful ejected from a game went up to the opposing player and kicked him in the back. Guess who was the first took action against the player? The league? No. His own team suspended him indefinitely then got rid of him. That is integrity. Lorenzo should have never been in the predicament to file a motion with CAS, hell he shouldn't even had to express his displeasure on the podium after the race! Rossi shouldn't have been standing on the podium. It was the repeated gross injustices and lack of action from first Race Direction, tge League, and Yamaha that put Lorenzo in this predicament.

If the authorities fail to protect you, and you complain, you want us to believe you're the ........ WTF?

If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.

Jumkie said:

Friend, that's been the topic of conversation. I think MichaelM, Gaz, 22, JP, etal and myself have made the case.

From the moment Lin Jarvis took Rossi's side and decidedly against Lorenzo in a debacle that should have saw Yamaha reprimand their own employee for behavior unbecoming of their supposed brand standards, to the ........ contract offer that was meant for your consumption but had no genuineness to it. Have you not been reading the posts?

Click to expand...

What exactly did they do? Did they issue a public/private reprimand?

I know Yamaha appealed the Rossi penalty but that's to be expected. What did they do to antagonize Lorenzo?

(Not being rhetorical, my Google-fu's failing a bit now.)

This debacle has a right and wrong side. Lorenzo was on the right side of this debacle, and Lin Jarvis, Yamaha took Rossi's side, the WRONG side of: integrity, respect, fairness, humility, justice. What are you not understanding?

Click to expand...

It was my understanding (and Yamaha's contention) that it took no sides in the debacle. I assumed from there that if Lorenzo was bitter, it was because Yamaha didn't back him at the time.

JKant said:

Well, its his opinion. And prima facie it does appear to be... reasonable.

If Yamaha was trying to shunt him out, I imagine they would have been less lenient during contract negotiations.


"Yamaha's offer has a deadline, like everything else at this level. But we have a wide margin, beyond the race at Jerez or even Le Mans. Furthermore, Jarvis has made it clear that if Jorge needs more time to think about it, he'll have it." - Albert Valera

Click to expand...

My understanding is that Yamaha does not negotiate like you imagine. While they will allow time considerations and minor considerations, they are not going to counter with a higher monetary offer, should you, or I, come back with a counter to the original. You will note how riders leaving Yamaha seems rather abrupt. This makes sense if the process is offer - counter over - no - sayonara.

JKant said:

What exactly did they do? Did they issue a public/private reprimand?

I know Yamaha appealed the Rossi penalty but that's to be expected. What did they do to antagonize Lorenzo?

(Not being rhetorical, my Google-fu's failing a bit now.)


It was my understanding (and Yamaha's contention) that it took no sides in the debacle. I assumed from there that if Lorenzo was bitter, it was because Yamaha didn't back him at the time.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I think MichaelM is much better at explaining than I am. I thought he's articulated why Lorenzo was/is rightful disappointed with Yamaha's management of this debacle. You quoted a fluff piece by a politician named Lin Jarvis and concluded, well that sounds fair. Well its supposed to, that's why he was the one fielding questions at the press conference when they made the announcement. Why do you suppose organizations have public relations "spokes persons"? Are you Googling to find a negative press release by Yamaha aimed at Lorenzo? You won't find it. Ironically, omissions are also a cue. (Arabi used a word that for the life of me I can't remember, but it's the notion that there is a glaring message in the absence of a statement).

Friend, I assume people obey the traffic laws where you live. If you had a coworker who lived in your apartment complex, who was driving the company car, using it to blow stop signs and ignoring the speed limits, driving recklessly and ignoring general safety to bystanders, while you and your mates are on your lawn. You know the complex mangers is aware, your employer knows, and worse you know the traffic police enforcement authority is aware, neither do anything or significant. Neither issue YOU a letter that they're handling the situation nor issue you a public statement about protecting your interests as a resident. You would be ok with it? Hey, that doesn't involve you, right? You'd just sit there in your lawn chair, hoping that reckless guy doesn't wreck into your yard. Oh, but if you blow a stop sign, you'd be ok with the complex mangers reprimanding you, and some significant traffic penalty from the police. This of course knowing that you had to serve a suspension once for far less of a violation. You're ok with that?

I'm mind-boggled that you argue Lorenzo shouldn't have been bothered.

Edit to add: you cite Yamaha took no sides. That alone is a problem! There was a side to take, they took the wrong side. Even if you accept they "took no side" that in itself is wrong. Can you imagine you are an invested party to a violation. And the judge says, well I'm not going to punish anybody here, I'm not gonna take sides. Is this reasonable to you?

If you live in a glass house, don't throw rocks.

JKant said:

To be fair though, if he hadn't busted his ... all year and had finished every race say... fifth or lower, Yamaha would have still won both the Team as well as the Manufacturer championships, albeit by smaller margins.

