97 replies to this topic

[Brian O Flaherty]

Read it and tell me what you think.

I didn't say it, they did -> From itv-f1.com




Ayrton Senna should have been stripped of the 1990 drivers’ title, Max Mosley has said.


Mosley believes that Senna should have been excluded from the championship for taking Alain Prost off at the first corner of the Japanese Grand Prix to clinch the title.

Senna later admitted the move had been pre-meditated. He said he took Prost out as revenge for the Frenchman doing the same to him – albeit at lower speed – a year earlier.

Mosley told Motorsport News: "Senna should probably have been excluded from the championship for doing something that dangerous.

"But I think the feeling was that what happened the previous year was absolutely outrageous – that he genuinely won the race and it was taken away from him quite wrongly.

"So you couldn’t help but have slight sympathy."

Unlike Senna, Prost has never admitted guilt for taking his rival out in 1989. However, the pair’s legendary clashes have had a profound influence on Formula 1 since.

Michael Schumacher has twice tried to win the championship by taking out his title rival, in 1994 and 1997.

On the second occasion, Schumacher admitted he had unsuccessfully attempted to drive Jacques Villeneuve off the track and was stripped of his second place in the championship.

Mosley said Schumacher could not be punished for the first incident, which involved Damon Hill, because he has never admitted culpability.

He said: "I’ve looked at that tape over and over again, and the stewards looked at it.

"I don’t think Michael’s ever said he did it deliberately, and you’d have the utmost difficulty in proving anything."

[Ali_G]

Both Senna and Prost should have been exluded from the championships in both of the season in which they did the dirty deed.

Saying that only Senna should have this done to him, on the basis that he owned up is ridiculous.

I also think its ridiculous that Prost, still hasn't owned up to the 89 Susuka incident. His intent was clear.

Niall

[troyf1]

I am a big Senna fan but he made a overly aggressive attempt to overtake Prost in 89. Nobody should have been surprised by the move in 1990 because he practically told everyone before the race that if Prost made the better start he had better not turn in on him because he wasn't going to make it.

[magic]

this thread is a synopsis of 100000000 atlasf1bb-posts

[magic]

that sunday in 1990 senna personally ripped out a black page of his f1book.

[Vagabond]

Well, it looks like Senna should be stripped of 90 WDC, and Prost of 89 WDC. Which left us with Prost 90 WDC and Senna 89. Not much changed

[Brian O Flaherty]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Well, it looks like Senna should be stripped of 90 WDC, and Prost of 89 WDC. Which left us with Prost 90 WDC and Senna 89. Not much changed

Bloody clever clogs Good spot.

[Pieter]

Why doesn't Mosley also critize Balestre for changing the spot of the pole position to the dirty side of the track.

[AdrianM]

Well said Pieter

[fiftyeggs]

Originally posted by Pieter
Why doesn't Mosley also critize Balestre for changing the spot of the pole position to the dirty side of the track.

true.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Pieter
Why doesn't Mosley also critize Balestre for changing the spot of the pole position to the dirty side of the track.

Was that the case? I thought Balestre had refused to change the pole from the dirty side of the track?

[heki]

Balestre promissed to move the pole-position after the qualifications on Thursday

[Foxbat]

Think what you will about Balestre's refusal to change the starting position (boo hiss), but let's not glorify Senna's action.

[aportinga]

The fact that Senna so arrogantly admitted it afterwards with additional comments was enough to prove to me that he was fearful of losing the battle against Prost. And although I have grown to very much respect his ability, I'll still insist that the guy was arrogant and needed to grow up a bit.

I'm not sure if he should have been stripped of the title however because Prost' incident the year prior certainly did not look like a mistake either. Granted that Senna's punting of Prost was far more blatent, they were both at fault. Prost simply acted more dignified then his rival IMO.

[HSJ]

Looks like Mad Max is no longer even pretending objectivity. AS should be stripped of a title, but Mad Max is not so sure of MS 97... I guess Max wasn't going to be outdone by Bernie when he (Bernie) openly admitted love for Shoe and the Reds. And let's not forget Max's recent comments about RD.

Well, I hope Team Silver will kick the Reds' asses royally this year. Something for Max & Bernie show to chew on.

[Makebelieve]

Ballestre was, to quote somebody famous, a major league a**hole!

