So why didn't Valentino keep Jorge who was behind him in this race in that position?. Everything else is irrelevant if he beats Jorge as MM rightly commented after Rossi's spray about MM's riding in the PI race.
MM was the one who got pushed wide correct. MM was also the one who decided to hit the throttle and get tangled with VR and dropped it and yes VR was out of line. You gotta say MM with 6 of the hardest, closest passes, and deliberate chops you will ever see in the first 2-4 laps of any race played his part. I was hoping for a ride through, VR would have still finished top 5 maybe even top 4 but he'd get a fair shot at Valencia. Now, it is near impossible except if it rains....
I agree. I'm also certain had there been 3-4 races left he would have been black flagged like Sic or stripped of his 3rd position or banned a race. This is a business and a show after all, they're expecting well over 100k people in Valencia, travelling from all over EU. Going there to see a meaningless could get ugly. Still can't believe Lorenzo publcly wants the championship handed to him on a plate. This is the same guy a few years back who said himself VR "is the best of all time and it's an honour to race with him".
That isn't a fair question, VR and Jorge are 2 totally different riders. Rossi never goes out flying the first few laps, likes to sit back and conserve tires the first 10-12 laps. Jorge is an animal on cold tires, a beast and just takes off at the lights. Never seen anyone take off like that on opening laps on cold tires. I'm certain after 5-6 laps had MM not been riding like he was on the verge of a big crash trying to stay with Rossi, VR would have been right behind Jorge by mid race.
That is actually pretty much my point. Jorge's early race prowess is an advantage he has due to his particular talents, and no less legitimate than the advantage Valentino's greater talent for wet weather riding gives him imo. I can't see why anyone is obliged to let Valentino run his ideal race strategy.
Last edited:
Since when has he been known to get off to a fast start? How many times has he come from behind to catch Lorenzo this season?
I don't know how you can possibly think everything else is irrelevant considering the thread title. We have a rider who thinks he knows what happened and what the proper punishment should be, even though he spoke to neither rider and didn't have access to the film and rider telemetry that race control had. He had zero evidence and didn't speak to any of the involved parties before opening his mouth.
As everything sits now Rossi was punished for intent and MM wasn't punished even though his telemetry and actions clearly showed that he was intentionally disturbing Rossi's race, not against the rules, but poor sportsmanship clearly as said by the people who had access to the most video and more importantly their telemetry. He went beyond racing for a position to slowing down and speeding up simply to slow down another rider. How or why you can't understand the relevance to the topic, I don't know? That's the best explanation I can give for Lorenzo being an ..... that Yamaha doesn't need around.
I have already said on this thread and elsewhere that the extent of Jorge's grievance should be the potential 3 points of his deficit that was maintained by the incident, and that Yamaha imo had a case particularly if he made his comment with little or no knowledge of an incident which did not involve him.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
I love motorcycle racing, but that doesn't preclude the principles of human decency nor the principles of fair competition. You said you want this decided ON the track, me too! However Rossi ran a fellow competitor OFF the track. How do you reconcile this contradiction? What punishment do you think Rossi deserved?
I did want this to go down to the wire, guess who screwed that up? Rossi! And even then because Race Direction didn't take the appropriate action, you get your version of it coming down to the wire. Rossi still holds the advantage, and I suspect you may still get your wish of a VR championship, as tainted and illegitimate as it will be, it's clear that won't bother you.
What does a black flag achieve? Let me explain what fair competition means. In order for a championship to mean all the implications that such an accolade imparts, the competitors must all abide by a set of rules and parameters. When a violation is made a consequence must be issued. A black flag serves that purpose. When a rider's action goes so far beyond the rules and principles of competition during a race, a black flag is issued. The rider then is disqualified from any points. This should have been issued to Rossi for deliberately running a fellow competitor off track causing him to crash. So a black flag attempts to achieve safety first and foremost, and proper conduct during a race, Rossi grossly violated safety protocols and deserved disqualification. The 16 points Rossi was allowed to hold on to are illegitimate! Race Direction is on record as saying they didn't issue the black flag because of the potential impact on the points, which if you are also a fan of keeping these riders safe and alive, that should make you upset. Because race direction admitted it had made a decision not on safety but rather something far less important, in the context that thier number one mission is safety. I suspect from your post you only want Rossi to win by any means, even if that means running people off track, a direct violation of the principles of fair play and competition. So in reality, you don't want the championship decided by what happens/happens on the track.
How would you feel if Lorenzo just cuts the chicane to stay ahead and win the race at Valencia? Please don't tell me the guys with the white shirts should get involved. Because you made it clear they should stay out of it. Right?
