The Untouchables

J4rn0 said:

To me, even accepting MM was faster than Iannone and Rossi and played a little with them, P.I. could be read as legitimate race tactic on the part of MM in order to win the race -- he wanted to catch Lorenzo, but he didn't want Rossi and Iannone to follow him and arrive all four of them together on the finish line. So, play a little with them, make sure Rossi and Iannone get into a duel, then at the last moment use your speed, catch Lorenzo and win. Brilliant.

Click to expand...

This is at least as plausible as Rossi's interpretation of events, particularly since Iannone had great straight line pace sufficient to beat Rossi ultimately.

michaelm said:

This is at least as plausible as Rossi's interpretation of events, particularly since Iannone had great straight line pace sufficient to beat Rossi ultimately.

Click to expand...

C'mon, you are not happy even when I say that Maruqez' race tactic at P.I. was brilliant? And I mean it.

Anyway, Iannone could pass Rossi on the straight only if he could stay close enough in the corners -- and an intense three-way duel protracted until the last lap helped him a lot in that.

J4rn0 said:

C'mon, you are not happy even when I say that Maruqez' race tactic at P.I. was brilliant? And I mean it.

Anyway, Iannone could pass Rossi on the straight only if he could stay close enough in the corners -- and an intense three-way duel protracted until the last lap helped him a lot in that.

Click to expand...

I am not a Marquez fan, and prior to all this would have backed Rossi if it was down to him and Marquez for a title.

I have been following Lorenzo since Stoner retired, for a number of reasons, including that I didn't want Marquez to win the 2013 title, but also because he was the guy who actually beat Stoner in 2012, and because I admired how he fought out his first title defence in 2011.

My bias in all this is from the position of being a Lorenzo fan, and being annoyed that Rossi was apparently attempting to change the rules for the last 3 races (I would have been happy for match races between him and JL as long as he gave up the lead he had gained in non-match race conditions), and the discrediting of JL's championship by him both prospectively in the Sepang pre-race press conference and by his ongoing statements after the championship has been decided. I am also allotting him more blame retrospectively for the hounding of Stoner and others by some of his fans.

michaelm said:

I am not a Marquez fan, and prior to all this would have backed Rossi if it was down to him and Marquez for a title.

I have been following Lorenzo since Stoner retired, for a number of reasons, including that I didn't want Marquez to win the 2013 title, but also because he was the guy who actually beat Stoner in 2012, and because I admired how he fought out his first title defence in 2011.

My bias in all this is from the position of being a Lorenzo fan, and being annoyed that Rossi was apparently attempting to change the rules for the last 3 races (I would have been happy for match races between him and JL as long as he gave up the lead he had gained in non-match race conditions), and the discrediting of JL's championship by him both prospectively in the Sepang pre-race press conference and by his ongoing statements after the championship has been decided. I am also allotting him more blame retrospectively for the hounding of Stoner and others by some of his fans.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Keshav said:

Rossi buzzing Lorenzo was childish - but it had zero effect on the outcome of the race. The race and the championship are what really count.

Click to expand...

Irrespective whether it was childish and/or whether it affected the race ……………. It was ‘unethical’ and against ‘unwritten rules’ to which others are being judged, thus it is relevant in as much as a person accusing another of unethical treatment and of acting outside of ‘unwritten rules’, is themselves as guilty. Unethical or hypocrite ……….. either could be applied

Keshav said:

To say ethics have no place in high sport or business may be your personal belief system - but I have to disagree. I have watched time and again news programs that spend weeks analyzing various scandals regarding doping in sports - which is a fair indicator that majority of the world do care if someone is unethically giving themselves an unfair advantage. Fairness in competitive sport - to the extent that it is possible - is always a concern to me.

Click to expand...

Where do I say that ethics have no place ?

What I say is that they do not exist ………………. Two completely and entirely different things altogether.

Ethics are a great powerful tool or belief to espouse, but they work both ways in as much as if you wish to be on the receiving end of good ethics, you must also portray good ethics.

