Williams - Schumacher cheated in 1994

[Botham]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316

Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.

"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.

"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.

"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.

[David Melville]

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.

begging the question: Why?

Dave (is my memory _that_ bad?)

[s***@excite.com]

Post by David Melville

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.

begging the question: Why?

The article explicitly answers that question!

[David Melville]

In article <%0dlg.45875$***@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, shepshep1
@excite.com says...

Post by s***@excite.com

Post by David Melville

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.

begging the question: Why?

The article explicitly answers that question!

Oops! Read the post in a hurry and didn't click the link. I'll get back
to yuz.

Dave

[David Melville]

Post by David Melville
@excite.com says...

Post by s***@excite.com

Post by David Melville

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.

begging the question: Why?

The article explicitly answers that question!

Oops! Read the post in a hurry and didn't click the link. I'll get back
to yuz.
Dave

Oh.

Duh.

Dave

[Richard Miller]

Post by s***@excite.com

Post by David Melville

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.

begging the question: Why?

The article explicitly answers that question!

I think that for the sake of the sport, it is a great shame that they
did not lodge the protest. I can understand the reasoning, but if they
actually believed at the time that MS had deliberately driven into Hill,
then surely getting someone so dangerous out of the sport should have
been a higher priority than the considerations Head refers to.

[Zonky]

Post by Richard Miller
I think that for the sake of the sport, it is a great shame that they
did not lodge the protest. I can understand the reasoning, but if they
actually believed at the time that MS had deliberately driven into Hill,
then surely getting someone so dangerous out of the sport should have
been a higher priority than the considerations Head refers to.

You may note that Head was referring to the illegality of the benetton
_car_ not Schumacher/Hill incident at Adeliade.

Presumably he is referring to The Benetton's alleged use of Traction
Control.

Z.

[Richard Miller]

Post by Zonky

Post by Richard Miller
I think that for the sake of the sport, it is a great shame that they
did not lodge the protest. I can understand the reasoning, but if they
actually believed at the time that MS had deliberately driven into Hill,
then surely getting someone so dangerous out of the sport should have
been a higher priority than the considerations Head refers to.

You may note that Head was referring to the illegality of the benetton
_car_ not Schumacher/Hill incident at Adeliade.

See below. You are completely wrong.

Post by Zonky
Presumably he is referring to The Benetton's alleged use of Traction
Control.
Z.

“But, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesn’t
really make any difference.

“And that’s because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were
already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.

“It was so blatant.

“He was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when he
spotted Damon’s Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered across
the track to prevent that happening.”

Head told the magazine that it was only unease over the tragic legacy of
the 1994 season that prevented Williams from officially protesting
Schumacher’s title.

“We seriously considered lodging a formal protest there and then, on
the grounds that it had been so blatant, but decided against it simply
because of what had happened earlier in the year,” he said.

[CatharticF1]

“But, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesn’t
really make any difference.
“And that’s because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were
already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.
“It was so blatant.
“He was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when
he spotted Damon’s Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered
across the track to prevent that happening.”

That is utter rubbish though Richard..

I watched it and at the time with no reason for an accusation of
partiality. That is simply specious and moreso plainly incorrect.

He did what any driver did in that situation, he was desperate to defend
his position and took a defensive line into the corner without to regard to
the condition of his car or anything else.

The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.

Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).

[David W.]

.and all these post overlook the very real possibility that any protest
by Williams, either regarding the Benetton car or Michael's tactics,
could have been denied.

I think if Wiiliams felt they had an airtight case they would have gone
forward with the protest, regardless of how many drivers had died that
year.

It sounds more noble to say "we didn't do it out of respect for Senna's
memory" rather than "we didn't do it because our case was questionable
at best."

[HooDooWitch]

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.

They had all of 3 seconds to that.

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).

Lemme see ....
Was that dominance down to having better;

1) driving?
2) car?
3) package?
4) fuel blend?
5) 5th gear?
6) black flag myopia?
7) plank wear?
8) refuelling rig?
9) change management?
10) mirrors?


13) software?

[Ron Burgundy]

Post by HooDooWitch

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have
told Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his
only chance and so overplayed.

They had all of 3 seconds to that.

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

Lemme see ....
Was that dominance down to having better;
1) driving?
2) car?
3) package?
4) fuel blend?
5) 5th gear?
6) black flag myopia?
7) plank wear?
8) refuelling rig?
9) change management?
10) mirrors?
13) software?

Alright I'll bite. Where's 11 and 12?

[HooDooWitch]

Post by Ron Burgundy

Post by HooDooWitch

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

Lemme see ....
Was that dominance down to having better;
1) driving?
2) car?
3) package?
4) fuel blend?
5) 5th gear?
6) black flag myopia?
7) plank wear?
8) refuelling rig?
9) change management?
10) mirrors?
13) software?

Alright I'll bite. Where's 11 and 12?

I thought it was well stinky bait myself ...

11 & 12 were never there in Bennetton's software. Pressing a
combination of buttons on the steering wheel allowed the driver to
scroll down to the obfuscated option 13, revealing an item labelled
"Launch Control" in an era when LC was banned.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to whether they used it or
not, or whether they tried to deliberately obscure its existence from
the FIA. Flavio says they didn't use it. He also said that they hadn't
tampered with their fuel rig, nor had they [as well as other teams]
been using illegal fuel.

1994 was a dark year in F1.

[CatharticF1]

Post by HooDooWitch

Post by Ron Burgundy

Post by HooDooWitch

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

Lemme see ....
Was that dominance down to having better;
1) driving?
2) car?
3) package?
4) fuel blend?
5) 5th gear?
6) black flag myopia?
7) plank wear?
8) refuelling rig?
9) change management?
10) mirrors?
13) software?

Alright I'll bite. Where's 11 and 12?

I thought it was well stinky bait myself ...
11 & 12 were never there in Bennetton's software. Pressing a
combination of buttons on the steering wheel allowed the driver to
scroll down to the obfuscated option 13, revealing an item labelled
"Launch Control" in an era when LC was banned.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to whether they used it or
not, or whether they tried to deliberately obscure its existence from
the FIA. Flavio says they didn't use it. He also said that they hadn't
tampered with their fuel rig, nor had they [as well as other teams]
been using illegal fuel.
1994 was a dark year in F1.

