Valentina Rossi withdraws CAS appeal

I suspect that as we go into 2016, the important unintended final results of this debacle initiated entirely by vr himself, will be as follows:

a: rossi's legacy will be tarnished and diminished among true racing aficionados, despite continued outpouring of protests from the yellow horde. The emperor has no clothes.

b: Marquez will emerge stronger, with his blinders entirely removed regarding his "idol" rossi. Look out!

Jumkie said:

Unless they start issuing points by fraction or decimal, which I wouldn't doubt.



Rossi stuffs Marquez. Crap, we don't want the Doctored starting from the pit lane do we? Wait wait, lets check to see the championship standings before we decide just how 'dangerous' was his move. Oh wait, he is in the top 4, ok, lets issue him 1/5 a ..... point.

Click to expand...

There was no statement implying that the state of the championship had any bearing on the decision about whether it was "dangerous" or not.

Keshav said:

Vale is too much of a showman to publically reference the 2015 debacle in the new season. Come Qatar - he'll be doing his best to pretend he doesn't care. That's his style.

I wouldn't worry about MM. He's not the sharpest knife in the draw but - assuming the 2016 bike works well with the new rubber - he'll be busy putting the past behind him and concentrating on going for another championship. I think we all pretty much agree 2015 was Rossi's Waterloo. He'll be in the mix but I can't see him being the spoiler. In light of all the negativity he garnered - there has to be a lessening of his influence as well.

Click to expand...

I think your probably right, remember "sweep gate" in Qatar?
If he manages to win a round next year, then maybe we will see a football penalty shootout routine?

Cool Blue said:

There was no statement implying that the state of the championship had any bearing on the decision about whether it was "dangerous" or not.

Click to expand...

There was no statement by RD regarding a hypothetical future incident?

Regarding Sepang: Not implied, correct, it was explicit! RD explicitly expressed because the rider in question was a contender, that they deferred their decision after the race, despite the dangerousness of the maneuver.

Jumkie said:

Now speaking of the author, I suspect it was a good idea for the bloke not to have published his name, surely he'd be getting hate mail by now for the following part:


"Rossi was penalised for 'deliberately forcing another rider off line, resulting in contact causing the other rider to crash' on lap 7 of the Sepang race."

Its the first time I have seen a media person write it like this in one sentence. Usually they won't describe the crash as directly CAUSED by Rossi's actions. It had become debatable (as insane as that sounds) 'who' caused the crash.

Click to expand...

What are you on about? That was a direct quote from the published text of the decision. http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/download/56509/no_cache/1/

Jumkie said:

There was no statement by RD regarding a hypothetical future incident?

Regarding Sepang: Not implied, correct, it was explicit! RD explicitly expressed because the rider in question was a contender, that they deferred their decision after the race, despite the dangerousness of the maneuver.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that they demurred on the aspect of safety because of the state of the championship. Incorrect. The decision was deferred, that was the statement. There was no statement saying well, yeh it was unsafe but hey, he's in the running so.... what you gonna do ha?

Cool Blue said:

You are claiming that they demurred on the aspect of safety because of the state of the championship. Incorrect. The decision was deferred, that was the statement. There was no statement saying well, yeh it was unsafe but hey, he's in the running so.... what you gonna do ha?

Click to expand...

I am saying exactly that they demurred on the aspect of safety because of the state of the championship. Yes, i am absolutely correct on this point, no doubt about it. Go back and read what Mike Webb said. After all you were the one I remember quoting him when you made your poignant point about "intent".

Jumkie said:

I am saying exactly that they demurred on the aspect of safety because of the state of the championship. Yes, i am absolutely correct on this point, no doubt about it. Go back and read what Mike Webb said. After all you were the one I remember quoting him when you made your poignant point about "intent".

Click to expand...

Where are you references? Saying that they were lenient on safety because of the championship standings?

http://m.crash.net/motogp/news/224594/1/motogp-race-director-explains-rossi-punishment.html

Extract:
"No decision was taken during the race as Webb said he wanted to speak to both riders and watch the video replays at length."