Keshav said:

Ethics in business even more-so. Look at all the people who lost their homes in the scandal with all the ...... mortgages. I'd like to see someone say that ethics have no place in high business to the face of someone who has lost the home they lived in.

Click to expand...

As with the above comment, I do not say that they have no place, but I simply say that they do not exist as in large businesses, they do not care who they hurt until it starts to hurt their bottom line, and then the feelings are not borne from ethics but from shareholder anger and the damage being done to the business. It certainly is not moral, but big businesses do not become big businesses by being moral or ethical, they do it by being .......s and trying to batter all opposition into submission with a ‘take no prisoners’ approach. Not right, not moral and not ethical ………………….

Keshav said:

Winning at any cost - is a sad-... code to live by. That, and the belief that if you don't get caught, it's not illegal.

Click to expand...

Win at all costs is an attitude moreso than a code (IMO) and it is sadly pervasive in many sports and even so far as imposing itself at low level club sports. It is not correct as in so many ways it takes the fun from the sport but again, when you reach the upper echelons of the sport it is a business and as such, to build your brand, to increase your income and to continue to be at the top, you will often not care but do what it takes.

Keshav said:

MM can say he overcooked the front end till doomsday - but I'll never buy into it. If his front end was in such bad shape - the logical thing to do would be to move on, and ride smoothly as Dani did, rather than further cooking it by dueling with Rossi which entailed a great deal of hard and late breaking which would only exacerbate the problem. I know I was only a pissant, mid-level club racer, but I know what I saw and I got to say, people need to keep it real and stop grasping at straws for why they claim to believe Marquez.

Click to expand...

At PI?

Well I guess that a guy like Bradley Smith also has no idea as he had already stated similar issues with a front tyre …………………. It went off for a few laps, then came back and his pace was significantly faster. This did not occur at PI but was reported by a number of journalists so I am quite comfortable with MM’s explanations for PI, not that I think he has to provide any type of explanation as for mine, PI was not him playing but was Rossi being paranoid and seeking an excuse to take the heat off Ianonne.

Keshav said:

As to Rossi ....... up the sport - I'm as incensed as the next guy. For me his on and off track behavior led to the ruination of what was the best season in a decade. No argument there.

Click to expand...

Not just Rossi (IMO).

At season’s end there was some petulance shown by a few riders as well as teams which was poor.

When a season is still being discussed for these type of reasons, something is not right given the closeness of the championship across the year

J4rn0 said:

C'mon, you are not happy even when I say that Maruqez' race tactic at P.I. was brilliant? And I mean it.

Anyway, Iannone could pass Rossi on the straight only if he could stay close enough in the corners -- and an intense three-way duel protracted until the last lap helped him a lot in that.

Click to expand...

If you go back and watch last lap at PI, Rossi led Ianonne on the last lap and gave up that spot in the fast esses, which is where Yamaha is strongest. The duc was fast on the straight, but the podium move came in the corners.That spot and the spot lost to Dani at Aragon are what ultimately cost Rossi the title, not Marquez

Gaz said:

Irrespective whether it was childish and/or whether it affected the race ……………. It was ‘unethical’ and against ‘unwritten rules’ to which others are being judged, thus it is relevant in as much as a person accusing another of unethical treatment and of acting outside of ‘unwritten rules’, is themselves as guilty. Unethical or hypocrite ……….. either could be applied






Where do I say that ethics have no place ?

What I say is that they do not exist ………………. Two completely and entirely different things altogether.

Ethics are a great powerful tool or belief to espouse, but they work both ways in as much as if you wish to be on the receiving end of good ethics, you must also portray good ethics.





As with the above comment, I do not say that they have no place, but I simply say that they do not exist as in large businesses, they do not care who they hurt until it starts to hurt their bottom line, and then the feelings are not borne from ethics but from shareholder anger and the damage being done to the business. It certainly is not moral, but big businesses do not become big businesses by being moral or ethical, they do it by being .......s and trying to batter all opposition into submission with a ‘take no prisoners’ approach. Not right, not moral and not ethical ………………….