For Formula England :) They did everything but ban Schu from racing at
all and still wond the WDC.

But if that accusation were correct, it would have come out in the
preceding 12 years and in any case was irrelevant beyond the race starts.

[Ron Burgundy]

Post by CatharticF1

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:05:17 GMT, Ron Burgundy

Post by Ron Burgundy

Post by HooDooWitch

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

Lemme see ....
Was that dominance down to having better;
1) driving?
2) car?
3) package?
4) fuel blend?
5) 5th gear?
6) black flag myopia?
7) plank wear?
8) refuelling rig?
9) change management?
10) mirrors?
13) software?

Alright I'll bite. Where's 11 and 12?

I thought it was well stinky bait myself ...
11 & 12 were never there in Bennetton's software. Pressing a
combination of buttons on the steering wheel allowed the driver to
scroll down to the obfuscated option 13, revealing an item labelled
"Launch Control" in an era when LC was banned.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to whether they used it or
not, or whether they tried to deliberately obscure its existence from
the FIA. Flavio says they didn't use it. He also said that they
hadn't tampered with their fuel rig, nor had they [as well as other
teams] been using illegal fuel.
1994 was a dark year in F1.

For Formula England :) They did everything but ban Schu from racing at
all and still wond the WDC.
But if that accusation were correct, it would have come out in the
preceding 12 years and in any case was irrelevant beyond the race starts.

Like Schumacher's start at France that year...

[R Brickston]

Post by CatharticF1

â?oBut, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesnâ?Tt
really make any difference.
â?oAnd thatâ?Ts because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were
already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.
â?oIt was so blatant.
â?oHe was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when
he spotted Damonâ?Ts Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered
across the track to prevent that happening.�

That is utter rubbish though Richard..
I watched it and at the time with no reason for an accusation of
partiality. That is simply specious and moreso plainly incorrect.
He did what any driver did in that situation, he was desperate to defend
his position and took a defensive line into the corner without to regard to
the condition of his car or anything else.
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).

And that with MS effectively not showing up at four events.

Post by CatharticF1
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."

[DC]

Post by CatharticF1

“But, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesn’t
really make any difference.
“And that’s because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were
already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.
“It was so blatant.
“He was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when
he spotted Damon’s Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered
across the track to prevent that happening.�

That is utter rubbish though Richard..
I watched it and at the time with no reason for an accusation of
partiality. That is simply specious and moreso plainly incorrect.

"At the time" - but you're commenting on it retrospectively...

Post by CatharticF1
He did what any driver did in that situation, he was desperate to defend
his position and took a defensive line into the corner without to regard to
the condition of his car or anything else.

Rubbish. Most drivers would not have deliberately driven into someone
else...

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.

Would this be in the nanosecond before Schumacher deliberately drove
into him...?

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).

Schumacher stealing the title by deliberately taking his main rival
out was the bigger injustice...

BTW, where's Topo Gigio? One assumes he's on holiday as he hasn't
slobbered all over this thread...

David

[CatharticF1]

Post by DC

Post by CatharticF1
He did what any driver did in that situation, he was desperate to
defend his position and took a defensive line into the corner without
to regard to the condition of his car or anything else.

Rubbish. Most drivers would not have deliberately driven into someone
else...

True - but that isn't what he did. That's what you're *arguing* he did.

Post by DC

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have
told Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his
only chance and so overplayed.

Would this be in the nanosecond before Schumacher deliberately drove
into him...?

Oh how hard is it to say "Schumacher has hit the wall"

Post by DC

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

Schumacher stealing the title by deliberately taking his main rival
out was the bigger injustice...

Yes - because Damon had certainly put MS in the shade that year. Even you
don't believe that, David.

Post by DC
BTW, where's Topo Gigio? One assumes he's on holiday as he hasn't
slobbered all over this thread...

Maybe he's praying to Enzo for more speed. It's something all good tifoso
should do.

[Doc Knutsen]

Post by CatharticF1

â?oBut, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesnâ?Tt
really make any difference.
â?oAnd thatâ?Ts because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were
already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.
â?oIt was so blatant.
â?oHe was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when
he spotted Damonâ?Ts Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered
across the track to prevent that happening.�

That is utter rubbish though Richard..
I watched it and at the time with no reason for an accusation of
partiality. That is simply specious and moreso plainly incorrect.
He did what any driver did in that situation, he was desperate to defend
his position and took a defensive line into the corner without to regard to
the condition of his car or anything else.
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.

Rubbish, the whole episode took about five seconds, not possible for either
Williams or Damon to consider the strategy or discuss on team radio.
Doc

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."

[James Connors]

Post by Doc Knutsen

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.

Rubbish, the whole episode took about five seconds, not possible for either
Williams or Damon to consider the strategy or discuss on team radio.
Doc

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).

Equally rubbish.

If Michael pranged Damon deliberately, it is Michael who thieved a
World Drivers' Championship - his first - through an incredible injustice.

Damon and Williams, for whatever reasons, let the matter lie; for which
they should be complimented and considered superior to Michael and
Ferrari who, to my knowledge, never issued a denial, demurral, nor
anything beyond Michael's self-satisfied smirk when he realized Damon
would not be completing another lap of the Adelaide circuit.

Attempting to force the ostensible victim into the role of culprit, in
this circumstance, is intellectually, morally and spiritually corrupt.

[Paul Harman]

Post by James Connors
Damon and Williams, for whatever reasons, let the matter lie; for which
they should be complimented and considered superior to Michael and
Ferrari

ITYM Benetton.

Paul

[James Connors]

Post by Paul Harman

Post by James Connors
Damon and Williams, for whatever reasons, let the matter lie; for which
they should be complimented and considered superior to Michael and
Ferrari

ITYM Benetton.

Thanks for the correction, however, Michael and his antics seem to have
become inextricably bound to Ferrari while the Benetton 'brand' has
simply disappeared.

I expect the law of, 'There is no such things as bad publicity,
excepting Adolf and the Nazis,' holds true - a testament to the current
age of celebrity celebrated over content.

[Martin Evans]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:44:30 +0100, "Paul Harman"

Post by Paul Harman

Post by James Connors
Damon and Williams, for whatever reasons, let the matter lie; for which
they should be complimented and considered superior to Michael and
Ferrari

ITYM Benetton.

