Y'know I rarely disagree with you. But to say that a rider is "entitled" to .... with the championship hopes of another rider, is IMHO - ......... People on this forum quote the rulebook the way gun nuts quote the 2nd Amendment when it suits their narrative. Folk can chose to look the other way because there's a wave of hatred for Rossi, but those who claim to be true fans of MotoGP and view racing as a sport, must recognize the rules of ethics and how particularly, sports ethics do apply. Many here were outraged when Rossi used legal means to fight the decision, but then use ambulance chaser lawyer logic to excuse MM's behavior at PI. To say if it's not in the rulebook - it's not a rule is sophmoric. Their is a distinct difference between "morality" and ethics.
Yes - Rossi was unraveling at PI and said some crazy ...., but that doesn't excuse MM's behavior. I'm not a Rossi fan, and don't excuse his running MM off the track, but that incident does not cancel out MM's unethical behavior; and frankly I'm tired of hearing all the sophist rationales for why people choose to believe that MM wasn't perfectly capable of passing Rossi. Too many people are drunk on Schadenfreude and are in denial about MM's behavior at PI.
People can talk all they want about how MM is alleged to have been Rossi's greatest admirer up until PI - but as J4rno pointed out (myself as well) the manner in which MM passed Rossi in the corkscrew at Laguna... clearly was an expression of his contempt for Rossi that long preceded Philip Island. That Rossi said stupid things and provoked MM into acting like an ... is undeniable, but the ethical thing for MM to do would have been to take the high road and just run his own race.
I expect most people would disagree with me because my view is disruptive. It's a necessary part of the human condition to make up rules that allow us to live together without killing each other: as I've posited before, its a positive adaptation in social evolution. But it's not a real thing. It's not a law of nature. I'm not sure if it's productive to argue semantics about ethics and morality but anyway, here is the first hit I got from professor google...
ethics
ˈɛθɪks/Submit
noun
1. moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.
"medical ethics also enter into the question"
synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, moral stand, moral principles, moral values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, creed, credo, ethos, rules of conduct, standards (of behaviour), virtues, dictates of conscience
"the ethics of journalism"
2. the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles.
"neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion"
When I say "he is entitled" I am limiting myself to the facts, the facts being that there are written rules from which "entitlement" is derived and a system of governance to oversee that. There is no subjectivity or morality or ethics in my statement and that is by design.
To me it's interesting to put the ethical and/or moral arguments around this topic in perspective by considering the nature and utility of ethics. What are they exactly? As I've argued before, morality or ethics or whatever you want to call it, are a loose social contract that is tacitly deemed to be acceptable, social behaviour. If you submit to that contract then you will get a measure of protection in return, but, if you disregard those rules then you forgo that protection and you are buying risk. You are potentially making enemies who will be on the lookout for opportunities, justified within that morality system, to take you down. It's all about relationships and it's about the degree of support you feel you need from your community. For these guys, its also about their personal brand value in a very complicated market place. At the end of the day all you or I or anyone else outside of that competition community can do is to like or dislike the actors in this play. Collectively, that is a powerful force that affects the brand value of the competition and the individuals involved. But it does not impact entitlement.
From a pure sporting point of view, I think there would be a lot of support for the idea that top level sports is as much about head games as anything else and I don't think that there is any doubt that Rossi vigorously escalated those head games in the most brutal way imaginable so, if (and I say
if) MM decided to work his own angle on that, for example to establish his dominance and put doubt in VR's mind to set up the mental dynamic for next season, then I would argue that that is just competitive behaviour, which I would feel comfortable defending in the prevailing moral environment. It's a classic ploy to goad your opponent to get them frustrated enough to lash out in a way that makes them look like the bad guy - to say something that they regret; that's a part of the nature of these head games no?
Regarding the pass at LS, the big difference between that and 2008 was the skill with which it was executed: it was good luck rather than good management that Rossi didn't hit Stoner because Rossi was out of control. Maybe MM was giving him a lesson in how to do it right.
To me they are just humans doing human stuff and it makes for interesting watching. I don't judge either of them because there's no point because I don't have any influence and I know that my morality is completely subjective.
EDIT: couple of things I forgot to mention...
- Life would be boring if we all agreed about everything.
- With regard to Rossi's appeal, I most certainly do agree with you: he was perfectly entitled to do that and I don't begrudge him that either. Those choosing to be outraged about that are indulging in moral arguments when the rules are perfectly clear.
