planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:01 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4492
Hamilton's recent tweet that he shall, by legal action, "receive back his victory at Spa 2008", which he deleted soon after, prompted me to think of the victories that should be overturned. I have some examples:

1. Spanish GP, 1975, Rolf Stommelen leads from last position in the race in his Hill-Embassy car, looses his wing and has a terrible accident, with a couple of dead spectators :-(( Since the race was not stopped immediately, and run for 2 more laps, the victory was inherited by Jochen Mass in Mclaren. Stommelen fell the victim of the slow communication and slow action of the race control.
2. Controversial up do this date, San Marino GP 1982 should have seen Gilles Villeneuve winning over Pironi who misused the confidence of his team-colleague and passed Gilles who was cruising slow, believing that Pironi has integrity to obey the old Ferrari rule tht there is no overtaking when it 1-2 for Ferrari. I dont think that this can be legally overturned.
3. Piquet WDC in 1981 is much tainted with controversy as the Brabham car had an illegal advantage, copied only later in the season by others where the height was manipulated by the driver.
4. Schumacher shoud have been DSQ at 1998 British GP for not serving his penalty properly.

What are your picks?

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:31 am
Posts: 1572
I definitely agree with the Hamilton one, it was ridiculous at the time and in my view still is. It was one of the most entertaining races I have witnessed to date and the result tarnished with a ridiculous punishment. Even if you think a punishment was deserved the magnitude of what was awarded was mind boggling.

It was such a unique set of circumstances and FIA interference that it must be scarce to see in the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Posts: 1302
Location: London
Jacques Villeneuve should be stripped of his 1997 Hungarian GP win for 3 reasons:

1) Pipping Hill on the final lap
2) Breaking my heart
3) Being a git


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:14 pm
Posts: 580
Location: Athens, Greece
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Hamilton's recent tweet that he shall, by legal action, "receive back his victory at Spa 2008", which he deleted soon after, prompted me to think of the victories that should be overturned. I have some examples:

1. Spanish GP, 1975, Rolf Stommelen leads from last position in the race in his Hill-Embassy car, looses his wing and has a terrible accident, with a couple of dead spectators :-(( Since the race was not stopped immediately, and run for 2 more laps, the victory was inherited by Jochen Mass in Mclaren. Stommelen fell the victim of the slow communication and slow action of the race control.
2. Controversial up do this date, San Marino GP 1982 should have seen Gilles Villeneuve winning over Pironi who misused the confidence of his team-colleague and passed Gilles who was cruising slow, believing that Pironi has integrity to obey the old Ferrari rule tht there is no overtaking when it 1-2 for Ferrari. I dont think that this can be legally overturned.
3. Piquet WDC in 1981 is much tainted with controversy as the Brabham car had an illegal advantage, copied only later in the season by others where the height was manipulated by the driver.
4. Schumacher shoud have been DSQ at 1998 British GP for not serving his penalty properly.

What are your picks?


1. I understand your point. There was a huge issue with Montjuic and everyone was complaining about the whole event and unfortunately nothing happened to prevent that accident. I don't see though why someone who had a crash is such a victim of a red flag situation since he was the cause of it.
2. See multi 21. Pretty similar case although Vettel wanted to pay back Webber for the Brazil 2012 start. While Pironi simply didn't want to be No2 to Villeneuve
3. You will find such things all over the history of F1 (1994 Benetton, 2007 Mclaren, 2009 Double diffuser teams). They simply took advantage of a small window the rule left for them.
4. There was no rule back then for that case so good for Schumi that he took advantage of that.

The only thing that comes to mind is this years German GP. I don't think the penalty was enough. I would have preferred 5s added, even if the gap to Bottas was larger than that.
But still i wouldn't really want them to overturn the result.