Same team, different colour

--

[David Melville]

Post by James Connors
Damon and Williams, for whatever reasons, let the matter lie; for which
they should be complimented and considered superior to Michael and
Ferrari who,

Ferrari ????????

Freudian Slip, James?

Dave.

[James Connors]

Post by David Melville
Freudian Slip, James?

Nope. A mistake.

However, since you mention Sigmund let's see what he has to say about
instinct, as in; it's instinctive to drive into someone trying to overtake?

"It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built
upon a renunciation of instinct."

Found at:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sigmundfre125397.html

[CatharticF1]

Post by James Connors

Post by David Melville
Freudian Slip, James?

Nope. A mistake.
However, since you mention Sigmund let's see what he has to say about
instinct, as in; it's instinctive to drive into someone trying to overtake?
"It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built
upon a renunciation of instinct."

.. which applies with equal validity to Damon's punting Schumacher off the
following year.

[CatharticF1]

Post by James Connors

Post by Doc Knutsen

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should
have told Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought
was his only chance and so overplayed.

Rubbish, the whole episode took about five seconds, not possible for
either Williams or Damon to consider the strategy or discuss on team
radio.
Doc

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

Equally rubbish.
If Michael pranged Damon deliberately, it is Michael who thieved a
World Drivers' Championship - his first - through an incredible injustice.

Still as articulate and yet pointless as ever James.

Rate the races in that season for me then - tell me which the car/driver
combination with Damon deserved top honours and which with Schu did.

Post by James Connors
Attempting to force the ostensible victim into the role of culprit, in
this circumstance, is intellectually, morally and spiritually corrupt.

Damon was by no measure a better driver, nor had better results, nor was
he more deserving of that title in 1994.

Schumacher deserved the title long before Adelaide.

[Botham]

Post by CatharticF1

Post by James Connors

Post by Doc Knutsen

Post by CatharticF1
The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should
have told Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought
was his only chance and so overplayed.

Rubbish, the whole episode took about five seconds, not possible for
either Williams or Damon to consider the strategy or discuss on team
radio.
Doc

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a
fine performance by Damon).

The only incredible injustice that year was Schumacher and Benetton got
away winning the title in an illegal car using driver aids. He even
needed a modified fuel rig to reduce pitstop time(without which he
would almost certainly lost the race in Interlagos).

Post by CatharticF1

Post by James Connors
Equally rubbish.
If Michael pranged Damon deliberately, it is Michael who thieved a
World Drivers' Championship - his first - through an incredible injustice.

Still as articulate and yet pointless as ever James.
Rate the races in that season for me then - tell me which the car/driver
combination with Damon deserved top honours and which with Schu did.

Schumacher had the best car by a huge margin for most of the year. Ex
World champion Mansell was nowhere in the Williams. If the Williams was
the faster car Mansell would have dominated Schumacher rather easily
instead of being lapped.

Post by CatharticF1
Damon was by no measure a better driver, nor had better results, nor was
he more deserving of that title in 1994.
Schumacher deserved the title long before Adelaide.

The driver who deserved the title was dead and Schumacher acted like he
won the lottery that day on the podium.

Hill was more deserving next as he didn't cheat and yet still pushed
the Benetton in a slower car.

[CatharticF1]

Post by Botham

Post by CatharticF1

Post by CatharticF1
Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had
dominated Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was
a fine performance by Damon).

The only incredible injustice that year was Schumacher and Benetton
got away winning the title in an illegal car using driver aids. He
even needed a modified fuel rig to reduce pitstop time(without which
he would almost certainly lost the race in Interlagos).

Car wasn't illegal, never proven and even 11 years later no evidence has
emerged.

Post by Botham

Post by CatharticF1
Rate the races in that season for me then - tell me which the
car/driver combination with Damon deserved top honours and which with
Schu did.

Schumacher had the best car by a huge margin for most of the year. Ex
World champion Mansell was nowhere in the Williams. If the Williams
was the faster car Mansell would have dominated Schumacher rather
easily instead of being lapped.

<giggle>

Of course not - Schumacher was a better driver than either of them.
Particularly Mansell well past his prime.

Post by Botham

Post by CatharticF1
Damon was by no measure a better driver, nor had better results, nor
was he more deserving of that title in 1994.
Schumacher deserved the title long before Adelaide.

The driver who deserved the title was dead and Schumacher acted like
he won the lottery that day on the podium.

Schumacher did all he could to dominate the season up until Senna's
death. You can speculate - but the only facts contradict the trend you'd
like to establish.

Post by Botham
http://youtu.be/47ccbOpItCg
Hill was more deserving next as he didn't cheat and yet still pushed
the Benetton in a slower car.

If you eliminate reliability issues Damon beat Schumacher on the road
only once that year.

Once.

As if your bias wasn't clearly enough established.

[ric zito]

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Botham
The only incredible injustice that year was Schumacher and Benetton
got away winning the title in an illegal car using driver aids. He
even needed a modified fuel rig to reduce pitstop time(without which
he would almost certainly lost the race in Interlagos).

Car wasn't illegal, never proven and even 11 years later no evidence has
emerged.

What??? I can't believe that you're saying this. Would you be saying the
same thing if Option 13 had been written into McLaren software? Somehow
I doubt it.

C'mon Brendan, don't go down the "never proven" route. The case has been
closed for years, so it's unlikely to be "proven" any more than it was
at the time. The gun was found, but it wasn't smoking. In order to prove
that Option 13 was used they'd have had to be caught in flagrante
delicto - in other words the FIA would have had to indulge in software
probing *during* a race start, from the pitwall. Highly unlikely, given
the PR disaster that would constitute, don't you agree? I can just see
the hissy fits that Flavio would've thrown on-camera...

All very convenient for Benetton.

Still, so be it. One thing is clear to me : I have never known, in more
than 30 years of F1, a team that stank as rotten as Benetton did that
year. Option 13, the plank incident, the fuel filler and the shunt at
Adelaide. Nothing "proven", of course. Just a LOT of circumstantial
evidence pointing in one direction.

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Botham

Post by CatharticF1
Schumacher deserved the title long before Adelaide.

