The FIA, quite rightly, found Schumacher guilty of "causing a collision". Villeneuve carried onto victory, MSC DNF'd. On reflection do we now think that penalty was on the harsh side ? Collisions today normally render a 15 second penalty.
I´m quite sure that if Schumacher had won that champonship, they wouldn´t have disqualified him. The FIA is interested in looking righteous and uncorruptible only when it´s for free.
Clearly, there is a lack of understanding here. So I'll make it clear. DO NOT POST P&R IN HERE. Bans pending for A348W and jpalmito once I check with the other mods about the term. D
I don't think Schumacher was treated too harshly in 1997 for the incident with Schumacher. His disqualification fitted with the feelings at the time, not forgetting that he had committed similar dangerous moves before. I remember there was an outcry when this incident was broadcasted, and universal condemnation. I know that now the authorities are more lenient with "contacts", maybe because the consequences of a crash are less severe. In 1997, Villeneuve continued with a damaged car, but without injury. The same move 20 years earlier could have killed the driver (lateral fuel tanks, remember?). That has to be taken into account when evaluating racing incidents from the past; we cannot retro-judge decisions taken in previous decades. What is certain is that sportmanship is judged less important that it used to be, and F1 is a loser for it.
sorry but you will have to educate me as to how ANY of my posts have ANYTHING to do with politics or religion!
I have neither the time nor the inclination, to engage in a back and forth on this. Your link is to an article that is clearly P&R content. So, without further ado, 7 day site wide ban, pending further discussion among the moderators. D
I'm not sure what the "feelings" were at the time. Maybe the FIA were trying to get at Schumacher, or set an unprecedented example ? The FIA rules are what counts. A season ban does seem harsh for "causing a collision", seemingly it was at the FIA's discretion. 10 second penalties today are ridiculous.
My understanding (F.W.I.W...) would be that, as L.H explains his actions about correcting the chances of "minorités" (I keep the french word, I don't know if the litteral transition in English would convey the same sense), it enters into P & R. It seems to me an extensive conception of what P & R is; I had the same reaction this morning about the seven days banishment of Adrian Thompson (see my post on previous page). Perhaps to us from the "old Europe" (including the "leavers"...) a more extensive conception than what we would naturally think... but "dura lex, sed lex". Rgds
It wasn't a ban, it was a disqualification for the whole season. I believe Schumacher's points were taken away from him, and he was not ranked in the WDC that year, but they didn't strip him of his GP wins though. There is a disciplinary panel at the FIA, and this decision wasn't taken lightly. These days, it's difficult to assess if contact is deliberate or accidental, I find. Most of the time it's 50/50, and caused by the increasing difficulties to overtake. Drivers attack or defend too aggressively and contacts follow.
I was told years ago by a sociology teacher that any thought, or any action was political. For him, mentioning poverty was political, just like buying a certain brand, visiting a country, judging a book, chosing a career path, etc ... That is probably exagerated, because people do "politics" all the time, even those who never vote ! . As for Fchat, it seems that apart from racing, anything else is out of bounds now.
It is probably true from a sociological point of view that everything is political and it could be discussed (but not here), because it is a grim concept of your personal freedom of choice...and also true that apart from racing everything is out of bounds here now, but that cannot be discussed. Dare I say nevertheles that I find the seven-day bans mentioned above a harsh punishment, because in my naieveté, I still don't think that the victims of the bans had any intention to misbehave? Furthermore, as we are of different nationalities, the very concept of what is politic is difficult to agree upon. Even the words are misleading: in French, a "liberal" is the exact opposite of what the word means in the US...even if you know that, in the middle of a conversation, your mind slips into the "french" meaning of the word, and the resulting confusions are sometimes very interesting...(Nothing politic in this, only vocabulary) I shall leave it at that. Rgds
Must admit i am not really into either politics or religion . i naively thought that meant talking about political parties or presidents or differing religions etc .I haven't read anything like that on here so far.
Maybe Cartman as the Police Officer would be more apropos. That way we would respect your authorataaay For reference in case you are not familiar:
In the past folks have talked about Putin sitting next to Bernie and drumming up support for Russia for example ..no reactions or bans thrown around. So yes it seems some would prefer the Lewis thing to be shoved into an obscure corner. Which is how the whole thing originated. Anyhow not interested .If i want to have a discussion about these issues there are plenty of places for that ...
Most anything to do with race relations or climate change, as just two examples specific to recent violations, is considered political. These topics are controversial and used by political factions to motivate their adherents.
I always associated liberalism with tolerance, which I consider a virtue. Apparently in some parts of the world it's a sin.
Climate change political? U could say it’s used in a political way but if I tell u that that the earth is warming up and it’s backed up by scientifical data this is not all political, it’s a scientifical fact. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk