Nasty tactics in history?

Please, don't misunderstand me; I don't mean it will happen this time.

But do you remember any nasty tactics that any driver has employed in order to clinch a championship or win a race? Not just a driver blocking another (i.e. Irvine at Suzuka some years ago, and then letting Schumacher go by), but deliberately crashing into him, or something similar.

For sure most people will remember Schumacher's 94 and 97 campaigns, or Senna and Prost's 89 and 90's Suzuka races. What else is out there?

Mexico '64. Bandini crashes into Graham Hill putting the latter laps down. On the last lap Jim Clark (heading for the title) retires. Hill is going to be champ - until Bandini lets team-mate Surtees past into 2nd. Surtees takes title.

But no-one thought Bandini's crash was deliberate, just arsehole driving from someone trying to harry Hill (who he?) into a mistake and instead dropping it himself.

Originally posted by ensign14
Mexico '64. Bandini crashes into Graham Hill putting the latter laps down. On the last lap Jim Clark (heading for the title) retires. Hill is going to be champ - until Bandini lets team-mate Surtees past into 2nd. Surtees takes title.

But no-one thought Bandini's crash was deliberate, just arsehole driving from someone trying to harry Hill (who he?) into a mistake and instead dropping it himself.

Just today there's quite a different view of this race in swiss mag "Motorsport aktuell". The author Dieter Stappert writes that Graham Hill told him afterwards how Bandini had outbreaked himself several times before at the hairpin, every time always aiming at Hills car while doing so (not beside it, as would have been normal). Hill allegedly told Stappert "he tried a few times to get me and I drove wider lines each lap. Finally he managed to hit me, damaging my exhausts".

So there it defenitely sounds deliberate.

The funny part is that, according to Stappert, Hill send Bandini a book to christmas '64, titled "How to drive a racing car".

I guess it's, like with Lauda in the other thread, a case of how much you want to believe the author.
All I know of him is that he writes frequently in german racing mags, has run a 250cc world championship team for quite a few years (HB-Honda, IIRC) and was at one time connected to BMW Touring cars.

Originally posted by ensign14
Mexico '64. Bandini crashes into Graham Hill putting the latter laps down. On the last lap Jim Clark (heading for the title) retires. Hill is going to be champ - until Bandini lets team-mate Surtees past into 2nd. Surtees takes title.

But no-one thought Bandini's crash was deliberate, just arsehole driving from someone trying to harry Hill (who he?) into a mistake and instead dropping it himself.

He wasn't trying to harry Hill, he was trying to get past him (in fact at that point neither harrying Hill into a mistake, nor punting him off the track was any help to surtees WDC hopes). I don't think anyone called it 'arsehole driving' (at least not in public) but there were several people who thought the fiery Italian had been a tad optimistic in going for a move at the hairpin.

Originally posted by as65p

I guess it's, like with Lauda in the other thread, a case of how much you want to believe the author.

That's very interesting. Certainly other authors have said different things, but of course NGH could have different stories for different audiences. Maybe he did not care so much. It's certainly the first hint at it being deliberate I have ever seen.

Henri Greuter reminds me on another thread that Jones crashed into Piquet at Canada '80. But that was less decisive as the race was restarted and IIRC there was another race to go - plus there were deep suspicions about the legality of the Brabham. (And I have never seen it so it might have been a racing incident.)

1980: Alan Jones taking out Nelson Piquet at the start of the Canadian GP.
Jones had seen a big lead evaporate in two races time before that Canadian one.
Race was restarted, with Nelson in the T-car that broke during the race, Jones won and the title was his.

Henri

How about ripping the mirrors off of your car and chucking them back at the car chasing you? Or are we only talking about team tactics?

I think the single positive thing coming out of all this talk how the 2nd drivers could influence the championship is that it's precisely the reason nothing deliberate will happen.

It would just cause too much uproar. More likely they will have to take extra care, because almost nobody would believe in a honest mistake after any sort of contact.

