212 replies to this topic

[Henri Greuter]

dear reader,

You are warned: This is a very, very long piece about what Senna did at Suzuka in 1990 is unacceptable and undefendable.
It also tries to explain why some of the main reasons which Senna himself gave as reason for justifying his act is at least very debatable because Senna shlould not have been in the position to feel insulted about some events of the year before to begin with.
Bashing Senna for good reasons needs a lot of good, well documentated arguements, backed by good explanations and comparisons to begin with. Given his popularity you always get a lot of critisism by many people for daring to brand Senna as a villain. So you must invest in time and efforts to come up with decent approval.
I have taken the time and efforts to do so.
Make up your own mind about these feelings, plots and theories. That is, if you have managed finishing reading this piece to begin with because even I can't deny that takes time and efforts too.
And in case you learn nothing new but found all this somewehere else already, I'm sorry but I haven't found the entire story as I compiled it here somewhere yet.
I have mentioned in several threads I would compile something like this, It took me some time since I had to edit the piece several time to keep the language celas, concentrate on facts and data ond not giving my own conclusions instantly. The reader has to be able to make those up for himself.
I hope I at least managed to do that.
Sincerely,

Henri Greuter


====

Suzuka 1990, Senna's unjustifiable and undefendable action


In several threads I have been very outspoken against Senna, mentioning him being the biggest criminal ever in Formula One. I can’t and won’t hide that I hate Senna intensely for a few things he did, just as much as a number of members (I almost begin to believe: the majority) on this forum do about Michel Schumacher. What fuels my irritation about this situation even more is the fact that I’ve noticed that people praising Senna and turn blind eyes for the bad parts while Michael can’t do anything right anymore even with some of his offences being almost equal, if not equal to what Senna did.
If this reads as if I am a fan of Schuey, no I am not. I criticise Michael for a number of the same reasons I read on this forum. It is however one act of Senna that Schuey hasn’t performed yet and that act is about the lowest moment ever in F1.
If my use of words in several threads about Senna is considered wrong, then I am sorry for that and I acknowledge that I could have used less offensive words and may not have allowed my emotions to take over as much as I allowed.
But I refuse to say that my opinion and feelings about Senna are wrong.
And I won’t apologize for those until the moment that someone finally brings up the true and undisputed evidences that Senna was not at fault at the moment when he lost any tiny piece of sympathy that I could feel for him. And I am pretty sure that nobody ever in the world will be able to provide that evidence because in most objective publications, written by neutral authors, Senna has not been cleared by anybody for his most brutal act ever at the track by any author.

I will continue to condemn Senna for some of his acts behind the wheel. And for those who want to know on which theories and opinions I make my conclusion, and who is willing to take the time to read this piece, I will tell why. But remember, they are my personals feelings. Agree or don’t agree, that’s up to you. For all security: I don’t expect anybody to lose hisher respect for Senna because of the arguments I give. If there are people who do agree with me that Senna conducted some unacceptable behaviour based on the facts as I tell them, that is enough and then this piece has served its purpose.
And for what it is worth, I should have had the same opinion about any other driver who has done the same things that I describe here. But it happens to be that it was Senna who did it.

First this: I have no problems in recognizing the fact that Senna has been one of the best ever drivers of his time, capable of brilliant pieces of driving, a master in squeezing the maximum speed out of his car. There are some aspects within his driving and achievements which I respect as I would do with every other driver who did something similar. He was without question world champion material so to speak.
I refuse however to name him the best ever in about any aspect imaginable because in my opinion it is impossible to compare drivers of different eras who drove totally different machines. For example, had Senna been man enough to handle one of the Edwardian Monsters of the 1900-1910 era? Or imagine Ference Szicz being brought into this period of time, give him the time to adjust to this time and train him to drive one of the current Renaults instead of the 1906 contraption he drove. You can’t compare men of different eras. Only men within certain periods of near similar cars. And in his period of time, Senna was indeed one of the best and in some aspects the best. His records speak for themselves and are not lost on me. In fact, I have no problems with the fact if the 65 Poles record from Senna won’t be broken in my time. I don’t admire him for it but I respect him for that achievement as well as some other achievements.
Senna had absolutely stunning capacities as a driver, so stunning that he really didn’t need to do some of the acts which taint his career as they do.
The only undisputed number one ranking I have no problems with to give to Senna instantly is that he is responsible for the most disgusting act I have ever seen at a race track. An act that showed a total disrespect for any other driver at the track but himself, done because of personal frustration and regardless the fate it could have had for 25 other drivers. And worst of all, he told it had been because of reasons that, with hindsight could be debated if he could have been in that position to begin with! In this piece I will try to support the statement that Senna’s claim that he had reasons for what he did in Suzuka in 1990 because of what happened the year before can be debated and that if it wasn’t for being favoured by Balestre (!) & co, he would never have been in the situation to feel insulted about how he ad been treated in ’89.

My dislike of Senna is based on a number of in my opinion questionable acts and moments of behaviour. I won’t go through that list right now. This writing will be long enough already.
Suzuka 1990 however was the moment that I lost any sympathy I might have had for him forever, the aftermath of Suzuka 1991 made him for me the criminal I feel he is. Here is why and I will also specify the books and pages where I found my information so you can look it up for yourself. I will instantly admit that I haven’t consulted any book in which Senna is the topic subject. I have my hesitations if any existing book on Senna is objective and not written to make him look better than he really was.
OK: here’s the plot.

Suzuka 1991 was a fairly tame race for Senna standards. He even didn’t win it! (He did however secure the world title.) It was a race that went to teammate Gerhard Berger and is often mentioned by Senna fans as a gesture to Berger. For those who believe that it was the gesture of Senna to Gerhard: think again and read on.
Before the race it was agreed within the McLaren team that whoever reached the first corner first was allowed to win the race in case of a double andor possible. Gerhard lead it so he was entitled to win. Gerhard however had a slight problem with the car and eventually Senna got into a lead of up to 33 seconds and Gerhard in second place.
Let’s give Senna some credit, he did verify with the team management if the agreement was still on. (Remember, the agreement with Prost he made at Imola ’89 was conveniently nullified without notice after the restart necessary after Berger’s heavy crash). On the other hand, agreement made that imvolved your teammate about whom you’ve told to be on good terms, and still trying to get away from it. Anyway, McLaren informed Senna that Gerhard was entitled to win. Senna made it clear for everyone to see that he was forced to give up victory. Just about as obvious to see as how Barrichello handed his Austria 2002 victory to Schumacher. So far for the myth of Senna helping a teammate to win a race. It was embarrassing to see how Berger got that one being handed to him. (Nothing new by Barrichello in Austria the past two years, his idol had shown him in 1991 already how to make it look sóóóóó obvious that you had to surrender the victory.) If you want to verify this Senna/Berger giftstory: I found it in Autocourse ‘91/92, Page 231)
But then we got the post-race press conference: What Senna said can also be found Autocourse ‘91/92, Page 231, the sidebar: “Senna’s outburst against Balestre: candour out of control” For these people who don’t have this book and since it is such an important part of form many of the arguments U bring up for discussion in this thread: here the quote:

