The Untouchables

J4rn0 said:

My position was and is clear if you care to know it from what I wrote. As Race Direction said, my position is that Marquez was "guilty but not punishable". You can twist my words the way you want, but you cannot change that. If you care to debate honestly, debate that position. If you want to play with words, do it alone.

Click to expand...

We are not debating what rd said, we are debating what YOU said, and you said, it's 2 weeks later and you still feel both Rossi and Marquez should have been punished. There is no ....... way of misinterpreting that comment, PERIOD. Now stop crayfishing on what you said.

michaelm said:

And what is your "thinking" , other than that Rossi can never be in the wrong. Anyone supporting an argument that a rider "fixing" a race by winning was extreme provocation and justifies one of the losers of that race taking out that rider in the following race because he wouldn't pull over and let him past is not in a strong position to criticise the arguments of others, whether by employment of weak analogies or any other means.

Click to expand...

I think what you guys fail to understand is that there is a thing called circumstantial evidence. No ones mind has changed or will change. If you liked Rossi he's still ok. If you hated him. You still hate him.
The biggest loser in this will be Marquez for the next few years. I think he wanted Rossi's glory and he won't get it. Even if he wins every race next year.
But he'll be fine.

steeeeeve said:

I think what you guys fail to understand is that there is a thing called circumstantial evidence. No ones mind has changed or will change. If you liked Rossi he's still ok. If you hated him. You still hate him.
The biggest loser in this will be Marquez for the next few years. I think he wanted Rossi's glory and he won't get it. Even if he wins every race next year.
But he'll be fine.

Click to expand...

No, it is you that does not understand the onus of proof and the difference between opinion and factual guilt.

The comment passed by Webb (and quoted by J4) uses the term 'we believe' and thus, my analogy of 'I believe that pigs can fly'.

However, had Webb have stated 'we found', that is a finding just as the second component of my analogy.

You mention circumstantial evidence, all good, but what circumstantial evidence as circumstantial evidence is not he said/she said which seems by many to be acceptable within the context of Sepang?

Circumstantial evidence certainly can be used to convict an offender, but you need multiple and varied levels of circumstantial evidence that accrued lead one to make an 'informed judgement'.

As an example, circumstantial evidence in the case at hand would have been that Rossi was able to lap faster after Marquez fell than he was able to lap whilst in the duel with Marquez. Factual evidence is that Rossi did not lap faster after the incident than he was before and thus, circumstantial evidence could then be seen as not supporting that MM was slowing down VR at all.

I certainly do not expect you to understand as your side is well known, but it has nothing to do with hate as you and many like you wish to espouse, it has to do with a request for cold, hard, factual and supportive evidence of the claims

steeeeeve said:

I think what you guys fail to understand is that there is a thing called circumstantial evidence. No ones mind has changed or will change. If you liked Rossi he's still ok. If you hated him. You still hate him.
The biggest loser in this will be Marquez for the next few years. I think he wanted Rossi's glory and he won't get it. Even if he wins every race next year.
But he'll be fine.

Click to expand...

Again, you have no arguments at all yourself, your first and last resort is to call anyone who disagrees with you a hater, whilst demonstrating that you are more than capable of hating successful MotoGP riders yourself.

I am not an MM fan, rather a Lorenzo fan , and it was the diminishment of any championship he might win which became inevitable after Rossi's unprovable assertions at the press conference prior to the Sepang race which annoyed me, since I foresaw yet another worthy championship win by a rider other than Rossi being diminished by those of your ilk regardless of what transpired in the last 2 races, such detraction based on various fictions being hardly a unique occurrence in the Rossi era.

I doubt MM cares much about the regard of those such as you, which not being based on any degree of discernment is fairly obviously of little worth anyway, but if he does more credit to him for standing up to the nonsense.

Ok I'm going to say it right now. If Rossi wins the championship next year it will only be because Iannone his buddy Italian is helping him and continuously interferring with Lorenzo and Marquez' race pace.

It will be obvious, and anything Iannone does next season will be to help Rossi.

Valentino Rossi WC 2016 - Prize Shared with Andrea Iannone...!

Gaz said:

As an example, circumstantial evidence in the case at hand would have been that Rossi was able to lap faster after Marquez fell than he was able to lap whilst in the duel with Marquez. Factual evidence is that Rossi did not lap faster after the incident than he was before and thus, circumstantial evidence could then be seen as not supporting that MM was slowing down VR at all.