Win at all costs is an attitude moreso than a code (IMO) and it is sadly pervasive in many sports and even so far as imposing itself at low level club sports. It is not correct as in so many ways it takes the fun from the sport but again, when you reach the upper echelons of the sport it is a business and as such, to build your brand, to increase your income and to continue to be at the top, you will often not care but do what it takes.



At PI?

Well I guess that a guy like Bradley Smith also has no idea as he had already stated similar issues with a front tyre …………………. It went off for a few laps, then came back and his pace was significantly faster. This did not occur at PI but was reported by a number of journalists so I am quite comfortable with MM’s explanations for PI, not that I think he has to provide any type of explanation as for mine, PI was not him playing but was Rossi being paranoid and seeking an excuse to take the heat off Ianonne.





Not just Rossi (IMO).

At season’s end there was some petulance shown by a few riders as well as teams which was poor.

When a season is still being discussed for these type of reasons, something is not right given the closeness of the championship across the year

Click to expand...

I'm not a formal scholar on these matters but I find Nietzsche's work to be fascinating. I didn't arrive at my theory of morality by reading him but it seems like he had similar views. I'm going to have a stab at reading "Beyond Good and Evil" and "on the Geniality of Morality". I don't know if you guys have read him? I'd be interested in your views.

If you subscribe to his thinking then you don't need a moral context to understand or characterise human behaviour. Morality/ethics exists for the same reason that peacocks have such elaborate tail feathers: because it works. So, I just want to be clear that I never claimed that morality is a bad thing. In fact that would be non-sensical, like saying that peacocks are narcissistic! All I'm arguing is that, before you can think rationally about ethics, you need to understand and acknowledge it for what it is: a arbitrary and completely abstract, but very successful adaptation in social evolution. If you get that work done, then you can begin to have a practical and productive conversation about these things. Otherwise it's just a battle of competing moral codes, both of which are a product of belief, not reason and neither of which has any absolute basis in fact. So the battle is endless; it can never be resolved.

Juan Derribar said:

George Zimmerossi vs Travonn Marquez. Thats what your debating here folks

Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly you feel that neither the infamous murder of an unarmed black teenager and the subsequent jury trial that let the murderer go scott free; an event unquestionably considered by the black community to be emblematic of widespread, institutional racism in the USA, nor the the incident wherein an aging, washed up athlete behaved in an unethical fashion at a sporting event, is worthy of further discussion because both are equally trivial. Have I got that right?

Cool Blue said:

I'm not a formal scholar on these matters but I find Nietzsche's work to be fascinating. I didn't arrive at my theory of morality by reading him but it seems like he had similar views. I'm going to have a stab at reading "Beyond Good and Evil" and "on the Geniality of Morality". I don't know if you guys have read him? I'd be interested in your views.

If you subscribe to his thinking then you don't need a moral context to understand or characterise human behaviour. Morality/ethics exists for the same reason that peacocks have such elaborate tail feathers: because it works. So, I just want to be clear that I never claimed that morality is a bad thing. In fact that would be non-sensical, like saying that peacocks are narcissistic! All I'm arguing is that, before you can think rationally about ethics, you need to understand and acknowledge it for what it is: a arbitrary and completely abstract, but very successful adaptation in social evolution. If you get that work done, then you can begin to have a practical and productive conversation about these things. Otherwise it's just a battle of competing moral codes, both of which are a product of belief, not reason and neither of which has any absolute basis in fact. So the battle is endless; it can never be resolved.

Click to expand...

All to deep for me I am afraid .............. if there are no ....s in the book, then it ain't worth reading

Gaz said:

All to deep for me I am afraid .............. if there are no ....s in the book, then it ain't worth reading

Click to expand...

hehe... I was wondering when the elastic band would finally snap

It is handy knowledge when you're managing projects that span widely different cultures though.

Sooo, does that make you a penile existentialist? Oh, wait, no, that's a short, bald guy with a red muscle car...

Actually, I often wondered why they only have oral and anal and not "scrotal" for example...