Senna ….
…. reiterating the feelings expressed two years before to the effect that Balestre had been responsible for manipulating the outcome of the ’89 championship following his collision with Alain Prost’s sister-McLaren.
“I won this race in 1989 and was prevented from going onto the podium by Jean-Marie Balestre” said Senna. “I was robbed badly by the system and that I will never forget. 1989 was unforgivable and I still struggle to cope with that. They decided against me and that was not justice so what took place over the winter was ****.”

The piece then tells how Senna told that he never apologied to Balestre during that winter of ‘89/90, that he had been forced to give in partly by both Honda and Ron Dennis but Senna claims that the terms on the papers that he eventually had signed were changed. He then went on about things that happened at Suzuka in 1990.

As Senna raked over the coals of these unfortunate events he seemed to hype himself up into an emotional momentum, which led him to recapitulate the events of 1990 and his first corner collision with Prost.
“In 1990, before we started qualifying, Gerhard and I went to the officials and asked them to change the pole position because it was in the wrong place. The officials said yes. No problem. I got pole, and then what happened? Balestre gave an order that we don’t change pole. We said that it had been agreed. They said, ‘No we don’t think so.” This was really ****.
I said to myself, “OK, you try to work cleanly and do the job properly and then you get f****** 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. We were both off and it was a **** end to the World Championship. It was no good for me, and not good for F1. It was the result of wrong decisions and partially from the people making them. I won the championship. So what? It was a bad example for everyone.
‘If you get f****** every single time when you’re trying to do your job cleanly and properly, by other people taking advantage of it, what should you do? Stand behind and say, “Thanks you, yes, thank you.” No, you should fight for what you think is right. And I really felt that that I was fighting for something that was correct because I was f****** in the winter and was f****** when I got pole.
I tell you, if pole had been on the good side last year, nothing would have happened. I would have got a better start. It was a result of a bad decision. And we all know why and the result was the first corner. I did contribute to it, but it was not my responsibility.

……

Then, the sidebar follows with a statement issued by McLaren, signed by Senna, released 4 days later. It read:

Following a frank discussion with the President of the FISA, Mr Max Mosley, I would like to make it clear that my remarks concerning the accident with Alain Prost in 1990 have been misinterpreted. What I said was that I had decided, in case of both drivers going for the same piece of road, that I would not be the one who gave way. All racing drivers do this on occasion.
At no time did I deliberately collide with Alain, furthermore I now feel that my remarks concerning the former FISA president were inappropriate and that the language used was not in good taste.
I hope this matter is now closed and that we can enjoy an outstanding sporting contest in Australia without further controversy.
(Signed) Ayrton Senna

Main author of Autocourse, Alan Henry commented on this statement that we could wonder how long it would take before Senna would claim that this was yet another occasion in which he had signed a paper “pushed by Honda and Ron Dennis”
For me, this statement reads as an attempt to try to save face if this was still possible and trying to put the blame for an act of totally unprofessional behaviour against people who had nothing to do with the matter that caused this behaviour at the feet of another person. But, though I admit that there were some justified reasons for Senna to feel anger, his response was totally unacceptable and unprofessional. The more while in my opinion there were some claims made by Senna that, when you evaluate the situation thoroughly, were not exactly as he told them to be.
About the only positive thing I can see in this episode: Senna indeed confirming he was guilty of doing a near criminal act (why criminal will be discussed later on). But pleading guilty doesn’t take away the fact that he did something that was totally unacceptable. And he was never punished for it accordingly. Here is someone who confirmed the feelings that many observers already feared were indeed true and not a single act of repercussion was undertaken at all. NOTHING!

Let’s go to 1990. During the weekend of the Spanish Grand Prix, (30 Sept) something happened which can be found written about in the Autocourse 90/91 Top Ten of drivers, page 17. Senna is ranked second, author Alan Henry explains why he ranked Senna second. It reads:

“The collision at Suzuka was a grossly unsatisfactory way for the title struggle to be resolved, particularly as it took place three weeks after Senna had been lecturing the international press corps on the need for drivers to defuse outbursts of temperament on the circuit, confine disputes with other drivers to the pittlane and paddock.”

Now, let’s dive into the 1990 Suzuka affairs themselves. Two races left to go in the season, Suzuka and Australia, Senna leading the championship, 9 points ahead of Prost. With the additional benefit for Senna that in case of a points tie, he had more race victories that Prost during the season thus he was in the best position to claim the title.
I’ve used Senna’s own words already to explain his anger because of the pole position being at the wrong side. I can understand his anger and frustration about that and won’t use that against him.
Senna had pole, Prost was second on the grid. Interestingly enough, Prost had agreed with the request of Senna for the pole to be swapped, so Senna had no reasons to claim that Prost was also acted against him in this matter.
Autocourse 1990/1991, the Japanese GP report, page 229 lists even more details that happened during the drivers briefing before the race which infuriated Senna. In short: It was declared that drivers crossing the yellow dotted line that designated the entry to the pittlane would be penalized. Senna took that as a reference to the incidents he was involved in last year and became even more annoyed when it was announced that drivers using the escape road could rejoin at the far end of it. Something Senna had done the year before and being one of the reasons he was disqualified for. Senna walked out of the meeting and wasn’t there anymore when the officials backtracked on their initial decision and made driver to return on the offroad and rejoin by facing oncoming traffic. His anger about all this is understandable.
Autocourse claimed that all this effectively made Suzuka an impossible place to overtake so if Prost, as Senna feared would have the better start it would be increasingly difficult to overtake him. The more while the warmup session had shown Prost to be the faster of the two men. Looking back on all this, the recipe for disaster was indeed followed to the letter.
We all know what happened direct after the start of the race. Prost had indeed the better start and made the move to the inside line. There are photos that clearly show that Prost was leading when the first turn came but (Yes, I admit) there was a gap on the inside line. Perhaps Prost should have tightened the gap earlier but we still were in the days that the “Chop after the start” was a `notdone` and if Prost had done such I suppose everyone had been accusing him for blocking Senna. Thus it was correct (and better) to leave some space to avoid a direct clash that would have been his responsibility.
But a number of experts agreed that the gap Prost left wouldn’t be there anymore when the turn started: since Prost was ahead, the turn was to him to take first. As Senna told in 1991, he had made up his mind already (read the ’91 postrace statement another time: it reads as if he had made the decision already on Saturday!) that he was to enter the first turn first. And thus, the inevitable happened, Senna running into Prost. The following statement could not be confirmed by me so it is a rumor at best. The story goes that telemetry of Senna’s car proved that he never hit the brakes or eased up on the throttle prior to the moment of contact. If this is indeed true then there is no further evidence needed anymore to prove Senna’s own words in 1991 that he had decided what was to happen.
Question: If it had not been Prost on the second spot but Mansell, or Berger, would he have done the same? If it was indeed the principal matter that nobody else but him, the polesitter being allowed to lead the field into turn one, then even his teammate Gerhard Berger would not have been safe if he had tried to make a move on Senna. I wonder if Gerhard should have had the guts to try it….