Oh I know you're trying to place the blame on Marquez for Rossi’s actions, but I doubt you'll be able to argue that point successfully, since it's untenable. Even if he were penalized, banned, banished, raptured, that makes no difference to the fact Rossi broke rules of competition and deserved zero points. Your argument is that the stewards involvement made this anticlimactic, so then why don't you take you're considerable anger out on Rossi? He's the one that ruined it for both of us. He is the one who created the predicament of getting the men with the white shirts involved. You should be happy those white shirt guys don't have much integrity, as they had all those millions of fans you speak of in mind, so as not to piss them off when they issued the lightest penalty they could dream up. Though that doesn't seem to be enough, as you still feel cheated as a Canadian tax payer, some odd sense of injustice or at very least robbed of the notion they interfered with Rossi's right to contest a title. When in fact it was Rossi who interfered with the principles of fair competition, a violation that like cutting a chicane, crossing the pit white line, speeding in the pit, running people off and causing them to crash is supposed to be admonish with a consequence.
Last edited:
As Mike Webb stated, what MM was doing is against the spirit of the rules, but not against the rules and he wasn't punished. So what exactly is your point? We should all be fine with what happened and hope to see a bitter rider ruin another championship in the future? If you disagree with Mr Webb I think that's fine and if you are just happy to see this happen because it's Rossi, I also think that's fine. But playing dense like you really can't tell what is happening makes you look like Jumkie, and that is never a good look. He wasn't slowing Rossi as a race strategy, he would have said so if that was the case, we all know why and there's no reason to pretend like we don't or that it was some kind of new strategy. I didn't pay for a season pass to watch MM get to decide the championship. It will ultimately be him who has to pay the price for making himself bigger than the championship, as you can see even the Spanish press is turning on him now that everyone knows Rossi didn't kick him off the bike, and that he was honest with race control and didn't try to lie like MM.
Lorenzo said he was pissed off because he was riding with less margin than he otherwise would have if VR wasn't there. His take on it seemed to be along the lines of "why was this ....... clown allowed to continue in the race after such an obvious, ....... stupid childish stunt? I could have fallen off and lost the championship because I was taking unnecessary ....... risks...". That was my take-away from the post race pc.
Actually he said no such thing,
What he said was...
He did not introduce the concept of the "spirit of the rules". Unless it's cool to play jumble words with the quote...
See? same words, different meaning. All you have to do is rearrange them to align with your prejudices and... happy days!
Last edited:
What you seem to be saying is that being held up stopped him from catching up to Lorenzo, who had passed him, later in the race. I am saying that Lorenzo being able to go faster early in races is a legitimate advantage for him, and Rossi not being able to stay with him early is Valentino's problem and no-one else's. As I have said, I would see no involvement of bad luck in Jorge losing the championship by being beaten by Valentino in an unusual number of wet races, the races were wet for everyone, Valentino was better in them, end of story. I do reject the notion that being in front of Jorge at least partly because riders other than he raced Jorge fiercely and beat him, Valentino should now have no competitors other than Jorge, and it was Valentino's comment pretty much to this effect which prefaced this race.
As I recall you are one of those who vilified another championship contender for being upset by Valentino taking him out at Jerez 2011, btw.
Last edited:
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Let me get this straight, Lorenzo should be fired because he can't beat Marquez? Thats your first sentence right? I see you don't do math so good. Guess which of the two has more wins, and points this year? You have a 50/50 of getting it right.
"Diva crybaby by the way he behaves himself." I can tell you it was dignified by comparison to Rossi this last event, even if you want to be a 'crybaby' about it (ah the irony ) that Lorenzo rightfully called ........ on Race Direction (even if you disagree don't make you right.) Uhm...I take it you didn't see the comical epic mental breakdown Rossi just made us witness? Awkward.
So Lorenzo would not be "earning it on the track?" Thats interesting, because Rossi quite LITERALLY decided it OFF the track! I take it you don't think Rossi should have been disqualified. Of course not right? Lorenzo is so wrong on this point. What are rules for? Hey, Lorenzo, cut the chicane if Rossi gets to close, Rossi fans don't care about rules. Nor hard racing for that matter.
"Rossi and Lorenzo have a history" and it should be decided between them, right? Yeah, Rossi agrees, that's why he went around "tongue lashing " (thanks Povol) all those mean guys like Pedrosa and his buddy Iannone for....Get this, RACING him. That's just wrong, this should be decided by Lorenzo and Rossi ONLY. Every one else, get the hell out if tge way! They have "history" as you say. Oddly enough part of that history is Rossi racing him hard, Motegi 10, when VR had .... all to do with the title. Oh wait, you'd forgot about that. Well, Rossi did too, hence his amusing melt down, you know like a "diva crybaby" accusing Marquez of...get this, RACING him.
People "pay good money to watch" racing. Sounds like you and others think you pay money for Dorna to hand Rossi titles, or as you express, nobody should "disturb" the contenders, well except when Rossi did this very exact ....... thing at Motegi 10.
Hey dude, welcome back. Don't forget to put change in the parking meter, I don't want your waaambulance to get towed away.
