Driving behaviour after the court hearing of Jerez 1997

[NiceGuyEddie]

From knowlesly:
You have to assume if Jacques had tried the move on a high speed part of the track (rather than the slow speed Dry Sack hairpin), Michael would have done the same. Then we may have seen a catastrophy.

Why would we have to assume that?

This seems to be your sole argument to justify a ban for at least a part of 1998 for MS, but wouldn´t you agree it is rather pointless to ban MS for something that didn´t happen? Further on, I strongly disagree that we have to assume that MS would´ve done the same thing on a highspeed part of the track. He certainly is no idiot. A move like that would constitute a hell of a lot more danger. Not only to Jacques, but also to himself. How can you simpy assume that MS would accept those mighty risks, which would be far more greater than the risks he actually took (like you said, the speeds were way too slow to even suggest a risk of injury. Not even minor injury)

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by Panzer
Senna and Prost never got the type of bashing that MS gets. Why?
We are lucky to live in a time when we can watch history happening every fortnite, Schumacher and Rossi.
Enjoy it.

Senna/Prost never got the "bashing" because (a) there were no internet forms and (b) they raced each other unlike MS who does not race his team mate.

I was happy to see two titans of the sport every fortnight 14-15 years ago plus a dash of Mansell thrown in for good measure.

[Gt_R]

Quote:"they raced each other unlike MS who does not race his team mate."

HHHUUUHH???? What's MS vs teammate got anything to do with ramming and bad driving? You mean taking out teammates are acceptable?!

[garcon]

To an extent I agree - Senna and Prost didn't get the same bashing because there were TWO of them, racing each other on equal terms. Schumacher is hated because he's better than everyone else, out there on his own, the only target to be sniped at.
Back to the start of the thread, interesting stuff Knowlesy!

I've just worked out that I can quite legitimately blame Max Moseley for the fact so many people hate Schumacher. You see, if Max had handed out a "fitting punishment" at the time, then maybe the anti-Schumacher fraternity wouldn't have spent the next seven years trying to punish him further...

Yes, Michael's move at Jerez was deliberate, was wrong, and was deserving of the severest punishment. Was the punishment meted out by the FIA sufficient? Possibly not, but you can't exactly blame Michael for that - he's not going to say But no, I'm guilty, punish me more!

[hamsmith]

Originally posted by garcon
To an extent I agree - Senna and Prost didn't get the same bashing because there were TWO of them, racing each other on equal terms. Schumacher is hated because he's better than everyone else, out there on his own, the only target to be sniped at.

I think he is hated for more than that and people have justifacation for it too.

[Mattracer]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Quote:"they raced each other unlike MS who does not race his team mate."

HHHUUUHH???? What's MS vs teammate got anything to do with ramming and bad driving? You mean taking out teammates are acceptable?!

You're confusing some unpalatable moments with others. I'm talking about the REASONS for the "bashing" of MS vs the reasons why Senna/Prost are not "bashed". Two unrelated issues yet drawn together by the power of the discussion forum.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Gt_R
And frankly, did MS "RAM" another driver DELIBERATELY since then?

No, but only because they knew what he is capable of, and therefore gave away.

[Gt_R]

Ok..if he did ram, we'd hear "told ya!".
If he didn't ram, we hear "becos they knew he would and they gave way"..

Conveniently a lose-lose situation for MS...

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Conveniently a lose-lose situation for MS...

It's not like I put him there.

[ljakse]

It was him who almost rammed his own brother into the wall, not me.

[ASCII Man]

Extremely convenient...

[Gt_R]

His brother rammed him out too before (97) remember?

[Adam43]

I think we are wandering down that easy path that we have done so many times before.

Originally posted by knowlesy
We see a lot of unethical behaviour on track these days. I've been trawling through old threads these past few days and looking through old books and magazines and there have been numerous incidents, some minor some major that would have shocked us all once upon a time but now are passed as "normal" and "this is motor racing, not a tea party".

...I think this all stems from the FIA's inability to do anything when an incident occurs...

...It's all a contrast to the old days...

The FIA missed its chance to stamp down on bad behaviour that day I feel.

I think the point of the thread about whether the FIA can do anything. Or perhaps specifically if they had done something would it be different.

I must say I find it odd that such small incidents get blown out of all proportion.

[Gt_R]

Yes, and i think what FIA had done, on hindsight is correct.

From my point of view, there's 2 ways of punishing Michael

1) Punish Michael for his deeds. Enough to let him know where the line for bad driving his. In this case, a one-on-one FIA-on-Michael affair. IMO, this is the fairer one to MS, a slap on the face and seeing that he didn't attempt to take out a WDC contender for the next 7 years shows it's effective enough.

2) Punish Michael as an example to the others. In this case, the punishment would be more severe than it justifies, because FIA wants to send a strong warning to future generation...and it's not very fair to MS but it does stamp out anymore future incidents from other drivers. Kind of like Rio's drug ban.