When prost took them both off on purpose and Senna somehow managed to get going again and through an heroic drive managed to snatch the win, then the idiot disqualified Senna on a technicality! And Balletres fellow countryman prost was walking with the title

The following year Senna snatched the pole and there was an agreement with the track stewards that the pole was going to be moved back to the clean side of the road. But then Balestre interfered and stopped the moving of the pole position to the clean side , where it had been a few years before (if my memory serves me right).

Of course this made Senna pist off that the french coalition was screwing him! So in my opinion it was wrong of Senna to do it, but with the whole picture I think it was justice that they got one title each.

[Pieter]

Originally posted by Makebelieve

When prost took them both off on purpose and Senna somehow managed to get going again and through an heroic drive managed to snatch the win, then the idiot disqualified Senna on a technicality! And Balletres fellow countryman prost was walking with the title

No, Senna was disqualified by the race stewards, not by Balestre, for cutting the chicane. Head of the stewards that time was Dutchman John Corsmit, who has AFAIK always stood by his decision.

[EdwRom]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Well, it looks like Senna should be stripped of 90 WDC, and Prost of 89 WDC. Which left us with Prost 90 WDC and Senna 89. Not much changed

Yes, but Prost's 1990 WDC would have been for Ferrari, not McLaren. On the other hand, Senna's 1989 WDC would have been for McLaren, just as the 1990's WDC was. That difference alone would have been huge!

HSJ:
I thnk that Max was talking about the 1994 incident, not the 1997. In both cases, 1990 and 1997, the guilty party admitted the fault. Max's point is that Senna should have been stripped from his race result, after confessing his fault, just like MS was stripped of his season points after confessing that he messed up.

[Simioni]

let's hear it from the horse's mouth:


"'1989 was an unforgivable situation,' said Senna. 'I still struggle to cope with that, when I think about it. When we were fighting in the same team with Prost (in 1989) we had a bad time with FISA. I had a bad time with (Jean-Marie) Balestre. You all know what took place here (in Suzuka). They decided against me and that was not justice, so what took place over the winter was s**t.

'1990 was almost a way to prove the point that it was a bad decision. It was a bad season for me. Before we started qualifying (at Suzuka last year) Gerhard (Berger) and I went went to the officials and asked them to chnage the pole position because it was in the wrong place. And the officials said yes. No problem. We worked hard Friday and we sweated out Saturday. I got pole and then what happened? Balestre gave an order that we don't change pole position. We said that had been agreed before the race. They said no, we don't think so. This was really s**t.

'I said to myself: "OK, you try to work cleanly and do the job properly and then you get f**ked by stupid people. All right, if tomorrow Prost beats me off the line, at the first corner I will go for it, and he better not turn in because he is not going to make it. And it just happened.

'I wish it hadn't. He took the start and got the jump on me andI went for th first corner and he was turning and I hit him. We were both off and it was a sh*t end to the World Championship. It was not good for me and not good for F1. It was the result of the wrong decisions and partiality from the people inside making the decisions.

'I won the championship. So what? It was a bad example for everyone.

'We have got to have fair decisions. I believe that now we have that possibility with the new management in the sporting authority. I really believe that and we should work together as a whole to make a better image. If we have a better atmosphere it makes life more enjoyable.

'In the drivers' briefing today there was no theatre. It was a proper, professional job. When Max (Mosley) stood up to say just a few words he was sensible, intelligent and he was fair. I think anyone there was happy because there was no bulls**t and no people saying stupid things.

'I don't care (if I upset Balestre). I think for once we all must say what we feel is right. That's how it should be. (In the past there have been) f**king rules which you cannot tell your mind, you cannot speak what you're thinking, you are not allowed to say someone made a mistake. ****, we are in a modern world! We are racing professionals. There is a lot of money involved, a lot of image and we cannot say what we feel. We are not allowed, because if you say what you feel you get banned, you get penalties; you pay money; you get disqualified; you lose your licence.

'Is that a fair rule? Is that a fair way of working? It is not. And nobody was able to say that because we had the sh*t in 1989. I said what I thought - and you all know that was true - what took place afterwards was theatre. It was s**t that took place that winter.'

During the winter of 1989 Senna's comments upset Balestre to such an extent that the then FISA presdient demanded an apology before Senna would be issued with a licence. This, it seemed, had been given. On Sunday in Suzuka, however, Senna denied he had ever apologised.

