246 replies to this topic

[Ninja2b]

Good Evening all

Ok, so I realise I am treading on dangerous ground here, but I was reading re-Rubythons new Senna book last night and thought that Senna was often unfairly judged by the majority of the sports fans. Obviously, I am a Senna fan, and as such my views are biased - but I believe that everyone is biased in one way or another so I dont think it makes my opinion any less valid.

The main objection most people seem to have regarding Senna is that he was an unsporting driver, and the collision between him and Prost at Suzuka in 1990 set a precedent for unsporting behaviour for a new generation of drivers. There was also the breaking of the gentlemans agreement at Imola in 1989, and (I cant remember which race, portugal possibly) where he pushed Prost "dangerously" close to the pitwall on the main straight.

The collision in 1990 I wont try to defend. I feel that Senna was right to feel wronged by the FIA, and he was justified in thinking that there was a 'French Conspiracy' after what had happened in 1989. However, he shouldnt have acted in the way he did, as it was unsporting and dangerous. If I had been in his position, I possibly would have done the same thing, but that doesnt mean it was right.

The main point I take issue with is in peoples general impression that Senna was an unsporting driver for deliberately driving into Prost, while totally ignoring the fact that Prost performed the same maneuver on Senna the previous year, albeit at a lower speed. This issue has been argued in the AtlasF1 court, and I will quote from the conclusions to fill everyone in on the detail. The case is still there if anyone wants to read the full account. Im afraid I dont know how to quote from posts properly, so Im just going to do a cut and paste job...

From the Conclusions:

"Hence, we find Alain Prost guilty of deliberately colliding with Ayrton Senna."

"We therefore find Prost's action at Suzuka 1989 to be unsporting."

"In the case of Alain Prost and the 1989 Japanese GP collision, we can only state that to the best of our judgement, he was guilty of the sport's worst crime: he acted unsportingly, and in doing so had settled the highest prize - the World Championship title - unfairly."

"No evidence was brought to the court of similar incidents happening before this occasion, and we can only assume that this incident had, in its own way, set a precedent in the sport. It was by no means, however, the last time such an incident had happened and therefore, with the benefit of hindsight, we can only be sorry that this phenomenon was not nipped in the bud by the governing bodies of Formula One."

The most important line for me is "No evidence was brought to the court of similar incidents happening before this occasion, and we can only assume that this incident had, in its own way, set a precedent in the sport".

People will no doubt argue that there were mitigating circumstances in 1989 - the incident on the pit straight (that eludes me) and the problems at Imola. But then the same logic can be applied to 1990, and so the basic conclusion that I reach is that both drivers acted in an extremely unsporting manner, but it was Prost - not Senna - who set the precedent.

Id like to hear peoples opinions on this issue.

Cb

Oh, and in case someone looks at my profile and thinks Im a newbie trying to start a flame war, I had to sign up for a new account because I couldnt log into my old one anymore.....

[AndreasF1]

As a Senna fan I am still upset at what happened in 90. The difference was that Senna admited later on that he deliebertly tried to take Prost out in turn 1, however, Prost never admited to such an act. The level of danger in Senna's move compared to Prost's in 89 is not even in the same league. The car's were doing well over 130mph going into turn 1 and had something seriously happened to Prost it would have been premeditated murder. Had Senna kept his mouth shut and claimed that it was a racing incident he would probably have gotten away without to much critisism. So it was him that got the ball rolling about unsporting behavior by his own admission. However, I admire his honesty in admiting his intentions, something Prost never did in 89. So I have more respect for Senna than for Prost.

[Ninja2b]

From a danger point of view, I agree - Sennas move was more dangerous. But I dont think he ever believed that he or Prost would suffer serious injury, and so I dont think that it was worse than Prosts move by any significant order of magnitude.

I dont think any statement of admission is hugely relevant though - the moves were both judged to be unsporting and deliberate. Whether the protagonists admit to it or not is neither here nor there. Prisons are filled with people who never admitted to their crime, but who were judged as guilty. And I take the point that some of these people are not guilty, but I still believe it was Prost who started the "running my rival off the track" business, and not Senna.

Cb

[Don Capps]

Let me not put too fine a point on it: (1) it is pretty lame to pin the "precedent" for Unsporting Behavior on Prost, especially in light of his being pinned to the wall by Senna da Silva on the start of whatever the hell the GP was in 1988 -- Estoril?; (2) the Atlas F1 Court "decision" on Suzuka 1989 was utter and complete bullshit; I disagreed with it then and I disagree with it now. However, I also disagreed then and continue to disagree with the subsequent disqualifcation of Senna da Silva by the FISA from the results of the 1989 GP at Suzuka.

It is illuminating that during the press conference following his deliberate 1990 punting of Prost off the track that he managed to convince other rational and sane folks that it was a "racing accident," despite there clearly being evidence to the contrary. Senna da Silva simply used his not inconsiderable powers of persuasion to enlist many to his side of the discussion. Senna da Silva was a man with a remarkable talent for bending opinion to his viewpoint. He was a master at this and made the "facts" fit his views which he then convinced others to believe.

It is remarkable to consider that years later that one of the real legacies of Ayrton Senna da Silva seems to be the diminution of Alain Prost.

Whatever devils broiled within the soul of Senna da Silva and resulted in those volcanic tantrums which punctuated his career, were on full display during the press conference following the 1991 Japanese GP when he unleashed his fully formed vile on Balestre -- only Senna da Silva's scorn could ever get anyone to view JMB in a favorable light -- and the FISA. Even those who seemed to worship Senna da Silva were a bit back by the viciousness of his attacks and his evident self-righteousness. That Senna da Silva was not banned for life by the FISA for his actions at Suzuka in 1990 is an indication of just how weak-kneed and jelly-spined the FISA really was when it came to Senna da Silva.

The bitter feud that developed between Prost and Senna da Silva while at McLaren was perhaps not only unfortunate, but quite detrimental to not only F1 but each of the drivers. As the years have passed, each has undergone a certain level of revisionism as their careers are concerned. Ask a member of the F1 Cult about Senna da Silva and you will get an earful -- almost every bit of it praise of the Highest Order. As for Prost....

I have no doubts about Senna da Silva and his talent. I do have serious doubts about the legacy he left F1.

[Felix Muelas]

Originally posted by Don Capps
...As the years have passed, each has undergone a certain level of revisionism as their careers are concerned. Ask a member of the F1 Cult about Senna da Silva and you will get an earful -- almost every bit of it praise of the Highest Order. As for Prost....

I have no doubts about Senna da Silva and his talent. I do have serious doubts about the legacy he left F1.

I cannot agree more.

[Arturo Pereira]

Originally posted by Felix Muelas


I cannot agree more.

Same here.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by Felix Muelas


I cannot agree more.

Make that three of us.

It is a great pity that the Piquet/Prost/Mansell/Senna era of F1, which was marked by some great racing, has left such a legacy of petulant behaviour and bad on-track manners (putting it politely).

[dretceterini]

Make it 4.

IMO, Senna was a self-righteous jerk with great skills...kind of like MS.

Prost is just a pompous ass.

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by dretceterini
Make it 4.

IMO, Senna was a self-righteous jerk with great skills...kind of like MS.

Prost is just a pompous ass.

Couldn't have put it better myself, Stu!

[mp4]

Alain was the best there was, at the time (post '87). No one really diputes this, do they?
Ayrton came to McLaren to try to make people thing otherwise.
There was a quote, and I am paraphrasing here so please bear with me.
It went something along these lines...
"Ayrton, Alain is very quick and smooth. How do you expect to beat him?"
Ayrton's reply was something like, "Well, I will just have to try harder".
I believe he was given a polite chuckle by almost everyone.
Alain had the measure of Ayrton and this made him try harder.
When he did start to outshine Alain, I think Alain got a tad annoyed and started bitching to Honda and, probably, the FIA.
I refuse to defend the tactics of either driver. Egos, of this scale, are scary...
The sad part in all this, you ask?
If Ayrton hadn't had his accident, he might have started to bitch to the same FIA when Mr. S. started to show him up.
Ayrton was, and always will be, my fave. Regardless of questionable tactics.
Michael learned well from both Alain and Ayrton.