Gaz said:

Irrespective whether it was childish and/or whether it affected the race ……………. It was ‘unethical’ and against ‘unwritten rules’ to which others are being judged, thus it is relevant in as much as a person accusing another of unethical treatment and of acting outside of ‘unwritten rules’, is themselves as guilty. Unethical or hypocrite ……….. either could be applied






Where do I say that ethics have no place ?

What I say is that they do not exist ………………. Two completely and entirely different things altogether.

Ethics are a great powerful tool or belief to espouse, but they work both ways in as much as if you wish to be on the receiving end of good ethics, you must also portray good ethics.





As with the above comment, I do not say that they have no place, but I simply say that they do not exist as in large businesses, they do not care who they hurt until it starts to hurt their bottom line, and then the feelings are not borne from ethics but from shareholder anger and the damage being done to the business. It certainly is not moral, but big businesses do not become big businesses by being moral or ethical, they do it by being .......s and trying to batter all opposition into submission with a ‘take no prisoners’ approach. Not right, not moral and not ethical ………………….




Win at all costs is an attitude moreso than a code (IMO) and it is sadly pervasive in many sports and even so far as imposing itself at low level club sports. It is not correct as in so many ways it takes the fun from the sport but again, when you reach the upper echelons of the sport it is a business and as such, to build your brand, to increase your income and to continue to be at the top, you will often not care but do what it takes.



At PI?

Well I guess that a guy like Bradley Smith also has no idea as he had already stated similar issues with a front tyre …………………. It went off for a few laps, then came back and his pace was significantly faster. This did not occur at PI but was reported by a number of journalists so I am quite comfortable with MM’s explanations for PI, not that I think he has to provide any type of explanation as for mine, PI was not him playing but was Rossi being paranoid and seeking an excuse to take the heat off Ianonne.





Not just Rossi (IMO).

At season’s end there was some petulance shown by a few riders as well as teams which was poor.

When a season is still being discussed for these type of reasons, something is not right given the closeness of the championship across the year

Click to expand...

I didn't meant to put words in your mouth. I only meant to express what I thought was your intent and did not do so with accuracy. I do think there is a place for ethics in both sport and business. While the lack of them is widespread in both fields - I don't believe we as civilized human beings shouldn't stop striving to achieve higher standards. I think we should demand them and insist on them wherever possible, in any competitive endeavor which we hold dear. I'm a realist and understand that we cannot hold racers to superhuman standards - but I don't think it's too much to hope that they can at least undertake to uphold some universal, commonsense baseline paradigm or benchmark.


Cue recording of John Lennon singing "Imagine"

Cool Blue said:

hehe... I was wondering when the elastic band would finally snap

It is handy knowledge when you're managing projects that span widely different cultures though.

Sooo, does that make you a penile existentialist? Oh, wait, no, that's a short, bald guy with a red muscle car...

Actually, I often wondered why they only have oral and anal and not "scrotal" for example...

Click to expand...

Tick.

No muscle car though

Keshav said:

I didn't meant to put words in your mouth. I only meant to express what I thought was your intent and did not do so with accuracy. I do think there is a place for ethics in both sport and business. While the lack of them is widespread in both fields - I don't believe we as civilized human beings shouldn't stop striving to achieve higher standards. I think we should demand them and insist on them wherever possible, in any competitive endeavor which we hold dear. I'm a realist and understand that we cannot hold racers to superhuman standards - but I don't think it's too much to hope that they can at least undertake to uphold some universal, commonsense baseline paradigm or benchmark.

Click to expand...

Agreed but I also believe that whilst we are beholden to money then we shall forever be in a battle and sadly, sport is driven by the dollar and as such, sport is not immune from the need for money.

What is sad is that the lack of ethics or morals (sports related) if we wish to call them that has permeated to the very junior levels of a lot of sports which will be a concern in the future for a lot of these sports.

For the record, I am not particularly a Marquez fan, though I do admire his talent.

However, for the life of me I cannot see anything wrong with what he did at Philip Island or Valencia. Conserving your tires for a couple of laps is now an indictable offense? Winning the race? Please spare me....