Originally posted by Tuxy


Yes, you also failed to mention that Ferrari could just as easily ask Massa to shoot Fernando in the back of the head, just as feasible . WTF inspires people like you to instigate this crap?

I think your comparison to execution is more worthy of question.

Originally posted by ensign14

Henri Greuter reminds me on another thread that Jones crashed into Piquet at Canada '80. But that was less decisive as the race was restarted and IIRC there was another race to go - plus there were deep suspicions about the legality of the Brabham. (And I have never seen it so it might have been a racing incident.)

what has legality of brabham got to do with nasty driver tactics???

Originally posted by MPea3
How about ripping the mirrors off of your car and chucking them back at the car chasing you? Or are we only talking about team tactics?

Damn that one was good

Originally posted by as65p
All I know of him is that he writes frequently in german racing mags, has run a 250cc world championship team for quite a few years (HB-Honda, IIRC) and was at one time connected to BMW Touring cars.

Dieter Stappert is a respected motor racing journalist since the 60ies - I think he was the chief editor of Swiss "Powerslide". During the 80ies he was the man behind the first F1 turbo championship of BMW in 1983.

Not that I wanted to write about current or future guesses, but... anyway, Fernando didn't have his first victory at Interlagos, but at Hungaroring (2003).

I also remember Norberto Fontana recently speaking about Jean Todt giving him orders to block some cars in Jerez'97 (Sauber was powered by Ferrari). Obviously Todt denied all that, but can a driver invent such a story???

Coulthard taking out Schumacher at Spa98. If Irvine had done that to Hakkinen, the world had been upside down but since it was made by McLaren it is dismissed.

1980: Alan Jones taking out Nelson Piquet at the start of the Canadian GP.
Jones had seen a big lead evaporate in two races time before that Canadian one.
Race was restarted, with Nelson in the T-car that broke during the race, Jones won and the title was his.




Caldwell ( Brabham ) had forgotten to replace the engine of Nelson's T-car in Canada, therefore Nelson's T-car broke during that race, and yes, Jones did push Nelson into the Canadian wall.

Caldwell also did put Nelson on slicks before the start of the 1981
Brazilian GP, while rain was pouring down, and by doing so threw away ( a certain ? ) victory for Nelson, starting from pole on his home GP in Brazil.

Ecclestone fired Caldwell for causing both incidents.

Finally, today ( October 17 th 2006 ) it is actually 25 years ago that Nelson won his first
of three Formula One titles in Las Vegas.

Originally posted by ensign14
Mexico '64. Bandini crashes into Graham Hill putting the latter laps down. On the last lap Jim Clark (heading for the title) retires. Hill is going to be champ - until Bandini lets team-mate Surtees past into 2nd. Surtees takes title.

But no-one thought Bandini's crash was deliberate, just arsehole driving from someone trying to harry Hill (who he?) into a mistake and instead dropping it himself.

Originally posted by as65p
Just today there's quite a different view of this race in swiss mag "Motorsport aktuell". The author Dieter Stappert writes that Graham Hill told him afterwards how Bandini had outbreaked himself several times before at the hairpin, every time always aiming at Hills car while doing so (not beside it, as would have been normal). Hill allegedly told Stappert "he tried a few times to get me and I drove wider lines each lap. Finally he managed to hit me, damaging my exhausts".

So there it defenitely sounds deliberate.

The funny part is that, according to Stappert, Hill send Bandini a book to christmas '64, titled "How to drive a racing car".

In the course of researching the 1964 GP season, I had the opportunity to speak to several who were at the Mexican event, including someone who was in the BRM pits while Hill had his car repaired.

Needless to say, Hill was furious. His time as a sailor definitely "enriched" his vocabulary. However, as angry as Hill was, apparently he never accused Bandini of being anything but (cleaning it up more a tad here) a knucklehead.

