<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Nov 12 2008, 08:01 PM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Do you cellophane wrap your keyboard to keep all the .... you type from ruining your computer?
Tell me something; was Max Biaggi “entitled” to get a seat in MotoGP? How about say Pedrosa? The fact is Mr. Captain Obvious, everybody that comes into MotoGP has a ‘perceived” value, none of which are proven or entitled! So you saying he or we feel he has a sense of “entitlement” is your attempt at bullshiting when you have nothing-logical or credible to say, in other word, usual ........-Tom. Do they offer debate-logic classes at your school, you may want to take some time to enroll in one.
We can use some performances to judge against this uncertainty of promoting a rider into MotoGP. Now take for example a Max Biaggi. You would think that a four time feeder-class champion would be a shoe in to MotoGP right? Well, he was still a risk, was he not (according to your logic)? After-all, is not the goal of any team to win a title with that rider? That is what factories aim for when they invest millions, right? You might even say, he would be a shoe in for a world title in the premier class, the odds would be in that favor, but he never did. Now lets contrast that to a guy like Stoner, who never won a feeder-class championship, yet was also promoted, and now he is a premier titleholder kicking most everybody’s .... So we can minimize the risk of uncertainty as you can see, by discerning talent. Nobody is “entitled”; however, let me remind you though, from your theme of posts glorifying the feeder-classes, as if they have some magical entitlement, that its from this class that most likely make champions. Though I have already dispelled that claim by listing the many American riders who graduated from the AMA and later went on to premier class champs. (Or have you forgot that I already schooled you).
Now Spies went a long way toward minimizing this risk, in that, they actually can judge from three separate performance in MotoGP, in an actual race setting, while factoring in the limitations of the machine; and compare that to his team rivals which he beat on separate occasions. When you examine this, it looks pretty good in his favor. This goes a long way toward minimizing that risk factor.
As far as your second equally lame point, perhaps you are not aware that brands actually benefit from having a very talented rider on their machine. They do this not for “graciousness” but to move product. It seems if you are going to cite “gratitude” it would stand more to reason that Suzuki should have signed him for his three very marketable titles in the US (where they sell most of their product). It’s a two-way street, sure there is gratitude for giving him an opportunity, and there is also that issue of loyalty. Its not like Spies turned down the opportunity to ride those wild cards. And he performed well. Again, your second point evaporates.
Now contrast this to Rizla-Suzuki’s reaction, which is to sign the same old tired team under the management of a mediocre team manager content in more of the same.
(It must suck being you, debating me, though I’m fully aware that you are not comprehending the logic, I write not for you, but for the interested discerning readers here).
As i said before (and it seems you agree) no rider is entitled to a motogp ride, and as you pointed out, even the most successful riders outside of motogp carry a level of risk with them as unknowns in the top class. As we have done in the past we could argue over the respective risks involved in hiring a 250cc hot shot over a superbike king (the results showing the 250cc riders to be significantly more successful), but this isn't especially relevant to this situation. Suzuki didn't chose to hire a rookie from another series, nor even a motogp rider from another team. They hired two riders who are known quanitities to them, who are proven to work with the team, the engineers and to get satisfactory results. Obviously re-hiring them too carries risk, but can you reckognize that hiring them is far less risky than hiring a rookie? I appreciate that Ben has been very impressive indeed in his brief showings in motogp, i don't think he would disappoint and i think he may well find himself in the paddock in the not to distant future. But the existing riders are relatively known quantities and have motogp wins, and other world championships to support it.
I'm not saying that hiring Spies would have necessarily been "wrong", just that the situation is not as black and white as many Spies fans make out. All factors considered there are pros and cons to any combination of the three riders in question, and i think all would have been satisfactory choices. However i think given their situation it is understandable for Suzuki to opt for coninuity and that their tactical decision should not be met with abuse, especially not aimed at just one man in a very large team. By all means doubt their decision, you are welcome to believe that Spies was the superior option (we'll never really know) but Suzuki don't owe Spies a motogp ride.