_________________
Top 10 Competition
2016: 12th, Podiums: 2nd Great Britain

Top 3 Competition
2016: 5th, Wins in: Spain, 1st Great Britain

F1 Oracle 2016: 2nd, Wins in: Australia, Russia, Canada, Great Britain

Group Pick'em 6th, Podiums: 2nd Monaco


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
Fountoukos13 wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Hamilton's recent tweet that he shall, by legal action, "receive back his victory at Spa 2008", which he deleted soon after, prompted me to think of the victories that should be overturned. I have some examples:

1. Spanish GP, 1975, Rolf Stommelen leads from last position in the race in his Hill-Embassy car, looses his wing and has a terrible accident, with a couple of dead spectators :-(( Since the race was not stopped immediately, and run for 2 more laps, the victory was inherited by Jochen Mass in Mclaren. Stommelen fell the victim of the slow communication and slow action of the race control.
2. Controversial up do this date, San Marino GP 1982 should have seen Gilles Villeneuve winning over Pironi who misused the confidence of his team-colleague and passed Gilles who was cruising slow, believing that Pironi has integrity to obey the old Ferrari rule tht there is no overtaking when it 1-2 for Ferrari. I dont think that this can be legally overturned.
3. Piquet WDC in 1981 is much tainted with controversy as the Brabham car had an illegal advantage, copied only later in the season by others where the height was manipulated by the driver.
4. Schumacher shoud have been DSQ at 1998 British GP for not serving his penalty properly.

What are your picks?


1. I understand your point. There was a huge issue with Montjuic and everyone was complaining about the whole event and unfortunately nothing happened to prevent that accident. I don't see though why someone who had a crash is such a victim of a red flag situation since he was the cause of it.
2. See multi 21. Pretty similar case although Vettel wanted to pay back Webber for the Brazil 2012 start. While Pironi simply didn't want to be No2 to Villeneuve
3. You will find such things all over the history of F1 (1994 Benetton, 2007 Mclaren, 2009 Double diffuser teams). They simply took advantage of a small window the rule left for them.
4. There was no rule back then for that case so good for Schumi that he took advantage of that.

The only thing that comes to mind is this years German GP. I don't think the penalty was enough. I would have preferred 5s added, even if the gap to Bottas was larger than that.
But still i wouldn't really want them to overturn the result.


Agreed. One thing we need to establish first is that the results should be overturned by who? The FIA?

I'm asking because for example in No. 2, that's an inter-team issue, why would be overturned by the FIA or whoever else? One guy finished in front of the other, how they came to that (with the provision that they did not breach any sporting rules of course) is a different thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14046
The Schumacher 98 one along with Alonso's win at Singapore in 08 are the only ones that leap to mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2877
Location: UK
Ayrton Senna's 1990 World Championship. The crash in Suzuka is the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen on a racetrack.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 504
j man wrote:
Ayrton Senna's 1990 World Championship. The crash in Suzuka is the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen on a racetrack.

But not Prost's 1989 WDC or Schumacher's 1994 one?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5746
Location: Michigan, USA
j man wrote:
Ayrton Senna's 1990 World Championship. The crash in Suzuka is the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen on a racetrack.

If we were to start overturning championships, this one is where I'd start and then I'd go to 1994.

However, I personally believe that there's a window for overturning results, and that window is long past. I do not approve of governing bodies going back in time and mucking up history. If they want to issue some sort of official statement that the result should be different, go ahead, but don't strip someone of a win or championship decades after the fact.

dompclarke wrote:
But not Prost's 1989 WDC or Schumacher's 1994 one?

If you think either of those incidents is on the same level as what Senna did you've got some blinders on.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2877
Location: UK
dompclarke wrote:
j man wrote:
Ayrton Senna's 1990 World Championship. The crash in Suzuka is the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen on a racetrack.

But not Prost's 1989 WDC or Schumacher's 1994 one?

No. For two reasons:

1) Prost (if indeed he did do it on purpose, I think that is still open to debate) and Schumacher made a split-second reaction to their rival coming past in the heat of the moment. Senna's move was a premeditated act that he declared he was going to do before they even lined up on the grid. No one should ever go into any motor race with that intention.

