Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 15 votes

Fixed races, conspiracy theories, controversial stories, etc.


  • Please log in to reply
478 replies to this topic

#1 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:09

A few posts in the Daytona 500 thread going here right now rekindled my interest in good old conspiracy theories. The story that did it was that Dale Earnhardt Jr. was a lock, or at least very much helped, to win his first race at Daytona after his father and Nascar legend was killed there earlier in the year.

So here's a thread for us to share some stories, talk about races we believe might've been fixed, any conspiracy theories related to any kind of racing (including those related to the fans of certain series, TV coverage, the business side, the technical side, etc. as well as the racing itself). Teams spying on each other, drivers being on blacklists, and so on. Drivers getting screwed out of wins by unfair penalties, races being manipulated, companies paying off designers not to publish designs that would ruin them, etc. Any series from any era in motorsports is fair game, no matter how old, ludicrous or unbelievable you think most will find the tale. Let's get a good discussion going.

So, are there any races that stand out to you that you think might've been fixed? Anything strange or suspicious that's ever caught your eye when watching a race or reading about something? Do you have any good stories to share? All stories, no matter how cynical or sinister, are fair game here. Don't be shy.

One thing - PLEASE refrain from talking about races that we KNOW were fixed, such as Singapore 2008. There are already threads for that discussion, and it derails every thread it's ever mentioned in. I would never want to discourage a healthy conversation, but that is one that has already been had more times than is needed. This thread is for posters here to share a few tales, present their own little case as to why they think a certain race might've been fixed or manipulated, get suspicions they've held for a long time off their chest, etc., NOT for discussion of events we know for sure happened. Who knows, we might all learn some interesting stuff.

Cheers.

Edited by andrew., 15 February 2011 - 08:10.


Advertisement

#2 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:32

I will not here repeat all the stuff I wrote in the separate thread but I am absolutely sure that the outcome of the 2007 WDC (more precisely: the China and Brazil races) had been fixed. The probability of things happening exactly the only acceptable way while at the same time being so much the opposite of all that's been happeneing during the year is almost non-existant.

Further, one may speculate about whether Williams provided Reutemann with the sub-par equipment in Las Vegas 1981 (not very probable IMHO) or Ferrari sabotaged Irvine at the end of 1999 (possible but I am not sure what to think about it). However, in both cases it was (if at all) an intra-team manipulation, not a real fixing.

The 1997 European GP was an obvious collusion between two teams but while it might have influenced the race winner, the WDC was not fixed and that's all that matters.

The 2009 Belgian GP was won by cheating (why else would the organizers/FIA/whoever explicitely point out the first corner etiquette in 2010?) but as Kimi was out of the WDC race, it did not matter to anyone.

Edited by Maranello99, 15 February 2011 - 08:39.


#3 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 23,439 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:36

I can accept 2007, McLarens self-destruction all season long threatened to boil over and it did in the most spectacular snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in history.

If we want conspiracy theories: proclaimed legal Michelin 2003 tyres and Renault mass dampers in 2006 banned during the heights of a championship duel with Ferrari...

Also: Montoya vs. Schumacher at the first corner in Malaysia 2002. What the hell?

Edited by Disgrace, 15 February 2011 - 08:40.


#4 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 08:48

I can accept 2007, McLarens self-destruction all season long threatened to boil over and it did in the most spectacular snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in history.

If we want conspiracy theories: proclaimed legal Michelin 2003 tyres and Renault mass dampers in 2006 banned during the heights of a championship duel with Ferrari...

Also: Montoya vs. Schumacher at the first corner in Malaysia 2002. What the hell?

It's true that some of the decisions were somewhat dubious.
However, as in boxing, a slight favouritism of an already established champion is to be expected (while not necessarily liked or justified)...a challenger must prove decisively better.

Edited by Maranello99, 15 February 2011 - 08:49.


#5 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:03

It is my opinion (without any 'evidence') that Singapore 2008 was not the only fixed race result we've had in recent past. Many results may have been fixed, we just do not know about them. F1 is dirty business.

#6 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,766 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:03

2007. China/Brazil is potentially the most controversial of them all, and no one dares to believe it I think (I dont want to believe it myself cause if that turned to be true, I'd probably stopped watching F1 at all).