Now let me make clear that to some extend I can understand Senna being infuriated about all that had happened at Suzuka in 1990 up till the moments before the start. There are however a few things that I don’t understand.
- Did he believe that the driver on pole automatically has the right to be the first to enter the first turn? Even if he messed up the start?
- Did he feel so insecure about his chances to beat Prost in the race that the only option was to eliminate him rightaway at the start and not taking a chance and see how the race would unfold? Was he such a coward that he didn’t dare to take on Alain anymore over a full race distance?
- When Senna told the press three weeks earlier that drivers had to settle their arguments within the pittlane or paddock, did that exclude him? (Oh, Stupid question, I can answer that myself. Based on what Senna told about it himself after the 1991 race, he had an argument with Balestre and the officials about his ightful position at the track and not with other drivers. So that left the racetrack open again as being a place to settle arguments with Balestre and vent his anger about Balestre at the expense of his innocent colleagues.)

I can’t help but feeling that, no matter what Senna claims, he ran into Prost on purpose and deliberately. The fact that he absolutely undertook no action to avoid a collision while he saw Prost coming, the words he spoke directly afterwards “that Prost should have known that he would be coming”, it says much. The majority of the press members also put the majority of the blame for that accident at Senna’s feet as did a number of race experts.
In that case there are two things in this incident which I think to be totally unacceptable under every circumstance and for any driver in any category of racing but for open wheel racing in particular.

First: No matter how infuriated one can be about decisions of officials, when you are a professional, you must accept the decisions as they are and under no circumstances you can seek for revenge and take justice in your own hands to get things your way after all in the way Senna did. Senna was a professional driver and a real professional but this act made him an outlaw who introduced his own rules when the general rules didn’t suit him or were considered an insult to him personally. What he did was an act of totally unprofessional behaviour and nothing else but entirely selfish.

Secondly: With his mind made up that he was to enter the first turn first or otherwise, come what may that automatically includes that he was willing to risk an accident with another driver. One that by chance happened to be his lone title opponent. But, if his own words are to be believed that it all was because of the feelings of unfair treatment by politicians, this driver was an innocent victim of circumstances, the one who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, despite the fact that he was just doing his job. A case of monumental disrespect for any other person but himself.
For good measure: I have no idea how much Senna’s decision to eliminate Prost in case Prost lead the first turn was also influenced by the knowledge that if Prost was out of the race that it gave Senna the world title. From what I have read, I didn’t find any statements about or by Senna that this was another reason to crash into Prost to end the title hunt. So, being objective, I won’t use this argument against Senna as a dishonourable manner to decide the title quest. I have my suspicions but no undisputed approval so I rest that case.
The same goes for the theory that it was a manner of pay-back time for Suzuka ’89 when Senna and Porst also collided under controversial circumstances. I haven’t found any evidence about Senna having admitted it had something to do with causing the 1990 collision so for that reason, I must give him the benefit of the doubt another time.
Nevertheless, it becomes worse.

I think that most readers will agree with me that the most dangerous moment during a GP is the start. With a number of cars all heading for the first turn it is traditionally the moment that it is most likely that something can go wrong, horrible consequences not excluded.
Senna had decided in 1990 at Suzuka that he accepted nothing else but the fact that he would lead the in first turn. What happened was indeed an accident with one, innocent driver who’se only guilt (according Senna’s own words!) was that he was the man who had qualified in second spot, next to him, Senna.
Thus: here was someone at the head of an F1 starting field, having decided that an accident in front of an entire F1 field was acceptable to prevent something to happen about which he had made up his mind that he refused it to happen. Anything else but that.
May I remember the reader again to the fact that we are talking about open wheel cars, the wheels being an added danger in case of an accident between such cars. Besides that, all cars being topped up with fuel (since this were the days in which refuelling was forbidden) all cars carrying at least 180 liters of fuel, if not more within them. And that in the most nightmarish scenario, Senna deliberately could have caused an accident in which the entire starting field could have smashed into another. Think about Silverstone 1986 or Spa 1998 about what consequences such a pile-up could have had. Silverstone ‘86 ended the career of Jacques Laffite remember?
Here is the fact that a driver, only because of personal frustration, even dared to consider to purposely have an accident with one lone driver, ignoring the fact that there were 24 other men right behind him which could have smashed into the wreckage he caused. Senna deliberately caused an accident that could have involved not only 1 but 25 other men, just to seek revenge, satisfy his own ego and vent off his own personal frustration without even considering the consequences or keeping in mind that he was willing to risk it during what already is one of the most dangerous periods during the race.
In another thread, someone told that one could not blame Senna for putting an entire starting field at risk. This because the incident as it happened was a fairly safe one because given the nature of the first turn at Suzuka, the law of physics assured that the cars of Senna and Prost would be leaving the track since the turn went to the right and Senna had hit Prost in such a way that they would go straight off the track.
I sincerely hope that it never went to Senna’s mind that this accident would be a safe one without the risk that they would block the track and perhaps have 24 other men running into them. From a biological point of view, that would have been a superhuman effort in brain activity carried out by Senna. Brain specialists would be most eager to investigate a man like that. But if Senna indeed found the time to validate that the situation was safe enough to run into Prost, I can’t give nothing else but negative opinions about that. Senna himself already had proven in the past that some of his judgements of given situations were not correct after all and payed the price for that by having genuine racing accidents that come off good after all. Which already should have been a warning to think twice.
Talking about the accident being safe to execute is nonsense. No accident carried out on purpose can be declared safe enough to carry it out if it involves another driver. Deliberately risking another driver’s safety is 99 out of 100 times an unforgivable sin in racing and in open wheel racing in particular. With the danger of the open wheels added, how can somebody claim any risk to be acceptable? In every accident there is an amount of luck involved that may help a driver to survive a massive crash.
I know, you can’t compare different accidents with another and genuine material failure related accidents with a deliberate accident like the one Senna caused in Suzuka 1990. But allow me to give a few examples.
Over the years there have been massive shunts at Indianapolis during the Month of May. Some of the most gruelling ones of recent time I recall are Nelson Piquet’s 1992 crash that left him crippled, Mark Dismore in 1989 and Stan Fox in 1995. Or look in the Nostalgia Forum for the thread on the Interscope project to see the pictures of Danny Ongais’ crash at Indy in 1981. All these drivers were horribly injured but eventually lived to tell. The incidents of Jovi Marcello in 1992 and Scott Brayton in 1996 were much less severe to see and looked much more survivable. Yet Marcello and Brayton were killed instantly just because the law of physics didn’t cooperate with a few tiny details.
For American readers, I never properly saw the incident which took Dale Earnheart’s life. From what I saw of it, it looked as being a survivable (typical NASCAR) crash under normal circumstances. If I am wrong and the crash being far more violent as I write it down here, I apologize for that and acknowledged right here and now that I must have been wrong then. But to me it appeared as if the crash was survivable under normal conditions. That is, if a racing car crash can ever be considered to be normal. But as we know, there was something wrong within Dale’s car that nobody was aware of and that turned out to become an act of fate which made Dale’s apparently survivable crash a fatal one after all. The not to be ignored unforeseen conditions that might occur during a crash, ignoring them makes it an unforgivable sin to take a chance with the life of another man and consider a crash in which he will be involved because of you decide it to happen as being of an acceptable risk.
In Senna’s case, there was also the added risk for the entire starting field right behind him that he, if he was a genuine professional, should have taken into consideration.
Even Senna himself provided approval that no crash, how reminiscent it may look to similar crashes of the (recent) past, is likely safe and of acceptable risks. Nelson Piquet and Gerhard Berger both had massive shunts at Imola at Tamburello Corner in ’87 and ’89. Heavily injured, they survived because luck and fate helped them. Senna in 1994 had a not identical but roughly comparable crash at Tamburello but despite roughly similar laws of physics, he died due to fate.
Again, I am not saying that the genuine accidental crashes I gave are comparable with what happened because of someone’s deliberate behaviour at Suzuka in 1990. What I want to make clear is that in similar circumstances, fate and luck have a big hand in the outcome of a crash, any crash for that matter. And that makes it a totally unacceptable act to cause a crash on purpose, taking out another driver and expose him to the mercy of fate and Lady Luck (and Guardian Angels). And this all just to satisfy your personal frustrations for which the eliminated driver out wasn’t even responsible to begin with, but a third party, not actually racing himself was involved! And the crash itself could have been even worse and involve a maximum of 24 other drivers.
Can personal frustration ever justify such an act from any driver, no matter his reputation?

Fortunately, other than Prost being pushed off the track, nothing else happened. But what if Senna had made a wrong judgement of the situation? If Senna had hit Prost under a slightly different angle, or just a little further at the rear of the Ferrari and Prost had made a 90 degree spin, would he still have maintained enough speed to be bulldozered off the track by Senna? Or would they have come to a standstill in the middle of the track? Or would Prost have been lifted up and get airborne, doing some flips in the length axis of the car and if so, where would he have landed after those flips?
YES, YES I KNOW! Nothing of all this did happen. But I just listed a few things that could have happened. And the thoughts of what could have happened if the law of physics should have had a slight hiccup are chilling. And here was someone who was deliberately taking such risks.

Because of the risks he took with Prost and 24 other men alone, Senna’s behaviour at Suzuka 1990 is totally unacceptable. It should have been heavily punished with at least a ban for one race or more instead of being almost ignored. And when it came out that it was indeed a deliberate act, it was eventually being covered up by Max Mosley for reasons undisclosed.