'I never sent apologies to that guy (Balestre). If you wnat to know the truth, they changed the press release. They changed the deal. They wanted to make a deal with us. I didn't want to make any deal. I was pushed by Ron (Dennis) and Honda to make a deal and I agreed to make a deal with some terms. after I agreed I signed the paper and sent it by fax. They had to send another paper to me and they completely changed the terms.

'I could never say these things (before now) because maybe I lose my licence. Is that a fair way? Is that a clean way to work? This is sh*t. Really sh*t. This really hurt. It hurt me a lot here in 1989 and hurt me even more what took place afterwards.

'That should be an example, not only to me but to all of us who are part of F1: drivers, the press, managers. We have to push hard for what is fair, what is clean. We have to try hard at least. Let's hope that new we have the proper opportunity to do that. It will never be perfect because there is too much at stake, but we have to try to improve the system for the benefit of all of us.

Senna went on to admit that the accidet in Suzuka in 1990 was caused by his bad feelings twoards the sport's governing body and Balestre.

'If you get f**ked every single time when you're trying to do your job cleanly and properly, by the system, by other people taking advantage of it, what should you do? Stand behind and say: "Thank you, yes, thank you." No, you should fight for what you think is right. You may make a mistake but uou may get it right, but you should fight. And I really felt (last year in Suzuka) that I was fighting for something that was correct, because I was f**ked in the winter, I was f**ked in the qualifying procedure when I got pole. I tell you if pole had been on the good side last year, nothing would have happened because I would have got a better start. I would have been first into the first corner without any problem. But it was a result of a decision, a bad decision, influenced by Balestre. I know that. we know that from underneath. And we all know why, and the result was the first corner (accident). It was not my responsibility, I did contribute to it, yes, but it was not my responsibility.'"


Whatever you may think about Senna, this is a clear case of taking justice in your own hands. Does that excuse Senna for taking Prost out at 200 kph? Probably not. As demonstrated above, Senna was probably too intense for his own good. But suzuka 90 was not a case of the "winning at all costs" attitude that so many like to associate with "the maniac" Senna. Ironically such label often comes from Schumacher fans, who on their intent to prove how Senna was so much more evil than Super Schumi, forget about the ocurrences at Jerez circa 97. That was the perfect illustration of a fumbled attempt to win at all costs...

[Makebelieve]

No, Senna was disqualified by the race stewards, not by Balestre, for cutting the chicane. Head of the stewards that time was Dutchman John Corsmit, who has AFAIK always stood by his decision.

Of course he was oficially disqualified by the stewards! So you don't think the stewards were influenced and backed by Balestre? If he had the power to stop the poleposition change, then imo he has the power to influence and back the disqualifying desicion. I suppose it's always a matter of opinion. Your version is the official one, I don't beleive it for a second!

Thanks for the Senna quote Simioni

[Scudetto]

Originally posted by HSJ
Well, I hope Team Silver will kick the Reds' asses royally this year. Something for Max & Bernie show to chew on.

Just once try keeping your posts in line with the spirit of the thread, will you? EVERY DAMN POST turns every thread into a Ferrari v. McLaren debate.

We're all enthusiasts with favorite teams here, but Please, man. It's getting stale and, frankly a little boring. :

[Zmeej]

after I agreed I signed the paper and sent it by fax. They had to send another paper to me and they completely changed the terms.

Classic totalitarian manoeuvre!

Senna sums it up best:

"I won the championship. So what? It was a bad example for everyone."

Agree with Vagabond. If you strip one, you'd have to strip the other.

[holiday]

Originally posted by magic
this thread is a synopsis of 100000000 atlasf1bb-posts

Just let me point out, there was a prelude before Suzuka 1989 just as big as there was one before Suzuka 1990. The whole affair didn't begin in the 70th lap at Suzuka, it actually began in the Tosa-curve in Imola that year...!

If you wanna tell the story, tell the whole story.



Prost, MOTOR SPORT, 01.10.1998:

...Once again, the two red and white cars were in front row, both its drivers in defiant mood, Senna knowing he had to win, Prost making it clear he'd be no pushover.

