What exactly is he required to do as a GP bike rider other than win a given race with no illegal/non-racing moves?. In my view MM was at pains not to take out any contenders at PI 2015. If he had lost, his strategy, luck etc can be questioned, but he can do no more than win, particularly in a race he had not previously completed in the premier class. Are you advocating deep electrode implantation into the effort centres of the brain (wherever they may be) to measure whether equal effort is given against all riders?. MM gave sufficient effort to win the race, defeating all competitors, no more can be required of him. According to such luminaries as Juan Manuel Fangio, Niki Lauda, Jack Brabham et al, winning by more than is necessary is injudicious, but what would they know?
You would seem to be going down the same track as many others, picking at/being a stickler for minor points (not very effectively I might add, switching from the general to the literal as suits your purpose, not a particularly elusive strategy) while not being able to defend your main position.
Why do you think the fact that Marquez won PI excuses any other action done throughout the race? That as long as the rider with clearly the best pace barely wins, no analysis can't be made? That the fact he won PI somehow makes events of Sepang and Valencia ok as well.
"deep electrode implantation into the effort centres of the brain (wherever they may be) to measure whether equal effort is given against all riders" sounds good tbh, is there such technology around?
Eh, I'd consider being a stickler a far better position to have than whatever yours is, where your only argument is that Marquez won PI. I'd also like you to show where I've failed to support my main position; I think I've been quite consistent with it throughout this thread.[/QUOTE]
I was joking. They do it to detect epileptic foci.
I repeat he won the race. I need give no other argument, this is the actual aim of the whole endeavour, and some of the greats of motorsport as I have detailed have opined that winning should be at the slowest pace which will be successful rather than the fastest which is possible, which would apply imo even more so to a formerly very dominant multiple world champion who had fallen into the rather bad habit of crashing out in over 30% of the last 18 races he contested, starting with PI 2014 where he employed exactly the tactics you maintain he should have employed, or was obliged to employ, for the 2015 race. I think he also has a duty in the circumstances not to put a contender at risk of being taken out by an intemperate move of his, which he also clearly fulfilled at PI 2015, if not so much at Sepang although he still rode quite legally imo watching live and in the opinion of RD, and in fact rather cleanly by his previous standards, again imo. Rossi always had the option of settling for 4th with no risk of crashing out of the race at Sepang if he was not good enough to get and stay in front of MM in that race, btw.
What you consistently have done is to give your unchanged opinion about the events of late 2015, an opinion to which you are obviously entitled as to any other opinion you may have, including the moon being made of green cheese if that is your opinion as to its constitution. What you have consistently failed to do is provide any of the evidence you claim backs your opinion, other than it being the opinion of others including one Valentino Rossi, quite possibly because such evidence doesn't exist.
What is really amusing is you trying to split hairs over the definition of a conspiracy; call it a plot then if it just involves one man. Those you dispute over tyre conspiracy theories could equally argue that it is all a plot by one man rather than a conspiracy among many, a bloke named Carmelo Ezpeleta I would imagine being their likely candidate.