China was weird in sense that I saw with my live timing, armchair expertise and what I saw on TV screen that Lewis has to be pitted 3-4 laps before they decided to pit in. 'We were racing Alonso' did not really sound convincing to me and I dont believe that McLaren are idiots.

Brazil was one of the weirdest glitches I ever saw in F1 race and it went just to secure Lewis 2nd spot in WDC, but make him lost the title. (some claim that through different strategy after glitch McLaren could still recover).

All in all, extremely weird end of season - but I want to stay oblivious to it :)

Edited by velgajski1, 15 February 2011 - 09:06.


#7 Ruf

Ruf
  • Member

  • 1,283 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:04

[tinfoil hat mode activated]

1999 season was surely at least weird, if not massive cheating involved. Remember Mosley's "we know that a team cheated last season" yet no actions followed (other than "we cut some wires" quickly followed by full traction control legal). My suspects are Jordan and Stewart. They both were competitive that season and the next were the laughing stock of the grid. Stewart (and the subsequent non-actions from FIA) actually makes sense. Jackie wanted to sell his team and a competitive form surely helped. Max and Bernie wanted Ford in F1 and accusing them of cheating right after they signed the papers wouldn't have been the most diplomatic decission ever. After that Jackie, who was supposed to lead the team, stepped down to a consultant role then completely left the team all in a couple months.

Jordan's several "electronic" failures, most of them related to drivers who "forgot to switch off the pit-lane limiters" were also highly suspicious, though in their case I can't clearly see the reason why would Maximillian and Bernard cover them up. I can speculate that, since Honda hinted that they want a more active role in F1, Eddie wanted to lure them on his side (instead BAR which eventually happened) and FIA didn't want to piss them off.

[/tinfoil hat mode off]

:stoned:

Edited by Ruf, 15 February 2011 - 09:05.


#8 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:06

2007. China/Brazil is potentially the most controversial of them all, and no one dares to believe it I think (I dont want to believe it myself cause if that turned to be true, I'd probably stopped watching F1 at all).

China was weird in sense that I saw with my live timing, armchair expertise and what I saw on TV screen that Lewis has to be pitted 3-4 laps before they decided to pit in. 'We were racing Alonso' did not really sound convincing to me.

Brazil was one of the weirdest glitches I ever saw in F1 race and it went just to secure Lewis 2nd spot in WDC, but make him lost the title. (some claim that through different strategy after glitch McLaren could still recover).

All in all, extremely weird end of season - but I want to stay oblivious to it :)

It was a plain fix. No other outcome was acceptable for the FIA, so they fixed it. McLaren got spared from 2008 DSQ, Ferrari got the titles (as the victims of the spygate).
Everyone could see it (but for the Kimi fans, of course, but they are a special breed).

#9 Don_Humpador

Don_Humpador
  • Member

  • 2,223 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:07

I said this in the confessions box, and I'm not afraid to say it here.

I could quite possibly conceive that the last two races of the 2007 season were, hmm, "mishandled" by McLaren. On purpose?

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me.

Edited by Don_Humpador, 15 February 2011 - 09:07.


#10 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:09

I said this in the confessions box, and I'm not afraid to say it here.

I could quite possibly conceive that the last two races of the 2007 season were, hmm, "mishandled" by McLaren. On purpose?

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me.

A full explanation: http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=4832747

#11 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:11

Oww nice we now have an official tinfoil hat thread :lol:

#12 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 14,347 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:13

I said this in the confessions box, and I'm not afraid to say it here.

I could quite possibly conceive that the last two races of the 2007 season were, hmm, "mishandled" by McLaren. On purpose?

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me.


Agree its a possibility, I think more likely that McLaren were told' not to win. Also the stewards decsion regarding the underweight Williams at the end of that race (which would have handed the title back to Hamilton I beleive) seems more than a little wierd. It was almost like 'you can cheat in the last race, because the FIA would never want to strip a driver of a title'...

#13 damonw

damonw
  • New Member

  • 25 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:49

It was a plain fix. No other outcome was acceptable for the FIA, so they fixed it. McLaren got spared from 2008 DSQ, Ferrari got the titles (as the victims of the spygate).
Everyone could see it (but for the Kimi fans, of course, but they are a special breed).