The tax cheat from Tavullia just can't understand why the entire grid, paddock and race direction didn't roll over for him and automatically grant him an honorary championship.

Ha ha, that's some funny .... that you can't make up.

Gaz said:

Agreed but I also believe that whilst we are beholden to money then we shall forever be in a battle and sadly, sport is driven by the dollar and as such, sport is not immune from the need for money.

What is sad is that the lack of ethics or morals (sports related) if we wish to call them that has permeated to the very junior levels of a lot of sports which will be a concern in the future for a lot of these sports.

Click to expand...

Top level motorsports have long lost that title and become business. Formula 1 is constantly advertised as 'The Most Expensive Sport in the World" for goodness sake and when that sort of money is involved, ethics are long gone. They may portray them but I've worked in the paddock and i'm sure none of you are surprised to know what goes on there. Take Singapore 2008. A team boss and his deputy basically blackmailed one of their drivers to crash on a particular lap, thus bringing out the safety car and allowing a strategy that allowed their other driver to win the race. They risked a drivers life and that of countless marshalls to win a motor race which gave them what? Some bragging rights and some prize money. Those sort of ethics are similar to what's seen in top level corporations I expect.

And you're right. It fizzles down. I last year entered a supposedly 'amateur' karting series that was intended to be for drivers who wanted some casual enjoyable racing but whose equipment was too old to be competitive at MSA level. I lasted 4 events before leaving after calling out some drivers who were spending outrageous sums to win...so much for ethics.

Money bring politics, and a decrease in ethics.

Careful now, back in Tavullia, Don Cesare is "oiling the bells"...

Little Walter said:

If I understand you correctly you feel that neither the infamous murder of an unarmed black teenager and the subsequent jury trial that let the murderer go scott free; an event unquestionably considered by the black community to be emblematic of widespread, institutional racism in the USA, nor the the incident wherein an aging, washed up athlete behaved in an unethical fashion at a sporting event, is worthy of further discussion because both are equally trivial. Have I got that right?

Click to expand...

Ok, this sucked me into this thread. No, you spectacularly missed the point! And you did so because again you read far too much into it and made an incorrect assumption of his meaning. Juan's point is brilliant; read his post again, but try to arrive at a different conclusion, you'll see then why it's poignant.

Also, your first post in this thread (attempt to nanny) it may have sounded "harsh", but do yourself the favor and go back on the forum (think it might be Sepang thread) to read J4rn0's reaction when the utterly relevant incident of Sic's death at the place Rossi deliberately crashed out Marc was brought up. You'll find J4rn0 also had a strong reaction.

I honestly like J4rn0, but I disagree with much of his opinions. Walter, when I said to him, "I'm glad you're back" I said it to highlight he had gone ballistic during the VR debacle ( temporarily as insane as your average bopperbozzo) and acknowledged he was returning to his old self, a bopper with an ability to present well argued measured posts--but still 'wrong'!

Juan may have chose to forgo the niceties, which frankly is more honest, because he saw right through J4rn0's thread here, which did backfire. He is even 'surprised' why he is not getting traction with Michaelm and Gaz, two other members who compose well argued and measured posts--while being correct.

Walter, do you see the point? On logic, J4rn0's original post and premise logically falls on its face. It is wrong. Some have taken the tact of presenting a measured response while Juan took the more direct approach, both valid, and correct, but you took issue with the 'approach" (only) of one?

J4rn0's thread backfired. The problem with his premise saying that Marc, like Rossi deserved to be chastised is utterly wrong. Marc got away with .... it was well before this incident, however, it seems Marc has increasing been called on the carpet, from practically nothing when he almost murdered the Thai rider, to getting sanctioned license points on a slight touch upon Pedrosa at Aragon, to being actually disqualified at Phillip Island (for his team's "error" on a day old rule, thanx Povol, keeping in mind there was in fact confusion about it). Yeah maybe in past when he attempted murder did Marc deserve stiffer sanctions. But the notion Race Insurrection should have stepped in after VR went Grassy Knoll at Sepang is stupid and negates J4rn0's entire call for RD to step in based on credible intervention. That is, if the standard for RD to step in must be when a rider makes a credible grievance this one would utterly lower it to mere rivality!!!!!! (Repeat this last sentence please). Allow me to repeat my point here, to make it clear why J4rn0's premise is absolutely incorrect, he is calling for BOTH Rossi AND MARC to be sanctioned in an episode where only ROSSI did something spectacularly WRONG!