My $0.02

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by mp4

Michael learned well from both Alain and Ayrton.

O tempora! O mores!

[JacnGille]

Originally posted by Don Capps
Let me not put too fine a point on it: ...

I have no doubts about Senna da Silva and his talent. I do have serious doubts about the legacy he left F1.

Great post

[Simioni]

The "moral judges" who lay the doom of F1´s sportmanship in the shoulders of Senna apparently haven´t ever seen an over-head shot of the Suzuka 89 incident. It seems rather extraordinary someone accuse the FISA of being Senna-biased after what was brought on him post-Suzuka 1989, when Senna was disqualified for an asisine infraction, punished for an accident he didn´t cause, and finally banned and fined in the basis of 5 retroactive accusations, among them two incidents in which he was hit in his rear wheel once by a backmarker and another by a black-flagged driver. With such "crimes" weighing against him, Senna was forced to make a formal retraction with regards to his accusations of a french "mafia" if he was to take part in the first half of 1990.

And then came Suzuka the following year, where Ballestre again interfered after an agreement had been reached regarding to grid positions, again to the detriment of Senna. The same Ballestre who admitted years later having given Prost "a little hand" in 89. Given such predicament, it seems rather strange how some will so gladly ignore it all in order to mark Senna out as the bad guy. Ironically, Senna detractors seem to be as full of self-righetousness as they accuse Senna of being.

I´m in complete agreement with Ninja2b with regards to revisionism and Senna´s reputation as a sportsman. Revisionism seems to have gone so far that even the word "precedent" no longer has the meaning the dictionary gives it. I´m of the opinion, and think that anyone who takes his time to educate himself on the subject will agree that at this point in time it´s completely impossible to get an objective picture of Senna and his doings in F1, the general picture being by now completely twisted and bended by detractors and myth-feeders alike. A shame really.

[ensign14]

Think Farina may have something to do with dirty driving...

And Jim Rathmann's attempts to secure the USAC crown in about 1956 - puting Jimmy Bryan into the fence - seem suspicious. However, I only have what is said in the Wallen books so I may be reading too much into it.

The mistake was made in 1989 when Prost should have had points deducted. Had they suspended Senna in 1990 (as they should have done, his driving was supremely dangerous, and also entirely foreseeable - was I the only one that knew what was going to happen?) there would have been a hypocrisy accusation. But that may have stopped some of the loutish driving seen since then.

[Brad Tyers]

There is no denying that Senna was very aggressive on track.Name me a world champion who was'nt.Thank god other people saw what I saw in 89.Prost cheated and when even that could'nt stop Senna from winning the race(amazing) and the championship,Balestre had the stewards disqualify Senna handing the title to Prost.When Balestre helped his little French mate the next year after qualifying,putting Senna on the dirty side of the track(no pun intended),Senna vowed not to back off at the first corner.Prost could have or should have left a country mile of room between he and Senna since he would be aware of what he deliberately did in 89.But he still tried to to take the line and Senna dulely cannoned into Prost's right rear.Justice was served.
Thankfully neither were hurt and we cannot condone this sort of driving but I also believe in an eye for an eye and Prost got his back in spades.Until 89,I do'nt believe Senna would have wanted to win a title by crashing into an opponent.His values would not have allowed it.
Senna was the sort of driver who would have been quick even when he was 40.For all the Schuey supporters who think he is the best ever think again.Numbers don't make you the best your ability does.
If Senna had of survived his freak fatality at Imola this makes some interesting stats.
-add about 5-6 world titles to Senna's 3.
-add about 40 GP wins to Senna's tally of 41.
-add about 56 pole positions to Senna's tally of 65 that Schuey will race long enough to beat.
It's a sobering reality to bring Schuey lovers back to earth.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Brad Tyers
When Balestre helped his little French mate the next year after qualifying,putting Senna on the dirty side of the track(no pun intended),Senna vowed not to back off at the first corner.Prost could have or should have left a country mile of room between he and Senna since he would be aware of what he deliberately did in 89.But he still tried to to take the line and Senna dulely cannoned into Prost's right rear.Justice was served.

But that's like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt. Prost was entitled to take the line he did without someone hurtling into his jaxie at about 400mph faster than the corner warranted. Whether Balestre was at fault is irrelevant.

[stuartbrs]

A lot of the poor racing standards of today can be blamed on Senna`s attitude. I first saw Senna race in the `85 Grand Prix in Adelaide, loved Lotus, worshipped Senna... but now that I`m a bit older its not hard to see how much F1 was changed because of the driving tactics Senna used, tactics he really didnt need to resort to...had his Lotus held together he probably would have won the `85 and `86 World Championships as well as the other 3, he really was something special. But its telling how much his rivals disapproved of his driving style, in fact, got downright angry about it. I remember reading about something Andretti said to Rosberg when Rosberg was in his first year in F1 "we do things a little differently in F1, learn the ropes first"...well, Senna came along and did things differently again, would do ANYTHING to win...I`m not attacking his character, in fact, I miss his passion, his eloquence in post race interviews, his character...but I am questioning what he bought to F1 in terms of do whatever it takes to stop the car behind getting in front, or, whatever it takes to get past the car in front. In the `85 monaco grand prix after setting fastest times he went on race tyres to basically become a moving chicane, stop those with a chance of beating him getting a better time, not really all that sporting...

[BRG]

Originally posted by dretceterini
Prost is just a pompous ass.

I'll take a pompous ass over a dangerous psychopath any day, thanks.

[Henri Greuter]

Well, here I go again I'm affraid.


About Suzuka '89: If rules and punishments had been applied during that season without favouring anybody, then Senna would not have been permitted to race in Suzuka at all because of being banned from the event.


In Portugal, Senna was eliminated from the race in a duel with Nigel Mansell, a racing accident yes or no, let's leave that out of the discussion. More important is that, at the time, Mansell was blackflagged already but he ignored the black flag and kept on fighting with Senna. Mansell claimed that he never saw the black flags because of all kind of reasons.
Curiously: Senna, who was in front of Mansell may well have had a better view on the situation (blackflagging Mansell) but he never let Mansell pass! If he was aware of it, then even he should have known that fighting for position with a driver already blackflagged is a stupidity and thus he should have let Mansell go instead of risking his position.
Strangely enough: to my knowledge, Senna never acknowledged he knew Nigel was blackflagged (to cover up for his stupidity?) and thus more or less backed Nigel's claim that he never saw the black flag.
But: Nigel was banned from the next race. Now keep that in mind.

In this very next race however, Gregor Foitek had a massive accident in practice with his Eurobrun and this brought out the black flag and red flags to stop the session.
However: Senna was in a hotlap and kept on speeding for a full lap, ignoring a number of red and black flags in the procedure.
For they who don't believe what I wrote here, It is all being mentioned within Autocourse 89/90.
It isn't just some babbling of an anti-Senna racefan.

OK, there is a difference in ignoring a black flag during the race for three times, only given at the start-finish line while fighting for poosition with a car direct in front of you, or... Ignoring multiple waved red and black flags within a single lap and no car in front of you.
Yes, there is a difference.

But I sincerely think that if Mansell was banned for a race for failing to follow the black flag he got, then Senna should have been eliminated from the event that very same weekend or at least the next race. Instead of that, he was only fined!!!!!
Because, even mr. Balestre knew, if Senna was banned for one race, that would instantly hand the title to Alain Prost bcause Senna would not have the chance anymore to catch up with Prost.
If Balestre really wanted to favour his fellow countryman, he had the perfect opportunity handed on a plate: by Banning Senna for ignoring flags, just like he did with Mansell. Because it was Balestre who made sure that Mansell was indeed banned from the event. But he didn't do that with Senna! So the talking about Balestre favouring Prost in '89, up to Suzuka that definitely wasn't the case, yet. On the contrary, he had been saved that year on at least one or more occasions to keep his chances for the title alive.