Exactly my thoughts, Lewis i believe had no idea, though I did expect his reaction to losing the title to be much more passionate. Mclaren were plainly not aloud to win anything that year after the spygate scandal. The only thing that makes me question the idea is why did they let alonso carry on and challenge the ferraris?

#14 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 09:57

Exactly my thoughts, Lewis i believe had no idea, though I did expect his reaction to losing the title to be much more passionate. Mclaren were plainly not aloud to win anything that year after the spygate scandal. The only thing that makes me question the idea is why did they let alonso carry on and challenge the ferraris?


Alonso was strangely very very slow on that racing day in Brasil 2007... He lost almost a whole 1 minute! to Massa and Räikkonen, which was quite a big surprise for me...

Edited by marcoferrari, 15 February 2011 - 09:58.


#15 Peppe

Peppe
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:00

And why did they wait until Ferrari was 17 points adrift and having to rely on Kimi taking at least 1st and 2nd in the two ultimate races. Would McLaren have been disqualified from 2008 if Kimi suffered a retirement during any of those two last events?

#16 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:03

And why did they wait until Ferrari was 17 points adrift and having to rely on Kimi taking at least 1st and 2nd in the two ultimate races. Would McLaren have been disqualified from 2008 if Kimi suffered a retirement during any of those two last events?

Ferrari had a car that was so dominant that, driven properly, one of their drivers should have easily taken the title fair and square.
When that failed to materialize, FIA went into the panic mode and intervened.

#17 Frans

Frans
  • Member

  • 8,415 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:11

1999; Ferrari just couldn't explain the fans how a "2nd" driver would have gotten the WDC instead of they're number One driver they payed millions all those years. Ferrari sabotaged they're own title there in 99. Poor Eddie.

#18 Peppe

Peppe
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:20

Ferrari had a car that was so dominant that, driven properly, one of their drivers should have easily taken the title fair and square.
When that failed to materialize, FIA went into the panic mode and intervened.

And they didn't realized that until China? :lol:

#19 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 15 February 2011 - 10:20

1999; Ferrari just couldn't explain the fans how a "2nd" driver would have gotten the WDC instead of they're number One driver they payed millions all those years. Ferrari sabotaged they're own title there in 99. Poor Eddie.


IMO how they managed to win the WCC in 99 is an even greater conspiracy.

Advertisement

#20 Wormstrum

Wormstrum
  • Member

  • 45 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:33

Posted Image



#21 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:41

And they didn't realized that until China? :lol:

It was the last possible moment to act. I am sure that the FIA would have preferred not to act at all so they acted only when it became absolutely necessary.

Edited by Maranello99, 15 February 2011 - 11:41.


#22 Brian O Flaherty

Brian O Flaherty
  • Member

  • 2,668 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:49

1999; Ferrari just couldn't explain the fans how a "2nd" driver would have gotten the WDC instead of they're number One driver they payed millions all those years. Ferrari sabotaged they're own title there in 99. Poor Eddie.

Quite the opposite. What I heard was that a certain very strong-headed Irishman would only go along with the ruse for an absolute fortune. So the title was thrown away, Ferrari got to have Schumy as their first champion in donkeys years and someone else got to retire on a platinum-encrusted golden handshake.

Edited by Brian O Flaherty, 15 February 2011 - 11:51.


#23 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 16,585 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:52

I don't beleive Ferrari sabotaged Eddie in 1999. How than that have happened after they gifted him a win right in front of Schumacher's homecrowd?


And then there's Spa 2008 and Massa getting a free pass with his unsafe release at Valencia 2008...

#24 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:52

You wouldn't fix the 2007 season in that way as events occured. It would have to be done in a better way which would have been much easier and certain than to leave a McLaren driver in the lead with 17 points (or whatever it was) with 2 rounds to go. However appealing it may be to think that way afterwards when we know the results nothing was certain before the last 2 races of the season. Talking of that - I just saw some of Bahrain 2008 with Lewis still being too hot in the beginning of the race, maybe that was fixed too?

When it comes to fixed races I would say the FIA decision against Michelin in 2003 was very strange.