Last edited:
This Pedrosa story, which apparently comes from a credible journalist, is quite interesting; it shows how 'on edge' Vale is.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Well Rambo, you may want to get yourself someone to read u what Race Direction actually said. Because ya kinda mucked it all up.
Perhaps we should all be all right that Rossi's paranoia led him to run Marc off the track leading to a crash. Because all you need as proof is for Rossi to say so. Do yourself a favor, revisit the Phillip Island Race. 4 guys battling exactly like Marc battled Rossi at Sepang. Except this time Rossi lost his mind and deliberately crashed out his rival, which if you want to quote Race Direction, said his passes were "clean"! Doh. I hate those pesky facts!
Who ruined Rossi's championship? Wait wait, was Marc or Mike Webb at the controls of Rossi's M1? So who is this "bitter" person you speak of? It wouldn't be the guy who pranced around the paddock interrogating Pedrosa and Iannone for...get this, RACING him? Because that's kinda "bitter" on top of it being totally out of line, chickenshit, and a ..... move.
So this "wasn't a new strategy". Well I'm very very very glad you said that, please direct us to your observation that you surely pointed out somewhere in writing that Marquez was toying with Rossi screwing up his rightful championship say....prior to last Thursday. Oh I'd love to read it. You'd be the first person to prove you knew! Because hey, this "wasn't a new strategy " and by god, you don't pay good money to watch Marquez "decide" the championship. Hey bro, maybe you should write a letter to Dorna and ask them for a refund. Use this genius logic, I'm sure they'll cut u a check. You've been cheated.
Last edited:
Joined Apr 2011
1K Posts | 87+
Pangea
Actually Frizz it is sanctioned by race confection themselves...check out these quotes from an autosport dot com article called
Rossi's standing not a factor in penalty for Marquez MotoGP clash.
Amid suggestions that riders without Rossi's fame would have received a stronger sanction, or been penalised immediately rather than a post-race investigation being called, Uncini said the severity of the incident meant it was better to analyse it retrospectively rather than making a snap judgement.
"As soon as we saw the contact, we would have penalised Valentino immediately," he told Gazzetta dello Sport.
"To us it seemed obvious that he was pushing Marquez off line.
"But we decided to keep following the race, speak to the riders, and look again at the clash."
"The decision was too important, and not because it concerned Rossi, but because it would have influenced the outcome of the championship.
"Race direction could not afford to make mistakes.
"The delay for the decision was only due to the need to evaluate well every aspect.
"Once responsibilities were established, we did not make any discount."
They actually contradict the headline of the article....Rossi's standing in the championship did influence their decision.
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
REPORTER : So guys, lots of people been talking ...., saying you guys are a bunch of hacks, that you took into account the "status " of Rossi by not flagging him. What do u say to that?
RACE INSURRECTION : Well we definitely saw Rossi run Marc of the track deliberately, on like thousands of cameras, slow mo, super slow mo, and everything. In normal circumstances we would have flagged that mothafucker immediately! We don't give a .... who it is man. It could have been the Virgin Mary herself, we don't give a flying .... about "status".
REPORTER: Ah, we see gentlemen, zero ..... given, so wait, why didn't you flag Rossi then?
RACE INDISCRETION: Ah man dude, that's ....... Rossi bro. What the .... is wrong with you? The status of the championship hung in the balance. We made a decision solely based on SAFETY. Yrah yeah, OUR safety, are you kidding, we would have been crucified if we flagged him.
REPORTER : Ah I see, ok so what you guys do next?
RACE DORNAECTION: Well simple, we asked Marc and Vale to tell us their version of what happened. Marc was all in tears and ...., Rossi was like, you ".......o" (no seriously, look it up, it's on video ). So Marc tells us he was running his own race, minding his on business, bla bla bla. Obviously he was lying. Plus he was crying. Rossi on the other hand was like, yeah mothafuckers, I ran his ... off the track, and what? So we said, ok Rossi, uhm...Listen very carefully, did you "intend" to make him crash? Look into my eyes, forget that one of them just blinked, tell me son, did you intend to crash him? And Rossi was like, well what the ...., I had to run his ... off the track, that little .... was RACING me. Yes, yes Rossi, we know, but answer this question, did you I-N-T-E-N-D to C-R-A-S-H him? Look into my eyes, stop paying attention at my head shaking back and forth. Then Rossi said no, so we gave him 3 penalty points on his license. Nothing would have happened but crap, we forgot he already had 1 point.
Last edited:
Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
lol... ....... hilarious!
Although I do have to say that I disagree with your preoccupation with intent Jumkie.
As I posted elsewhere, "intent" has .... all to do with it coz its not mentioned in the rules. And rightly so.
Isn't that just semantics...?
The principle they are applying could easily be paraphrased without mentioning Rossi by name: "One of the riders involved is a contender, so the decision would have affected the outcome of the championship."