J4rn0 is calling for Race Direction to interven because Rossi made baseless accusations! Think about how J4rn0 wants the power of RD to be used! The standard J4rn0 now wants the organizers to use to take action is based on the perpetrator, a PERVERSION of the standard to which J4rn0's perspective on this whole episode has led him to believe.

This "logic" falls on its face. Juan saw right through that ..... I do like J4rn0 more than your average bopper, but he went straight psycho over the Simoncelli Sepang Rossi comment. Where he was actually quite wrong since it was extraordinarily relevant, VR deliberately crashes out rider at scene of friend being killed in a freak crash. It was rather just emotional, all caps to confirm. But this here, a call for Race Direction to get involved when Rossi makes accusations whereby most across the spectrum believed it to be a "typical Rossi 'mind game'"! This would make Race Direction even more of a tool for Rossi! It would lead to Race Direction admonishing riders based on Rossi's whims! It wasn't enough that Rossi went around 'TONGUE LASHING' Pedrosa and Iannone so as to effect their determination on the track, but now J4rn0 is asking for Race Direction to officially do the tongue lashing.

Do you see now how absurd the standard of intervention (that's what J4rn0 is calling for) would be lowered to serve Rossi's purpose?!

(Juan called straight ........ on it, with a lot less words I may add.)

povol said:

If you go back and watch last lap at PI, Rossi led Ianonne on the last lap and gave up that spot in the fast esses, which is where Yamaha is strongest. The duc was fast on the straight, but the podium move came in the corners.That spot and the spot lost to Dani at Aragon are what ultimately cost Rossi the title, not Marquez

Click to expand...

Basically I can agree with that, -- every point lost can be considered decisive in such a close endgame, but Rossi lost those particular points in a terrain that used to be his forte, the direct duels, and that was kind of surprising, especially the one with Pedro.

Probably he was trying to minimize the risk of crashes in the last rounds of the championship and didn't give his 110% -- but I'd say also age, and the consequent difficulty of keeping in top form for an entire and long season, may have taken their toll.

Jums, if you want to reply to me, please reply to my posts -- do not sneak paragraphs about what I (supposedly!) say in the middle of long replies to others. Come, quote me and debate directly...

J4rn0 said:

In fact at Sepang he put up a very personal fight against Rossi. It was so evident that some form of reprisal should have been given to him too.

One could say he had been provoked by Rossi's allegations during the press conference -- which is probably true, but that's not a justification.

I said it immediately after the facts, but even after two weeks I feel the same: both Rossi and Marquez should have been punished at Sepang. Or some strong warning should have been given before the race to both of them, before things got out of hand.


The real blame has to go to the governing bodies. They did not act, did not prevent things, and when things got out of hand took feeble and belated action. .

Click to expand...

Ok, I'm quoting you. Its ........!

What you want is Race Direction to officially become Rossi’s 'tongue lasher' to riders he doesn't want to race! You want Race Direction to interven based solely on Rossi's McCarthyistic accusations. Juan saw throw it, he called ......... Mikem & Gaz see through it, called ........ ( much to your surprise and chagrin). And I see through it, and call .........

Btw Gaz, if J4rn0 's take sounds familiar it's because it's not unique. Its a subtle attempt to advance the notion Marc is guilty while seemingly presenting it as 'impartial' because in it they concede Rossi was 'partially' to blame. It sounds familiar because Davide Brivio said basically the same ........ as J4rn0. He said Race Direction should have intervened after Rossi's accusations to admonish both. But consider the implications of such intervention! Race direction becomes the tongue lashing Department of Valentino Rossi. Based on a perceived grievance real imagined or for a particular Machiavellian effect!