"I told both the team and the press, 'There's no way I'm going to open the door to him any more.' We talked very often, you should know, about the first corner, the first lap, and Ron always said the important thing was that we shouldn't hit each other, we should think of the team. Well, as far as I was concerned, Senna thought about himself, and that was it. For example, at the start of the British Grand Prix that year, going into Copse, if I hadn't moved three or four metres out of the way we'd have hit each other, and both McLarens would have been out immediately. That sort of thing had happened too often; I had had enough."

"As for the accident between us at the chicane, yes, I know everybody thinks I did it on purpose. What I say is that I did not open the door, and that's it. I didn't want to finish the race like that - I'd led from the start, and I wanted to win it."

"I had a good car; I'd been very bad in qualifying, compared with Ayrton, and I concentrated entirely on the race. In the warm-up I was nearly a second quicker than him, and for the race itself I was quite confident, even when he started catching me."

"I didn't want him too close, obviously, but I wanted him close enough that he would hurt his tyres; my plan was then to push hard over the last ten laps. As it was he tried to pass - and for me the way he did it was impossible, because he was going so much quicker than usual into the braking area."

"I couldn't believe he tried it on that lap, because, as we came up to the chicane, he was so far back. When you look in your mirrors, and a guy is 20 metres behind you, it's impossible to judge, and I didn't even realise he was trying to overtake me. But at the same time I thought, 'There's no way I'm going to leave him even a one-metre gap. No way'. I came off the throttle braked - and turned in."

A year later the two were back at Suzuka, once again to settle the World Championship, and this time it was Alain who had to win. Although no longer in the same team, he and Ayrton had not in any way diluted the intensity of their strife. Prost, said Senna, had better not try to turn into the first corner ahead of him: 'If he does, he's not going to make it...' In the event, at 150mph, the McLaren ran into the back of the Ferrari.

"Well, what can you say about that? After I'd retired we talked about it, and he admitted to me - as he did to the press - that he'd done it on purpose. He explained to me why he did it. He was furious with (FIA President) Balestre for not agreeing to change the grid, so that he could start on the left, and he told me he had decided that if I got to the first corner ahead of him, he'd push me off."

"What happened in Japan in '90 is something I will never forget, because it wasn't only Ayrton who was involved. Some of the people at McLaren, a lot of officials - and a lot of media - agreed with what he'd done, and that I couldn't accept. Honestly I almost retired after that race."

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by HSJ
Looks like Mad Max is no longer even pretending objectivity. AS should be stripped of a title, but Mad Max is not so sure of MS 97... I guess Max wasn't going to be outdone by Bernie when he (Bernie) openly admitted love for Shoe and the Reds. And let's not forget Max's recent comments about RD.

Try and read the quote again. MM isn't sure 94 was on purpose.

Looks like your own bias is showing more than MMs.

[raceday]

"I couldn't believe he tried it on that lap, because, as we came up to the chicane, he was so far back. When you look in your mirrors, and a guy is 20 metres behind you, it's impossible to judge, and I didn't even realise he was trying to overtake me. But at the same time I thought, 'There's no way I'm going to leave him even a one-metre gap. No way'. I came off the throttle braked - and turned in."

I find this bit from AP here pretty intriguing:

First “I couldn’t believe he tried it on that lap”

Then “ When you look in your mirrors, and a guy is 20 metres behind you, it's impossible to judge, and I didn't even realise he was trying to overtake me” So he didn’t even realise he was trying to overtake him.

Then “ But at the same time I thought, 'There's no way I'm going to leave him even a one-metre gap. No way'. I came off the throttle braked - and turned in."

So to summarise: He couldn’t believe he tried it on that lap, he didn’t even realise he was trying to overtake him, but apparently when he did realise it he though “No way…” “I came off the throttle braked and turned in”

My overall conclusion of that certainly is that Prost was surprised that he tried it there, discovered it and though “no way” came of the throttle, braked and turned in (to early). Meaning, he did it on purpose, just as the court case said.

At least Senna had the decency to admit it!

[joachimvanwing]

Senna told Prost on sunday morning that he wouldn't take him off with him if he would let him trough and offer him the pole up to the first corner. It was silly of Prost to believe Senna wouldn't keep his word on that one.

I can't agree with Brian O Flaherty when he says: '....Michael Schumacher has twice tried to win the championship by taking out his title rival, in 1994 and 1997. '

My radical views on Adelaïde 1994 and Jerez 1997

1994, If Hill would have waited untill the Jones straight to pass MS, he would have motored by towards his first crown. Ms' chassis was probably damaged, besides, that was Schumacher's corner.