I would say some of Schumacher's wins against Barrichello were teamorders and fixed, but that is no secret. Just a few but anyway. He was always a bit greedy like in Austria.

I have always had doubts about the Benetton refueling most of the 94 season and what about that traction control? But that is more like cheating.

I would say that Schumacher drove into Hill on purpose in 94. No doubt at all.

Even if I feel that way about 94 I still think Schumacher was a worthy champion that season since the FIA was handing out penalties too many times.

I am sure the FIA spiced up the championship when they gave Jacques penalties in Japan in order to get a close showdown in Jerez 97.




#25 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:53

Well done Andrew. ;)

You have them all locked here!!! Now throw the key to the sea.

#26 plastik2k9

plastik2k9
  • Member

  • 509 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:59

1999; Ferrari just couldn't explain the fans how a "2nd" driver would have gotten the WDC instead of they're number One driver they payed millions all those years. Ferrari sabotaged they're own title there in 99. Poor Eddie.

They could explain it though; Schumacher missing all those races through injury. Eddie even went on to get 3 race wins and just one non-points finish, his form being pretty much in line with his season start. They even ordered Salo to give him the win in Germany.

#27 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 9,223 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:00

The 1999 Malaysian barge board debacle was very strange. I usually laugh off conspiracy theories, but I'm convinced that the ruling in this case was more due to behind the scenes politics than to applying the rulebook.

#28 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 23,011 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:03

It's so easy to see why the funny stuff about 2007 has it's fans around here: because hardly was there a tinfoils story that appeals to so many groups all at the same time: McLaren fans, Hamiltons fans, Räikönnen detractors... each a sizeable force on it's own round here, but united they are almighty! :clap: :drunk:

I'm especially fond of the fraction that keeps the backdoor open, for obvious fear of making complete fools of themselves. "I'm not believing it myself, BUT..." :p

:up:

#29 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:08

Italy '09: Were Brawn GP planning to use a team order. Jenson was catching Rubens in the closing laps. Then, on the final lap Lewis crashed and caused a safety car situation meaning overtaking isn't allowed at any point of the track. Rubens won.

Germany '09: Rubens was leading Jenson when he pitted. But why he was changed harder tires as they changed softer tires for Jenson just a lap later. Jenson finished before Rubens.

Spain '09: An obvious team strategy from Brawn GP, wasn't it?

Japan '09: 5-place penalty meant 1-place penalty for Rubens and 3-place penalty for Jenson. Were FIA trying to make the WDC fight closer.

Brazil '05: Kimi destroyed his front tyre in quali by locking it. Drivers had to start the race with the tires they used in quali. Anyway, Macca was allowed to change Kimi's tyre as it was dangerous. Oh, come on, Kimi could've started on the pitlane, if his front tire was too dangerous to race with. Were FIA again trying to make the WDC fight closer.

Brazil '07: I read before the race speculations about Macca allowing Kimi win WDC. Macca could continue in F1 despite spygate, if they losed the titles. And so they losed.

#30 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:12

1999; Ferrari just couldn't explain the fans how a "2nd" driver would have gotten the WDC instead of they're number One driver they payed millions all those years. Ferrari sabotaged they're own title there in 99. Poor Eddie.


Irvine was tragic that year, he only benefited from Häkkinen mechanical failures (Hockenheim, Silverstone, Melbourne), while his Ferrari was very reliable (only one failure in Imola?)... Also he should be happy for 2 lucky wins (Malaysia, Germany), where Schumacher and Salo were ordered to move away... Häkkinen made some mistakes (Monza, Imola), that is true, but he was most of the time ahead of Irvine on track... The title is in right hands... Other thing is what could have Schumacher done, if not crashing in Silverstone... Probably finishing the season as winner, but unfortunately it will stay only by "probably"...

Edited by marcoferrari, 15 February 2011 - 12:13.


#31 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:13

Anyway, taking the thread a little seriously, I fail to see how to consider Singapore 2008 "race fixing". It was plain cheating by a team, Renault were only responsable for that.