But there’s more to the story.
Senna claimed that his actions were also inspired because of feeling treated unfair in at Suzuka in 1989 in particular by Balestre. The problem however is that there is another case of a driver being punished severely and too hard in 1989. And if Senna was punished according the very same rules, then it meant that Senna had already lost the title in 1989 when the Suzuka race was held. In fact: it can be argued that Senna never should have been permitted to start in Japan that year. There are several “what if” matters involved in this theory but here’s why.
Portugal, 13th race of the 1989 season, Prost leading the championship with 20 points more than Senna. Senna can’t afford any DNF results anymore and must finish as high as possible from now on to keep the title chance alive.
The race at Portugal 1989 saw a fierce battle between Senna and Mansell. But Mansell messed up in the pit, drove backwards through the pit lane, got back in the race but had to be blackflagged because of a rule violation. Then, Mansell was indeed given the blackflag, while he was pursuing Senna and in a fight for position (2nd and 3rd place) Mansell ignored the black flag three times (when passing the finishline) in his battle with Senna which eventually ended went Senna closed the door again, Mansell running into him and both men spinning off the track. Mansell stated after the race that he had never seen the black flag, or was aware of being given one. Senna stated that he had not seen the black flag either. Or was this a little lie to avoid having to explain why he kept on duelling for position with an already disqualified driver, thus taking unnecessary risks for which he eventually payed the prize?
Anyway, Mansell was given a $50.000 fine and according Autocourse 89/90 (page 215) the stewards of the meeting recommended him being banned from a future race. The punishment was based on ignoring the black flag only, eliminating Senna and thus influencing the battle for the world championship had nothing to do with it. A championship battle which by then could well be all but over since Prost traded a 5th place score for a second place and increased his lead to 24 points.
FISA (and thus Jean Marie Balestre!) reacted quickly and banned Mansell from the next Grand Prix, at Spain. Read Autocourse 89/90, the grey sidebar at page 221 for some of the details about the confusion all this created.
On the first practice day for the Spanish Grand Prix, Senna’s team boss Ron Dennis informed the press that he didn’t believe in Mansell’s claim of not having seen the black flag but that Mansell knew he was blackflagged.
Then, during practice: Gregor Foitek had a major crash, so severe that the practice session had to be stopped. It was however Senna who kept on speeding over the track and during the lap he was in, Senna ignored 8 black flags, waved yellow flags at the scene of the accident and a red flag at the finish line!
There are differences: failing to see one black flag at the starting line only, for three laps while closely following another driver with whom you happen do be in a fight for position during a race. This versus failing to see all those many flags in one single lap while being out on your own. I assume Senna did that lap on his own, not following another driver closely. If so, then a second driver had heavily violated the rules. But no other driver was mentioned as having done such thus very likely: Senna had been out there on his own, having a clear view on what happened in front of him.
Granted, it was ‘only` a practice session and no world championship points at stake.
But be objective: Which driver should, during his mishap, should have been in a better position to notice something was wrong and people trying to tell him something with all those flags? Mansell or Senna?
In my opinion, both drivers are guilty to an equally bad offence. Nigel did it during a race which is in my idea a more serious offence than if it happens during a practise session. But he has something of the benefit of the doubt since Senna also claimed not to have seen the very same flags either! Senna’s offence however is in my opinion so serious because he ignored so many flags within just a single lap! Doesn’t that kind of equal the `crimes` ?
Thus: both drivers should have been penalized equally or at least near equally. But while Nigel got a $50.000 fine and a ban for one race, Senna got away with only a $20.000 fine! To make things worse, it has been published (Autocourse 89/90) that during the remainer of the weekend Senna didn’t act as someone who knew had gone too far and was lucky to get away with it as easy as he did.
Thus: either Mansell was too severely punished for an arguably near equal offence or Senna was given an incredibly lucky break.
How lucky? If Senna had indeed been excluded from the Spanish race or being banned from the next one that would instantly have handed the title to Alain Prost because Senna couldn’t make up the point deficit anymore within the two races of the three remaining races of the season he was permitted to drive.
Maybe this knowledge may have influenced the decision of the Stewards of the meeting and FISA to let Senna get away with only a fine. Or perhaps they didn’t want to burn their fingers again with handing a race ban for this kind of offence committed because the exclusion of Mansell caused a lot of controversy already.
Also, it might be possible that punishment rules for ignoring signal flags are different for mishaps during practice compared with when it happens during a race. I don’t know how the rules were at that time. Maybe they were indeed different in severity in which case my arguments to declare both offences of Mansell and Senna being near equal are lost and of no value.
Anyway, it appears that Senna can’t claim that FISA and Balestre were always picking on him in 1989. He was far less punished than another driver had been earlier in the year for a near similar offence. And by being less severely punished it kept his remote title chances alive in 1989 when the F1 circus arrived in Japan. It can even be argued that if he had been punished according the same rules of justice like Mansell had been some weeks before, Senna could have been excluded from that Japanese Grand Prix. The race that eventually became the one of which he claimed he was treated so unfair. And if he had not raced in Japan in ’89, the incidents of that race would never have taken place and thereby taking away a lot of the reasons for Senna’s behaviour one year later in 1990.
If I am right then debating about Suzuka 1989 makes no sense because without Senna in the race, nothing that made the Suzuka 1989 race so memorable would have happened.
If I am partly right, meaning that Senna had been excluded from the event in Spain, then it is unsure what happened. For sure, Senna didn’t need the victory anymore to retain his title but likely he would have been determined as ever, feeling insulted about the in his eyes probably unjustified ban he received. No doubt that nothing but victory to seek revenge would have been enough. It then all depends on how Prost would have acted. Identical as he did or perhaps, knowing that the title was his, not taking any chances and let Senna have his revenge and don’t defend his position to the bitter end as Prost eventually did.
I don’t want to discuss the events at Suzuka as they unfolded in 1989. The main reasons why Senna was disqualified (leaving and rejoining the track the way he did) I have found no evidence in print that he should have been aware of this before the race i.e. this being told in the drivers meeting for example. So if he made these errors and should have known better, I don’t know.
About the incident between Prost and Senna itself, I don’t want to go into all that here. I think the best judgement for it is a racing accident. A slight drive error of Prost which Senna wrongly saw as an opportunity to overtake at a place where overtaking was impossible unless the overtaken driver is pushed off the track or comes to a standstill to give enough room, either intentional or doing so to avoid even worse. Like what eventually happened with Nannini. But any serious overtaking in attempt in a fight for position in that chicane had to end in disaster. Which happened.
So: Senna’s complaints about unfair treatment in Japan in ’89 don’t make much sense. He had got a lucky break already (not being banned for the flags incident in Spain) but obviously didn’t see it like that. But breaking a lot of rules yet again could not be left unnoticed and too weakly punished again. FISA seemed to believe that the time had come to do something at last. Maybe that should have been done much earlier already.
Anyway, I think that his complaints about unfair treatment in 1989 at Suzuka are not making sense. If he had not received preferential treatment before, he might have never been racing in Japan, still fighting for the title to begin with. And maybe not even raced in Japan at all.
That Senna used this in his eyes unfair treatment of ’89 as yet another excuse for his doings in the race of 1990 makes no sense either. If Senna’s claim about unfair treatment is valid, then Nigel Mansell had just about enough reasons to seek revenge for unfair treatment during the 1989 season. Contrary to Senna, he didn’t allow his frustrations taking over from him and take justice in his own hands just for revenge. Mansell can be criticized for a lot of things including overdramatizing his martyr status within F1 but with the ban behind him, I haven’t found any evidence in literature of from rememberance for having done anything to seek revenge because of an unfair treatment compared with another driver.
For whatever it is worth, I am not defending what Mansell did during that Portuguese GP, I am also not a fan of Nigel. But in my eyes, he and Senna broke the rules at a near comparable manner. Thus the punishment for both drivers should have been comparable. And they were not punished comparable for whatever reasons.
I acknowledge that all this debating about the events of 1989 are the weakest arguments within my accusation of why Senna can’t justify his act of 1990 or blame it to another person. There is a lot of “What if” involved. But think it over another time and you might see that there is indeed something to say for it.

So all this is why I consider what Senna did at Suzuka in 1990 can’t be defended for any reason and in fact should not have happened to begin with. In `short`:
- Senna’s claims for being treated unfair at Suzuka in 1989 are more than compensated by the lucky break he got when he was much less severely punished for a serious offence than one of his colleagues was for a near similar offence. This feeling of unfair treatment didn’t justify any act of revenge or desire to get even at the way Senna eventually did. If he had been treated as should have been appropriate before Suzuka in 1989, he had never raced there still with a chance to defend his title to begin with or maybe even shouldn’t have raced there at all.
- Despite his understandable anger about the pole position not being swopped, it must be expected from a professional sportsman to obey the rules as they are and make the best of that. Seeking any form of revenge to get things your way is hardly acceptable under almost all circumstances in most sports.
- The manner in which Senna felt that entering the first turn as race leader was his right and his right only because of his pole position and circumstances having to be changed so he could secure this right without any worry and if not gave him the right to act accordingly, shows a frightening amount of selfishness and disrespect for his fellow competitors.
- That Senna deliberately ran into another driver and also took the risk that if things went wrong even more drivers would end up in the crash he caused also shows this frightening amount of selfish, egocentric behaviour and disrespect for anybody but himself. What Senna did in that first lap of the Japanese GP of 1990 can be rated as one of the most dangerous moves ever in racing as well as the most disgusting move ever. The more since in his own words wasn’t an attack on the persons he wanted to prove that they were wrong but because he vented off his frustration at men who couldn’t help it that he, Senna didn’t got things his way. Other that that, it approved a kind of unsportsmanship rarely seen in racing till then as well as a lack of professionalism to deal with circumstances in a potentially dangerous sport.
- This was absolutely an act of Senna which at best can be partly understood (the pole matter) but other than that can’t be justified under any circumstance.
- For all security: My feelings would have been not different if all this had involved another driver but Senna.