The driver who deserved the title was dead and Schumacher acted like
he won the lottery that day on the podium.

Schumacher did all he could to dominate the season up until Senna's
death. You can speculate - but the only facts contradict the trend you'd
like to establish.

Senna would've won by a country mile. Look at what Hill managed in the
same car. Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.
Another two races and Senna and Williams would've sorted the car. As it
was, they were an emotionally wrecked team being led by a relative
novice doing his best to sort a complex and troublesome car - and yet
Benetton *still* had to cheat to beat them.

"For me it was always clear that I was not going to win the
Championship, and that it was Ayrton that was going to win it."
Michael Schumacher

http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/f1_sounds/schumy.ra

[John Briggs]

Post by ric zito
Senna would've won by a country mile. Look at what Hill managed in the
same car. Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.

Unless, of course, you actually compare their records?

[ric zito]

Post by ric zito
Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.

Post by John Briggs
Unless, of course, you actually compare their records?

???

[John Briggs]

Post by ric zito
Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.

Post by John Briggs
Unless, of course, you actually compare their records?

???

Senna won 25% of his races. (3.77 points per race.) Hill won 18%. (2.95
points per race.)
I'd say that makes Senna better, but hardly on a different planet.

[ric zito]

Post by John Briggs

Post by ric zito
Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.

Post by John Briggs
Unless, of course, you actually compare their records?

???

Senna won 25% of his races. (3.77 points per race.) Hill won 18%. (2.95
points per race.)
I'd say that makes Senna better, but hardly on a different planet.

That's a statistician talking. It's not about batting rate, it's about
outright performance. Senna was in a different league to Hill. If you
want to look at statistics, look at the wins, the poles, the fastest
laps, the WDCs. But above all, watch the races. There's no comparison.

[Paul-B]

Post by ric zito
Still, so be it. One thing is clear to me : I have never known, in more
than 30 years of F1, a team that stank as rotten as Benetton did that
year. Option 13, the plank incident, the fuel filler and the shunt at
Adelaide. Nothing "proven", of course. Just a LOT of circumstantial
evidence pointing in one direction.

Point of order, m'lud. The plank incident and the fuel-filler incident
were proven. Benetton were duly punished ISTR.

Cheating has followed Schumacher throughout the whole of his career, maybe
an inference can be drawn from that. And put a proven cheat like
Schumacher in a team headed by Briatore and...

[Graham Hodgson]

Post by Paul-B

Post by ric zito
Still, so be it. One thing is clear to me : I have never known, in more
than 30 years of F1, a team that stank as rotten as Benetton did that
year. Option 13, the plank incident, the fuel filler and the shunt at
Adelaide. Nothing "proven", of course. Just a LOT of circumstantial
evidence pointing in one direction.

Point of order, m'lud. The plank incident and the fuel-filler incident
were proven. Benetton were duly punished ISTR.
Cheating has followed Schumacher throughout the whole of his career,
maybe an inference can be drawn from that. And put a proven cheat like
Schumacher in a team headed by Briatore and...

engineered by Brawn and...

[CatharticF1]

Post by ric zito

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Botham
The only incredible injustice that year was Schumacher and Benetton
got away winning the title in an illegal car using driver aids. He
even needed a modified fuel rig to reduce pitstop time(without
which he would almost certainly lost the race in Interlagos).

Car wasn't illegal, never proven and even 11 years later no evidence
has emerged.

What??? I can't believe that you're saying this. Would you be saying
the same thing if Option 13 had been written into McLaren software?
Somehow I doubt it.
C'mon Brendan, don't go down the "never proven" route. The case has
been closed for years, so it's unlikely to be "proven" any more than
it was at the time. The gun was found, but it wasn't smoking. In order
to prove that Option 13 was used they'd have had to be caught in
flagrante delicto - in other words the FIA would have had to indulge
in software probing *during* a race start, from the pitwall. Highly
unlikely, given the PR disaster that would constitute, don't you
agree? I can just see the hissy fits that Flavio would've thrown
on-camera...
All very convenient for Benetton.

Ahh - but F1 thrives on controversy as much as anything else, perhaps
more. I think that can be discounted. It would have offended no major
manufacturers and in fact would have created a huge amount of PR.

Post by ric zito
Still, so be it. One thing is clear to me : I have never known, in
more than 30 years of F1, a team that stank as rotten as Benetton did
that year. Option 13, the plank incident, the fuel filler and the
shunt at Adelaide. Nothing "proven", of course. Just a LOT of
circumstantial evidence pointing in one direction.

It was suspicious, no doubt. But equally its significance was overplayed
in return. But what of the rest..?

The plank was plainly a miscalculation - it is not something you 'get
away with', the fuel filter was simply trying to maximise things as you
see everywhere else in F1. And as I have mentioned before I saw a
release from Benetton at the time that it was approved by Charlie
Whiting (which may not be true but for which I've never seen evidence to
the contrary)

http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=706&FS=F1

"Benetton Formula concluded the filter was unnecessary and it was
removed with the full knowledge and permission of the FIA Formula One
Technical Delegate, Mr. Charlie Whiting. This permission was given on
the afternoon of Thursday 28 July to Mr. Joan Villadelprat in the
presence of Mr. Ross Brawn."

And Adelaide was at best a chance for an undeserving driver to rob a
deserving one. Despite being British and a very accomplished driver
Damon was never in Michael's league,

Post by ric zito

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Botham

Post by CatharticF1
Schumacher deserved the title long before Adelaide.

The driver who deserved the title was dead and Schumacher acted
like he won the lottery that day on the podium.

Schumacher did all he could to dominate the season up until Senna's
death. You can speculate - but the only facts contradict the trend
you'd like to establish.

Senna would've won by a country mile. Look at what Hill managed in the
same car. Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.
Another two races and Senna and Williams would've sorted the car. As
it was, they were an emotionally wrecked team being led by a relative
novice doing his best to sort a complex and troublesome car - and yet
Benetton *still* had to cheat to beat them.

I don't think Senna would have beaten Schu with that season start and
*without* the disqualification at Silverstone and two race ban - the
black flag was quite simply bullshit and indicative of how difficult the
establishment wanted to make it for Benetton and Schumacher. It was
completely unjustified.