Click to expand...

just to be fair about this part of your post, at that point there was a 6s gap from the guy in front and 5s gap from the guy behind him, and with all thats been going on, i dont think he was trying to reach even a respectable lap time, just hanging around till the finish. so tbh not a very good example.

feros said:

just to be fair about this part of your post, at that point there was a 6s gap from the guy in front and 5s gap from the guy behind him, and with all thats been going on, i dont think he was trying to reach even a respectable lap time, just hanging around till the finish. so tbh not a very good example.

Click to expand...

I agree, Fer-.... The issue - to me - is that at Sepang, and also Valencia, VR failed to make any headway on a clear track. Not the way to worry JL....and causing JL to worry was the way to get some advantage.

feros said:

just to be fair about this part of your post, at that point there was a 6s gap from the guy in front and 5s gap from the guy behind him, and with all thats been going on, i dont think he was trying to reach even a respectable lap time, just hanging around till the finish. so tbh not a very good example.

Click to expand...

Disagree ........... but then, that would be expected

You say he was 6 seconds behind with 13 laps to go for a rider somewhat renowned (some argue, the best exponent of) race strategy, tyre management, race management and with a need to beat the rider immediately in front of him for his championship.

I further (and totally) disagree with the respectable lap time part as the lap sheets clearly show that he was trying as he remained one of the fastest riders on track, just that he did not lower the lap times when he had a clear track.

Given that it is commonly accepted that dicing will increase lap times, it is also circumstantial (although many anectdotal and real time situation) would indicate that with clear track a rider can set and maintain a rhythym that is generally faster than the times when dicing. Ergo, if one cannot increase their lap times when they have clear track and their tyres are only 7 laps old (and ruling out a tyre issue), it would seem to support that the rider in question was not capable of faster lap times and if this is accepted, was MM slowing VR?

Remember, that VR accused MM of deliberately slowing him down and yet the lap times (post incident) do not show that VR was capable of a faster pace.

The analogy and discussion is valid, just not so 'valid' given the manner in which the situation transpired in some eyes.

i dont think you can worry anyone with 6 - 12s advantage with gaining 0.3s per lap,

feros said:

i dont think you can worry anyone with 6 - 12s advantage with gaining 0.3s per lap,

Click to expand...

6 or 12 .............. which is it?

You said 6 seconds from the rider in front so you are looking at .5 per lap which is a lot to make up in anyone's language but it is not out of the realms of possiblity to make up .2 - .3 per lap for a number of laps (say 8 - 10) , get the pit board and then have race strategy go, no more, settle for third.

Point is, that VR felt that were it not for MM's alleged antics that he could have caught or got close enough to put pressure on JL. So why not try?

Nobody will convince me that on lap 7, Rossi of years past would have settled for 3rd or not tried to bridge the gap, he has done so many times in the past and one would totally expect he would try again ............... unless he is not or was not capable

Gaz said:

Disagree ........... but then, that would be expected

You say he was 6 seconds behind with 13 laps to go for a rider somewhat renowned (some argue, the best exponent of) race strategy, tyre management, race management and with a need to beat the rider immediately in front of him for his championship.

I further (and totally) disagree with the respectable lap time part as the lap sheets clearly show that he was trying as he remained one of the fastest riders on track, just that he did not lower the lap times when he had a clear track.

Given that it is commonly accepted that dicing will increase lap times, it is also circumstantial (although many anectdotal and real time situation) would indicate that with clear track a rider can set and maintain a rhythym that is generally faster than the times when dicing. Ergo, if one cannot increase their lap times when they have clear track and their tyres are only 7 laps old (and ruling out a tyre issue), it would seem to support that the rider in question was not capable of faster lap times and if this is accepted, was MM slowing VR?

Remember, that VR accused MM of deliberately slowing him down and yet the lap times (post incident) do not show that VR was capable of a faster pace.

The analogy and discussion is valid, just not so 'valid' given the manner in which the situation transpired in some eyes.

Click to expand...

i have no argument about the bolded parts, im just simply saying he knew he didnt have enough pace to close that kinda gap and didnt felt it was necessary to push too much, just keep going at a comfortable enough pace that dovi couldnt catch him.

Gaz said:

6 or 12 .............. which is it?

Click to expand...

that was a reply to Dr,No, 6 for sepang. 12 for valencia.

feros said:

that was a reply to Dr,No, 6 for sepang. 12 for valencia.

Click to expand...

No probs, misunderstood where that came in

But even 6 seconds for Rossi is not that much as he has done it a number of times in the past, but that was before he had to compete against 3 or 4 riders his equal.