Keep in mind that Bandini was in the flat-12 and its seemed to be better suited to the track due to the altitude. Essentially, Bandini was trying to get to the front, especially ahead of Hill, and was having problems getting past the BRM. At some point in the effort, Bandini apaprently saw what seemed to be a hole, went for it only to see it close -- and leading to a collision with Hill. Never confuse a dumb move with a malicious one. The Bandini move was the former and not the latter.

More than a few questioned the Bandini move, but any conspiracy theories simply failed to find any traction. Keep in mind that the person who would have actually benefited the most from the shunt was not Surtees, but Jim Clark.

Therefore, I have to take exception to the accusations that the collision was a deliberate, willful act as is being implied.

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps




In the course of researching the 1964 GP season, I had the opportunity to speak to several who were at the Mexican event, including someone who was in the BRM pits while Hill had his car repaired.

Needless to say, Hill was furious. His time as a sailor definitely "enriched" his vocabulary. However, as angry as Hill was, apparently he never accused Bandini of being anything but (cleaning it up more a tad here) a knucklehead.

Keep in mind that Bandini was in the flat-12 and its seemed to be better suited to the track due to the altitude. Essentially, Bandini was trying to get to the front, especially ahead of Hill, and was having problems getting past the BRM. At some point in the effort, Bandini apaprently saw what seemed to be a hole, went for it only to see it close -- and leading to a collision with Hill. Never confuse a dumb move with a malicious one. The Bandini move was the former and not the latter.

More than a few questioned the Bandini move, but any conspiracy theories simply failed to find any traction. Keep in mind that the person who would have actually benefited the most from the shunt was not Surtees, but Jim Clark.

Therefore, I have to take exception to the accusations that the collision was a deliberate, willful act as is being implied.

I was born in 1964, so I'm not claiming to know anything about that incident first-hand. I have absolutely no clue who is right or wrong here.

As giacomo researched, Stappert is a known figure in journalism, but frankly I don't know how much he can be trusted.

When I wrote my first post I did not have the mag at hand, having looked it up again Stappert claims that Hill told him the story at a Formula 3 races several years later. Maybe it's possible that GH had a bit of fun with him?

Otherwise the content is pretty much what I wrote (translated from german, obviously).

Would be nice to hear Denis Jenkinsons version, I suppose...

Ah yes, the points situation is also mentioned in the article. If Clark, who was leading, had not broken down 2 laps from the finish, he would have been champion, not Surtees.

Originally posted by as65p

Would be nice to hear Denis Jenkinsons version, I suppose...

Jenks didn't attend the trans-Atlantic races - he left those to Michael Tee.

The Motor Sport report points out that Bandini was very close to Hill on laps 28, 29 and 30 - on one of those laps Graham apparently shook his fist at Lorenzo "for getting dangerously close". The collision took place on lap 31: at that point Hill was in 3rd place, which was enough to bring him the title even if Clark - who had led from the start - won the race. As Don pointed out, Surtees was very much the outsider at that stage.

Jenks did muse at some length in "Continental Notes" on the subject of championships and his lack of enthusiasm for "points chasing", but made no comment on the Hill-Bandini incident.

I remember watching an IMSA race in the 80s at (I think San Diego)... A.J. Foyt and Oscar Larrauri disputed a corner, and A.J. lost, with enough damage that he couldn't continue, while Larrauri went on...

Well, there wasn't quite enough damage to A.J.'s car - because 'ol A.J. just sat there on the inside of the corner... waiting.

When Larrauri came around the next time, Foyt gunned his (mostly) disabled car and took dead aim at him, clipping the back end and taking Larrauri out of the race, too...

It was the first and only time I've ever seen a driver "lay in wait" like that...

Originally posted by Vitesse2

Jenks didn't attend the trans-Atlantic races - he left those to Michael Tee.

The Motor Sport report points out that Bandini was very close to Hill on laps 28, 29 and 30 - on one of those laps Graham apparently shook his fist at Lorenzo "for getting dangerously close". The collision took place on lap 31: at that point Hill was in 3rd place, which was enough to bring him the title even if Clark - who had led from the start - won the race. As Don pointed out, Surtees was very much the outsider at that stage.