You must think Senna would suddenly have reversed the trend. Why is
that?

Post by ric zito
"For me it was always clear that I was not going to win the
Championship, and that it was Ayrton that was going to win it."
Michael Schumacher

Indeed - a gracious comment to which I doubt you would attribute any
grace, but one that is addition modest.

[ric zito]

Post by CatharticF1
You must think Senna would suddenly have reversed the trend. Why is
that?

Because the whole team was behind Senna, and because they managed to
reverse the trend anyway, with Hill. Senna would've made more of that
car (he'd already made more of it, in fact).

[Prefect_Being]

Post by ric zito

Post by CatharticF1
You must think Senna would suddenly have reversed the trend. Why is
that?

Because the whole team was behind Senna, and because they managed to
reverse the trend anyway, with Hill. Senna would've made more of that
car (he'd already made more of it, in fact).

For a few laps. He'd already crashed a few times before the final one.


joe

[ric zito]

Post by Prefect_Being

Post by ric zito

Post by CatharticF1
You must think Senna would suddenly have reversed the trend. Why is
that?

Because the whole team was behind Senna, and because they managed to
reverse the trend anyway, with Hill. Senna would've made more of that
car (he'd already made more of it, in fact).

For a few laps. He'd already crashed a few times before the final one.

Three poles from three races, IIRC.

[Paul Harman]

Post by ric zito
Because the whole team was behind Senna, and because they managed to
reverse the trend anyway, with Hill. Senna would've made more of that
car (he'd already made more of it, in fact).

I seem to recall Hill finishing higher than Senna in those first few race in
'94 - and I definitely remember Senna spinning out in the races at least
once.

Paul

[Mark Jones]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:42:34 +0100, "Paul Harman"

Post by Paul Harman

Post by ric zito
Because the whole team was behind Senna, and because they managed to
reverse the trend anyway, with Hill. Senna would've made more of that
car (he'd already made more of it, in fact).

I seem to recall Hill finishing higher than Senna in those first few race in
'94 - and I definitely remember Senna spinning out in the races at least
once.

He got knocked out at Aida by Hakkinen at the first turn, and he spun
out at Brazil in the wet. Both times he was ahead of Hill.


- Jones

[Paul Harman]

Post by Mark Jones
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:42:34 +0100, "Paul Harman"

Post by Paul Harman
I seem to recall Hill finishing higher than Senna in those first few race in
'94 - and I definitely remember Senna spinning out in the races at least
once.

He got knocked out at Aida by Hakkinen at the first turn, and he spun
out at Brazil in the wet. Both times he was ahead of Hill.

But Hill finished higher, yes? <grin>

Paul

[Doc Knutsen]

Post by CatharticF1

Post by ric zito

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Botham
The only incredible injustice that year was Schumacher and Benetton
got away winning the title in an illegal car using driver aids. He
even needed a modified fuel rig to reduce pitstop time(without
which he would almost certainly lost the race in Interlagos).

Car wasn't illegal, never proven and even 11 years later no evidence
has emerged.

What??? I can't believe that you're saying this. Would you be saying
the same thing if Option 13 had been written into McLaren software?
Somehow I doubt it.
C'mon Brendan, don't go down the "never proven" route. The case has
been closed for years, so it's unlikely to be "proven" any more than
it was at the time. The gun was found, but it wasn't smoking. In order
to prove that Option 13 was used they'd have had to be caught in
flagrante delicto - in other words the FIA would have had to indulge
in software probing *during* a race start, from the pitwall. Highly
unlikely, given the PR disaster that would constitute, don't you
agree? I can just see the hissy fits that Flavio would've thrown
on-camera...
All very convenient for Benetton.

Ahh - but F1 thrives on controversy as much as anything else, perhaps
more. I think that can be discounted. It would have offended no major
manufacturers and in fact would have created a huge amount of PR.

Post by ric zito
Still, so be it. One thing is clear to me : I have never known, in
more than 30 years of F1, a team that stank as rotten as Benetton did
that year. Option 13, the plank incident, the fuel filler and the
shunt at Adelaide. Nothing "proven", of course. Just a LOT of
circumstantial evidence pointing in one direction.

It was suspicious, no doubt. But equally its significance was overplayed
in return. But what of the rest..?
The plank was plainly a miscalculation - it is not something you 'get
away with', the fuel filter was simply trying to maximise things as you
see everywhere else in F1. And as I have mentioned before I saw a
release from Benetton at the time that it was approved by Charlie
Whiting (which may not be true but for which I've never seen evidence to
the contrary)
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=706&FS=F1
"Benetton Formula concluded the filter was unnecessary and it was
removed with the full knowledge and permission of the FIA Formula One
Technical Delegate, Mr. Charlie Whiting. This permission was given on
the afternoon of Thursday 28 July to Mr. Joan Villadelprat in the
presence of Mr. Ross Brawn."

There was a lot of debate over this at the time, and Benetton backed down on
the "approved by Charlie Whiting" bit, in the end the FIA was satisfied that
the filter "was removed by a junior team member without the knowledge or
consent of team management". This compares to the outspoken Mr Mosley, who,
previous to Hockenheim, was on record (quoted in Autosport) that "any
tampering with the fuel rigs would be dealt with by the FIA applying
draconial penalties".
It was against the non-tampering rules, it was not approved by the FIA, and
it improved the fuel flow. By my reckoning, it was cheating.
Doc

Post by CatharticF1
And Adelaide was at best a chance for an undeserving driver to rob a
deserving one. Despite being British and a very accomplished driver
Damon was never in Michael's league,

Post by ric zito

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Botham

Post by CatharticF1
Schumacher deserved the title long before Adelaide.

The driver who deserved the title was dead and Schumacher acted
like he won the lottery that day on the podium.

Schumacher did all he could to dominate the season up until Senna's
death. You can speculate - but the only facts contradict the trend
you'd like to establish.

Senna would've won by a country mile. Look at what Hill managed in the
same car. Ayrton and Damon were emphatically NOT on the same planet.
Another two races and Senna and Williams would've sorted the car. As
it was, they were an emotionally wrecked team being led by a relative
novice doing his best to sort a complex and troublesome car - and yet
Benetton *still* had to cheat to beat them.