Thank you for your time and attention.


Henri Greuter

[Mosquito]

I don't think you need almost 8.000 words to argue that a driver deliberately ramming another driver at high speed is inexcusable.

But Balestre was a tool, both in 89 and 90.

[raceday]

Shouldn't this be in the TNF?

[CLX]

Two drivers caused two crashes between each other and each one walked away with a title. Which is different from one driver causing two crashes and walking away with one title.

That's it for me.

[AgRacer]

I can’t and won’t hide that I hate Senna intensely

Which pretty much undermines you're entire article. There's really no point in reading past these words to know what you're going to say.

Like the guy above just wrote, you need 8000 words to tell us that one driver running another off the road to win the title is unacceptable is over kill.

[Zmeej]

I'm with CLX

... and I promise to read alla that text one day!

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by raceday
Shouldn't this be in the TNF?

IMHO, Senna related threads are fine for as long as Michael Schumacher is an active F1 driver.

[Scudetto]

Let me get back to you on this.

[HSJ]

For me Suzuka 1990 was the worst moment of Senna's career as far as his own actions went. Same with Prost and Suzuka 1989. Both were uncalled for. In MS's case Adelaide 94 and Jerez 97 are the same. The only multi-WDC of recent times with clean papers is MH. I wish there could be more drivers like him, and I'm glad that so far at least KR seems to have the same attitude as MH in this regard. In fact in his early GP career MH was much more messy and prone to crash with others in races than KR, but as far as I know MH never did it intentionally like the first three champs mentioned.

[Arrow]

you werent kidding when you said it was long

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by HSJ
In MS's case Adelaide 94 and Jerez 97 are the same.

I don't think Hill ramming Schumacher was as bad as Suzuka 90.

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
That Senna deliberately ran into another driver and also took the risk that if things went wrong even more drivers would end up in the crash he caused also shows this frightening amount of selfish, egocentric behaviour and disrespect for anybody but himself. What Senna did in that first lap of the Japanese GP of 1990 can be rated as one of the most dangerous moves ever in racing as well as the most disgusting move ever.

[POLAR]

I agree. Never liked the guy anyway. But...i think that the nostalgia forum is a better adress to this thread.

Polar

[Vunz]

Originally posted by Mosquito
I don't think Hill ramming Schumacher was as bad as Suzuka 90.

[Rediscoveryx]

Good post Henri

[Simioni]

It's amazing how someone can keep nurturing hatred and ill feelings towards a person they didnt even know even though he's been gone for years. Let it go man, all this negativity isn't good for you.

[heki]

Only the bewildered Senna fans think, that Suzuka90 wasn't Senna's fault.

Pls next time without the brain specialists, and other stupid comments.

I stopped reading it after this BS:
"Then, during practice: Gregor Foitek had a major crash, so severe that the practice session had to be stopped. It was however Senna who kept on speeding over the track and during the lap he was in, Senna ignored 8 black flags , waved yellow flags at the scene of the accident and a red flag at the finish line!"

And, yes we all beleive, that you hated him...

[amiga1]

I'm still waiting for the movie

[skinnylizard]

but arent we all agreed that he was wrong in doing what he did?
i dont like Senna as much as some others do but he was a phenomenol talent and a genius at what he did.Like all geniuses he was flawed... so what..
i mean im regular guy and i know im prett far out on the flaws list...
he had his opportunity he made his choice..he lived by them...
sadly Schumacher as fantastic he is ..isnt a Senna...he will never be one...
end of story....
xxx
www.pi-media.com
www.eranstudio.com

[joachimvanwing]

Greuter,
You might find reasons enough to decapitate Senna,
but the ones you come up with are not at all valid. To me that is.

Reading your article I felt as if you critisise Senna for being an emotional person, sqareheaded, intelligent and being very consequent in his thinking and acting.

Suzuka 1989,
Prost simply turned in because 1) he was leading the race and 2) the championship, and 3) because Senna would do the same thing. Still it was Senna's corner in many ways.
I don't remember Prost for being disqualified in Suzuka. He didn't even have his complete 1989 record cleared. (cfr: Jerez 1997)

Suzuka 1990,
Simple. Senna told the press on Saturday that he was robbed from pole. And in my opinion he was. He had pole but was on the wrong side. He also told the gathered press after warm-up that he would "go through 1st corner in 1st place", "If he (AP) doesn't give way, that's his mistake"
I have simpatise for Senna beacause of that move. By taking off Prost, Senna felt they were even at last. Settled.

Jerez 1997, (cfr: Suzuka 1989)
In an interview in 1983 Martin brundle said something like, "When Senna is behind and overtakes, he puts one in a position where he leaves the other to decide if you're going off together or not." That's how you do great passingmoves. But you can also exhaust this delicate method. Like Villeneuve did in 1997. IN MY OPINION, JV simply braked too late. He would have taken MS in the sandbox with him anyhow.
Senna's moves in 1989 and 1990 were no judgement errors, nore was Schumacher's move at Jerez.

If there one thing you very clearly pointed out to me, it's this: "F1 is politics"
And I doubt Senna used that many f-words.

[MONTOYASPEED]

How long 'til Vrba posts here?

Make your bets.

[JForce]

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED
How long 'til Vrba posts here?

Make your bets.

When he stops crying and throwing things.

[Jdcasas]

You must have a lot of free time .
No comment on the topic. (didnt bother reading)
All I can say is Senna:

[molive]

Originally posted by joachimvanwing

I have simpatise for Senna beacause of that move. By taking off Prost, Senna felt they were even at last. Settled.

I clearly remember me and my friends at 2am, shouting and jumping up and down, screamnig "take that Balestre! take that Big Nose!"

That was Senna's revenge, pure and simple.