2) Prost and Schumacher turned in on their rivals in the middle of the corner at relatively slow speed. Senna simply decided not to brake for the corner or indeed slow down at all, aimed his car straight for Prost and smashed into him at high speed. A whole order of magnitude more dangerous and, given the safety of the cars at that time, put both Prost and himself at serious risk of injury.

I don't defend what Prost and Schumacher did, but Senna's transgression was on another level altogether.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 504
Exediron wrote:
j man wrote:
Ayrton Senna's 1990 World Championship. The crash in Suzuka is the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen on a racetrack.

If we were to start overturning championships, this one is where I'd start and then I'd go to 1994.

However, I personally believe that there's a window for overturning results, and that window is long past. I do not approve of governing bodies going back in time and mucking up history. If they want to issue some sort of official statement that the result should be different, go ahead, but don't strip someone of a win or championship decades after the fact.

dompclarke wrote:
But not Prost's 1989 WDC or Schumacher's 1994 one?

If you think either of those incidents is on the same level as what Senna did you've got some blinders on.

The 1989 one isn't on the same level taken independently, but when you take that incident and all the FIA politics around it which led to the 1990 incident you can't look at that independently either. The whole of this is a mess and looking at them together if the 1989 outcome had been sensible (the FIA didn't exclude Senna) then I doubt he would have taken the 1990 action (personal opinion but that's how I see it). Also the way everything was then although controversial was more acceptable than it is now as attitudes towards risk in the sport and in general have changed.
1994 again I would say attitudes were quite different to what was acceptable driver behaviour, due to 1989 and 1990 as well as the deaths or Ratzenberger and Senna earlier in the year; the only reason I can see this as more acceptable is if you believe it wasn't deliberate (I know some do but after Schumachers antics with Villeneuve which back up my initial response that it was deliberate I think that's not a reasoned view)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 504
dompclarke wrote:
Exediron wrote:
j man wrote:
Ayrton Senna's 1990 World Championship. The crash in Suzuka is the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen on a racetrack.

If we were to start overturning championships, this one is where I'd start and then I'd go to 1994.

However, I personally believe that there's a window for overturning results, and that window is long past. I do not approve of governing bodies going back in time and mucking up history. If they want to issue some sort of official statement that the result should be different, go ahead, but don't strip someone of a win or championship decades after the fact.

dompclarke wrote:
But not Prost's 1989 WDC or Schumacher's 1994 one?

If you think either of those incidents is on the same level as what Senna did you've got some blinders on.

The 1989 one isn't on the same level taken independently, but when you take that incident and all the FIA politics around it which led to the 1990 incident you can't look at that independently either. The whole of this is a mess and looking at them together if the 1989 outcome had been sensible (the FIA didn't exclude Senna) then I doubt he would have taken the 1990 action (personal opinion but that's how I see it). Also the way everything was then although controversial was more acceptable than it is now as attitudes towards risk in the sport and in general have changed.
1994 again I would say attitudes were quite different to what was acceptable driver behaviour, due to 1989 and 1990 as well as the deaths or Ratzenberger and Senna earlier in the year; the only reason I can see this as more acceptable is if you believe it wasn't deliberate (I know some do but after Schumachers antics with Villeneuve which back up my initial response that it was deliberate I think that's not a reasoned view)

I also agree it's too late once the results have been confirmed, otherwise you get into the farce of cycling and having no official winners for events


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 9:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:13 pm
Posts: 343
It would be good to call say sportsman's championships and sportsman's wins to drivers who deserved in the spirit of the sport or were cheated in some way.

But tbh F1 is a business and most drivers ought to be happy with the insane amount of money they earn to care too much about single wins.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Belgium
dompclarke wrote:
I also agree it's too late once the results have been confirmed, otherwise you get into the farce of cycling and having no official winners for events
To only find out 8 years after having been beating to an Olympic goldathletics medal through cheating, is something that happened to 4 countrywomen of mine. Such things should not be allowed to stand in a discipline that calls itself a sport.

I missed the news about the Hamilton tweet, but I still stand by my view that the stewards were right in their verdict. It is doubly sad, that Hamilton only targeted the FIA in his tweet, but failed to see the role his own team played in getting his race win overturned.