I don't think Senna would have beaten Schu with that season start and
*without* the disqualification at Silverstone and two race ban - the
black flag was quite simply bullshit and indicative of how difficult the
establishment wanted to make it for Benetton and Schumacher. It was
completely unjustified.
You must think Senna would suddenly have reversed the trend. Why is
that?

Post by ric zito
"For me it was always clear that I was not going to win the
Championship, and that it was Ayrton that was going to win it."
Michael Schumacher

Indeed - a gracious comment to which I doubt you would attribute any
grace, but one that is addition modest.
--
CatharticF1
'What you thought was freedom is just greed'

[James Connors]

Post by Doc Knutsen
It was against the non-tampering rules, it was not approved by the FIA, and
it improved the fuel flow. By my reckoning, it was cheating.

"A thing worth having is worth cheating for."

-– WC Fields, Drat! being the encapsulated view of life by W. C.
Fields in His Own Words

[Your Pal... Sal]

-– WC Fields, Drat! being the encapsulated view of life by W. C.
Fields in His Own Words
j a m e s

LaFong...

Henry LaFong... capita L small a
capital F small o small n small g...

LaFong, Henry LaFong!

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
LaFong...
Henry LaFong... capita L small a
capital F small o small n small g...
LaFong, Henry LaFong!

That's 'Carl' LaFong? From '¡Three Amigos!' - isn't it Sal?

Which reminds of 'Zabriskie Point':

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066601/

I saw it a showing at University where everyone was a bit ripped.
There's a scene where the cops are booking this kid and they ask for his
name. The kid sneers and deadpans the line, "Karl Marx."

The cop [laboriously] scrawls out 'Carl Marks' on the booking form.

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by James Connors

Post by Your Pal... Sal
Henry LaFong... capita L small a
capital F small o small n small g...
LaFong, Henry LaFong!

That's 'Carl' LaFong? From '¡Three Amigos!' - isn't it Sal?

No...

It's The Bank Dick.

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
No...
It's The Bank Dick.

No. Now I check closer, 'It's a Gift.'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092086/

Trivia: Carl LaFong (actor/stunts) is the name used to great comic
effect when W.C. Fields is questioned about that character's whereabouts
in It's a Gift (1934): Insurance Salesman: Do you know a man by the name
of LaFong? Carl LaFong? Capital L, small a, Capital F, small o, small n,
small g. LaFong. Carl LaFong. Harold: No, I don't know Carl LaFong -
capital L, small a, capital F, small o, small n, small g. And if I did
know Carl LaFong, I wouldn't admit it! (more)

Still, I am impressed.

Stroke? What fecking stroke?

[Your Pal... Sal]

Stroke? What fecking stroke? j a m e s

It just effects my short term
memory...

Thanks for doing the research.

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
Thanks for doing the research.

Force Recon. My pleasure.

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by James Connors
Force Recon. My pleasure.
j a m e s

You know from Force RECON?

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
You know from Force RECON?

Of course not.

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by James Connors

Post by Your Pal... Sal
You know from Force RECON?

Of course not.
j a m e s

They're the Marine Corps
elite unit replete with it's
Snipers

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
They're the Marine Corps
elite unit replete with it's
Snipers

Adjust your line length.

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by James Connors
Adjust your line length.
j a m e s

Why...

It all fits on one
screen!?!

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
Why...
It all fits on one
screen!?!

You were never in the Marine Corps were you Sal? Tell us the truth now.

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by James Connors
You were never in the Marine Corps were you Sal? Tell us the truth now.
j a m e s

* USMC *
Vietnam 12/66 to 1/68
Ser. Co. (Disbo) 1st Mar. Div.
Chu Lai and Da Nang
TAD 7th Comm. Bn. (attached to)
5th Marines Hill-63 Tam Ky
HQ Co. 5th Mar. Reg. Hoi An

Nope...

It was in me!

s/s

[James Connors]

Post by Your Pal... Sal
It was in me!

Canada rocks, USA sucks.

From where I'm viewing it . ..

Go figure . . ..

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by James Connors
Canada rocks, USA sucks.
From where I'm viewing it . ..
j a m e s

I assume you're a Qubequios?

If that's the case... you're not
a Canukian either!

Sacre Moi, Tabernac, Colece!

s/s

[John Briggs]

Post by James Connors

Post by Your Pal... Sal
LaFong...
Henry LaFong... capita L small a
capital F small o small n small g...
LaFong, Henry LaFong!

That's 'Carl' LaFong? From '¡Three Amigos!' - isn't it Sal?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066601/
I saw it a showing at University where everyone was a bit ripped.
There's a scene where the cops are booking this kid and they ask for
his name. The kid sneers and deadpans the line, "Karl Marx."
The cop [laboriously] scrawls out 'Carl Marks' on the booking form.

When Karl Marx presented one of his books to the British Museum Library, he
inscribed it "Dr Charles Marx".

[Richard Miller]

Post by CatharticF1
And Adelaide was at best a chance for an undeserving driver to rob a
deserving one. Despite being British and a very accomplished driver
Damon was never in Michael's league,

In the overall scheme of things, I agree. Damon had neither as much
talent nor as much propensity for cheating. So far as 1994 is concerned,
we will never know how Damon and Michael would have compared, and how
the Benetton and the Williams would have compared, if Benetton had
chosen to run a legal car instead of an illegal one.

[R Brickston]

Post by Richard Miller

Post by Zonky

Post by Richard Miller
I think that for the sake of the sport, it is a great shame that they
did not lodge the protest. I can understand the reasoning, but if they
actually believed at the time that MS had deliberately driven into Hill,
then surely getting someone so dangerous out of the sport should have
been a higher priority than the considerations Head refers to.

You may note that Head was referring to the illegality of the benetton
_car_ not Schumacher/Hill incident at Adeliade.

See below. You are completely wrong.

Post by Zonky
Presumably he is referring to The Benetton's alleged use of Traction
Control.
Z.

"But, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesn't really
make any difference.
"And that's because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were already
100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.
"It was so blatant.
"He was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when he
spotted Damon's Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered across the
track to prevent that happening."