Anyway, if treated accordingly, Senna would not have been permitted to race at Suzuka that year, or, if he had been banned from the Spanish race instantly after the practice session, then his participation at Suzuka would naot have mattered anymore for the world title.
In which case the affairs between Prost and Senna that weekend may have been entirely different.

Personally, during that fateful '89 race, I think Senna went for a gap that he should have known that wouldn't be there for much longer and that his attempts to keep his title chances alive he was too desperate to make that attempt. It was a too aggressive move, destined to end in tears. Even with a cooperative driver (Nannini, a few laps later...) the move was way too agressive.
All together, i think that at that time it was indeed the time for FIA and Balestre to stand up an act because if Senna would have got away with all this aggressiveness, the more while he had already been given a break about which he didn't realize that it was one, it might have lead to him racing even more aggressively since he got away with everything anyway.
His disqualification in '89 was right, the more given the fact that if he had been treated accoriding the same rules valid for other drivers (Mansell) he would not have been able and still within a chance for the title that weekend.


The race before the Suzuka 1990 race, Senna went on in a press conference that drivers should not settle their disagreements out on the track. OK, makes sense.
(Read Autocourse 1990 for approval on this)

I agree with every Senna fan in the world that he had reasons to be incensed about the Pole deal that year as Balestre did. But remember, until that year, pole had alwasy been at that side already so there was a weak argument to retain things as they were.
But Senna's defence to justify Turn One during '90 as also being some kind of revenge for the unfair treatment in '89 is not valid. On the contrary: He had to consider himself luck to be able to race at Suzuka and stiull be in the position to fight for the title.
I won't describe in words how I think about that first turn in Suzuka 1990, every possible insult I can think about to say about what Senna did would still be way too complimentary.
For me, that was the day when good manners and sportsmanship within F1 died forever and I can't forgive Max Mosley and the others in power at that time for not having reacted accordingly.
Ifd they had acted then it might have saved us the acts of a certain German driver, often lamented by, of all people, a number of Senna fans!
What incensed me the most of all however is that someone deliberately eliminated someone else from the race right afer the start, with 24 other cars still behind him, all still speeding up, all fuelled with at least 200 liters of fuel.
"Fortunately" we got away from that event with only two cars spinning off. But it could so easily have become a massa crash like so many other starting incidents of the past and like some that followed in later years.
And all this caused deliberately, just because someone wanted that to happen since he did not get things the way he wanted it.
Remember his feelings about working out a disagreement as he told to the press. He had a disagreement with a Politician (Balestre). The politicion wasn't a racing car driver, so was that the valid excuse to settle the disagreement at the racetrack, at the expense of one driver and in the worst case also at the risk of 25 drivers?
You can't go lower than that as a racing car driver: putting 25 other men's lives on the scales deliberately.


Back to topic:
Maybe, maybe Prost's act of '89 was the precedent in Senna's point of view.
But before that as Don Capps pointed out, we had Jerez '88: The wallsqueeze job of Senna on Prost.
And Imola '89: making a no attack treaty for the first corner, but, after a restart, break that treaty instantly since it was no longer valid since it was a restart only.

Prost was no saint, definitely not.
But I am sorry, I can't agree with your feelings and I've tried to explain fairly detailed why.
I hope you were patient enough to read all this, thanks for doing so if you did,

Henri Greuter

[michaelab]

Originally posted by Brad Tyers
If Senna had of survived his freak fatality at Imola this makes some interesting stats.
<...bullshit stats removed...>
It's a sobering reality to bring Schuey lovers back to earth.

Oh please! . What the hell have some wildly optimistic hypothetical "stats" got to do with reality?

Michael.

[SEdward]

Senna had mercurial talent. But he was also a dirty driver, which is why he will never be one of the greatest (to quote Stirling Moss).

His moves against Prost at Estoril and Suzuka are unforgiveable. He broke the agreement between the two drivers at Imola. There are other exmaples. He should have known better and he was not trustworthy. After that kind of behaviour on the track, I always found his reactions to subsequent accidents and fatalities to be profoundly hypocritical.

This sort of clutching at straws to forgive his behaviour makes me think that Senna's fans are blinded by servile admiration preventing them from seeing what really happened.

I also found the "touched by the hand of God" BS very irritating.

And as for the futile Senna vs Schumacher comparisons... no comment, except that in 1994 they raced against one another twice, with the same outcome.

Edward

[man]

Concerning Estoril 1988, I honestly don't believe Prost had much reason to complain. If Alain had held his ground like Mansell did at Barcelona 1991 we would be celebrating the move in a similar fashion.

Imola 1989: Prost's word against Senna, both have a track record of white lies, so I think it's a futile to debate the rights and wrongs. Was the first corner considered to be Tosa or Tamburello? We'll never know.

Senna wore his heart on his sleeve, Prost was more concerned with how he was perceived by the public. Prost's behaviour in 1989 was particularly distasteful in my view. Why did he find the need to talk to the media about Senna and religion? It was a cheap shot to manipulate the press and portray the Brazilain in a negative light to take the attention away from the fact that he was being outclassed in qualifying and races by his younger teammate.

Both events at Suzuka 1989 and 1990 were intentional; 1989 precedes 1990 so to answer the primary question, Prost did indeed set the precedent for unsporting behaviour.

Both men were far from being well-balanced individuals, Prost was just more discreet with his actions.

[SEdward]

>>Concerning Estoril 1988, I honestly don't believe Prost had much reason to complain. If Alain >>had held his ground like Mansell did at Barcelona 1991 we would be celebrating the move in a >>similar fashion.

Rubbish. Senna's move was almost homicidal. I can remember it clearly even now. I am just grateful that Prost won the race.

Edward.

[stuartbrs]

Why was Prost regaurded as such a gentleman before all this `89 stuff and not now...surely people cant have been wrong, I never liked him much at the time ( from a racing point of view, its unfair to make personal assesments about people you dont know, nor are ever likely to met )..but the more I read about him the more puzzled I am about the reasons people have for disliking Prost so much. Pre- Senna he seemed to be a pretty clean driver, reguarded as the best, but nowadays everyone seems to have an axe to grind with him, is that the Senna talent for getting people to believe what he said, is that one of his legacies, that Prost is now derided?
I admit, the whole Prost Grand Prix team thing was pretty ordinary, something which I could understand would lead people to dislike him ( in much the same way as Walkinshaw for instance ), but from a driving point of view he certainly didnt pull the same kind of stunts as Senna did. Prosts driving in `84 - `87 for instance was extraordinary, always a threat in almost every race. How many other drivers ( Arnoux being the exception ) ever got mad at Prost like they did with Senna? Surely that must be some measure of the man, the way he was perceived by his rivals of the time?

[stuartbrs]

which reminds me...

recently re-read a Roebuck article on Hakkinen..Hakkinen states ( this is after retirement ) that Senna wasnt someone you could easily like, but in the mid 90`s Prost was doing a lot of development work for McLaren, and Hakkinen stated that Prost was a real team player, and they got along quite well...

[panzani]

As already stated above, Prost did set the precedent in a timeline basis but Senna's move in 1990 put the cherry on the top of the cake...
After that, sportsmanship and ethics were completely left outside F1. Senna's revenge was worst for the sport than Prost's unsporting behaviour because:
1. He could have won on a fair way and become a greater hero than he was/is;
2. Prost would have been beaten on the track and his 1989 behaviour would have been more criticised and avoided than ever; and
3. FIA's sanctioned the unsporting behaviour again, and this led to 1994 and so on.

[Mallory Dan]

Just posted on another thread re AS. Never liked him, always thought him arrogant, the further his career went, the more obsessed he became, and seemed to take exception to any otehr driver in his way. Eg Patrese/Nannini/Prost/Mansell all were turfed out of the way by him in his later years. Would he have had Prost off at Monaco in 84 I wonder, the first of his 'so-called' Superdrives. And that lap at Donington in 93, how much of that was down to his arrogance, and bullying of his fellows ?