1997, Jaques simply braked too late. JV braked that late that he would have crashed into the Ferrari if MS kept his line, and taken them both out into the gravletrap. In a way MS wanted to gain control over an unavoidable coming together. Besides, if MS is put into a position where you let him to decide whether or not there'll be a coming together instead of letting someone past for the title, everyone knows the outcome,...., that's why MS is a great champion and 'tuff' modern F1 competitor, a character driver like JV, AS and AP, and so many others.

[maxim]

When punting moves came out well, FIA didn't take steps.
When MS, trying to take off JV, ended up in the sand, he got the maximum penalty.
Doesn't it look quite funny?

[Lantern]

Originally posted by HSJ
Looks like Mad Max is no longer even pretending objectivity. AS should be stripped of a title, but Mad Max is not so sure of MS 97... I guess Max wasn't going to be outdone by Bernie when he (Bernie) openly admitted love for Shoe and the Reds. And let's not forget Max's recent comments about RD.

Well, I hope Team Silver will kick the Reds' asses royally this year. Something for Max & Bernie show to chew on.

There is a lot to be said for reading comprehension ;) He was speaking of '94 with Hill And only because noone had admitted to anything.





EDIT: Sorry George, I was a little late with my reply

[BrundleBud]

BTW, the 'accident' at Suzuka 1989 didn't cost Senna the title.

[magic]

aportinga

The fact that Senna so arrogantly admitted it afterwards with additional comments was enough to prove to me that he was fearful of losing the battle against Prost.

senna was 2x far behind prost during the first laps of both the '88 and '89 suzuka finale race.

in both races he gained on and finally overtook prost and won. by being faster in the race, just as he had been in qualifying.

'88 qual senna 0,3s in front of prost
'88 fastlaps senna 0,15s in front of prost

'89 qual senna 1,7s in front of prost
'89 fastlaps senna 0,5s in front of prost

'90 qual senna 0,3s in front of prost

senna fearfull of losing the battle against prost





based on what.... hot air or red mist?

[raceday]

BTW, the 'accident' at Suzuka 1989 didn't cost Senna the title.

No but it made sure that Senna no longer was in contention for the title.
1990 it made sure that Prost no longer was in contention for the title

[Hi Test]

Originally posted by joachimvanwing
My radical views on Adelaïde 1994 and Jerez 1997

Oh boy. Radical is right. If you are correct about Jerez, why did MS admit to blatantly trying to take JV out instead of what you say?

What happened in '94 was maybe up to debate at the time but since his attack in '97, many now consider that MS was totally at fault.

If your idea of a great champion is one that deliberately attempts to ram their competitors or has his teammate pull over to let him by in order to win, then I do not agree with you.

[BrundleBud]

But this is nothing compared to the travesty of 1988.

Best 11 results my a$$

[holiday]

Originally posted by raceday


So to summarise: He couldn’t believe he tried it on that lap, he didn’t even realise he was trying to overtake him, but apparently when he did realise it he though “No way…” “I came off the throttle braked and turned in”

My overall conclusion of that certainly is that Prost was surprised that he tried it there, discovered it and though “no way” came of the throttle, braked and turned in (to early). Meaning, he did it on purpose, just as the court case said.

At least Senna had the decency to admit it!

Prost was taken by surprise insofar as Senna had been nearer to him at the chicane the laps before without trying an overtaking manoeuvre.
This is easily proven by the TV coverage as much as Senna would have ended in the gravel on that particular move. Senna's 'overtaking manouevre' in the final laps wasn't imo any, it was a desperate move of someone who knew time was running out very soon and the WDC gone.

It was Senna's fault that he tried a move in a crucial Championship situation which would require a big deal of active help of the one to be overtaking to actually succeed. Very naive... I have seen dozens of attempted overtaking manoeuvres where the defending driver blocked more aggressively than AP did when nothing was at stake. Especially from Ayrton himself.

It didn't matter if Alain closed the door. The fact remains that Ayrton was in the wrong because he allowed himself to be at someone else's mercy. Once he made his move, the matter was out of his hands: if Prost was prepared to lose the race then OK, he'd be through, but if he wasn't, then Senna was in trouble."
-Jackie Stewart

It was Prost's fault that he
(a) didn't let Senna through to the gravel or
(b) closed the door some meters too early.