I don't see any "slip-road" that MS could have driven up. Further, if you
watch the video, he barely touches the wall, so who can claim that the
Bennetton was "stricken?" In the video it looks like Hill is at least
equally to blame. And this 12 year late claim seems to say the attitude was,
"Sorry, Damon, no WDC for you, we must honor Senna." That doesn't make any
sense. And back to viewing the video, I doubt a protest would have
culminated in a penalty for MS. But what it does do is allow Head to now
claim his illogical story line. However, had they failed the protest, MS
would have never had this particular cloud hanging over him.

http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/features/adel94.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5469803427911356982&q=schumacher+1994

Post by Richard Miller
Head told the magazine that it was only unease over the tragic legacy of
the 1994 season that prevented Williams from officially protesting
Schumacher's title.
"We seriously considered lodging a formal protest there and then, on the
grounds that it had been so blatant, but decided against it simply because
of what had happened earlier in the year," he said.
--
Richard Miller

[Bob Dubery]

Post by R Brickston
I don't see any "slip-road" that MS could have driven up. Further, if you
watch the video, he barely touches the wall, so who can claim that the
Bennetton was "stricken?" In the video it looks like Hill is at least
equally to blame.

To my eyes what we see is Schumacher hitting the wall - though not at
great speed - and driving back onto the track, getting in Hill's way as
he does so. So far so good. But then as Hill draws alongside and inside
of him Schumacher accelerates and cuts across the front of Hill. THAT
is the damning moment and having watched that video I'm now revising my
point of view on this and coming around to accept that Schumacher did a
dirty on Hill. One might argue that all Hill had to do was keep clear
and wait for the Benetton to break - but that presumes that the
Benetton was damaged and that Hill would know that. At this stage of
things and with a championship at stake Hill really had only one
option: get past Schumacher.

So I disagree with Head's version of events (but not his comments about
the team's motives - only he can know how true that is and Head usually
shoots from the hip), but I do find the incident very similar to Jerez
'97 and I now believe that in both cases Schumacher tried to take his
rival out.

I'm not sure that any other driver would have done the same thing.
However, in both cases there was a point in the championship and
Schumacher was duelling it out with the championship rival towards the
end of the last race of the season. One of the interesting things about
sport is that it sometimes puts people in extreme positions and thus
puts their character to extreme tests. Not many drivers have twice been
in the position that Schumacher found himself in. So it's hard to say
what any of Schumacher's contemporaries would have done.

[John Smith]

I think that for the sake of the sport, it is a great shame that they did
not lodge the protest. I can understand the reasoning, but if they
actually believed at the time that MS had deliberately driven into Hill,
then surely getting someone so dangerous out of the sport should have been
a higher priority than the considerations Head refers to.
--
Richard Miller

They shouldn't have too. If it's blatant like it was the race officials
should have stood up and did something.

[CatharticF1]

Post by John Smith

Post by Richard Miller
I think that for the sake of the sport, it is a great shame that they
did not lodge the protest. I can understand the reasoning, but if
they actually believed at the time that MS had deliberately driven
into Hill, then surely getting someone so dangerous out of the sport
should have been a higher priority than the considerations Head
refers to. --
Richard Miller

They shouldn't have too. If it's blatant like it was the race
officials should have stood up and did something.

You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and Silverstone
the following year?

[Ralph Bergman]

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and Silverstone
the following year?

Describe? What part of your butt did you yank that little wilnot from?

[CatharticF1]

Post by Ralph Bergman

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and
Silverstone the following year?

Describe?

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions Damon
made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody minded
attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a one race
suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the whipping boy
around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Post by Ralph Bergman
What part of your butt did you yank that little wilnot from?

Some of us don't need to resort to that - but I'm sure you will..

[Jim N]

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Ralph Bergman

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and
Silverstone the following year?

Describe?

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions Damon
made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody minded
attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a one race
suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the whipping boy
around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Definitely not forgotten here.

To my mind both were very poor overtaking attempts in the 'let me
through or crash' style. Are you claiming they are more, and that
Damon had an agenda in deliberately causing these crashes? Maybe to
give his fellow Brit (although Schumacher's team mate) Johnny Herbert
a couple of easy wins?

Silverstone in particular just seemed like a rush of blood in front of
an expectant home crowd, jumping into less than half a gap.

If you're comparing these moves to Adelaide, I don't think that's
valid. The gaps and speed differentials are vastly different. The move
in Adelaide was valid given how off line Schumacher was, and how much
slower than normal he was travelling. Neither are true of Monza or
Silverstone.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

[David Melville]

Post by Jim N

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Ralph Bergman

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and
Silverstone the following year?

Describe?

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions Damon
made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody minded
attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a one race
suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the whipping boy
around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Definitely not forgotten here.
To my mind both were very poor overtaking attempts in the 'let me
through or crash' style. Are you claiming they are more, and that
Damon had an agenda in deliberately causing these crashes? Maybe to
give his fellow Brit (although Schumacher's team mate) Johnny Herbert
a couple of easy wins?
Silverstone in particular just seemed like a rush of blood in front of
an expectant home crowd, jumping into less than half a gap.
If you're comparing these moves to Adelaide, I don't think that's
valid. The gaps and speed differentials are vastly different. The move
in Adelaide was valid
*** given how off line Schumacher was, and how much slower than normal he was travelling. ***

I seem to have recent memories??

Dave

[Mark Jones]

Post by Jim N

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Ralph Bergman

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and
Silverstone the following year?

Describe?

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions Damon
made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody minded
attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a one race
suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the whipping boy
around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Definitely not forgotten here.
To my mind both were very poor overtaking attempts in the 'let me
through or crash' style. Are you claiming they are more, and that
Damon had an agenda in deliberately causing these crashes? Maybe to
give his fellow Brit (although Schumacher's team mate) Johnny Herbert
a couple of easy wins?
Silverstone in particular just seemed like a rush of blood in front of
an expectant home crowd, jumping into less than half a gap.
If you're comparing these moves to Adelaide, I don't think that's
valid.

You don't think it's valid that Hill could have had another 'rush of
blood' when he saw Schumacher slow and on the wrong angle for the
corner? If he'd just waited a moment he could have swept past as they
accelerated out of the corner.

- Jones

[R Brickston]

Post by Mark Jones

Post by Jim N

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Ralph Bergman

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and
Silverstone the following year?