[DaleCooper]

stuartbrs wrote:

Why was Prost regaurded as such a gentleman before all this `89 stuff and not now...surely people cant have been wrong, I never liked him much at the time ( from a racing point of view, its unfair to make personal assesments about people you dont know, nor are ever likely to met )..but the more I read about him the more puzzled I am about the reasons people have for disliking Prost so much. Pre- Senna he seemed to be a pretty clean driver, reguarded as the best, but nowadays everyone seems to have an axe to grind with him, is that the Senna talent for getting people to believe what he said, is that one of his legacies, that Prost is now derided?
I admit, the whole Prost Grand Prix team thing was pretty ordinary, something which I could understand would lead people to dislike him ( in much the same way as Walkinshaw for instance ), but from a driving point of view he certainly didnt pull the same kind of stunts as Senna did. Prosts driving in `84 - `87 for instance was extraordinary, always a threat in almost every race. How many other drivers ( Arnoux being the exception ) ever got mad at Prost like they did with Senna? Surely that must be some measure of the man, the way he was perceived by his rivals of the time?


Very good point! I think Senna brought out the worst in Prost, no doubt about it. I also think Prost became a little disillusioned with the sport, he was level headed enough to realize that beating Senna was not the most important thing in the world, survival was. But he was older and more mature, while being pressured to risk more than he felt comfortable with at the time. Senna saw no such limit, left it to his god. His god let him know all right. In many ways, Senna was a dangerous man, blind faith makes it so, it seems.

Cooper

[man]

A couple of points.

Do you remember Mansell passing Berger at the Hungaroring in 1992? He did it a few times and on at least 1 occasion Gerhard legally forced Mansell towards the pitwall, onto the marbles. Seems similar to Estoril 1988 but I don't recall Mansell complaining as Prost did.

This Senna/God thing. I don't ever recollect Senna stating he considered himself as imortal, as Prost implied. Senna was religious man by all accounts as far as I know, but Prost quickly used this in a twisted way to give what could be considered as a distorted view of the Brazilian, which in my view is well bellow the belt. At least when Senna was being critical of Prost it was from a racing perspective i.e. Williams drive for 1993.

This whole Senna/God/religion aspect is irrelevant to motor racing and always will be. If we are to discuss the sporting behaviour of Senna (or lack of it) refer to incidents on track, unless you knew Senna personally and are a qualified shrink.

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by man
A couple of points.

Do you remember Mansell passing Berger at the Hungaroring in 1992? He did it a few times and on at least 1 occasion Gerhard legally forced Mansell towards the pitwall, onto the marbles. Seems similar to Estoril 1988 but I don't recall Mansell complaining as Prost did.

I don't recall the Berger/Mansell incidents, but I can still vividly recall Estoril 88. I think that says alot. Senna didn't squeeze Prost - he threw his car across the track.

Not to defend Senna, but didn't he afterwards claim it was revenge for Prost driving him off the track at the start of the race? It seems Senna always had an excuse for his behaviour, and more often than not that excuse was Prost.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by man
This Senna/God thing. I don't ever recollect Senna stating he considered himself as imortal, as Prost implied. Senna was religious man by all accounts as far as I know, but Prost quickly used this in a twisted way to give what could be considered as a distorted view of the Brazilian, which in my view is well below the belt. At least when Senna was being critical of Prost it was from a racing perspective i.e. Williams drive for 1993.

This whole Senna/God/religion aspect is irrelevant to motor racing and always will be. If we are to discuss the sporting behaviour of Senna (or lack of it) refer to incidents on track, unless you knew Senna personally and are a qualified shrink.

Keep in mind that Senna da Silva in countless interviews, indeed it seemed at the sight of tape recorder or pen & pad, would gladly launch into a discourse on his religious ideas, issues of morality, and so forth and so on. He clearly interjected this level of discourse into the persona he wished to project. That his spoken views of religion and moral belief and his on-track actions were often at odds with each other was noted at the time and on the part of many.

So, is that sort of thing irrelevant to racing? Not when the person in question makes it relevant and Senna da Silva clearly did. Senna da Silva was a very much a person who clearly possessed that hugely overused and therfore maligned trait known as "charisma." He was literally spell-binding in his press conferences and obviously so in the vast majority of his interviews. Senna da Silva was also a very calculating and most clever manipulator of his image. His projected persona was quite in contrast to those of the other drivers. He literally forced himself into the role of being the center of the ever shrinking F1 universe.

For whatever the many and complicated reasons that created the mindset, infused with this literally evangelic fervor, unashamedly self-righteousness, and filled with a sense of mission, Senna da Silva ventured forth into the racing world as one of its truly unique beings. Things were personal with him. When his side of his personality began to publically emerge in 1986 after the big brouhaha over who would be his partner at Lotus, he never backed away from it and used this sense of mystery to play the media -- when it stop being the press? -- like a finely tune musical instrument.

It is intersting once more to see that in order to accept Senna da Silva that one must denigrate Prost. Along side Senna da Silva, Prost was inevitably somewhat of a bland and routine character. That he expressed his concerns about the terms of the contract that he thought were not being fulfilled, he was pretty much hooted and hollared at by both the media and the fans. All racing drivers have huge egos otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. That Prost got his ego bruised by both the calculated antics and the genuine talent of Senna da Silva is certainly a blinding flash of the obvious.

Unlike Senna da Silva, Prost did not have the persona to wage an effective campaign in the media against his now bitter rival. Senna da Silva spun the stories to suit his view of tings and the media lapped it up, to say nothing of the fans. This was to be a very important factor during the 1989 season where Senna da Silva constantly tested the patience of one and all. Some of the issues are mentioned elsewhere, but it was clear that Senna da Silva envisioned one set of rules for himself and another for everyone else. And he was aided and abetted in this view by many.

So, while many seem to heap scorn on Balestre and Prost regarding the 1989 Suzuka incident, itis naturally not at all that simple. That only Senna da Silva can make Balestre seem a reasonable, almost sympathetic person is a remarkable feat. When Senna da Silva perceived a gap that really wasn't there and forced himself into a gap that really wasn't there, it was perhaps more of a true racing accident than Senna da Silva or Prost advocates might want to admit. Did Prost deliberately ram Senna da Silva as many here seem to contend, I don't think so. I didn't think so at the time and many viewings later -- from no end of angles -- I still don't think so.

However, neither was Senna da Silva necessarily the villian of the piece in this instance either. He was simply impatient and perhaps depended on the usual technique which was very effective against others to work with Prost. Unfortunately for both, Prost didn't blink and Senna da Silva didn't lift. A boneheaded incident. To suggest that Prost was solely at fault is nonsense. He refused to be intimidated, but he also should have realized that the Red Veil had descended over Senna da Silva's eyes. That Senna da Silva could have waited and then passed Prost is another part of the equation that gets short shrift. All this sound muddled and solid as quicksand? Sure it does, that why it was a racing accident -- they were both focused on their own actions and their egos spoke louder than their good senses.

The subsequent disqualification of Senna da Silva for entering the track at the wrongplace, cutting the chicane or whatever the nonsense was that they trumped up to exclude him from the results, has always stuck a bit in my craw. I won't belabor it to any degree, but it seemed obvious at the time and then later that Senna da Silva didn't benefit from whatever malfeasance that happened after the two collided.

That he was disqualified and excluded from the results and forced to relinquish his title sent Senna da Silva into a white-hot fury. The result was the infantile action that he took a year later in punting Prost off the track. Then, another year later, he openly admitted it in a press conference which was perhaps one of the more remarkable ones in the rather sordid history of F1.

So, when Senna da Silva openly put his mysticism on the table, it became fair game. That he clearly failed to hold himself to the Christian standards of conduct he openly professed makes him all the more difficult in so ways to figure out, but then again perhaps not.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by man
Do you remember Mansell passing Berger at the Hungaroring in 1992? He did it a few times and on at least 1 occasion Gerhard legally forced Mansell towards the pitwall, onto the marbles. Seems similar to Estoril 1988 but I don't recall Mansell complaining as Prost did.

Mansell did something worse to Prost in 1990 but Prost kept shtum.

Then again, Mansell had had his back broken by de Cesaris, a serial offender long before Prost did anything wrong.

[JacnGille]

All this reminds me of the Dale Earnhardt sentiment here in the States. So much talent to be squandered in his driving tactics.