Jenks did muse at some length in "Continental Notes" on the subject of championships and his lack of enthusiasm for "points chasing", but made no comment on the Hill-Bandini incident.

Interesting, thanks for the info. That sounds more or less in line with what Hill told Stappert. Of course, even if Graham Hill really believed that Bandini did it on purpose, that's still no absolute proof, but...

@stevewf1

I only distantly remember mutterings about A.J Foyts antics on track. That's absolutely hilarious, imagine something like that next sunday, the traffic on the F1 message boards would let the whole internet implode .

Well just to change tack a little. One thing overlooked about the 1997 season is that Villeneuve raced in Suzuka under appeal (and subsequently because of yellow flag infringements I believe, he was excluded).

And in that race, he exited the pits and moved across the track in front of Michael Schumacher before he was up to speed. In a race where he had nothing to lose it showed that he was hardly a paragon of virtue.

Not F1 related but a classic Belgian Civil war.

Belgian Touring cars championchip 1978, A team of 3 Belga sponsored Ford Capri's (Group 1) versus a Belgian BMW 530i driver, I believe his name was Braillard.

Rainy weather, one of the Belga Capri drivers lead the championship but in the rain the BMW driver had the legs on the Capri's One of them (Alain Semoulin) dropped back and once the BMW driver tried to overtake him he drove into the BMW. (Semoulin was reported to have done something similar in the past already)
The BMW wasn't retired on the spot but limped on and in revenge ran into the other Belga Capri's.

Some punishents were handed out after that one.


Not F1 either but several NASCAR races ended up with different winners than the one leading the last lap since the pusuer `rattled the cage`, hoping to persuade the driver in front to make a fault, which then happend.
I recall an occasion in whihc Dale earheardt won a race like that and was booed by the entire crowd and sheepishly said the comment about `rattling the cage`. Typically, a few weeks later the trick was done on him and he was infuriated about it being done to him but the general comment by the other drivers then was that he wasn't disqualified some weeks before eithers so he better had to shut up.

Henri

I remember US GP 2003. Barrichello qualified 2nd, Montoya 4th, Schumacher 7th. RB started very slowly thus delaying JPM. MS overtook both, Coulthard slipped between RB and JPM. Then at the end of 1st or 2nd lap RB just moved out of racing line to let DC by. I already had a thought in my mind - oh no, Montoya, take care! And then they collided, RB was out but JPM got a drive trough penalty. I don't know if RB just wanted to delay JPM or was crash part of Ferrari scenario, but anyway that was a nasty tactics.

Originally posted by ademm
Coulthard taking out Schumacher at Spa98. If Irvine had done that to Hakkinen, the world had been upside down but since it was made by McLaren it is dismissed.

If Hakkinen had driven into the back of Irvine, as MS did to DC, I think it is more likely that everyone would dismiss it for what it was - a racing accident - perhaps even bad judgement on DC's part - but nastiness? Don't think so.

For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are McLaren and Williams colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

Simply scandalous that two teams should be able to piss all over the principles of the sport in this way...and get away with it.

For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are Ferrari and Sauber colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

Simply scandalous that two teams should be able to piss all over the principles of the sport in this way...and get away with it.

Just to complete the feeling of deja-vu!

Originally posted by Garagiste
For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are Ferrari and Sauber colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

Simply scandalous that two teams should be able to piss all over the principles of the sport in this way...and get away with it.

Just to complete the feeling of deja-vu!

Not up to your usual standards, Garagiste - can we presume this is just a temporary blip?

Just think it got a bit done to death (again) quite recently.

Originally posted by RDM
For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are McLaren and Williams colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

Simply scandalous that two teams should be able to piss all over the principles of the sport in this way...and get away with it.

Yeah - that was FAR worse than what MS did to JV several laps before that....