I would like to point out to j man that Senna did not declare his 1990 intention publically, he did that a year later. Neither of which excuses what he did in the least.

To my mind, the 1994 championship wasn't won by Schumacher, and it is a prime candidate for review. The prime difference between 1989 and 1994 was the fact that Schumacher had damaged his car to the point he wasn't racing anymore.
A second case for review is the lack of penalty for Schumacher after 1997.

More recently, I think the German GP race win this year is suspect. Only force majeure allows a driver to do what Hamilton did, and nowhere did the steward report mention what forced Hamilton to return to the race track instead of pitting.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 323
Location: Kansas
If we are giving back wins then Ayrton deserves the 1989 win in Suzuka back. He may deserve a penalty for running into Prost but not for stopping and then short cutting the chicane.

I have to agree that his crash in 1990 with Prost was criminal and worthy of having the championship stripped from him.

Still in retrospect I don't like the idea of rehashing old decisions in the light of modern sentiments. What is done, is done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9256
A certain instance of race fixing springs to mind from 2008... what other sport would choose to not take the victory away?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 am
Posts: 312
Lojik wrote:
Jacques Villeneuve should be stripped of his 1997 Hungarian GP win for 3 reasons:

1) Pipping Hill on the final lap
2) Breaking my heart
3) Being a git

I like the idea of overturning results on the basis the result currently favours a git and therefore should be changed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4492
Just a short interlude: this question involves two different issues.

There are legal: Senna/Prost, Schumacher, Piquet 1981, Stommelen

...and there are ethical cases, such as Pironi/Villeneuve, Brazil2012/Malaysia 2013, etc.

Ethical ones can not be be legally overturned. But can any of these legal be legally overturned? I highly doubt that anyone will play with these. Yet, not everything was always fair, and this is valid for other sports, too. Football has even worse score in this regard.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1314
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Fiki wrote:
I would like to point out to j man that Senna did not declare his 1990 intention publically, he did that a year later. Neither of which excuses what he did in the least.


Sure about that?

I was always under the impression he was very public about what would happen in 1990. Partly because of what happened in 89 & partly because of the side of the track pole position was on.

From Wikipedia:

Some in the F1 paddock found Senna's complaints as strange given that the pole was actually on the same side of the track (the inside next to the pit wall) as it had been since the first Japanese Grand Prix held there in 1987. Many also noted that Senna had not complained about the position of the pole in either 1988 or 1989, both races he had started on pole and both races he was fighting Prost (who qualified 2nd in both years) for the World Championship.

After this, Senna vowed that if Prost (starting second) got the advantage into the first corner, which most were sure he would, Senna would attempt to take the lead into the first corner, regardless of the consequences. The two drivers made contact in the first corner, sending both drivers off the track.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Just a short interlude: this question involves two different issues.

There are legal: Senna/Prost, Schumacher, Piquet 1981, Stommelen

...and there are ethical cases, such as Pironi/Villeneuve, Brazil2012/Malaysia 2013, etc.

Ethical ones can not be be legally overturned. But can any of these legal be legally overturned? I highly doubt that anyone will play with these. Yet, not everything was always fair, and this is valid for other sports, too. Football has even worse score in this regard.
If you're referring to the much discussed trick suspension, everybody copied that in 1981, so if Piquet was illegal, so was everybody else!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4492
Zoue wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Just a short interlude: this question involves two different issues.

There are legal: Senna/Prost, Schumacher, Piquet 1981, Stommelen

...and there are ethical cases, such as Pironi/Villeneuve, Brazil2012/Malaysia 2013, etc.

Ethical ones can not be be legally overturned. But can any of these legal be legally overturned? I highly doubt that anyone will play with these. Yet, not everything was always fair, and this is valid for other sports, too. Football has even worse score in this regard.
If you're referring to the much discussed trick suspension, everybody copied that in 1981, so if Piquet was illegal, so was everybody else!

Everybody copied because Brabham was not sanctioned on time for obviously illegal car.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23695
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Lt. Drebin wrote:
Just a short interlude: this question involves two different issues.

