...I can't finish up without bringing up the pass Rossi put on Gibernau that made all the headlines. It took me a few weeks to get over the fact that it was such a major ordeal. Gibernau left the door open and Rossi wanted the win more than Gibernau. That's as much as anybody should look into it. The fact that Gibernau urged on the crowd when Rossi was being booed shows his make up. The fact that Rossi loved it showed his. Rossi is only guilty of having more desire to win than most. Gibernau showed his true colors at the next race when he crashed after a light shower of rain. Waving his arms at the corner marshals and who ever else he could see. I guess it was their fault that he crashed? He screwed up, and should take it like a man.
A couple guys in this group saw it the same way, one has done a lot of racing, the other still is..
That doesn't change my opinion. If I recall Mamola didn't think it was a great move and he had more success in GP than Mladin did.
However, I did agree with Mladin on the Hacking/DiSalvo incident. There it wasn't just a question of the door being left open or not, Hacking was off the track in the grass.
...I can't finish up without bringing up the pass Rossi put on Gibernau> that made all the headlines. It took me a few weeks to get over the fact> that it was such a major ordeal. Gibernau left the door open and Rossi> wanted the win more than Gibernau. That's as much as anybody should look> into it. The fact that Gibernau urged on the crowd when Rossi was being> booed shows his make up. The fact that Rossi loved it showed his. Rossi> is only guilty of having more desire to win than most. Gibernau showed> his true colors at the next race when he crashed after a light shower of> rain. Waving his arms at the corner marshals and who ever else he could> see. I guess it was their fault that he crashed? He screwed up, and> should take it like a man.>
A couple guys in this group saw it the same way, one has done a lot of> racing, the other still is..>
That doesn't change my opinion. If I recall Mamola didn't>>>think it was a great move and he had more success in GP>>>than Mladin did.
You recall incorrectly - Mamola definitely said it was a hard but>>acceptable pass.
What Mamola actually said was this:
"When racing is that close, and this is the great thing about MotoGP racing, is that there is going to be passing and unfortunately the bikes will touch," Mamola told eurosport.com.
"Rossi admitted that it was a strong pass, and had he gone into that corner without Gibernau being there then he would have ran wide," he predicts, "but Rossi is not a rider who's going to just sit there and sit on his laurels if he's given a chance.
"People are saying that Gibernau left the door open, but let's just say that the door was closed but it wasn't latched," he added. "There wasn't a lot of room there and it was obvious that there was going to be a collision."
So he never really took a clear position on the acceptability of the move here, I don't think.
And unless I am mistaken, Mamola didn't ride for Cagiva, either.
He rode for them for three years, 88-90. Was the first guy to put one on the box.
In article <XoidnbsSpYOh5ubfRVn-pg@giganews.com>, menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net says...> Tweak wrote:
Ummm, Tweak did not write:>
That doesn't change my opinion. If I recall Mamola didn't> >>>think it was a great move and he had more success in GP> >>>than Mladin did.>
You recall incorrectly - Mamola definitely said it was a hard but> >>acceptable pass.>
What Mamola actually said was this:>
"When racing is that close, and this is the great thing about MotoGP > racing, is that there is going to be passing and unfortunately the bikes > will touch," Mamola told eurosport.com.>
"Rossi admitted that it was a strong pass, and had he gone into that > corner without Gibernau being there then he would have ran wide," he > predicts, "but Rossi is not a rider who's going to just sit there and > sit on his laurels if he's given a chance.>
"People are saying that Gibernau left the door open, but let's just say > that the door was closed but it wasn't latched," he added. "There wasn't > a lot of room there and it was obvious that there was going to be a > collision.">
So he never really took a clear position on the acceptability of the > move here, I don't think.>
Tweak wrote:
And unless I am mistaken, Mamola didn't ride for Cagiva, either.>
He rode for them for three years, 88-90. Was the first guy to put one on > the box.>
And unless I am mistaken, Mamola didn't ride for Cagiva, either.
He rode for them for three years, 88-90. Was the first guy to put one on >>the box.
He used to get smoke pouring off the Pirellis he had to use. Just> like the WSB boys nowadays.
Yup, and one of the most impressive races I saw him run was in '88 at Rijeka, the round after his wet podium at Spa. Run in the dry, he slid that damned thing around like I'd never seen before, and he managed to bring it home in 4th, beating Magee to the line in no-prisoners mode, and almost beating Rainey as well. Those tires were close to worthless, the bike about the same, but somehow he managed to make that package competitive - at least on occasion, when he really was trying, that is...
