UK Karting - Notice Board (Chat) : Re: Rigged, Tangler

Notice Board (Chat)

Re: Rigged, Tangler
Posted by 'davidmc' on 24 May 2009 @ 02:16

| View Message Thread | Reply to this message |

davidmcJoined: April 2003
Total Posts: 2
[ View User Profile ]

1) The veto was in no way hidden. Here is just one article from 2005 quite clearly stating it existed (and similar reports appeared in Autosport and the like):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/4292545.stm

2) You are stating that you managed to deduce the existence of an already publicised veto over rule changes from, in your words, "LUDICROUS decisions, it would not require Sherlock Holmes to deduce that the contract was USED to CREATE the ludicrous decisions!"

Were you to mean "LUDICROUS decisions" relating to rule changes then I'd like you to point me to examples of said decisions where the teams had unanimous agreement over rule changes and Ferrari vetoed them. Were you to mean "LUDICROUS decisions" relating to the stewards running of a meeting then no logic would allow such a deduction since the already publicised veto is quite clearly limited to rule changes, not the decisions of stewards.

3) If Ferrari had used this veto so widely before why did they not use it to ban the double diffuser? Why, when attempting to use it, did they get it so wrong and not use it within the correct timescale in this instance? Especially one so key to their existence in the sport.

4) Please specify the timescale you are referring to when you state "all those years", remembering that Ferrari won no WDC from 1980 to 1999 (the first Concorde was signed in '97/'98 where all the teams had a veto) and have won just one WDC since this veto was put in place at the end of 2005 (although I don't believe the new Concorde came into force until 2007/8, perhaps why Ferrari forgot to use it in time).

Like yourself, I'd rather not get into arguments about specific instances (accept where doing so would clarify my/your position) so will simply summarise the state of play as I see it:

The FIA/FOM seek to maintain the highest profile for the sport. To achieve this they require titles to be decided at the final round. Secondary to this, it is beneficial if Ferrari, having the majority share of F1 supporters, are one of the main title protagonists. All "questionable" stewards decisions have been to this end. In fact, not a single stewards decision (or WMSC decision if necessary) that I can recall has resulted in an early conclusion to the title.

Since the surge in interest in F1 after Senna's death, 40% of WDC's have been decided before the end of the season (in a time when Ferrari had 3 totally dominant seasons); prior to this 60% of titles were decided before the end of the season. Interestingly, post-94 is the period when most "in-season meddling" has occurred and when most examples of so-called "bias" occur.

To me, this is a clear indication of the FIA's and FOM's intention that all championships should be decided at the final round.

Dave

Message Thread:

For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'itpro' (21 May 2009 @ 13:49)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'itpro' (21 May 2009 @ 13:57)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'Doink' (21 May 2009 @ 14:13)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'Boots' (21 May 2009 @ 14:21)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'RichyC' (21 May 2009 @ 15:05)

Makes McLaren`s problems seem very small time now. by 'IvanGreenfield' (21 May 2009 @ 15:34)

Re: Makes McLaren`s problems seem very small time by 'itpro' (21 May 2009 @ 15:51)

Rigged by 'TanglerTKM' (22 May 2009 @ 15:57)

Re: Rigged by 'Doink' (22 May 2009 @ 16:31)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 16:36)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'TanglerTKM' (22 May 2009 @ 17:20)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'Doink' (22 May 2009 @ 17:26)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'Doink' (22 May 2009 @ 17:31)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'Doink' (22 May 2009 @ 18:02)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'itpro' (23 May 2009 @ 0:37)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'TanglerTKM' (23 May 2009 @ 8:54)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'Gillard77' (23 May 2009 @ 11:12)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'itpro' (24 May 2009 @ 0:37)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'davidmc' << You are here!

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'itpro' (26 May 2009 @ 0:51)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'TanglerTKM' (26 May 2009 @ 1:24)

Re: Rigged, Tangler by 'TanglerTKM' (24 May 2009 @ 10:09)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (21 May 2009 @ 15:51)

Typical Tifosi by 'itpro' (21 May 2009 @ 16:40)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'Doink' (21 May 2009 @ 16:49)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (21 May 2009 @ 17:13)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'itpro' (21 May 2009 @ 18:27)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (21 May 2009 @ 22:18)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 0:11)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (22 May 2009 @ 0:31)

Re: Typical Tifosi by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 0:45)

Confirmation.. by 'merv' (21 May 2009 @ 18:18)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'itpro' (21 May 2009 @ 18:28)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'Doink' (21 May 2009 @ 18:53)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'davidmc' (21 May 2009 @ 18:51)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (22 May 2009 @ 0:17)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 0:31)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (22 May 2009 @ 0:45)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 0:49)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'davidmc' (22 May 2009 @ 2:14)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 10:19)

Re: Confirmation.. by 'merv' (22 May 2009 @ 12:08)

Oh really.......! by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 0:27)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'BD' (21 May 2009 @ 18:57)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (21 May 2009 @ 22:26)

Re: For those who said I was WRONG about FIAt! by 'kudos' (21 May 2009 @ 22:51)

BD and Dan by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 0:43)

Davidmc if you want to quote... by 'merv' (22 May 2009 @ 9:18)

And this from the times as well.. by 'merv' (22 May 2009 @ 9:23)

Re: And this from the times as well.. by 'davidmc' (22 May 2009 @ 13:26)

Re: Davidmc if you want to quote... by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 9:25)

Re: BD and Dan by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 9:23)

BD...DOH! by 'merv' (22 May 2009 @ 9:31)

re: bd...doh! by 'merv' (22 May 2009 @ 9:35)

re: bd...doh! by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 9:42)

BD.... what a stunning reply! by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 10:23)

me.......tifosi..........wtf. by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 10:32)

Re: me.......tifosi..........wtf. by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 10:34)

Re: me.......tifosi..........wtf. by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 10:37)

Re: me.......tifosi..........wtf. by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 10:41)

Re: me.......tifosi..........wtf. by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 10:50)

Re: me.......tifosi..........wtf. by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 10:51)

Hang on! BD by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 10:58)

Re: Hang on! BD by 'BD' (22 May 2009 @ 11:06)

BD..it would be a shame if you left by 'merv' (22 May 2009 @ 12:00)

Re: BD..it would be a shame if you left by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (22 May 2009 @ 15:42)

Re: BD..it would be a shame if you left by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 16:37)

Re: BD..it would be a shame if you left by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 16:40)

Just for Clarity by 'Gillard77' (22 May 2009 @ 9:48)

Re: Just for Clarity by 'itpro' (22 May 2009 @ 10:26)

Re: Breaking news....... by 'Doink' (22 May 2009 @ 16:44)

Post a Reply:

You may post a direct reply to this message which will appear in this thread.
To post a new or unrelated message use This Form. Top of Page
Notice Board Index

[ UK Karting Main Index ]


News	Karts & Karting	Notice Board	Market Place	Companies Directory	Tracks Directory	Events Calendar	Race Results	Photo Gallery	Links