Originally posted by Bruce


Yeah - that was FAR worse than what MS did to JV several laps before that....

or the move on Damon Hill in Australia... :yawn:

Originally posted by Bruce


Yeah - that was FAR worse than what MS did to JV several laps before that....

or the Monaco 2006 parking trick

Originally posted by Owen


or the move on Damon Hill in Australia... :yawn:

Surely coaxing your battered car to the WDC, rather than disputing the final race, is a far more heinous crime than a bit of end of year horseplay amongst colleagues a la 1994 and 1997?

Originally posted by Owen


or the move on Damon Hill in Australia... :yawn:

Or to the faster Mika in Macau.............. :yawn:

or to all F1 fans with the B194 traction control machine......... :yawn:



It is too easy to name all of Michael Schumacher's indiscretions.....he is a living breathing example of nasty unsporting tactics......but it's OK cause he won

"a bit of end of year horseplay" = driving into people to prevent them overtaking.
classy.

Originally posted by Garagiste
For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are Ferrari and Sauber colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

Simply scandalous that two teams should be able to piss all over the principles of the sport in this way...and get away with it.

Just to complete the feeling of deja-vu!

Garagiste,


Imagine, just imagine the following plot.
Jerez 1997 is a clean race between JVi and MS,
And like in Japan last time, MS leads but with 16 laps to go the engine blows and JVi inherits the lead.
Then, according the pre-race agreement between Mclaren and Willimas, JVi slows down and we get to see the same swap of positions as we did see that race with JVi surrendering the lead to allow a McLaren double and Mclaren then arranges Mika to have his first victory.

How would you have felt about this entire scenario as we got to see it then?

Don't get me wrong, what MS did on JVi was sickening and thus JVI's title is more than fine with me.
But had MS driven a fair, clean race, and had to retire like he did in Japan this year and not acted so disgusting, how would hthat have made your feelings on the McLaren-Williams race arrangment they performed? Don't you think that because of the more serious offence of MS on JVi, the McLaren-Williams combine wasconsidered of no importance anymore?
just like other occasions in which races had nasty moments that were overshadowed by an even more nasty moment in that very same race?


Henri

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

Imagine, just imagine the following plot.
Jerez 1997 is a clean race between JVi and MS,
And like in Japan last time, MS leads but with 16 laps to go the engine blows and JVi inherits the lead.
Then, according the pre-race agreement between Mclaren and Willimas, JVi slows down and we get to see the same swap of positions as we did see that race with JVi surrendering the lead to allow a McLaren double and Mclaren then arranges Mika to have his first victory.

How would you have felt about this entire scenario as we got to see it then?

I'd say first that there is no proof whatsoever about any pre-race agreement of that sort, not even strong suggestions. But playing along with the scenario and thinking they would have had interest for some sort of a collusive pre-race plan like Ferrari had with Sauber, it would have been completely different thing compared with what actually happened, so they wouldn't have done it at all, as they would have been punished for it. They would have risked even their WDC!

Let's remember the facts that actually happened: JV's car was damaged due to MS's trick and his aim was the WDC. What JV did in the end was perfectly acceptable and not only that, it was a very smart thing to do.

Originally posted by Henri Greuter



Garagiste,


Imagine, just imagine the following plot.

Henri

Operative word being imagine.... If cow had wheels it would be called milk cart.

The on track incident somewhat totally overhauled the boundary conditions. Perhaps the most telling bit about the alleged McLaren Williams collusion is that only tifosi still seem to have a chip on their shoulder over it. Why because McLarens prevented Eddie Irvine from finnishing strikken Villeneuve off? If the allegations hold true to any extent Villeneuve in reality did not gift anybody anything, but realizing that just seems to complicated to "I hate Ronzo" tunnel vision.

Originally posted by RDM
For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are McLaren and Williams colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

So MS knew about and tried to stop that tasteless tactic becoming reality by ramming Villeneuve?

