Zanardi wins

[Sean Brian Kirby]

Paul - I sometimes think of you when Brutus goes off (the deep end).

Fat Baby Schumey strikes again.

[HoosierDaddy]

[Sean Brian Kirby]

You know, that's true, Hoosier. Now, Brutus doesn't cut-and-paste from discussion to discussion... but he seems to have this little tick. My Mom's old Beatles records used to do the same thing, when I listened to them as a boy. But then, Brutus ain't the Beatles...
_________________
Hear Truth. See Truth. Speak Truth.

[Mr Nigel]

Great post Brutus and a good plug for the Book (I will be putting that one on my Christmas list)

Pump Daddies Silence on this one is deafening , come PDJ tell us all about how Zannardi is a useless Hack daddy’s boy or some such thing, and how real gentlemen racers like Schumacher are aloud to defend their racing line on both sides of the track simultaneously, and how if Angelelli had just spun out fairly and hadn’t hit Michaels car, Michael would not have been forced to dangerously placed his car on the track to stop the race.

Or shall we just chalk one up to Brutus.

Well I’m off to see my therapist now I feel that Australia 1994 anger welling up agian

[StuntCarRacer]

[tiggers]

StuntCarRacer,

Is it only me who can see the irony of your crticism of Schuey's defensive moves whilst proudly displaying Senna's name and logo in your avatar. At least Schuey's moves are opportunist unlike Senna's pre-meditated removal of Prost in Suzuka 1990.

I should point out that I have no problem with Schuey or Senna, both great racers with a will to win the rest of us can only dream about, it's just your criticism of one and obvious support of the other seems hypocritical.

As for the Zanardi incident described above whilst it doesn't seem very sporting it just goes to show that Schuey even then was in this sport to win and would use every last rule in the book to give himself the opportunity to do so.

[StuntCarRacer]

Fair point tiggers, fair point.

What I say in response is that Senna stated before the race "I'm going to be first into the first corner" - a statement of intent, if you will. And he didn't hide behind excuses and appeals.

What I dislike about Schumacher's moves is that he uses the "one move across the track rule" - and hey, don't forget, it was his driving technique that was a major factor in the introduction of that rule - and takes it to extremes. Being able to move across the track once to block is one thing, but forcing someone off the track is quite another. - This wasn't a "two into one doesn't go" corner entry situation, it was down a long, fast straight.

[Brutus]

[tiggers]

[Shant F]

[lapo]

Just a thought:
From the transcript, the only reason Schumacher was disqualified was the fact that the spare car's engine was a different make, not that it was an illegal engine per se.

Does it not follow that this engine was not as good as the one in the race car? Otherwise, why not put this one in it?

So, if I understand it correctly, Schumacher was disqualified on a technicality, after having won the race using sub par equipment...

[Brutus]

[Brutus]

[lapo]

[Brutus]

No. They race the legal car because they qualified in an illegal car. Everyone knows that they check the cars after the race not after qualifying.

Schumi must certainly knew that his car had an opel engine and therefore it was illegal? how is that for not willingly race and illegal car and therefore cheat? I know what you are going to say. "he was forced to drive that car". Or just like in 94 the official excuse from Benetton cheating with the fuel rig was that an obscure employe of the team removed the filter with no authorization and without anyone noticing it. Yeah right.

"cheaters do prosper" a nice review on Schumi's and others cheats in F1. You can find it on this site. Just look at Mike Lawrence's articles.