Cool Blue said:

Where are you references? Saying that they were lenient on safety because of the championship standings?

http://m.crash.net/motogp/news/224594/1/motogp-race-director-explains-rossi-punishment.html

Extract:
"No decision was taken during the race as Webb said he wanted to speak to both riders and watch the video replays at length."

Click to expand...

They deferred the black flag BECAUSE Rossi was a contender (state of the championship). That is demurred (reluctance to act) on safety. They allowed an unsafe rider who had deliberately caused another to crash to circulate. Read back everything Webb said on the matter, you'll find where he said they deferred issuing the black flag because it would impact the championship. That is, a reluctance to act on an issue of safety because of its effect on the state of the championship.

I think you're also assuming RD were correct in their pronouncements. Did Race Direction make a statement that they got it wrong? Because you are suggesting what they said is correct. Two things here: my hypothetical scenario suggestions RD don't make their decisions based on safety. Your rebuttal is to say, RD didn't say that?

Cool Blue said:

Where are you references? Saying that they were lenient on safety because of the championship standings?

MotoGP Race Director explains Rossi punishment | MotoGP 0

Extract:
"No decision was taken during the race as Webb said he wanted to speak to both riders and watch the video replays at length."

Click to expand...

Precedent was a ride thru at minimum.

Marco Simoncelli wasn't afforded this leniency at Le Mans in 2011 when he took out Pedrosa.

Casey Stoner himself remarked that had it been anyone other than Valentino Rossi, they would have been black flagged without question.

JPSLotus said:

Casey Stoner himself remarked that had it been anyone other than Valentino Rossi, they would have been black flagged without question.

Click to expand...

To be fair though, when it comes to VR, Stoner is hardly going to offer any other opinion ................. those to guys just despise the other and Stoner is not exaclty known for 'letting bygones be bygones'.

Jumkie said:

I think you're also assuming RD were correct in their pronouncements. Did Race Direction make a statement that they got it wrong? Because you are suggesting what they said is correct. Two things here: my hypothetical scenario suggestions RD don't make their decisions based on safety. Your rebuttal is to say, RD didn't say that?

Click to expand...

I honestly can't understand your point here.
But, ok, I'll take a stab at it:
Your assumptions about my assumptions are incorrect.
Im not suggesting anything about the correctness or otherwise about the RD decision about Rossi. That's a leap you are making.

Apart from that I have nothing to add to my first post on this topic.

Gaz said:

To be fair though, when it comes to VR, Stoner is hardly going to offer any other opinion ................. those to guys just despise the other and Stoner is not exaclty known for 'letting bygones be bygones'.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't necessarily make Stoner's statement wrong. Moreover, I'd say the events of the closing stages of the season went a long way in vindicating Stoner's takes on many matters that pertained to their rivalry.

Jumkie said:

...I'd say the events of the closing stages of the season went a long way in vindicating Stoner's takes on many matters that pertained to their rivalry.

Click to expand...

On that we can agree.

Jumkie said:

Which doesn't necessarily make Stoner's statement wrong. Moreover, I'd say the events of the closing stages of the season went a long way in vindicating Stoner's takes on many matters that pertained to their rivalry.

Click to expand...

Never said it made it wrong but to use it as a statement of 'level headed' or similar is also fraught with danger, the same danger people accuse of the boppers in their reading of statements.

IMO, there were others who have no vested interest in seeing VR punished that made similar comments who have more 'integrity' in these type of issues given their lack of vested interest (after all, VR has accused MM of riding in a way that CS alleged of VR himself)

Gaz said:

To be fair though, when it comes to VR, Stoner is hardly going to offer any other opinion ................. those to guys just despise the other and Stoner is not exaclty known for 'letting bygones be bygones'.

Click to expand...

Gaz, others were black flagged for non-malicious intent contact.

Stoner is not incorrect at all with the statement.

If that had been any other rider than VR involved who pulled that move, the black flag would have been out the next lap.