I agree it was a bit dangerous, but no one was hurt, so maybe Senna knew what he was doing...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Senna should have been banned from motorracing for life. Its fine to take risks with your own safety, but to put other drivers, corner works, and potentially fans at risk is childish. Formula 1 shouyld be about the best drivers in the world, not the brattiest

[POLAR]

I'm just loving this Senna bashing...go on boys...

[Ross Stonefeld]

There's no Senna bashing. What he did has no excuse or defense, at all, ever.

[POLAR]

Ok, whathever...i'm just loving it.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

I, for some reason, quickly forgave Senna after the incident.
Sort of "Ok Brazilian brat, you got your revenge, lets move on to 1991".
In 1991, Ferrari where supposed to be the ones to beat and the long-awaited CC seemed easily achievable (considering how close Prost came to getting in 1990).
But it never materialized and the wait continued until MS achieved it 9 years later.
2-3 years after the Suzuka incident I realized the gravity [as a Ferrari fan] of Senna's actions, considering how uncompetitive Ferrari became.
But i still never really held a grudge against the man, although his actions were ruthless, dangerous and downright stupid.
But **** happens, I guess....
However, having said that, the two things which really surprised me where that he didn't get any penalty or punishment which he deserved big-time, and secondly, there was hardly any outcry from the press when he actually admitted to intentionally punting Prost.
But back then, we didn't have internet and BBs like this.

[EvilPhil]

That move in my opinion was one of the greatest moments of motorracing history.

It was the move that like no over before it said so much about the emotion and deication of motor racing and Senna. It was fantastic and was so incrediably human on Senna's part, I for one hail that moment.

12 months of Senna's frustation of 2 indivduals actions a year earlier and a corrupt sport let loose which only means that he must of had that chip on his shoulder all year long and must of waited and waited until it was the right time for revenge.

A truely amazing piece of visible psychology... whether it was right... who cares..


p.s. i am stoned sorry

[jimm]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo

"However, having said that, the two things which really surprised me where that he didn't get any penalty or punishment which he deserved big-time, and secondly, there was hardly any outcry from the press when he actually admitted to intentionally punting Prost.
But back then, we didn't have internet and BBs like this."

I think that there was quite a bit of press over his admission. The thing is that I think there was also a little bit of sympathy. It was clear that the French FIA pres at the time was trying to manipulate the WDC toward Prost. In 1996, he even admitted it to be true. So some of Senna's paranoia was justified. Especially when you consider that the year before it was Senna that was facing a possible ban from F1 after an incident that at best had partial fault and at worst was a calculated move by Prost who recieved nothing.

Senna was a different individual than Prost or MS. He could be calculating but his moves like japan '90 were born of passion not calculation. I think that is why some find it easier to forgive. He also felt he needed to and did admit the FULL truth without anything to gain and despite the fact that it might mean that he could be banned or what ever. Besides calling it a "mistake", I don't believe that MS has ever done the same in regards to Jerez'97.

Bottom line, it was not the way I would have gone and it was bad for the sport. The irony I think is that even though many make the point about Senna running off Prost to take the title, if you listen to what Senna said a year later, the WDC was incidental. Senna, at least in his mind, was standing up for a principle and the rest be damned. If you carefully read the statements, it is clear he was not happy about the result and knew it was bad for F1, the fans etc. He was not proud of the WDC. BUT he felt that it had to be done to fight a corrupt system that had already tainted the WDC.

Regardless, in some ways I feel his honesty to reveal his real reasons etc was refreshing no matter how misguided the actions. Imagine if we got the same from some of the current drivers.

[swaction]

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=14402

;)

[Mila]

I can understand Senna's frustration, and even his paranoia, but Suzuka 90 was completely inexcusable. it's beyond me how a grown man could do something like that.

and just to show you what a *#@% move it was, it took a year before the guy brought himself to admit the truth concerning his intent behind it. why? because he knew it was wrong.

[Jordi #99]

First of all. Senna made a ruthless move. Dangerous? Sure. But you have to get in Senna's head to understand it. If you hate him, well, then I guess it's very difficult for you.

But you have to understand that for Senna, Prost and Balestre had disqualified him in last year, in a personal action. He was wrong? Who knows. Who knows what went on at Suzuka, 1989?

But you obviously can't understand Senna. I don't think you're too objective. But I guess you weren't going to be anyway. I mean, I don't even think the biggest Senna fans don't think it's dangerous.

Revenge, yes. Safe revenge? not at all!

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by jimm


I think that there was quite a bit of press over his admission. The thing is that I think there was also a little bit of sympathy. It was clear that the French FIA pres at the time was trying to manipulate the WDC toward Prost. In 1996, he even admitted it to be true. So some of Senna's paranoia was justified. Especially when you consider that the year before it was Senna that was facing a possible ban from F1 after an incident that at best had partial fault and at worst was a calculated move by Prost who recieved nothing.

Not to be picky, but Senna wasn't facing a ban because of the collision at Suzuka, he was facing it because he had appealed the decision the exclude him from the race. That was the disgraceful part of Suzuka 1989. There's no question that Senna did in fact break the rules, as the rules clearly stated that a driver was not supposed to cut the track or get outside assistance.

The FIA has a pretty clouded history when it comes to dealing with appeals. They punished Senna for appealing against a decision in 1989, and they did the same to Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher in 1994.

[dan2k]

Whole lot of bullshit I think, I didnt bother reading after 3 lines.
You say you want us, the reader to decide for ourselves, if it was unacceptable or not.
Yet in you tread, you have already tried to convince us it was not right, and no excuse was good enough.
Whatever man, go write a book.

You obviously think that Senna's excuse for revenge is not acceptable.
Why do you hate Senna? I feel sorry for you, because its sad you never really got the real message from him to us.
He accepted later on that he did on purpose and it was wrong, at least he has the guts to accept his mistakes, unlike most of us.
You concentrate on his mistakes, and live in its negativity.
Why dont you concentrating on the positives and move on?

Senna was a great man, he expressed alot of emotions, and his dedication for winning was so much it overpowered his actions sometimes.
You talk of wrong and right, let me tell you we all make mistakes.
Its just Senna's mistakes are broadcast to millions of viewers all over he world, he showed that even the greatest make mistakes, so its okay if ordinary people like us make mistakes, as long as we realise it later on and forgive ourselves.

Look at it this way, years later, we are still talking about things he did, and we will do the same with MS years after he is gone.
These great drivers, impact history with their actions, bad or not, they were decisions they took at the time.
Leave it at that.

Go and watch a documentary about him called 'A star named Ayrton Senna', it will do you some good.