Julian Bond wrote:> Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Fri, 6 May 2005 21:52:21>
Let me ask you this, then - where do you draw the line?
Capirossi on Harada was out of order. Rossi on Sete wasn't. The line is > somewhere in between.
So what makes this one acceptable? Do you think Rossi had reason on entrance to think he could get through without contact? Or is that contact acceptable anyway? Is it perceived intent? Is it based on consequences at all? Do you think Sete was at least in part at fault for the contact, coming down on Vale fully knowing he was there?
What makes this okay and what Loris did not? Loris was a long way back going into that corner, but it was also a faster corner, he managed to get fully alongside Harada before contact was made, and I don't know that he would have been less likely than Rossi to have made it though the corner without running off had there been no contact.
What made that an easy call for the FIM was that, given the points, they could penalize Capirossi and take his race points away and he still wins the championship. So it was to me an equally gutless move on their part, equally biased. Had Sete gone down in the gravel at Jerez, I could see the FIM hitting Rossi with a 10 or 15-second penalty - which would change absolutely nothing, just like Argentina in '98. What they did manage to do, intended or not, was put a stain on Capirossi's championship. But they would never do anything to stain the great Euro-God...
I would think you'd only do what Rossi did if you thought you'd be ahead enough at the apex that Sete could see you and check up. Otherwise you could both fall down and go boom.
So, if Rossi thought he was going to be there, ok, but if he thought a high-speed collision would be pretty cool, then I think he's guilty.
-- Ed Light
Smiley MS Smiley
Send spam to the FTC at uce@ftc.gov Thanks, robots.
Of course you have to keep apexing it so the other racers know they can't just go under you. If you're coming down on the apex in a helmet without great peripheral vision, it's up to the passing rider to get far enough past to be into your vision before you hit the apex.
-- Ed Light
Smiley MS Smiley
Send spam to the FTC at uce@ftc.gov Thanks, robots.
<Ron@somewhere.com> wrote> I have watched him lay the psych trip on a lot of riders, and as long> as they are busy hating him, he can concentrate on racing like no one> else in the U.S. right now.
Ah, the psych trip!
Can't those mind-poisoners beat mentally well riders? Pretty lame game.
-- Ed Light
Smiley MS Smiley
Send spam to the FTC at uce@ftc.gov Thanks, robots.
I have watched him lay the psych trip on a lot of riders, and as long>>as they are busy hating him, he can concentrate on racing like no one>>else in the U.S. right now.>
Ah, the psych trip!>
Can't those mind-poisoners beat mentally well riders? Pretty lame game.>
Maybe so, but it's seemed to work, a hell of a lot, more than once and Mat not only has a forum to dispense it from, he's pretty good at it too...
Guys I have to say, one of the amusing asides to this retread of a thread, is that a couple of days ago someone made mention of Yates and the Daytona WWE performance he put on. Someone posted the URL to the google thread on that from last year and I went to have a look. The amusing part was how Mark's perception of that incident appeared to be that Fania was a hack backmarker who caused the crash, and that the aftermath was really no big deal, since Yates has had some bad luck at Daytona and ya gotta let a guy blow off some steam.... And yet a little rub in MotoGP has veins dancing in poor Mark's forehead. FIM aren't the only ones who are selective in who they choose, or choose not to, sanction.....
Guys I have to say, one of the amusing asides to this retread of a> thread, is that a couple of days ago someone made mention of Yates and> the Daytona WWE performance he put on.> Someone posted the URL to the google thread on that from last year and> I went to have a look.> The amusing part was how Mark's perception of that incident appeared> to be that Fania was a hack backmarker who caused the crash, and that> the aftermath was really no big deal, since Yates has had some bad> luck at Daytona and ya gotta let a guy blow off some steam....> And yet a little rub in MotoGP has veins dancing in poor Mark's> forehead. > FIM aren't the only ones who are selective in who they choose, or> choose not to, sanction.....
What? What is similar about both incidents is that there was a guy who got hit from the inside in a corner and ended up off the track in the dirt. What is also sort of similar is that there isn't really an entirely definitive view of either incident, so people end up to some extent making calls on them, I believe, based on preconceived notions (ie, Fania is just a hardworking privateer, Yates is a thug and a jerk, and Rossi is EuroGod). In both cases I think the guy on the outside was wronged, in Yates' case because I believe that Fania was significantly offline in that corner and doing something entirely unpredictable by the fast-closing Yates, and in Gibernau's case because I think he effectively got mugged by Rossi and driven off the track, Rossi doing something unexpected (in the sense that you can't go into a corner just assuming the guy behind you will intentionally run into you) and undefendable by Gibernau.