Still (and I am no fan of the person, the rider I have no issues with), on lap 7 to pull the pin and settle is somewhat disappointing for a racer and (IMO only) shows that his mindset was not in the place it needed to be, whether that be the incident or his all weekend mind we shall never know

Gaz said:

No probs, misunderstood where that came in

But even 6 seconds for Rossi is not that much as he has done it a number of times in the past, but that was before he had to compete against 3 or 4 riders his equal.

Still (and I am no fan of the person, the rider I have no issues with), on lap 7 to pull the pin and settle is somewhat disappointing for a racer and (IMO only) shows that his mindset was not in the place it needed to be, whether that be the incident or his all weekend mind we shall never know

Click to expand...

amen to that,

povol said:

We are not debating what rd said, we are debating what YOU said, and you said, it's 2 weeks later and you still feel both Rossi and Marquez should have been punished. There is no ....... way of misinterpreting that comment, PERIOD. Now stop crayfishing on what you said.

Click to expand...

YWhat I meant comes out very clear in the context of my posts: "they both are guilty". You could "accuse" me of a poor choice of words in that sentence, nothing more.

Had I been "asking" that MM be punished, I would have been mad (like you, for the opposite reason) at Mike Webb and RD. But hey, I agreed with them. So?

It is so evident you do not care to understand what I say, you only look for some cheap pretext to attack. But you, like Jums, are grasping at a straw there.

feros said:

that was a reply to Dr,No, 6 for sepang. 12 for valencia.

Click to expand...

All I am saying is that if Vale was making any inroads into JL's lead at Valencia, there may have been a different dynamic in his head.
22 seconds down.....JL didn't even have to think about VR

Dr No said:

All I am saying is that if Vale was making any inroads into JL's lead at Valencia, there may have been a different dynamic in his head.
22 seconds down.....JL didn't even have to think about VR

Click to expand...

The whole problem as Povol has said was that after Aragon he knew there were 3 riders who were likely faster than him in a dry race if they didn't crash, and the arithmetic became inexorable, VR having had fair reason to believe he was well positioned prior to that with Dani apparently a spent force/not competitive and MM on earlier form prone to throwing it down the road. As it eventuated he was wrong about Dani in regard to PI, but Iannone stymied him there.

I actually don't think myself there was much point in him pushing hard at either Sepang or Valencia once he got to where he finished, the only point would have been to be in a better position to take advantage of a minor error, and only catastrophic errors by the riders ahead were likely to help him at all. I did however see no evidence over the whole race weekends that he had pace competitive with Pedrosa or JL at Sepang, or all 3 riders who finished ahead of him at Valencia.

I am happy for the likes of "Steeve" to classify detraction from Rossi's real achievements, which are inarguably remarkable, as "hating", but to classify disagreement with contentions as to what he might have achieved in some completely hypothetical situation while denigrating the achievements of the riders who actually beat him is another thing entirely.

On the lap before Rossi lost his mind, he was only 3 seconds behind the only rider that mattered, Lorenzo. At that point, with 2/3 of the race to run, he made up his mind that he was not going to have the pace to match his teammate and went looking for a way to minimize damage, and that was to get rid of Marquez. When i say get rid, i mean wreck him. Seriously, think about it. He had already given up on catching Lorenzo and certainly wasnt in the mood to play the game that was being played for 13 more laps. How much separation did he expect to get from Marquez by running him wide when he was out in the marbles himself, virtually nothing if Marquez had not gone down.

baturro said:

Completely agree. Even if he could, No country man; Spanish, Italian, British or from wherever you'd like them to be from would ever .... a compatriots championship chances on the last couple laps of a season unless both are fighting for the same prize.


PS-
Johnny, is this really you? How have you been?

Click to expand...

Where did Juan Derribar go? Why is it when I click on the post you quoted him it doesn't link me to his posts?

Powerslide mods, is there an explination?

J4rn0 said:

YWhat I meant comes out very clear in the context of my posts: "they both are guilty". You could "accuse" me of a poor choice of words in that sentence, nothing more.

Had I been "asking" that MM be punished, I would have been mad (like you, for the opposite reason) at Mike Webb and RD. But hey, I agreed with them. So?

It is so evident you do not care to understand what I say, you only look for some cheap pretext to attack. But you, like Jums, are grasping at a straw there.

Click to expand...

It's like banging your head against a wall, mate. No matter what you say, it gets consistently misconstrued. It seems that too many posters find it difficult to fathom anything other than an 'all or nothing' argument ["Rossi must be hung!" or "Marquez must be hung!"]. Nuance is lacking.