[fines]

It reminds me of the man questioned by the police after an accident when somebody hit him from behind: "Sorry, officer, it was all my fault: I was driving too closely in front of him!"

[Dennis Hockenbury]

I had the opportunity to see Senna race many times during his career, and many more on TV. There is no question for me that Senna possessed talent in abundance and provided on occasion, performances that were among the best I have witnessed.

With my admiration for his skill and talent, I never viewed Ayrton with the cult status that many do today. Yes his death affected me very deeply along with the other tragedies of that dark 1994 season.

When I think of Senna, invariably I remember the words of Alan Henry in his Top 10 list in Autocourse 1989/1990 which sums up my highly conflicted feelings about Senna da Silva.

"An extraordinary, intuitive talent, the reigning World Champion had a stormy season in 1989, battered by a series of heart-rending mechanical failures and a handful of driving errors which sometimes seemed inexplicable for a man of his obvious class. Unquestionably, Senna deserved the championship inasmuch as he suffered four crushing mechanical breakdowns in races he should have won - at Phoenix, Montreal, Paul Ricard, and Monza. His wet-weather flair was displayed magnificently once again at Montreal, Spa, and Adelaide. Yet he threw away potential triumph in front of his home crowd at Rio through nothing more than an upwelling of ego, not willing to beaten into the first corner; fumbled a possible victory at Silverstone; and then squandered a strategically crucial finish in the points at Estoril with a macho manoeuvre against Mansell which saw them both end off the circuit. The fact that Ayrton has now been involved in six highly publicised collisions in the past four seasons leaves one inclined to defer judgement as to whether the kick in this thoroughbred's gallop in indicative of a talent which has yet fully to peak, or simply of a flawed genius."

A flawed genius......those three words sum up Ayrton Senna for me. The actions of Senna the following season at Suzuka seared those words upon me forever.

As to Prost, the driver as opposed to the team owner, he was smooth, clinical, and a brilliant driver. He was indeed petulant, but no more so than Mansell, Senna, or Piquet. I never felt that Prost was cause for the decline in driver etiquette. He was the product of his era.

[man]

“So, is that sort of thing irrelevant to racing? Not when the person in question makes it relevant and Senna da Silva clearly did.”

You are right, Senna openly talked about his religious beliefs and his educational background to the press. I recall him stating how religion gave him strength and direction in life. That’s interesting as it gave an INDICATION as to his interests outside of F1. But does it allow Prost or anybody else to arrive at the conclusion that Senna believed he was immortal? I don’t see the link.

This is what Prost implied publicly. And in my book, it was a cheap attempt at ridiculing Senna and twisting public opinion. Maybe Prost was right, maybe Senna did think he was immortal, but then again, maybe he was wrong. However, Prost was not in a position to make such an assumption and if Prost isn’t, a member of AtlasF1 doesn’t have a leg to stand on I’m afraid.

“It is intersting once more to see that in order to accept Senna da Silva that one must denigrate Prost. Along side Senna da Silva, Prost was inevitably somewhat of a bland and routine character. That he expressed his concerns about the terms of the contract that he thought were not being fulfilled, he was pretty much hooted and hollared at by both the media and the fans. All racing drivers have huge egos otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. That Prost got his ego bruised by both the calculated antics and the genuine talent of Senna da Silva is certainly a blinding flash of the obvious.”

Just to clarify my position here. I personally believe Senna was ruthless on track, at times plain dirty. I don’t think Prost was the innocent angel he was portrayed to be. He was a scheming individual that cracked when things were not going according to plan. So no, I don’t agree with your theory that it is necessary to ‘denigrate’ Prost to appreciate Senna.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by man
I don’t agree with your theory that it is necessary to ‘denigrate’ Prost to appreciate Senna.

It isn't my theory, simply a reflection of how many seem to think and view this topic.

As for the "immortal" business -- I haven't a clue specifically as to what you are talking about, but until I got shot down about the second time and hammered by a round that went through my strobe light -- as I was wearing it -- I certainly thought I was pretty much immortal..... so......

[Ninja2b]

I too notice that a lot of Senna fans put Prost down to try to make Senna seem better, but this is the case with any group of fans. Take a quick look on the RC board and the JPM vs Kimi, Massa vs Fisi, Schumacher vs JV etc. groups are all the same. That doesnt justify painting us all with the same brush, however. I dont think that I said anything specifically to denigrate Prost in any of my posts, and like to think that I am a reasonable and logical individual who doesnt put others down for no reason.

Of course, Im not entirely sure of the definition of denigrate, so maybe I got the wrong end of the stick. My proposal that Prost was responsible for setting the precedent for unsporting behaviour could be interpreted as some kind of put-down, but Im just trying to see why people believe what they do. For the record, I think Prost was a great driver. I only wish I had have been older when I saw the GPs on TV, so that I might have appreciated him a bit more. I say the same about Senna.

But back to the issue. In my opinion, its very clear that Prost crashed into Senna deliberately in 1989, just as it was blindingly obvious that Senna hit Prost deliberately the following year. From the overhead view, it is clear to me that Prost was turning in much too early to be taking any sort of reasonable line. If he hadnt hit Senna, he would have turned clean off the track.

I also agree with man in that I dont see that Estoril 88 (cheers for remembering which race it was) was really such a big deal. I have seen it plenty of times, and I have seen plenty of other insidents that I thought were much worse. As is traditional for a discussion though, none of them spring to mind.... how inconvenient! Anyway, the point is that I dont think Jerez 88 in any way justified Prosts actions at Suzuka 89.

As has been stated previously, the gentlemans agreement at Imola was agreed by Prost and Senna. None of us were there at the agreement, and so it is silly for us to discuss the rights and the wrongs based on assuming what the wording of the agreement was.

Henri Greuter: I found your post to be very interesting, and if what you say is true (I dont have Autocorse but I have no reason to doubt your post) then I agree that Senna probably should have been punished. But whether he should have been disqualified or not is not so clear to me. It all depends on the precise situation and I dont know enough about it to judge. However, I dont think that this in any way reduces the blame on Prost for the 89 collision.

It is interesting that Senna wasnt punished at all, but I think the events post suzuka 89 are so overwhelming that they show that there was a "French Conspiracy" (for want of a better term) favoring Prost.

bertocchi: "REALLY? The rest of your post would then be considered...what?" The rest of my post should be considered for what it is: A person trying to find out why Senna is vilified by some for actions he comitted, while they seem to ignore the similar actions of Prost a year previously. Simple as that.

[Ninja2b]

Oh and Don - My brother had a similar theory about imortality. He believed that he was immortal, because he had been in so many car crashes and hadnt been killed yet..... I told him it would only take one thing to disprove it, but he was content in his views, and didnt change his mind.

[panzani]

Perhaps I am in the reverse lane but, as a fan of Senna's skills, talent, and raw speed*, I'd never underrated his contenders abilities, as long as I think you can not be recognised as 'the best' unless you are amongst the better ones. I think Senna's fans that minimise Prost, Piquet, Mansell, etc., are minimising also Senna's career. This is the way RC runs, of course, but this is also why that German's 10 WCs worth less than Moss' none, I guess, IMO, IMHO, IMveryveryHO...

* - God charming and ethics left aside.

[Frank S]

It seems to me the most interesting thing about Prost and Senna is that so many are so deeply interested in Prost and Senna. I believe they are both considerable as racing drivers. Neither is anything like a whole, well-balanced person, so they are case studies. Does anyone see rabid case-studiers as other than case studies, themselves?

Q.E.D. forthcoming.

Frank S

[Option1]

Kinda funny really - the more the Senna star rose in the press and the more they attempted to denigrate Prost (and to my recollection this was all happening during their careers and was only continued with increasing magnitude after Senna's death) the bigger fan of Prost I became. Guess I'm just a contrairy so-and-so.

Neil

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Well, here I go again I'm affraid.