Now in the case of Yates, the AMA suspended him from the following round at Fontana, which effectively finished off his season, what was left of it after the Daytona DNF. They did that based on what he did after the crash, and also said they couldn't determine fault in the crash itself. In the case of Rossi, the FIM declared what he did acceptable - but, boys, let's not do that again.
So I see no similarity at all between the AMA's and the FIM's actions here. And to characterize what happened at Jerez as just "a little rub" shows where your loyalties lie...
<a_noether_theorem@yahoo.com> wrote> Give it up, guys. It was weeks ago and you're argument is going> nowhere. No new points are being made. Agree to disagree, already.
Never!
-- Ed Light
Smiley MS Smiley
Send spam to the FTC at uce@ftc.gov Thanks, robots.
a_noether_theorem@yahoo.com wrote:> This thread reads as:>
-The pass was a dirty move. Rossi should be penalized.> -No, it was just agressive, but fair racing. Sete left the door open.> -So and so said it was dirty.> -So and so said it wasn't.> -Dirty move.> -No it wasn't.> -Yes it was.> -No it wasn't.> ....> Repeat x 1000.>
Give it up, guys. It was weeks ago and you're argument is going> nowhere. No new points are being made. Agree to disagree, already.
Well, I would hope that there's a little more to it than that. At this point it isn't about whether or not it was an unacceptable move by Rossi, and certainly no one's mind is likely to be changed. Now it's about why people feel like they do, what the rules of racing are or should be.
For instance, Tom appears to believe that the whole thing is Sete's fault, having "left the door wide open" and then closed down on Rossi and initiated contact once Vale had established track position. So that seems like more of a difference of opinion on what actually happened out there on the track and maybe less so about how the powers should react to that. Maybe.
In the case of Julian, he seems to think the evolution of events was more like I see it, although he appears to think there was more joint culpability than I do. He doesn't think the rules weren't violated, that this level of contact and relatively minor consequences make it an acceptable move, that someone crashing is a material issue in it all.
On this level it seems that Pablo is closer to my attitude, that the contact and off-track excursion are adequate to penalize someone. What is interesting to me is how similar this incident is to the Biaggi-Rossi incident (much less an incident, really, and not one at all to most but me) at Welkom last year. At that time Pablo's position was mostly consistent with what he says now:
"For some reason, Biaggi left an opening, and this is top racing and Rossi immediately claimed it. If both guys had fallen off the bike, if there had been contact, if Biaggi had been pushed off track - all of that indications that Rossi's move wasn't sufficiently calculated, but the fact is that none of that happened, and thus we must assume he saw a perfectly valid opening and exploited it".
SFrank and I seem to be on the same page on Jerez, and last year he said, "While I agree that Max has 'leaned' on Rossi before, I do think it was at least a slightly questionable pass".
But Julian's position does seem to have evolved a bit since last year, the goalposts moving some (other than the usual 125 thing, of course!) and in Rossi's favor:
"I don't really understand the big deal here. - They didn't touch. - They didn't fall off. - Rossi got far enough alongside that Biaggi knew he was there and sat up - After all the other passes, Biaggi knew he was going to make an attempt somewhere. It's not as though this was unexpected. - This didn't look any worse to me than the sort of thing that happens in the last few laps of almost every 125 and 250 GP. - And the key thing. Having made the pass, Rossi pulled away enough that Biaggi couldn't do the same thing back. - Capirossi on Harada was probably out of order. This wasn't in the same league at all."
Maybe the most revealing thing there was the last comment and the use of the word "probably", definitely not used currently. In fact, Julian just said, "Capirossi on Harada was out of order". But the question remains, is anything truly out of order in Julian's eyes, or at least when Rossi is the perpetrator?
Anyway, I think something is coming out of this continued discussion. And it may well be the moment the 2005 championship was decided, so worth a little reflection, eh?
Mark N wrote:> a_noether_theorem@yahoo.com wrote:>
This thread reads as:
Give it up, guys. It was weeks ago and you're argument is going>> nowhere. No new points are being made.