Originally posted by Oho


If the allegations hold true to any extent Villeneuve in reality did not gift anybody anything, but realizing that just seems to complicated to "I hate Ronzo" tunnel vision.

And a similar "I hate Ronzo" kind of tunnelvision doesn't exist at all among F1 fans for alleged Ferrari and/or MS antics?

Or JPM, JVi, Kimi, Fisi, etc. etc. etc distractors?
Only poor old Ron and his Mclaren outfit suffer from tunnelvision heritated blind hate?


Imagine this board when Ron wasn't the only one suffering from it.


Henri

Originally posted by RDM
For me, the nastiest, most tasteless and anti-sporting tactics I have seen are McLaren and Williams colluding to fix the result of the 1997 Jerez GP.

Simply scandalous that two teams should be able to piss all over the principles of the sport in this way...and get away with it.

Never happened. ....These aren't cons your are looking for.....Look over there. It's schumacher! OMG did he not concede his racing line? What a ruthless, arrogant cheat!

Let's face it MS has overseen more unsporting gestures in his F1 career than any other driver by a long, long way. Even his fans would concede his tactics are, how can I put it: 'contreversial'

Originally posted by Oho


Operative word being imagine.... If cow had wheels it would be called milk cart.

The on track incident somewhat totally overhauled the boundary conditions. Perhaps the most telling bit about the alleged McLaren Williams collusion is that only tifosi still seem to have a chip on their shoulder over it. Why because McLarens prevented Eddie Irvine from finnishing strikken Villeneuve off? If the allegations hold true to any extent Villeneuve in reality did not gift anybody anything, but realizing that just seems to complicated to "I hate Ronzo" tunnel vision.

the fact of the matter is this:

Mclaren and Williams *did* meet during that weekend to discuss strategy. It was reported by Donaldson in the TSN pre-race show. If it was a matter of Mclaren staying out of the WDC fight between the Williams and Ferrari , why just meet with Williams? A statement saying they wouldn't interfere to the public/press would be sufficent.

Didn't Ron also say that he would have helped in Suzuka if asked? I recall reading that somewhere.

Whether Irvine would have taken Villeneuve out is moot. It was between Ferrari and Williams. The second Mclaren took sides , and they did, it became worse than any team order applied by Mclaren, Ferrari , Renault etc... amongst their team drivers.

Originally posted by Owen
Let's face it MS has overseen more unsporting gestures in his F1 career than any other driver by a long, long way. Even his fans would concede his tactics are, how can I put it: 'contreversial'

Senna did worse, and in **half** the amount of time in F-1. Alonso isn't looking much better.

Originally posted by Zuras


Senna did worse, and in **half** the amount of time in F-1. Alonso isn't looking much better.

Where is the 'Hrvoje' at the end?

Originally posted by kenny


Where is the 'Hrvoje' at the end?

I don't know what your problem is , dude, but your cyptic nonsense is growing tiresome.

Originally posted by Henri Greuter




And a similar "I hate Ronzo" kind of tunnelvision doesn't exist at all among F1 fans for alleged Ferrari and/or MS antics?

Or JPM, JVi, Kimi, Fisi, etc. etc. etc distractors?
Only poor old Ron and his Mclaren outfit suffer from tunnelvision heritated blind hate?


Imagine this board when Ron wasn't the only one suffering from it.


Henri

Did I piss in your cereal, where did I somehow pass a comment conveying hatred toward anyone... I would say guys like RDM hate Ron Dennis about as passionately as one can hate a total stranger.

The truth of the incident is that not too many people know and none of those have ever made any comments on what really went on with Williams and McLaren, its simply higher mathematics 1+1 = not 2, not 10 but something compleately different , or forward logic, lets decide McLaren and Williams fixed the race and fit the evidence to match that conclusion its sucks like Sherlock Holmes sucks...

Originally posted by Zuras


I don't know what your problem is , dude, but your cyptic nonsense is growing tiresome.