There are legal: Senna/Prost, Schumacher, Piquet 1981, Stommelen

...and there are ethical cases, such as Pironi/Villeneuve, Brazil2012/Malaysia 2013, etc.

Ethical ones can not be be legally overturned. But can any of these legal be legally overturned? I highly doubt that anyone will play with these. Yet, not everything was always fair, and this is valid for other sports, too. Football has even worse score in this regard.
If you're referring to the much discussed trick suspension, everybody copied that in 1981, so if Piquet was illegal, so was everybody else!

Everybody copied because Brabham was not sanctioned on time for obviously illegal car.

they weren't sanctioned at all and AFAIAA they were never actually declared to be illegal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:51 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14046
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
mikeyg123 wrote:
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.

Did they impound them? I thought it was an issue of "wrong measurements"... Which was a load of cr*p, but I didn't remember that they impounded just the barge boards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Belgium
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I would like to point out to j man that Senna did not declare his 1990 intention publically, he did that a year later. Neither of which excuses what he did in the least.


Sure about that?

I was always under the impression he was very public about what would happen in 1990. Partly because of what happened in 89 & partly because of the side of the track pole position was on.
I'm quite sure. Senna may have made quite a bit of noise about the FIA not wanting to change the side of track pole position was on, at his request (whether or not they first 'promised' to do so) during that weekend, but if he had indeed publically stated before the race that he would run Prost off the track if he dared to make a better start, that would have been reported. What is more, we would not have had a year's worth of debating whether he did it on purpose or not, would we? Even more importantly, there would have been not a single valid reason for the FIA to even consider accepting it as a racing incident. Which it could never have been.

I'm not sure whether I can find the article back where the whole story was explained, but he did indeed only confess he did it on purpose a year later.
I seem to recall reading much later that people in the McLaren garage knew from telemetry that Senna was guilty, but kept their mouths shut. It's sad but true that Senna winning the championship was also worth more to them than having him thrown out of F1.

Jezza13 wrote:
From Wikipedia:

Some in the F1 paddock found Senna's complaints as strange given that the pole was actually on the same side of the track (the inside next to the pit wall) as it had been since the first Japanese Grand Prix held there in 1987. Many also noted that Senna had not complained about the position of the pole in either 1988 or 1989, both races he had started on pole and both races he was fighting Prost (who qualified 2nd in both years) for the World Championship.

After this, Senna vowed that if Prost (starting second) got the advantage into the first corner, which most were sure he would, Senna would attempt to take the lead into the first corner, regardless of the consequences. The two drivers made contact in the first corner, sending both drivers off the track.
I would like to point out that vowing something is not the same as making a public statement, though many fans now seem to believe he did. I can't think how such notions come about.
Also, it wasn't the two drivers making contact, it was one running into the other.

Edit: I found one trustworthy source who summarises it very well: Nigel Roebuck. He wrote at the time the Senna "documentary" came out:
Roebuck wrote:
Senna said that Prost had left a gap, and he had simply gone for it, but by the time of Suzuka a year later he admitted that he had indeed taken his rival out.
And
Roebuck wrote:
I (Senna) said to myself on Saturday, 'If, at the start, because I'm in the wrong place Prost beats me off the line, at the first corner I'm going for it — and he'd better not turn in ahead of me, because he's not going to make it..."

So now we knew: the plan may have been hatched in emotion and anger, but it was carried out in cold blood.
Source: https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/july-2011/57/his-was-most-complex-character-i-ever-encountered-sport

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3484
Covalent wrote:
A certain instance of race fixing springs to mind from 2008... what other sport would choose to not take the victory away?

In fairness to the FIA, they might have if their rules allowed the results to be changed after the annual awards gala. Since Piquet only confessed a year later, months after said gala, their hands were tied.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, especially given it required a driver to plough into a wall.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1314
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Fiki wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I would like to point out to j man that Senna did not declare his 1990 intention publically, he did that a year later. Neither of which excuses what he did in the least.


Sure about that?