FIA opted the first one, but many seemingly disregard anything else in their quest for blood.

[Knowlesy]

Surely then, number 2 on your list is better: stamps out future incidents.

Michael wasn't badly punished and since then there have been numerous incidents. I mean a lot of them have been worse than the Jerez incident, it's just the title wasn't on the line. I would say (and I'm sorry to single out Michael again for this one, it just comes to mind first) that the Michael-Alonso incident at Silverstone last year was rather more foul.......IMO. If the FIA had acted stricter, and perhaps too harshly, then I doubt we would have seen that!!!

[ralf fan]

Option no. 2 GT_R.... but THAT has been the problem in f1 that there is no strict rulebook.....
eg. Throw a driver off purposely X pts deducted and X race ban even if you are MS, Pantano or Tony Blair one type of punishment for everyone... since there is no such punishment rulebook we find inconsistancies with bans and penalties from year to year and from past eras...

[Gt_R]

Yes, FIA can give MS the stiffest punishment and completely stamp out future incidents. They could have banned MS for a year, two or even forever...

But seemingly, many doesn't care if an excessive punishment while "scaring the future generations", is fair on Michael...and that is a problem..

Who can say that give MS the stiffest punishment would surely improve the current state of affairs? Montoya isn't going to be nice to his rivals, Ralf won't be a better racer... in theory, it stamps out bad driving, but who can be sure?

What is worrying is that the critics are NEVER satisfied. Instead of applauding FIA for finally taking actions against bad driving after many prior incidents and doing nothings, people complain FIA is lenient/unfair/biased, asking for more serious actions regardless if it will affect the next years WDC etc... And then, when FIA takes a strict and fair approach against a driver, irregardless of the effects it has on the WDC, just because it happens to be a driver critics support, FIA is blasted for being too harsh, being unfair....

The fundamental problem isn't lying with the FIA.It's with the fans.

[shiny side up!]

I think it is very difficult for the FIA to write rules governing the behaviour of the drivers. They can write 'no deliberate contact' and 'one move' rules all day long, but in the end it is going to be a discretionary call and thus impossible to enforce fairly in every situation.

For example, on of my favourite TGF-isms of all time, and we hear it fairly frequently (especially with JPM liking to take the longer route around a corner when attempting to pass MS...): "I understeered into him". That is a load of if I've ever heard one! If you grab a bootfull of throttle at the apex just like any other lap whilst you have someone to your outside, then of course you are going to 'understeer' into him! Now, when this happens, is it diliberate?

Anyway, I'm not anti-MS, and I've heard other drivers say the same thing... just an example of one of the 573 million grey areas hard to cover with rules...

[Adam43]

Build concrete walls by the side of the track. Then a driver would think twice. There would be no going for a daft gap or pushing someone wide because you'd both be out.

(semi-serious off-topic suggestion)

[Gt_R]

I would recommend a ban on overtaking

[hamsmith]

From what I'm watching, outside Bahrain I thought they already had.

[ljakse]

Originally posted by Gt_R
What is worrying is that the critics are NEVER satisfied. Instead of applauding FIA for finally taking actions against bad driving after many prior incidents and doing nothings, people complain FIA is lenient/unfair/biased, asking for more serious actions regardless if it will affect the next years WDC etc... And then, when FIA takes a strict and fair approach against a driver, irregardless of the effects it has on the WDC, just because it happens to be a driver critics support, FIA is blasted for being too harsh, being unfair....

The fundamental problem isn't lying with the FIA.It's with the fans.

OK, now I see the basics of eternal disagreement beetween you and me.
I can not, and, I will never be able to accept that FIA did enough. It's not enough to slap somebody's hand in order to prevent thefts. It takes cutting his hand off.
Where we fundamentaly disagree is that I can not accept somebody's bad behavior just because it's not getting punished (it's not strictly forbidden). And, just to prevent discussion about 'fans being biased' I will say it once more - I supported Michael Schumacher since he started competing in F1 - right untill Adelaide '94. He escaped unpunished, but I don't support, and don't like him ever since.

So, I'm not biased when it comes to my favorites - I am biased to anybody when they play dirty - I simply don't approve dirty play.

[Gt_R]

Hah..i recomment you another option...Don't support FIA instead... Michael really has NO control over what FIA or stewards decide.

I'm glad you don't support MS anymore..At least it gives me somebody to disagree with

[ljakse]

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Anyway, just curious..but how do you think MS should be punished???

IMO, Michael should have had a "suspended" ban hanging over him for x amount of races in 1998. Keeps his nose clean for those x amount of races and he gets away with it.

Wonder what would have happened, had he been under a suspended ban and his collision with DC at Argentina, or HH-F in Canada still happened?

As for being banned for the first 3 races (as others suggested) wouldn't have been fair imo, as, (again) others have pointed out, both Prost and Senna did the same without being banned.