Yep, What's done is done... Agree to disagree, already. Exactly what I said, over two weeks ago...>
Well, I would hope that there's a little more to it than that. At this > point it isn't about whether or not it was an unacceptable move by > Rossi, and certainly no one's mind is likely to be changed. Now it's > about why people feel like they do, what the rules of racing are or > should be.>
For instance, Tom appears to believe that the whole thing is Sete's > fault, having "left the door wide open" and then closed down on Rossi > and initiated contact once Vale had established track position. So that > seems like more of a difference of opinion on what actually happened out > there on the track and maybe less so about how the powers should react > to that. Maybe.
Sorta, just not a big deal, though I mentioned the inconsistencies in the way all rules are applied, a couple of times...>
In the case of Julian, he seems to think the evolution of events was > more like I see it, although he appears to think there was more joint > culpability than I do. He doesn't think the rules weren't violated, that > this level of contact and relatively minor consequences make it an > acceptable move, that someone crashing is a material issue in it all.
It is, isn't it?>
On this level it seems that Pablo is closer to my attitude, that the > contact and off-track excursion are adequate to penalize someone. What > is interesting to me is how similar this incident is to the Biaggi-Rossi > incident (much less an incident, really, and not one at all to most but > me) at Welkom last year. At that time Pablo's position was mostly > consistent with what he says now:
[snipped really old stuff] You guy's are a real piece of work! Though it's somewhat surprising you two would agree on anything! ;)> Anyway, I think something is coming out of this continued discussion. > And it may well be the moment the 2005 championship was decided, so > worth a little reflection, eh?
Maybe it was the moment when Rossi broke his closest competitor's will to proceed in a "one on one" fashion, like some sort of a "defining moment", or not, we'll see...
Well, I was Jim Vivian's (yep, the disc jockey, older Brits) gardener when he was soccer team captain here in California (unfortunately he's drowned) and there were no hooligans, just gentlemen. The team would go to the English pub, and it was totally civilized.
-- Ed Light
Smiley MS Smiley
Send spam to the FTC at uce@ftc.gov Thanks, robots.
On Sun, 08 May 2005 11:05:12 -0700, Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
Shel wrote:>>>T3 wrote:>>>
Mark N wrote:>>>
Julian Bond wrote:>
SNIP SNIP SNIP>>
Guys I have to say, one of the amusing asides to this retread of a>> thread, is that a couple of days ago someone made mention of Yates and>> the Daytona WWE performance he put on.>> Someone posted the URL to the google thread on that from last year and>> I went to have a look.>> The amusing part was how Mark's perception of that incident appeared>> to be that Fania was a hack backmarker who caused the crash, and that>> the aftermath was really no big deal, since Yates has had some bad>> luck at Daytona and ya gotta let a guy blow off some steam....>> And yet a little rub in MotoGP has veins dancing in poor Mark's>> forehead. >> FIM aren't the only ones who are selective in who they choose, or>> choose not to, sanction.....>
What? What is similar about both incidents is that there was a guy who >got hit from the inside in a corner and ended up off the track in the >dirt. What is also sort of similar is that there isn't really an >entirely definitive view of either incident, so people end up to some >extent making calls on them, I believe, based on preconceived notions >(ie, Fania is just a hardworking privateer, Yates is a thug and a jerk, >and Rossi is EuroGod). In both cases I think the guy on the outside was >wronged, in Yates' case because I believe that Fania was significantly >offline in that corner and doing something entirely unpredictable by the >fast-closing Yates, and in Gibernau's case because I think he >effectively got mugged by Rossi and driven off the track, Rossi doing >something unexpected (in the sense that you can't go into a corner just >assuming the guy behind you will intentionally run into you) and >undefendable by Gibernau.>
Now in the case of Yates, the AMA suspended him from the following round >at Fontana, which effectively finished off his season, what was left of >it after the Daytona DNF. They did that based on what he did after the >crash, and also said they couldn't determine fault in the crash itself. >In the case of Rossi, the FIM declared what he did acceptable - but, >boys, let's not do that again.>
So I see no similarity at all between the AMA's and the FIM's actions >here. And to characterize what happened at Jerez as just "a little rub" >shows where your loyalties lie...
You missed my point by a country mile Mark - what I found amusing was the contrast between your reaction to Yates' recklessness, where you implied his actions were not that big a deal given the circumstances, and your strident reaction to the Rossi-Gib incident...."Flog the Euro-God".... The fact of the matter is there is not a sport that I have ever watched that doesn't treat the stars differently than the journeymen, so why is it such a shocker that Rossi, or Mat, or Corser, or <insert name of Big Kahuna here> should get treated with kid's gloves on occaision? I was comparing the FIM to YOU and not the AMA my friend.....you have a vein just dying to pop on Rossi's behalf and I'd hate to think it'll take you out one of these days.