In Portugal, Senna was eliminated from the race in a duel with Nigel Mansell, a racing accident yes or no, let's leave that out of the discussion. More important is that, at the time, Mansell was blackflagged already but he ignored the black flag and kept on fighting with Senna. Mansell claimed that he never saw the black flags because of all kind of reasons.
Curiously: Senna, who was in front of Mansell may well have had a better view on the situation (blackflagging Mansell) but he never let Mansell pass! If he was aware of it, then even he should have known that fighting for position with a driver already blackflagged is a stupidity and thus he should have let Mansell go instead of risking his position.
Strangely enough: to my knowledge, Senna never acknowledged he knew Nigel was blackflagged (to cover up for his stupidity?) and thus more or less backed Nigel's claim that he never saw the black flag.
But: Nigel was banned from the next race. Now keep that in mind.

In this very next race however, Gregor Foitek had a massive accident in practice with his Eurobrun and this brought out the black flag and red flags to stop the session.
However: Senna was in a hotlap and kept on speeding for a full lap, ignoring a number of red and black flags in the procedure.
For they who don't believe what I wrote here, It is all being mentioned within Autocourse 89/90.
It isn't just some babbling of an anti-Senna racefan.

OK, there is a difference in ignoring a black flag during the race for three times, only given at the start-finish line while fighting for poosition with a car direct in front of you, or... Ignoring multiple waved red and black flags within a single lap and no car in front of you.
Yes, there is a difference.

Of course there´s a difference. At Estoril Mansell had 3 full laps if not to see the black flag, get the call on the radio letting him know about it. Besides, a F1 driver is supposed to know the rule book. Once Mansell reversed in the pitlane, he pure and simple disqualified himself. If Mansell truly didnt know he was getting a black flag, than he was really the fastest idiot in the world as Piquet once defined him.

Senna´s incident with the flags were during a qualifying lap, when a driver is usually completely absorbed and concentrated on the racetrack. It was a clear mistake, but in no way comparable to Mansell´s stupidity in Estoril. Sorry Henri but IMO your post really sound as yourself define, just babbling from anti-Senna fan.

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Because, even mr. Balestre knew, if Senna was banned for one race, that would instantly hand the title to Alain Prost bcause Senna would not have the chance anymore to catch up with Prost.
If Balestre really wanted to favour his fellow countryman, he had the perfect opportunity handed on a plate: by Banning Senna for ignoring flags, just like he did with Mansell. Because it was Balestre who made sure that Mansell was indeed banned from the event. But he didn't do that with Senna! So the talking about Balestre favouring Prost in '89, up to Suzuka that definitely wasn't the case, yet. On the contrary, he had been saved that year on at least one or more occasions to keep his chances for the title alive.

Could you give examples of when and how Senna was "saved" or in any way aided by the FISA in 89? So much of the accusations against Senna seems to be made of innuendos, but precious little evidence. Gives ground to believing this is an argument lead by feelings toward the man more than real evidence against him.

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Personally, during that fateful '89 race, I think Senna went for a gap that he should have known that wouldn't be there for much longer and that his attempts to keep his title chances alive he was too desperate to make that attempt. It was a too aggressive move, destined to end in tears. Even with a cooperative driver (Nannini, a few laps later...) the move was way too agressive.
All together, i think that at that time it was indeed the time for FIA and Balestre to stand up an act because if Senna would have got away with all this aggressiveness, the more while he had already been given a break about which he didn't realize that it was one, it might have lead to him racing even more aggressively since he got away with everything anyway.
His disqualification in '89 was right, the more given the fact that if he had been treated accoriding the same rules valid for other drivers (Mansell) he would not have been able and still within a chance for the title that weekend.

I agree with every Senna fan in the world that he had reasons to be incensed about the Pole deal that year as Balestre did. But remember, until that year, pole had alwasy been at that side already so there was a weak argument to retain things as they were.
But Senna's defence to justify Turn One during '90 as also being some kind of revenge for the unfair treatment in '89 is not valid. On the contrary: He had to consider himself luck to be able to race at Suzuka and stiull be in the position to fight for the title.
I won't describe in words how I think about that first turn in Suzuka 1990, every possible insult I can think about to say about what Senna did would still be way too complimentary.
For me, that was the day when good manners and sportsmanship within F1 died forever and I can't forgive Max Mosley and the others in power at that time for not having reacted accordingly.
Ifd they had acted then it might have saved us the acts of a certain German driver, often lamented by, of all people, a number of Senna fans!
What incensed me the most of all however is that someone deliberately eliminated someone else from the race right afer the start, with 24 other cars still behind him, all still speeding up, all fuelled with at least 200 liters of fuel.
"Fortunately" we got away from that event with only two cars spinning off. But it could so easily have become a massa crash like so many other starting incidents of the past and like some that followed in later years.
And all this caused deliberately, just because someone wanted that to happen since he did not get things the way he wanted it.
Remember his feelings about working out a disagreement as he told to the press. He had a disagreement with a Politician (Balestre). The politicion wasn't a racing car driver, so was that the valid excuse to settle the disagreement at the racetrack, at the expense of one driver and in the worst case also at the risk of 25 drivers?
You can't go lower than that as a racing car driver: putting 25 other men's lives on the scales deliberately.


Back to topic:
Maybe, maybe Prost's act of '89 was the precedent in Senna's point of view.
But before that as Don Capps pointed out, we had Jerez '88: The wallsqueeze job of Senna on Prost.
And Imola '89: making a no attack treaty for the first corner, but, after a restart, break that treaty instantly since it was no longer valid since it was a restart only.

Estoril 88 was an agressive and dangerous squeeze, but there was always room enough left for Prost which is more that can be said about Mansell vs Prost two years later, MS vs Mika at Spa 00, and little different from what we saw from Webber vs Alonso at Malaysia two weeks ago. All the furore about this incident just demonstrates how out of proportion the accusations against Senna are.

Suzuka 1989 was a typical, classical outbraking manouver. Arguing it was forceful is absurd specially given the circunstances. What would one say about Villeneuve´s Jerez 97 move then? As argued during the Atlas court case, by the time there was contact Senna was 2/3s alongside Prost and slowing down at the same rate - so much they barely slid a few yards after wheels were interlocked. Any point against Senna being able to pull of the move can be completely dismissed on the basis of his move on Nannini two laps from the end. How can one disregard the line Prost was taking into the chicane? The onboard video shows he had his eyes set on the mirror, the overhead shot made clear he was taking an impossibly early turn-in. Really, it was soo obvious that the simple fact this incident is still debated when visual evidence makes Prost´s responsibility in the accident all but obvious just prove how much judgement is driven by perception, and how unfair the general perception of Senna is.

[stuartbrs]

Im still confused as to what exactly makes Prost unsporting and pompous?? Im only talking about his F1 career here...
He openly stated himself he wasnt exciting to watch, but tried as hard as possible to be smooth, and by 93 of course, he was COMPLETELY out of favour with the FIA...they even called that years official FIA video "Senna fights back"...

Why is he disliked so..... its not this British vs French thing is it?

[philippe7]

Originally posted by stuartbrs

Why is he disliked so..... its not this British vs French thing is it?

Mais non......impossible, not today , when Her Majesty is in France celebrating 100 years of "entente cordiale" !!!!!


PS 1 : I can hardly think of anything more hypocrit than this "entente cordiale" ......100 years indeed, but that was following centuries of "hereditary ennemy".....the "auld alliance" , yes , THAT is someting worth celebrating.......

PS 2 : .......and yes, those off topic comments are a lighthearted attempt to bring a bit of fun on a thread dedicated to such a depressing subject , on which I doubt anybody thinking one way would ever be convinced to think otherwise....

[Henri Greuter]

quote by Ninja2b

Henri Greuter: I found your post to be very interesting, and if what you say is true (I dont have Autocorse but I have no reason to doubt your post) then I agree that Senna probably should have been punished. But whether he should have been disqualified or not is not so clear to me. It all depends on the precise situation and I dont know enough about it to judge. However, I dont think that this in any way reduces the blame on Prost for the 89 collision.

It is interesting that Senna wasnt punished at all, but I think the events post suzuka 89 are so overwhelming that they show that there was a "French Conspiracy" (for want of a better term) favoring Prost.