Rewatch the 2003 Pacific Grand Prix, on the last lap Tamada comes over on Gibernau on the downhill straight, and makes contact which runs him off the circuit. Tamada was DQ'd for that move, and while it was a racing incident, it was about the danger of the move.

Rossi has been involved in a whole slew of incidents over the years, and wasn't so much as given a punishment for any of it. Why is this? Rhetorical question obviously.

Gaz this is the biggest issue with not showing Rossi the black flag, and only giving him points on the license.

It sends a clear message that such moves will not even be punished in the moment, and you can wind up only with 3 points on the license. Think about that, I can now punt someone off the bike, and then argue to Race Direction afterwards such a move is only worthy of being hit with a 3 point penalty. They have no leg to stand on since the 3 points is now precedent for purposely taking another rider out.

What happens if the title comes down to the final race next year, or in future years, and a rider decides he is better off punting the other rider who is fighting for the title with since 3 points is well worth it if it means you get the title?

Race Direction has now officially opened the Pandora's Box with that decision because of the ripple effect it will have.

22 and I talked about how due to the lack of punishment for dirty and dangerous driving when it came to Michael Schumacher, it taught an entire generation of coming drivers that chop blocking and running guys to the track edge at 190MPH was a perfectly acceptable defensive maneuver. 22 even confirmed seeing young kids try and defend aggressive maneuvers by saying Schumacher never got punished!

Cool Blue said:

I honestly can't understand your point here.
But, ok, I'll take a stab at it:
Your assumptions about my assumptions are incorrect.
Im not suggesting anything about the correctness or otherwise about the RD decision about Rossi. That's a leap you are making.

Apart from that I have nothing to add to my first post on this topic.

Click to expand...

Well, what can I tell you friend? At this point I think what both of us have said in this sequence is enough to suss it out.

Gaz said:

Never said it made it wrong but to use it as a statement of 'level headed' or similar is also fraught with danger, the same danger people accuse of the boppers in their reading of statements.

IMO, there were others who have no vested interest in seeing VR punished that made similar comments who have more 'integrity' in these type of issues given their lack of vested interest (after all, VR has accused MM of riding in a way that CS alleged of VR himself)

Click to expand...

Point take brother.

JPSLotus said:

Gaz, others were black flagged for non-malicious intent contact.

Stoner is not incorrect at all with the statement.

If that had been any other rider than VR involved who pulled that move, the black flag would have been out the next lap.

Rewatch the 2003 Pacific Grand Prix, on the last lap Tamada comes over on Gibernau on the downhill straight, and makes contact which runs him off the circuit. Tamada was DQ'd for that move, and while it was a racing incident, it was about the danger of the move.

Rossi has been involved in a whole slew of incidents over the years, and wasn't so much as given a punishment for any of it. Why is this? Rhetorical question obviously.

Click to expand...

JPS, I said at the time and will say again .............. I have no issue with the failure to Black Flag VR during the race as for me, at real time speed there is/was some doubt as to the contact that caused the crash and as such (to me) it was quite acceptable to leave him out there with any/all punishments to be post race and after a full, proper and thorough investigation with interviews from involved riders (and witnessing riders if relevant)

Stoner is not wrong, but at the same time, given the pure hatred between he and Rossi, his comments could easily be seen as tainted given the same hatred. Much as VR's comments about Stoner 'not riding hard enough' were no doubt tainted by the mutual hatred, CS' comments are also somewhat tainted.

One can be correct and yet have taitned comments

As for the Tamada incident ............ that was more about Gibernau whinging than RD immediately acting as Gibbers and the team did have a major whinge to RD before any action was considered/taken. There is also significant differences with the two cases (again highlighting the idiocy of the Tamada punishment) in that it was last lap and is actually far more similar to the Assen issue than Sepang.

As for VR, yes he has history but one could just as easily (and perhaps more relevant) ask about MM who has not been given any significant penalties or punishment for being involved in as many (if not more) serious issues on a race track in his short career, than VR has (being fair) within his 20 years.