As for Prost driving fighting line (= closing the door without zickzacking) under these circumstances, he had the right to, for sure.

"Why should Prost let Senna pass without a fight? Alain drove the normal fight-line, not zig-zag, we know that from Patrese. Alain did not at all drive unfair, the driver, who is behind the other is always guilty at accidents. Prost is absolutely innocent!"
- Niki Lauda

[MarkWRX]

joachimvanwing wrote

1997, Jaques simply braked too late. JV braked that late that he would have crashed into the Ferrari if MS kept his line, and taken them both out into the gravletrap. In a way MS wanted to gain control over an unavoidable coming together. Besides, if MS is put into a position where you let him to decide whether or not there'll be a coming together instead of letting someone past for the title, everyone knows the outcome,...., that's why MS is a great champion and 'tuff' modern F1 competitor, a character driver like JV, AS and AP, and so many others.

Ummmm, all you need to do is watch the in car video. MS starts to go into the turn, turns his head and sees JV, he then turns the steering wheel right. There is an impact and MS straightens the wheel out and then turns the wheel very sharply to the right again. I don't think too many people would dispute that. While it is the responsibility of the overtaking driver to execute the pass safely, there is no evidence that JV would have made contact with MS had MS held the line he was committed to and not turned in on JV.

As for the DH and MS incident. I tend to agree with MM (about the only time you will see me say that). DH got too eager. If he had simply waited, he would have been able to pass MS, as MS had damaged the car.

Mark

[raceday]

Holiday,

It's been talked about a zillion times and there's a thorow analysis of it in atlas court, clearly motivating why Prost was in the wrong. I agree with it and I do beleive you don't and that's not gonna change.

My comment was based on his statement though, that judging from what he said "He couldn't believe it, didn't even know it, thought "No way" when he dicovered it and braked and turned in earlier than the laps before. For me that clearly indicates that it was on purpose.

[holiday]

raceday,

My comment was based on his statement though, that judging from what he said "He couldn't believe it, didn't even know it, thought "No way" when he dicovered it and braked and turned in earlier than the laps before.

I don't read anything like that out of Prost's words. Just a pilot describing that a move of another pilot wouldn't have worked out.
In fact, the quote above is a typical example of Prost-analytical-wording which we have heard for many years in his post race conferences.

For me that clearly indicates that it was on purpose.

If Prost had done it on purpose and don't want to admit it, he surely would be able to guard his words in an interview given with the distance of 10 years.


Lets just agree to disagree.

[aportinga]

senna was 2x far behind prost during the first laps of both the '88 and '89 suzuka finale race.
in both races he gained on and finally overtook prost and won. by being faster in the race, just as he had been in qualifying.

'88 qual senna 0,3s in front of prost
'88 fastlaps senna 0,15s in front of prost

'89 qual senna 1,7s in front of prost
'89 fastlaps senna 0,5s in front of prost

'89 qual senna 0,3s in front of prost

senna fearfull of losing the battle against prost





based on what.... hot air or red mist?

Ummmm... Perhaps you should also include the numbers for 1990 - which is what I am talking about. You may recall that the Ferrari was a far better machine then in 88 and 89.

[berge]

Originally posted by raceday
[BAt least Senna had the decency to admit it! [/B]

[magic]

'90 qual senna 0,3s in front of prost

[GerardF1]

Senna in 1990, MS in 1994, both should have their titles revoked.

By no action being taken in 1990, it opened the door for 1994.

By having no penalty of any consequence for 1997 the door is still wide open.

I don't believe for a minute that is the 1997 attempt had been sucessful that MS would have admitted his guilt.

It is an indication of how serious these incidents were that we are discussing them in 2002.

GerardF1

[Slyder]

One thing is clear:

Prost deliberately blocked Senna in '89, but Senna charged on, he won, but was disqualified for missing the chicane.

He was already in the chicane for heavens sakes, what did the stewards wanted him to do, hit reverse and turn in the corner eventhough the car is stalled?

The stewards decision was clearly manipulated. Chief Steward John Corsmit can say whatever he wants except the truth. The stewards respond in one way to another to the FIA. Hell, its the FIA who REALLY is in charge of the event, not the stewards, they're just muscle, on decisions like this, they just do what they're told.