I was always under the impression he was very public about what would happen in 1990. Partly because of what happened in 89 & partly because of the side of the track pole position was on.
I'm quite sure. Senna may have made quite a bit of noise about the FIA not wanting to change the side of track pole position was on, at his request (whether or not they first 'promised' to do so) during that weekend, but if he had indeed publically stated before the race that he would run Prost off the track if he dared to make a better start, that would have been reported. What is more, we would not have had a year's worth of debating whether he did it on purpose or not, would we? Even more importantly, there would have been not a single valid reason for the FIA to even consider accepting it as a racing incident. Which it could never have been.

I'm not sure whether I can find the article back where the whole story was explained, but he did indeed only confess he did it on purpose a year later.
I seem to recall reading much later that people in the McLaren garage knew from telemetry that Senna was guilty, but kept their mouths shut. It's sad but true that Senna winning the championship was also worth more to them than having him thrown out of F1.

Jezza13 wrote:
From Wikipedia:

Some in the F1 paddock found Senna's complaints as strange given that the pole was actually on the same side of the track (the inside next to the pit wall) as it had been since the first Japanese Grand Prix held there in 1987. Many also noted that Senna had not complained about the position of the pole in either 1988 or 1989, both races he had started on pole and both races he was fighting Prost (who qualified 2nd in both years) for the World Championship.

After this, Senna vowed that if Prost (starting second) got the advantage into the first corner, which most were sure he would, Senna would attempt to take the lead into the first corner, regardless of the consequences. The two drivers made contact in the first corner, sending both drivers off the track.
I would like to point out that vowing something is not the same as making a public statement, though many fans now seem to believe he did. I can't think how such notions come about.
Also, it wasn't the two drivers making contact, it was one running into the other.

Edit: I found one trustworthy source who summarises it very well: Nigel Roebuck. He wrote at the time the Senna "documentary" came out:
Roebuck wrote:
Senna said that Prost had left a gap, and he had simply gone for it, but by the time of Suzuka a year later he admitted that he had indeed taken his rival out.
And
Roebuck wrote:
I (Senna) said to myself on Saturday, 'If, at the start, because I'm in the wrong place Prost beats me off the line, at the first corner I'm going for it — and he'd better not turn in ahead of me, because he's not going to make it..."

So now we knew: the plan may have been hatched in emotion and anger, but it was carried out in cold blood.
Source: https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/july-2011/57/his-was-most-complex-character-i-ever-encountered-sport


Yeah you may be right about admitting guilt a year later Fiki but I recall at the time, and this is only from memory, Senna hinting quite strongly that there may be trouble going into the first corner if Prost got there first.

While he didn’t say directly he’d run Prost off the road I vaguely recall his comments leaving little doubt what may happen if Prost was leading into turn 1.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
This should help:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Prost.html

From memory a lot of people were sure of what had happened, but Senna admitted to it only later


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Belgium
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Covalent wrote:
A certain instance of race fixing springs to mind from 2008... what other sport would choose to not take the victory away?

In fairness to the FIA, they might have if their rules allowed the results to be changed after the annual awards gala. Since Piquet only confessed a year later, months after said gala, their hands were tied.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, especially given it required a driver to plough into a wall.
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Siao7 wrote:
This should help:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Prost.html

From memory a lot of people were sure of what had happened, but Senna admitted to it only later
Thank you for that link, Siao7. I had forgotten about this article. (And on a personal level, I had forgotten he and I think alike on the subject of Senna, Schumacher and Prost. But I still consider Senna to have been the fastest driver I have personally seen in action.)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9898
Location: Travelling around the world
Lojik wrote:
Jacques Villeneuve should be stripped of his 1997 Hungarian GP win for 3 reasons:

1) Pipping Hill on the final lap
2) Breaking my heart
3) Being a git

:lol:

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2014
Lojik wrote:
Jacques Villeneuve should be stripped of his 1997 Hungarian GP win for 3 reasons:

1) Pipping Hill on the final lap
2) Breaking my heart
3) Being a git


:lol:
Love that one!