You've obviously haven't been around this forum long...

Originally posted by Zuras


Senna did worse, and in **half** the amount of time in F-1. Alonso isn't looking much better.

I wouldn't say *worse* , but Senna fanboys bitching about MS's driving ethics stikes me as a bit rich

Originally posted by Zuras


Senna did worse, and in **half** the amount of time in F-1. Alonso isn't looking much better.

Substantiate.

But, in order to substantiate, it will require you to make a comparison of Senna's and Schumacher's misdeeds - something you may be laothe to do. Please don't pretend that 1994, 1997 and Rascasse were MS's only moments - do remember to include his ignored black flag at Silvertsone, his gifted win at Austria, his gifted second at Austria, Irvine gifting him 4th (or was it third?) at Austria, pushing HHF off the track at Canada, chopping, weaving, criticising Senna of chopping (! the irony !) and probably worst, in my book - never EVER taking responsibility for his actions. And that was just off the top of my head.

Think you're going to have a hard time arguing that Senna "did worse" in half the time.
]
and Alonso???? For a Schumacher fan to accuse Alonso of dirty tactics or unfair play is just - well - bizarre.

Originally posted by Oho


Did I piss in your cereal, where did I somehow pass a comment conveying hatred toward anyone... I would say guys like RDM hate Ron Dennis about as passionately as one can hate a total stranger.

The truth of the incident is that not too many people know and none of those have ever made any comments on what really went on with Williams and McLaren, its simply higher mathematics 1+1 = not 2, not 10 but something compleately different , or forward logic, lets decide McLaren and Williams fixed the race and fit the evidence to match that conclusion its sucks like Sherlock Holmes sucks...

You can't piss in my cereal, I don't eat that stuff....

My reaction was based on the feeling that you suggest that it is only `poor Ronzo` who got all this hatred over him. Well, I think that a namuber of other persons and teams within F1 are much more and much more intensly hated that Mclaren and Ron.

In fact, I get the feeling that the hate for Ferrari and MS is so intense (and granted: they have done a few things to earn such feelings) that a number of similar incidents in which other teams are involved are not taken up that serious since it was either a favourite driver and/or team or at least, it wasn't by Ferrari this time.

The feelings about the Williams-McLaren race fix, I think that for a number of f1 fans can be said that they don't take it serious and or are not offended because:

1) Ferrari and/or MS were not involved.
2) the popular JVi was involved but we forgive him everything.
3) Williams and Mclaren were involved and they were popular teams for many fanbs,
4) because of the despicable act of MS earlier that race, that was a far more serious and disgusting offence that the one in which they were not involved. So as a sweet revenge JVi got champion and Hakky at last could be given a GP victory. How sweet...

I short, the incident wasn't taken as serious and as offencive to us racefanc by most of them because it was only the second incident that race, second to a miuch more serious offence, done by the criminals within F1: Ferrari.

But I can't help feeling how the reacions would have been had this happened in an otherwise clean race with no lousy acts by MS and/or Schuey. I think that more race fans would have been offended by it.
Same if the race had been a clean one but a similar fix being carried out, involving Ferrari and another team in order to secure a title.

Yes, what MS did with JVi was much more tastles and sickening.
But that doesn't mean that, because of that I ignore the fact how I was forced to withness a gam of tactics between two teams that was as tastleless as Austria 2001 and 2002. But it simply has been covered up warmly because of the ability to put more blame on a bigger incident onto Ferrari.
Hakky;'s first GP victory is for me as insignificant and worthless as Austria 2002 for MS has been because of this sickening wheeling and dealing between two teams, prearranged before or during the race.


But it has always been like this. In an incident filled weekend you always remember the biggest incident of them all. The feelings about Imola '94 have rougly the same impact.
For the majority of fans, Imola '94 is all about Senna, for me it is about a number of shocking incidents day after day, including two fatalities in which Senna just happened to be one of them.

Greetings
Henri