This was clearly a manipulation for the championship, and Senna was pissed at this, and thats why he did what he did in Suzuka '90. To me, his action is justified, an eye to an eye, and it was the correct thing to do.

I would be pissed too if the credit that I get for doing a project gets taken away from me for a simple and stupid excuse and be given to another person just because the manager likes that person more than he likes me.

Max Mosley is an idiot, he just talks trash, he's been talking trash since 1994, and busting many people and the F1 with the trash that he talks. Sometimes I think that Max should have the courage to resign from the FIA, since his trash talk and ridiculous "safety measures" have caused nothing else but hamper and trash the most important motorsport series in the world.

[Vrba]

In 1989 and 1990 (I'm talking about not moving pole position on other side of the track) Senna simply got back what he was giving to other drivers all the way back since 1985. He was not the one to be felt sorry for.

Hrvoje

[magic]

VrbaHrvojequOte:
...Senna simply got back what he was giving to other drivers all the way back since 1985. ...

how many black flags, 10 sec.penalties and/or racebans for senna in that period as a result of his roadrage?

[Oho]

Originally posted by George Bailey


Try and read the quote again. MM isn't sure 94 was on purpose.

Looks like your own bias is showing more than MMs.

Ave !!!

Actually that is not what Max says, if the comment is accurate. He says that intent is very difficult if not impossible to prove and therefore the FIA could and cannot take punitive actions aginst Michael regarding 94. Read into it what you will, but for my taste Max seems rather convinced that Michael indeed was culpable in 94 but Max lacks the hard evidence to proove it.

Verdict of "Not guilty", while from the procedural point of view implies innocence, does not necessarily mean that in the courts opinion the accused was innocent. It means that the evidence did not establish guilt strongly enough for conviction. In essecnce even if the court established something like 4/1 odds for guilt it would have to reach verdict of innocence because the perceived cost of convicting innocent is much higher than that of letting off a guilty one.

Let the: "label Oho as nazi" frenzy begin once again....

- Oho -

[OssieFan]

Originally posted by Brian O Flaherty
Ayrton Senna should have been stripped of the 1990 drivers’ title, Max Mosley has said.

And in the opinion of many, grooved tyres should never have been brought in either but what can you do?

[Vrba]

Originally posted by magic


how many black flags, 10 sec.penalties and/or racebans for senna in that period as a result of his roadrage?

If there were penalties and racebans given to him in that time (there were no 10 sec penalties back then) we would have been spared of all unsportmanslike antics we have witnessed later from him and other drivers. He might have been a nice person (although I doubt it, a t least until his later years) but on track he was about as unsportsmanslike as it gets.

Hrvoje

[Chui]

"Missing a chicane" when you're already quickly approaching the chicane [and going off while in the chicane] is ludicrous. I recall watching a video in which it stated that Senna was disqualified for "receiving outside assistance" which he DID receive from the local marshals.

I also recall Jean-Marie Balestre admitting that he assisted Alain Prost win his fourth World Title.

The sad thing is that Prost didn't need any outside assistance. He was a phenomenal talent in his own right. Jean-Marie is not at all innocent in this despicable mess and Prost is wise enough to steer clear of it. Ayrton demonstrated typical Latin temperment in that he told the world EXACTLY what was on his mind at the time and I love him for it. However, if the title were stripped from him for that admission I'd understand. The true loss is that others have not confessed their "crimes".

[DOHC]

"It didn't matter if Alain closed the door. The fact remains that Ayrton was in the wrong because he allowed himself to be at someone else's mercy. Once he made his move, the matter was out of his hands: if Prost was prepared to lose the race then OK, he'd be through, but if he wasn't, then Senna was in trouble."
-Jackie Stewart

"Why should Prost let Senna pass without a fight? Alain drove the normal fight-line, not zig-zag, we know that from Patrese. Alain did not at all drive unfair, the driver, who is behind the other is always guilty at accidents. Prost is absolutely innocent!"
- Niki Lauda

Isn't it rather remarkable that two experienced drivers, winners of six WDC titles, come to this conclusion and think that the case is clear? Maybe we could consider them expert witnesses.

[Vrba]

Besides, if Senna was soooooo much faster than Prost in their time together, why was he behind Prost for the whole, crucial race?

Hrvoje