Click to expand...

In terms of marketing, the Team/Manufacturer championships mean very little. I have seen very little advertising done by the manufacturer that wins the championship under the notion of "MotoGP Manufacturer World Champion". I have, however, seen considerable marketing using the riders title.

Case in point. I bet you can name who won the 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012 etc Riders WC off the top of your head, but do you know who won those years in the Manufacturer/Team champs off the top of your head? I sure as hell can't.

#22 said:

In terms of marketing, the Team/Manufacturer championships mean very little. I have seen very little advertising done by the manufacturer that wins the championship under the notion of "MotoGP Manufacturer World Champion". I have, however, seen considerable marketing using the riders title.

Case in point. I bet you can name who won the 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2012 etc Riders WC off the top of your head, but do you know who won those years in the Manufacturer/Team champs off the top of your head? I sure as hell can't.

Click to expand...

Great point - The average punter is impervious to the Constructors WC. I think the sole reason for it existing these days is not so much to sell bikes but the desire to beat HRC.

I keep half an eye on it, but that's tricky. The sixties (and early seventies come to think of it) are a piece of piss though for obvious reasons (not that that helps). Albeit, the exception of '66 when Hailwood switched to Honda alongside Redman. (although Ago took the title). I dunno, let's try this...2000 - HRC, 2004 - HRC, 2006 - HRC, 2008 - Yamaha, 2012 - HRC?

Arrabbiata1 said:

Great point - The average punter is impervious to the Constructors WC. I think the sole reason for it existing these days is not so much to sell bikes but the desire to beat HRC.

Click to expand...

I would go as far as to suggest that many, many punters could not tell you the manufacturer of the bike that was ridden to the world championship either as so many people now are engaged by the personality.

Arrabbiata1 said:

Great point - The average punter is impervious to the Constructors WC. I think the sole reason for it existing these days is not so much to sell bikes but the desire to beat HRC.

I keep half an eye on it, but that's tricky. The sixties (and early seventies come to think of it) are a piece of piss though for obvious reasons (not that that helps). Albeit, the exception of '66 when Hailwood switched to Honda alongside Redman. (although Ago took the title). I dunno, let's try this...2000 - HRC, 2004 - HRC, 2006 - HRC, 2008 - Yamaha, 2012 - HRC?

Click to expand...

2004 Was VR's first title for Yamaha.
Edit, I also had a feeling Suzuki won with KRJR in 2000 and I was right.

Daniboy said:

2004 Was VR's first title for Yamaha.
Edit, I also had a feeling Suzuki won with KRJR in 2000 and I was right.

Click to expand...

Dani - I can trot out every champion in every class since 1949 in my sleep so I'm fully aware that 2004 was Rossi's first title for Yamaha but I think you'll find that HRC claimed the constructors world championship due to the lack of comparable results to Rossi from Yam and the amount of RCVs on the grid - exactly my thinking in 2000. Can't be arsed to BJ.C it but if you are suggesting that Suzuki also won the CWC in KRjnr's championship year then given his dominance that would make sense. I dunno, your post is ambiguous. Suzuki did win with Junior in 2000, we know that - or are you saying that they also won the manufacturers championship? I thought not, again given the ubiquity of Honda. Then again Kenny won lot of races that year so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it.

The point #22 is making is that constructors world championship is fairly toothless on the marketing front.

Gaz said:

I would go as far as to suggest that many, many punters could not tell you the manufacturer of the bike that was ridden to the world championship either as so many people now are engaged by the personality.

Click to expand...

Or one cult of personality in particular.

Arrabbiata1 said:

Dani - I can trot out every champion in every class since 1949 in my sleep so I'm fully aware that 2004 was Rossi's first title for Yamaha but I think you'll find that HRC claimed the constructors world championship due to the lack of comparable results to Rossi from Yam and the amount of RCVs on the grid - exactly my thinking in 2000. Can't be arsed to BJ.C it but if you are suggesting that Suzuki also won the CWC in KRjnr's championship year then given his dominance that would make sense. I dunno, your post is ambiguous. Suzuki did win with Junior in 2000, we know that - or are you saying that they also won the manufacturers championship? I thought not, again given the ubiquity of Honda. Then again Kenny won lot of races that year so I wouldn't be surprised to hear it.

The point #22 is making is that constructors world championship is fairly toothless on the marketing front.



Or one cult of personality in particular.

Click to expand...

Apologies, I mistook 22's post as which bike was the champ of that year on :mask: edit Suzuki did win cwc in 2000

Arrabbiata1 said:

Or one cult of personality in particular.

Click to expand...

Can't get anything past you can I arrib

Actually I did nearly add that the forgetfulness or inability to recall is a more modern phenomenon as whilst it is unfair to expect everyone to remember every thing, many of the more modern 'fans' seem unable to recall much beyond where the latest pokemon was found