Julian Bond wrote:> Mark N <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> Mon, 9 May 2005 07:32:10>
Maybe the most revealing thing there was the last comment and the use >> of the word "probably", definitely not used currently. In fact, Julian >> just said, "Capirossi on Harada was out of order". But the question >> remains, is anything truly out of order in Julian's eyes, or at least >> when Rossi is the perpetrator?>
It's nothing to do with Rossi, please get over that. The idea that I > think because it's Rossi, that absolves him is in your head, not mine.>
I'm usually careful to say ISTM, IMHO, Probably, Perhaps, Maybe. If I > didn't in one post there's nothing to read into the missing word.>
I like watching 125s, please get over that as well.>
I'll refrain from rising to all the other slurs where you misrepresent me.>
I'm tired of this again. plonk.
Slurs? I'm just quoting you from a year ago and nothing more. And on that, you did include in your criteria then these items:
"They didn't touch." Well, they sure as hell touched in Spain. "Rossi got far enough alongside that Biaggi knew he was there and sat up" Sete sure didn't sit up, although I suppose one could take the position that he knew Rossi was there and he initiated the contact. Why he would do that, I don't know. "And the key thing. Having made the pass, Rossi pulled away enough that Biaggi couldn't do the same thing back." Well, Sete sure as hell had no chance to fight back. If that is "the key thing" to you (and I don't know why it would matter at all), it makes me wonder why it had no importance at Jerez...
You missed my point by a country mile Mark - what I found amusing was> the contrast between your reaction to Yates' recklessness, where you> implied his actions were not that big a deal given the circumstances,> and your strident reaction to the Rossi-Gib incident...."Flog the> Euro-God"....> The fact of the matter is there is not a sport that I have ever> watched that doesn't treat the stars differently than the journeymen,> so why is it such a shocker that Rossi, or Mat, or Corser, or <insert> name of Big Kahuna here> should get treated with kid's gloves on> occaision?> I was comparing the FIM to YOU and not the AMA my friend.....you have> a vein just dying to pop on Rossi's behalf and I'd hate to think it'll> take you out one of these days.
Well, I draw a big line between what goes on out on the track, at whatever speed, and what goes on off of it. There's no good way to determine what happened in the Yates-Fania incident on the track, because there's not good film footage of it. How I view what happened after is pretty much the same as the Rossi-Biaggi incident on the podium stairs a few years ago - silly, really, and not something to be very concerned with. Tom is right that the AMA (and Yosh) were forced to do something about it because it was caught in all it's glory by the cameras, just as you can be damned sure the FIM would have gotten royally bent out of shape had Rossi and Biaggi decided to start swinging at each other on the podium as they were playing "Waltzing Matilda" or whatever...
"Mark N" <menusbaum@NYETSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message news:RZKdnUiCgbZASh3fRVn-iA@giganews.com...>
With Pablo it has to be at least in part his venting on American racing.
So now being disgusted by Yates utterly disgusting display represents "venting against American racing"? Geez. I mean, really. You've stretched your argument pathetically think here. It's true watching that race pushed me over the edge when it came to watching AMA. reservations about the safety of some tracks aside.
"T3" <nowhere@nospam.com> wrote in message news:FO7ge.17734$IO.8438@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...>> ... So when he doesn't head up to Sears this weekend, how can he even >> tell why?>
Yeah, it's hard for me to understand, given that I try to go 20k miles a > year or so to see it up close, for anyone not to go down the street to see > some very excellent racing, by anyone's definition...
I've said why. Obviously I have watched AMA before, otherwise I would not have been witness to Yates headbutt and two-legged kick into another rider's back as the latter was walking away. It's my prerrogative to be put off by it and simply lose interest fpor a while. I'll go again, eventually. I will go to Laguna Seca, and I will travel to Europe later this year. My mother lives in Barcelona, and I have a motorcycle parked in her garage.
Blah blah - the usual selective create collage of quotes that is always careful to ignore your own contributions when a thread goes astray. You should stop assuming this group is full of drooling retards without a memory that will be presuaded to believe you're an angel and never do your damndest tofeed the flames, Mark. Your posing as the etiquette watchdog is amusing.