==

Thanks ninja2b.
I do agree with your feeling that all I told it doesn't reduce the blame on Prost for '89. The only thin I wanted to make clear is that before the event some events had happened which, in case punishments had been handed out accordingly and with using the same standards for all drivers, Senna could (I think should) have been banned from the next race or being banned from the previous one. In the latter case, that would have been the end of his title hopes and with the title home and dry for Prost already, Alain may have acted totallly different that very race.
But I admit, that latter fact is not sure.

About Your French conspirary thoughts, maybe, maybe after the race there were. But not before the race. because, just as I pointed out, since he had banned Mansell for a certain mishap already, Balestre was given a clear shot at Senna when he ignored all those flags one race later as I described from Autocourse. Again, there is a difference between ignoring flags in practice or in a race as well as the other circumstances (Failing to see a single flag three times at the same spot while fighting for position with a car in front of you, or multiple flags with a free track in front of you.
It depends on the standards you appply. For me, if one earns a driver a ban, then the other does too.
Senna had a much better chance to see all those flags being waved within such a short distance yet he ignored all of them.
And the race before, he didn't move over to let a blackflagged driver pass and not risk his car, thus more or less confirming that either he had not seen the flag either or he wanted to cover up his stupidity to refuse to let Mansell go by, knowing he technically wasn't in the race anymore.
If Balestre was so much favoring Prost he could have used that incident of Senna so easily to ban Senna somehow and hand the tltle to Prost. But he didn't for the sake of keeping the championship alive for the time being.
And again it is a lot of speculation but I also have the feeling that it wasn''t just because of favoring Prost that Balestre and FISA acted at last. They had let Senna go from far more serious punisment the race before, then Senna did all his things in the race (including also almost taking Nannini off the course!), by then it was time to do at least something. Right or wrong but this rude racing had to be stopped.
But again these are my feelings and I can't help but admit that Balestre had a history on favoring French drivers and I also believe it must have had something to do with it.
But only after Suzuka '89, not before. Because otherwise Balestre would not have passed on the opportunity to ban Senna from a race like he did with Mansell.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I am no Prost fan at all, neither a Mansell fan, not then and not now.
I only `defend` Mansell because I believe in the principle of the same laws applied for the same offence for all people, no matter who they are. And in this case, I believe that double standards were applied primarily for the sake of keeping the championship alive. Which in this case favored Senna quite a bit and that's why I don't believe that he can use all of the events of '89 (about being treated unfair) as a valid excuse to partly defend his 1990 acts.

I hope this clarifies my views on facts a little better?


thanks

Henri Greuter

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Simioni


Of course there´s a difference. At Estoril Mansell had 3 full laps if not to see the black flag, get the call on the radio letting him know about it. Besides, a F1 driver is supposed to know the rule book. Once Mansell reversed in the pitlane, he pure and simple disqualified himself. If Mansell truly didnt know he was getting a black flag, than he was really the fastest idiot in the world as Piquet once defined him.

Senna´s incident with the flags were during a qualifying lap, when a driver is usually completely absorbed and concentrated on the racetrack. It was a clear mistake, but in no way comparable to Mansell´s stupidity in Estoril. Sorry Henri but IMO your post really sound as yourself define, just babbling from anti-Senna fan.






Could you give examples of when and how Senna was "saved" or in any way aided by the FISA in 89? So much of the accusations against Senna seems to be made of innuendos, but precious little evidence. Gives ground to believing this is an argument lead by feelings toward the man more than real evidence against him.





Estoril 88 was an agressive and dangerous squeeze, but there was always room enough left for Prost which is more that can be said about Mansell vs Prost two years later, MS vs Mika at Spa 00, and little different from what we saw from Webber vs Alonso at Malaysia two weeks ago. All the furore about this incident just demonstrates how out of proportion the accusations against Senna are.

Suzuka 1989 was a typical, classical outbraking manouver. Arguing it was forceful is absurd specially given the circunstances. What would one say about Villeneuve´s Jerez 97 move then? As argued during the Atlas court case, by the time there was contact Senna was 2/3s alongside Prost and slowing down at the same rate - so much they barely slid a few yards after wheels were interlocked. Any point against Senna being able to pull of the move can be completely dismissed on the basis of his move on Nannini two laps from the end. How can one disregard the line Prost was taking into the chicane? The onboard video shows he had his eyes set on the mirror, the overhead shot made clear he was taking an impossibly early turn-in. Really, it was soo obvious that the simple fact this incident is still debated when visual evidence makes Prost´s responsibility in the accident all but obvious just prove how much judgement is driven by perception, and how unfair the general perception of Senna is.

Simioni,

I have no difficulties in agreeing with you that Mansell was banned for a stupidity. The Ferrari team should have acted accordingly. No question about that.
Yet they didn't and we got that black flag deal then.
And if a lot of Senna's tactics are defended with `the heat of the moment`, don't you think something similar could be said about Mansell? Just trying desperate to remain in the race and thus shifting reverse?
Just like Senna should have known the rules two races later that cutting off the chicane was not allowed, still he did it in a desperate move to remain in the race and keep his title hopes alive?
Kind of the same situation I think, nit the same but kind of. The heat of the moment.
And then, if Ferrari failed to warn Mansell for that black flag or didn't care to do so, then why did McLaren not tell Senna for the sake of their driver who took that risk to fight for position with a blackflagged driver? If the Ferrari team came short, intentionally or not, well I don't think we can say that Ron & Co were `at it` as well at the time.
I leave your comment about me for yourself. I don't want to infect this Forum with the kind of insults that are common in `Racers comments`. I know from there in which corner you belong, we've had some clashes already so I know enough and how to deal with that.

You talk about Senna being fully concentrated on the hotlap and then failing to see all those flags have to be excused and understood.
Sorry but I think that even a fully committed Senna should at least have noticed one or more red flags and the rules say Stop then. But he ignored all that.
But for you, ignoring al those flags because of fully committed to a hotlap is different than being fully committed in a battle for position and then failing to see a total of three flags in three laps ? Seems to me it requires very much the same focus and commitment for the job at hand, the more while it involved passing Senna, not exactly known for being easy to overtake to begin with.
But don't even you think that there is a bigger chance that a driver, fully committed in a flying lap sees more than 5 waved red flags within less than a lap than that a driver, fighting for position behind another driver sees a single black flag, waved at only at one spot at the track?
Again, I'm not telling Mansell was not at fault for missing that flag, certainly not. I only comparing the differences in chances for seeing one or more black and/or red flags under different circumstances.
So: What's different in the levels of commitment for the jobs at hand for both Senna and Mansell that makes you excuse Senna?


Examples of Senna being saved?
May I refer to my previous message in which I reply to ninja2b for an answer on that one? Autocourse '89/90 also stated that Senna was accused of more dangerous behaviour but, even for me (An admitted Anti Senna racefan) several of those claims are at best very questionable, if justified at all.
It depends very much on how serious you wanna take the ingoring black and red flags of Senna vs. Mansell's case. I do rate them as equal and in that case Senna was very much saved by FISA for the sake of the championship. I sincerely believe: Not saved on personal grounds for being Senna but for the sake of the championship.
Still: he received preferential treatment and failed to see that, then and later on.


For me the attempts of Senna to overtake in that corner were too aggrassive because that corner was too tight to allow overtaking there unless the driver on the outside parked the car (Nannini almost came to a standstill to avoid worse) or went straight ahead, cutting off the chicane.
But at that time I still had some traces left of F1 being a sport for heroes who respected another instead of an `everything is allowed` attitude. And even I should have known at that time that Senna was so desperate in everything to keep his title hopes alive that he would capitalize on every little mistake, even those ones that were too little to capitalize on.

Villeneuve at Jerez '97 was also very forcefull but that corner was wider than Suzuka's chicane at that time and MS had more room over there to avoid contact that Prost had at Suzuka.
I agree, neither had the intention to use the room there was for them but for Prost there was even less room unless he parked the car. I am near certain that, given his reputation for not refusing to give in when being overtaken, Senna would have done exactly the same.
I am not saying Prost is blameless for the accident of '89, certainly not. But an intelligent driver would not have taken the risk to overtake there, only a desperate one as Senna was at the time.