[Slyder]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx


Not to be picky, but Senna wasn't facing a ban because of the collision at Suzuka, he was facing it because he had appealed the decision the exclude him from the race. That was the disgraceful part of Suzuka 1989. There's no question that Senna did in fact break the rules, as the rules clearly stated that a driver was not supposed to cut the track or get outside assistance.

The FIA has a pretty clouded history when it comes to dealing with appeals. They punished Senna for appealing against a decision in 1989, and they did the same to Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher in 1994.

I must disagree here. the DQ was bollocks.

No rules were broken, because 1)His engine was still running 2)The marshalls gave him the OK to rejoin the track 3)he cut through the chicane to avoid the marshalls that were across the track 4)If he was really at fault, why wasn't he immediately black-flagged? They had 6 full laps to black-flag him, but they never did. The DQ came AFTER the race, and issued by Mr. Balestre himself, not by the Chief Steward.

Senna was legally in competition and he duly won the race on merit. The DQ was and is bollocks.

And MS wasn't punished for what he should've been punished, for taking out DH to give himself the title at Adelaide 1994.

All the people that side with Senna, finally, you said what all this time I was intending to say, that's why I understood what he did in Suzuka 1990. It was revenge, pure and simple. We all know that what he did was inexcusable and was the wrong thing to do, but one must understand the REAL reasons why Senna did what he did. Thats as important as the incident itself.

BTW, nice one Henri, good to know someone that writes from the other side of the fence. There's plenty of stuff that I could counterargue but I won't do it, since It'll take me a while. got more important things to do. But as dan2k said, I rather enjoy Senna's positive sides more than remembering his bad sides.

[Slyder]

Originally posted by Mila
I can understand Senna's frustration, and even his paranoia, but Suzuka 90 was completely inexcusable. it's beyond me how a grown man could do something like that.

and just to show you what a *#@% move it was, it took a year before the guy brought himself to admit the truth concerning his intent behind it. why? because he knew it was wrong.

It took him a year to say that it was wrong because had he said it earlier the FIA would've banned him. Read what he said in the interview.

Balestre would've easily banned Senna after Suzuka 1990, but they never did. This just proves the weakness of the FIA in that particular issue. Favoring prost in 1989, not banning Senna in 1990, and worse later on, never banning MS for what he did to DH in Adelaide 1994 and the worst and most laughatle "disqualifying" MS from his runner up status after 1997 BUT KEEPING HIS WINS!!!

Ain't that something?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Every one of you excusing Senna's actions have no regard for human life and would be better off posting on a bulletin board about demoliton derbys.

[Ricardo F1]

There is no excuse for Senna, in fact I was always thought he shared that opinion in 1994 when he made up with Prost. You can't excuse winning a championship like that IMHO, whether it be Senna or Schumacher.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Ive allways viewed Adelaide 94 as a deseperate reaction. He blocked and it caused a collision, I never felt like he thought "there's hill, I gotta take him out"


Senna was the worst thing ive ever seen. As I said before, he should have been banned worldwide for life

[CLX]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Every one of you excusing Senna's actions have no regard for human life and would be better off posting on a bulletin board about demoliton derbys.

Stop being a cry baby just because we don't think like we do...

Yeah, this forum must full of serial killers and bad ass mother s who kill and endanger people for fun and sarcastic pleasure. Not to mention we love being around demolition derbies...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by CLX



Stop being a cry baby just because we don't think like we do...

Yeah, this forum must full of serial killers and bad ass mother s who kill and endanger people for fun and sarcastic pleasure. Not to mention we love being around demolition derbies...

His actions were unexcuseable. He maliciously intended to crash into another driver. that should be grounds for legal proceedings outside the FIA.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Every one of you excusing Senna's actions have no regard for human life and would be better off posting on a bulletin board about demoliton derbys.

don't be a drama queen. Suzuka's t1 has probably the largest run off area in F1. No crash at 200 kph is 100% safe, but the chance of something happening there was pretty slim. Prost barely reached the tire barrier.

Looking back in hindsight with a perspective of its consequences, I regret that Senna did it, as its become a bad example and forever a black spot in his magical career. In the context of the circunstances at the time however, I felt he was totally entitled to be the last one to laugh among Ballestre and Prost. There's so much crap a man can take, and Senna obviously had had enough.

[berge]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


His actions were unexcuseable. He maliciously intended to crash into another driver. hell that should be grounds for legal proceedings outside the FIA.

this is worse.

MH/MS-Spa 2000

http://videofiles1.f...00/spa/spa6.asf

[Ross Stonefeld]

Thats called racing. blocking is part of racing.
going into an event knowing that you are intentionally going to drive into another driver at full speed in front of the entire grid is dangerous, unprofessional, childish, and the sign of someone who is mentally unstable.
There is no reason, there is no excuse, there is no justification. Senna is a baby. Thats how children respond when things dont go their way.

[MONTOYASPEED]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Thats called racing. blocking is part of racing.

So is crashing.

[Bernd]

For once Ross I am in complete agreement with you.

What Senna did would be classified as attempted murder in a court of law.

[jimm]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Thats called racing. blocking is part of racing.
going into an event knowing that you are intentionally going to drive into another driver at full speed in front of the entire grid is dangerous, unprofessional, childish, and the sign of someone who is mentally unstable.
There is no reason, there is no excuse, there is no justification. Senna is a baby. Thats how children respond when things dont go their way.

And what of Prost's move in 89 or MS in Jerez?



MS was clearly planning to take out JV even turning in 2x to make sure. Should he be banned for life?? Is not MS a spoiled child who was willing to take out the competition to win?

After Jerez is it not valid to question MS's motives?

It could be argued that MS went into Jerez planning to take out JV if necessary. Hell, it is not like it was not talked about for 3 weeks prior to the race. IF anything it was predictible.

I am not trying to start a anti MS debate, I just want to see if you apply your critique equally

[Simioni]

ffs Ross, blocking?? that was a 300 kph chop that gave Mika the scare of his life. The possible consequences from Mika making wheel contact with MS could only have been massive. They were milimiters away from that, do you think MS or Mika had it under control down to those few milimiters? The potential danger from that move compared to Suzuka 90 isn't even comparable. it takes all the inconsistency in the world to call that racing while labelling Suzuka 90 as unnaceptably dangerous. I'd love to race you to see if you woukd really take that kind of thing so gracefully.



I don't want to come off as hipocritical by defending Senna while criticizing MS, but at least Senna knew where the line was even if he occasionally decided to cross it. As he grew older, those occasions all but ceased to happen. MS has got it completely rationalized as part of the game, and it seems like he'll only learn it to be otherwise when someone lands over the top of him.