My picks:
- Scheckter should be stripped of his 1979 wdc so that Villeneuve is champion.
- Andretti should be stripped of his 1978 wdc so that Peterson becomes (posthumous) champ - or (if you like Andretti) Stewart and Fittipaldi to be stripped of 1973. No, the best version is: Stewart stripped of the 1971 wdc. Peterson becomes wdc in a March (!!!) without a single win all season - what a sensation!
Edit: the sensation would even bigger as he would be parallel F1 wdc and F2 champ in the same season! For that sensation alone, Stewart's wdc must be overturned!

:lol: ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:00 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14046
mcdo wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Jacques Villeneuve should be stripped of his 1997 Hungarian GP win for 3 reasons:

1) Pipping Hill on the final lap
2) Breaking my heart
3) Being a git

:lol:


Off topic but the 97 Championship was really quite an incredible championship and one of the incredible things was how many things had to come together for JV to win his WDC despite driving by far the best car over the year.

He won 7 races over the 16 race season which looks like a decent return but lets break this down -

Brazil - Went off over the grass (yes, there was grass for those that don't remember that far back) on the first start. He ended up in the midfield but was very fortunate the race was restarted for a car stalled on the grid

San Marino - Took victory just ahead of Eddie Irvine. Panis, Frentzen and Schumcher all retired and probably would've given him a much bigger push for victory. Add to that the Jordan drivers collided when in a position to take the lead with their strategy after Villeneuve pitted.

Spain - Legit win although Irvine ignoring blue flags for 3 laps denied Panis the opportunity to put him under pressure.

GB - Won after Hakkinen retired from the lead 7 laps from the end.

Hungary - Hill, Hakkinen and probably Frentzen all scheduled to finish ahead of JV until mechanical issues struck.

Austria - Hakkinen and Trulli retired in front of him.

Luxembourg - Both Mclarens retired from 1st and 2nd on the same lap!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9256
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Covalent wrote:
A certain instance of race fixing springs to mind from 2008... what other sport would choose to not take the victory away?

In fairness to the FIA, they might have if their rules allowed the results to be changed after the annual awards gala. Since Piquet only confessed a year later, months after said gala, their hands were tied.

Not that I disagree with your sentiment, especially given it required a driver to plough into a wall.

Fair point, I didn't recall it being uncovered so late!

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3484
Fiki wrote:
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Actual rule, otherwise the FIA could decide on a whim to change results from the 60s or whatever.

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 90
Well, there are a few that do stand out as victories that need to be taken off or reinstated

,Silverstone 1998, I mean this is the classic letter of the law going against the spirit of the law, schumi had to serve the penalty but because of the pit being after the finish line he didn't really serve any punishment, at least he should had some punishment for the next race at least, I mean I'm surprised they didn't change rules to say any penalty must be served before the last lap or that the line to leave the pits is the ex facto finish line for anyone in it, I know it was not illegal, just unsporting but they should did something

Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5320
Top of the list for me is the 2008 Singapore GP. Alonso and Renault should be disqualified from that result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 90
sandman1347 wrote:
Top of the list for me is the 2008 Singapore GP. Alonso and Renault should be disqualified from that result.


Especially considering how many lesser infractions, regardless of the drivers knowledge of it or not have resulted in team and driver being penalised


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Belgium
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Actual rule, otherwise the FIA could decide on a whim to change results from the 60s or whatever.
Would you be able to direct me to where I can find that rule? Because it seems to me that if athletics can throw out a fraudulent result 8 years after the Olympics, why should the FIA hold on just a month or two after the final race? It makes no sense to me.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:19 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14046
Fiki wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Actual rule, otherwise the FIA could decide on a whim to change results from the 60s or whatever.
Would you be able to direct me to where I can find that rule? Because it seems to me that if athletics can throw out a fraudulent result 8 years after the Olympics, why should the FIA hold on just a month or two after the final race? It makes no sense to me.


It is a rule. I believe the results are fixed the day of their prize giving gala. No changes can be made to the results from then.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7272
Location: Belgium
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Asphalt_World, mikeyg123 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group