They aren't objective anyway. All the F1 pundits/ex-drivers are out there for blood, in MSC's case.
Furthermore, MSC left enough room cause otherwise RB wouldn't have passed him! Lastly, it was RB's decision to go to the right, MSC left the door wide open on his left side.
So who is objective if ex-drivers with the experience and knowledge to understand the actual racing and decision-making process at such speeds are out to get him in a massive conspiracy? There is no choice here.
Schumacher did leave enough room for a car to get past with absolutely zero error margin. Would you drive your car at 100kph in a tunnel, step into a plane, walk across a bridge that have all been built to zero error margin? I wouldn't. I use such examples with a reason: all have the potential to cost lives if they were not built to excess safety specifications.
If we saw such moves whereby the most minimal steering input caused a loss of life on a regular basis, we would see loss of life.
And lastly, to directly answer your point, it was
Barrichello's decision to go to the right but at that point, there was more than a car-length of space.
It was Schumacher's decision to go to the right, after
Rubens was alongside on the right! Schumacher had lost the position right there, and that was the point to move to the left. He tried to defend what was already lost, deliberately
and dangerously. If it was accidental, his eyesight is not good enough to race in F1. That made the difference and that's why it was unacceptable.
Edited by Disgrace, 01 August 2010 - 16:26.