Dennis Hockenbury quoted Alan Henry's judgement about Senna in autocourse '89/90.
Even I, when I am in my objective mood, I have to admit that Senna was cruelly robbed of a title he deserved if luck had come his way. But history has seen more such occasions that the driver who should have earned the title didn't get it because of too many mechanical failures. Senna really deal with that on the manner he should have and it made him act very strange to put it mildly.
He drove wonderful and imprssive races that year, no doubt about that. Had his car not failed him too often he would have been a rightful world champion. Definitely not the one I wanted that year, but the one who earned it the most of all and I can live with that and accept that too. In fact, I still rate Senna's 89 season as the one that should habe earned him an undisputed world title, unlike the ones he does have and all carry an asterix because the can be debated for one reason or another. But '89 was for sure the one he should have deserved if it wasn't for his unreliable car. Prost was hardly in the same league that year but often lucked in when Senna ran out of luck again.
Personally, I see it as that Prost should have been the '88 champion, given his overwhelming higher point score than Senna that year but that best 11 ot of 16 rule robbed Prost of a title that normally should have been his. Senna should have been the '89 champion but unreliability of his car robbed him of a title, that more or less compensates his luck of '88 when he was reliable enough to get the '88 title despite scoring less finishes and less points than Prost.

Finally: about your comment: and how unfair the general perception of Senna is.

I am not entirely blind when I have to observe and to judge Senna. Yes, I do have strong anti feelings about him but I can be objective about him too. And maybe I don't post on this board too often in that neutral, observative mood.
I could say more on your comment but let's leave it there.

Despite everything:

greetings,

Henri Greuter

[BRG]

Originally posted by stuartbrs
Why is he disliked so..... its not this British vs French thing is it?

Not at all, IMO. I think that Alain Prost was always seen as one of the "good" French by us poor benighted Brits. He speaks good English (and even better with one of those charming Charles Aznavour/Sacha Distel accents!), had the good taste to live in London, and generally showed non of the chauvinism that we prejudiced Brits expect from the French. I do not recall ever hearing anyone criticise him s for being French! For being a bit too clinical, yes. For being a tad boring on the track, yes. For not really trying in qualifying, yes. But for not being fast enough, or for being unsporting? Never.

[PLAYLIFE]

I'm neither a 'hardcore' Prost or Senna fan.

I agree with you, Henri Greuter, regarding Senna not being dished out a decent punishment for his 'not slowing down on his hot lap' incident at the Spanish GP qualifying. Foitek's accident was a major one leaving debris everywhere, I believe it happened at the same place Donnelly would have his horrific accident 1 year later. What if Senna was on a hotlap when Donnelly had his accident?

In any case, it's not the first time Senna has ignored flags. Remember when Zanardi had his massive accident at Eau Rouge in 1993; there were double waved yellows everywhere, Andretti was almost stopped in the middle of Eau Rouge as debris was everywhere, but Senna came flying through the corner, saw Andretti last second and had to put his car into a spin to avoid Andretti. He just missed the rear of Andretti, still at a high speed, and came to stop within a few metres of Zanardi's wheel-less Lotus, with marshalls trying to attend the seriously injured Zanardi. Unprofessional driving in my view, and not his first.


Estoril 1988 he claimed Prost squeezed him into turn 1, but Senna, as stated earlier, swerved his car on the next lap to stop Prost trying to get past. Sure he gave him JUST enough room, but everyone on the pit wall had to get their boards out of the way as Prost whizzed past inches away. Had they touched wheels, Prost would have ended up flipping over into the pitlane.

Senna had been involved in many accidents, he was extremely forceful, and even after Suzuka 89/90 he still committed these 'rookie' mistakes.

For Suzuka 1989, in my view Senna was too far behind, just look at the distance he was coming out of 130R. Prost had said before the race that he would not let Senna by easily "no more wide open doors with lots of room." Prost is entitled to block but I recall very few times he ever balked Senna in the past. Prost's racing line is suspect, he does seem to turn in earlier than the normal, but this time, true to his word, he would not leave the door open for Senna. Senna was flying that race and had he stayed behind him for that lap, would have passed him on the next and won comfortably. Senna was too aggressive, as was Prost, and that's what you get.


A flawed genius is a good description of Senna.

[Ninja2b]

The incident where Senna ignored the red flags reminds me of a similar incident involving Hakkinen at Monaco. Wasnt there a yellow flag out somewhere one year, and Hakinen waved at the marshals, but continued past at full speed? He set pole IIRC. To me, this is worse than ignoring the red flags provided that the incident that brought out the red flags was at an earlier place on the track than Senna was. However, this is all nit picking - if the rules had been applied equally then Senna should have been punished. But was Mansells one race ban purely for ignoring the balc flag, or was it in part for taking Senna off the track? I dont know, but I would suggest that Mansell wouldnt have been punished as harshly if he had been driving on his own and not noticed the flag. Has anyone ever looked at any in car footage from this incident to see how badly the sun did indeed affect the drivers vision?

I can also say that this issue is not brought about by any British anti French sentiments. Not in my case anyway. Im from Northern Ireland originally, and that means Im not in any way British. I have met some french people who fit the classic stereotype, but from what I have seen of Prost, he wasnt one of them. I think that it is unfortunate that Prost does not seem to be as liked as much as Senna, but I for one think Prost was a phenomenal driver, but in a much less awe inspiring way than Senna because of his more reserved nature. I dont quite know how to phrase this, but lets say that a lot of the Senna fans could be classed as 'hero worshippers' rather than 'fans'. I would say that Senna was one of my heroes as he was such a comitted and talented individual, he inspires me a lot. But I dont think for a second that I worship him in any way or form - but there seem to be those who are blind to the mans flaws.

However, the original purpose of the thread was to spark discussion on why Sennas flaws (as exemplified by Suzuka 90) are seen to be in such contrast to the supposedly sporting behaviour of Prost, when the crash in 90 was in my view just a higher speed version of 89. As a Senna fan it is a constant irritation to hear Suzuka 90 being mentioned over and over as the true end of an era of sportsmanship, when it was just Senna doing what he had seen Prost get away with the previous year. As I said in my original Post (and was misinterpreted by some....) I am not trying to defend the incident in 90. But I believe that most fans of the sport look at it as being the root of all evil in the modern sport, whereas Prosts collision in 89 is usually overlooked or classed as a racing incident. i said it before, but Ill say it again: the 89 crash was in my view just as obviously deliberate as the 90 crash. The speed difference makes it in no way more acceptable.

The arguments about the chicane being too tight to make it a genuine overtaking spot are interesting. But is it not true that if a driver overtakes in a corner that is usually not seen as a traditional overtaking place, the move is usually regarded with awe among the fans? But when it doesnt come off, the fans get very critical. Look at Mansells move around the outside of Berger in the Peraltada in what year... 89 or 90? It wasnt a traditional overtaking place, but Mansell made the move stick and now it is seen as one of the great overtaking moves of that era. Sennas move on Wendlinger down the Craner Curves in 93 - another place where overtaking was not usually done, but he made it stick and it was seen as a great move. The fact is, there werent many good overtaking places on the Suzuka track. The chicane was possibly the longest braking area on the track, and so that made it the best place to get alongside to fight for the corner.

Henri, I will take your point that there was no "French Conspiracy" before Suzuka, but afterwards it very much appeared to be the case. I remember Sennas comments at one press conference where he recalled that he only lost (not lost as in 'was defeated' of course) one race in his career - Suzuka 89, where he had won but Balestre prevented him from going to the Podium. When he talked about it I really felt that he had been cheated out of the win. And after reviewing it, I still do. The appeal against the disqualification was a total sham from what i can gather, and even Ron Dennis was stunned by the way it was run.

Playlife: Regarding Zanardi @ spa in 93: I have seen the video where Senna was explaining his driving to one of the McLaren team. He said something like "Of course I slowed down, but I wasnt expecting a fully blocked track". I dont think he ingnored the flags, he simply didnt expect a car to be right in the middle of the track.