Why is everyone so happy about Senna's indiscretions when Schumacher is heavily criticised for his?
Senna blatantly took Prost out at the first corner in Suzuka in 1990 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiGUSyN9-zk) much like Schumacher did to Damon/Villeneuve. Some of the stuff you hear about Senna is chilling. He threatened countless drivers when they won, punched Irvine in the face after the race when Irvine unlapped himself and he attempted to punch Schumacher. Senna was no angel and was actually worst than Schumacher, Autosport got it right when they said 'thug or genius? The debate continues.' Senna was far more effective in his intimidation tactics than Schumacher. However he did have a kind and gracious side, he was just hell-bent on winning.
Alain Prost was also utterly ruthless when he was racing, getting all of the best equipment and there are even cases of his engineers sabotaging team mates equipment if reports are true. These two greats were far from sportsmen-like in their nature if we take this into account.
Schumacher loves the competition, the very thrill of it. Isn't that what sport is all about? I think criticism of Schumacher has been highly unfair in light of the sport's tainted history.
The last few years have been very dirty so there's a case for any of the top drivers erring from time-to-time (Alonso at Mclaren, Hamilton in Australia etc.). Noone is perfect and certainly no team has not broken one or more rules. I think a sense of perspective is key here...
|
|