#32 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:13

It's so easy to see why the funny stuff about 2007 has it's fans around here: because hardly was there a tinfoils story that appeals to so many groups all at the same time: McLaren fans, Hamiltons fans, Räikönnen detractors... each a sizeable force on it's own round here, but united they are almighty! :clap: :drunk:

I'm especially fond of the fraction that keeps the backdoor open, for obvious fear of making complete fools of themselves. "I'm not believing it myself, BUT..." :p

:up:

I have not such fears. I do believe it myself, in fact I'm absolutely positive the orchestration happened.
And the only people that would think I'm making a fool of myself are (some) Kimi fans.

Edited by Maranello99, 15 February 2011 - 12:14.


#33 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:14

Japan '09: 5-place penalty meant 1-place penalty for Rubens and 3-place penalty for Jenson. Were FIA trying to make the WDC fight closer.


That one was just due to an unusually high number of identical grid penalties and because they weren't applied simultaneously in the grid re-shuffle, they were given in order starting from the highest-placed driver on the grid... or at least that's how I understood the situation at the time.

#34 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:18

Italy '09: Were Brawn GP planning to use a team order. Jenson was catching Rubens in the closing laps. Then, on the final lap Lewis crashed and caused a safety car situation meaning overtaking isn't allowed at any point of the track. Rubens won.

Germany '09: Rubens was leading Jenson when he pitted. But why he was changed harder tires as they changed softer tires for Jenson just a lap later. Jenson finished before Rubens.

Spain '09: An obvious team strategy from Brawn GP, wasn't it?
Japan '09: 5-place penalty meant 1-place penalty for Rubens and 3-place penalty for Jenson. Were FIA trying to make the WDC fight closer.

Brazil '05: Kimi destroyed his front tyre in quali by locking it. Drivers had to start the race with the tires they used in quali. Anyway, Macca was allowed to change Kimi's tyre as it was dangerous. Oh, come on, Kimi could've started on the pitlane, if his front tire was too dangerous to race with. Were FIA again trying to make the WDC fight closer.

Brazil '07: I read before the race speculations about Macca allowing Kimi win WDC. Macca could continue in F1 despite spygate, if they losed the titles. And so they losed.


Nice to see that I am not the only one to admit there could be some manipulations... :up:
Also Singapore was a bit strange, when Button had some brake problems late on and Rubens was catching him... Then Brawn told Barrichello to slow down for the "same reason"... He was probably worried of another point loss for his favoured driver against the Brazilian...

Edited by marcoferrari, 15 February 2011 - 12:18.


#35 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:18

And the only people that would think I'm making a fool of myself are (some) Kimi fans.


You can make a poll. :lol:



#36 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,769 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:24

Oww nice we now have an official tinfoil hat thread :lol:


I feel I should point out that tinfoil hats don't actually protect you against mind-control.

'They' just want you to think you're protected.



#37 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:24

Nice to see that I am not the only one to admit there could be some manipulations... :up:
Also Singapore was a bit strange, when Button had some brake problems late on and Rubens was catching him... Then Brawn told Barrichello to slow down for the "same reason"... He was probably worried of another point loss for his favoured driver against the Brazilian...

But those are team orders. I know there were illegal but that ban was a bad joke. Team orders are normal. They are not manipulation of the race outcome.

#38 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:25

You can make a poll. :lol:

I think a better poll would be to ask who does and who does not think that the 2007 WDC was fixed ;)

Edited by Maranello99, 15 February 2011 - 12:30.


#39 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:25

That one was just due to an unusually high number of identical grid penalties and because they weren't applied simultaneously in the grid re-shuffle, they were given in order starting from the highest-placed driver on the grid... or at least that's how I understood the situation at the time.


IIRC the rule says that the penalties are given is the the order of fouls made. The situation was that a STR cranshed and there were debris on the track. That's why there were also yellow flags. The BGP drivers weren't in Top10 so they had to improve there times. That's why they didn't slow down when they saw the yellow flags. Rubens was in front of Jenson so he made the foul first and was first given the penalty. That meant he fell down after Jenson, but when Jenson was given the penalty, Rubens went one place up. Anyway, it was the same situation. Usually when two cars are given a penalty from the same incident they don't think who should it be given first. But in this case they thought.

Advertisement

#40 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,769 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:27

Also Singapore was a bit strange, when Button had some brake problems late on and Rubens was catching him... Then Brawn told Barrichello to slow down for the "same reason"... He was probably worried of another point loss for his favoured driver against the Brazilian...


I remember Rubens' response when asked to take it easy: 'Can I catch him?'

If Ross Brawn wanted to apply team orders, he didn't have a compliant no. 2 to work with.





#41 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,766 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:31

It's so easy to see why the funny stuff about 2007 has it's fans around here: because hardly was there a tinfoils story that appeals to so many groups all at the same time: McLaren fans, Hamiltons fans, Räikönnen detractors... each a sizeable force on it's own round here, but united they are almighty! :clap: :drunk:

I'm especially fond of the fraction that keeps the backdoor open, for obvious fear of making complete fools of themselves. "I'm not believing it myself, BUT..." :p

:up:


Well, it looks just as probable and logical as Singapore 2008. Before that was discovered I'd dismiss it as - 'no, there's no conspiracies in F1'. But now I'd say its definitely possible.

In fact, Piquet crashing into wall looks more probable than McLaren screwing up the strategy completely in one race, and having one-in-a-million-races kind of glitch in the very next race.

Edited by velgajski1, 15 February 2011 - 12:34.


#42 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:35

I remember JJ Lehto joked as coomentator "that's what No2s are for" as Nelsinho's crash brought SC helping Fred to win.

Btw, gotta say this is one of the best threads here.

Edited by August, 15 February 2011 - 12:36.


#43 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:36

I think a better poll would be to ask who does and who does not think that the 2007 WDC was fixed ;)


That´s exactly what I said. Go ahead. :lol:

#44 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 3,639 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:37

I seem to recall Andrew Benson, in his final Autosport column in early 2000, claiming that no one believed the fact that the previous 4 WDCs had gone down to the final race was simply a coincidence - implying widespread belief that measures had been taken to increase the probability of a final race showdown (most obviously in 1999 when the FIA offered an interpretation of a 5mm tolerance rule that no one else seemed to think plauaible insofar as the rules themselves were concerned).

The Mosley era was peppered by rulings that the more cynical could very easily view as an effort to ensure the continuation of the title race to as late a point as possible, and to prevent nay one team from stealing too much of a march on the others. I hope we're through with all of that now.

#45 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:38

I would say that the re-fueling and traction control issues in 94 have not fully come to light yet. Benneton appeared to be breaking rules during that season but seemed to escape unpunished.

#46 marcoferrari

marcoferrari
  • Member

  • 2,008 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:42

But those are team orders. I know there were illegal but that ban was a bad joke. Team orders are normal. They are not manipulation of the race outcome.


Are you really sure about this? Every team order is a manipulation of a race result...

#47 August

August
  • Member

  • 3,234 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:42

I think a better poll would be to ask who does and who does not think that the 2007 WDC was fixed ;)


No matter was it decided Maccas won't win WDC, it was fixed. In Malaysia, Monaco and USA Maccas werent allowed to fight each other. An Philly could've possibly win Brazilian GP.

#48 Maranello99

Maranello99
  • Member

  • 127 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:45

Are you really sure about this? Every team order is a manipulation of a race result...

Yes but the team orders have been accepted practice in racing since the very beginning, but for this silly ban 2003-2010. Therefore, it does not count.
That's why it's a team sport.

But if anyone outside the team intervenes for any other purpose than enforcing the regulations, then it's fixing.

Edited by Maranello99, 15 February 2011 - 12:49.


#49 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:47

No matter was it decided Maccas won't win WDC, it was fixed. In Malaysia, Monaco and USA Maccas werent allowed to fight each other. An Philly could've possibly win Brazilian GP.


If you call that fixed, it was fixed indeed, like any other.

#50 sanjiro

sanjiro
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 15 February 2011 - 12:48

F1 = WWF (or any other all fake wrestling).
With the single difference being many people just cant bring themselves to see it.

From the smallest things (such as what lap a team may pit one driver or the other)
To the biggest things....OMG why is that Toyota slowing down and ROFL LH has passed him taking the WDC. ( o look the Toyota is back up to speed)
Betting can be on almost anything.
So you can bet everything is fixed