Describe?

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions Damon
made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody minded
attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a one race
suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the whipping boy
around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Definitely not forgotten here.
To my mind both were very poor overtaking attempts in the 'let me
through or crash' style. Are you claiming they are more, and that
Damon had an agenda in deliberately causing these crashes? Maybe to
give his fellow Brit (although Schumacher's team mate) Johnny Herbert
a couple of easy wins?
Silverstone in particular just seemed like a rush of blood in front of
an expectant home crowd, jumping into less than half a gap.
If you're comparing these moves to Adelaide, I don't think that's
valid.

You don't think it's valid that Hill could have had another 'rush of
blood' when he saw Schumacher slow and on the wrong angle for the
corner? If he'd just waited a moment he could have swept past as they
accelerated out of the corner.
- Jones

He'd had enough views of Schumacher's pipes and wasn't going to put up with
it and veered over to cut to the inside. I think Schumacher, being still
ahead of him by a several feet, figured Hill was fair game and went to
protect what could be considered his (MS') line.

[CatharticF1]

Post by Jim N

Post by CatharticF1

Post by Ralph Bergman

Post by CatharticF1
You mean like Hill driving into the back of Schu at Monza and
Silverstone the following year?

Describe?

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions
Damon made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody
minded attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a
one race suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the
whipping boy around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Definitely not forgotten here.
To my mind both were very poor overtaking attempts in the 'let me
through or crash' style. Are you claiming they are more, and that
Damon had an agenda in deliberately causing these crashes? Maybe to
give his fellow Brit (although Schumacher's team mate) Johnny Herbert
a couple of easy wins?
Silverstone in particular just seemed like a rush of blood in front of
an expectant home crowd, jumping into less than half a gap.
If you're comparing these moves to Adelaide, I don't think that's
valid. The gaps and speed differentials are vastly different. The move
in Adelaide was valid given how off line Schumacher was, and how much
slower than normal he was travelling. Neither are true of Monza or
Silverstone.

My point is more that had the positions been reversed the pervading view
of them would have been very different. I agree with your assessment:
that they were carelessly ambitious and likely the result of frustration
or a rush of blood. Something which in many people's minds only Damon can
have apparently.

[ray o'hara]

Post by s***@excite.com

Post by David Melville

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.

begging the question: Why?

The article explicitly answers that question!

err. didn't senna do the same thing to mansell?

senna reminds me of earnhardt ,they get killed and become sainted, and
people overlook they were dangerous and dirty drivers.

[Your Pal... Sal]

Post by ray o'hara
senna reminds me of earnhardt ,they get killed and become sainted, and
people overlook they were dangerous and dirty drivers.

No...

Then they became "colorful"
drivers.

s/s

[a425couple]

Post by ray o'hara

Williams' / Patrick Head has revealed (they) would have
protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title victory
had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident >

senna reminds me of earnhardt ,they get killed and become sainted,
and people overlook they were dangerous and dirty drivers.

Ray, on some subjects and on some newsgroups, I may
disagree with you - but I will not disagree or even quibble
on your above.

Post by ray o'hara
err. didn't senna do the same thing to mansell?

I believe in 1989 Senna had car to car disabeling contact
with Mansell, Berger, Prost, AND Brundle.

F1 drivers had long recognized that car to car contact
was a BAD thing in that it generally puts at least one
(often enough both) out of the race, and had a high
likelyhood of injury or death. They took care to avoid it.

Senna came along when car safety had gotten much better,
and in his great ambition to win, he was quite willing to
make clear to other drivers that he was willing to have
car contact in order to pass them, or prevent them from
passing him. Four collisions in 16 races is a horrible rate.
Senna was very fast, but I and others, deplore his
willingness to win by intimidation.

[R Brickston]

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.

Regardless of Schumacher's antics, one must give a little consideration that
in 1994 Schumacher was DSQ'd out of two races and banned for two more. The
first for ignoring a 'stop and go' resulting in a black flag, also ignored
(the claim/excuse is that the team had protested the call and were waiting
for the stewards result). The second DSQ for a out of spec barge board. Then
he was banned for two races for the the black flag incident.

Yeah, Schumacher's sportsmanship is suspect for sure, but in effect, he
didn't show up at four races and yet was on points parity with Hill, who got
to drive in all of them.

[Hornplayer9599]

Post by R Brickston

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.

Regardless of Schumacher's antics, one must give a little consideration that
in 1994 Schumacher was DSQ'd out of two races and banned for two more. The
first for ignoring a 'stop and go' resulting in a black flag, also ignored
(the claim/excuse is that the team had protested the call and were waiting
for the stewards result). The second DSQ for a out of spec barge board. Then
he was banned for two races for the the black flag incident.
Yeah, Schumacher's sportsmanship is suspect for sure, but in effect, he
didn't show up at four races and yet was on points parity with Hill, who got
to drive in all of them.

Actually, I think Schumacher's second DSQ was a result of his spin at
Spa where "The Plank" showed too much wear.

[R Brickston]

Post by R Brickston

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.

Regardless of Schumacher's antics, one must give a little consideration
that in 1994 Schumacher was DSQ'd out of two races and banned for two
more. The first for ignoring a 'stop and go' resulting in a black flag,
also ignored (the claim/excuse is that the team had protested the call
and were waiting for the stewards result). The second DSQ for a out of
spec barge board. Then he was banned for two races for the the black flag
incident.
Yeah, Schumacher's sportsmanship is suspect for sure, but in effect, he
didn't show up at four races and yet was on points parity with Hill, who
got to drive in all of them.

Actually, I think Schumacher's second DSQ was a result of his spin at Spa
where "The Plank" showed too much wear.

Right, it was the plank.

[Mark]

Post by R Brickston

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.

Regardless of Schumacher's antics, one must give a little consideration
that in 1994 Schumacher was DSQ'd out of two races and banned for two
more. The first for ignoring a 'stop and go' resulting in a black flag,
also ignored (the claim/excuse is that the team had protested the call and
were waiting for the stewards result). The second DSQ for a out of spec
barge board. Then he was banned for two races for the the black flag
incident.
Yeah, Schumacher's sportsmanship is suspect for sure, but in effect, he
didn't show up at four races and yet was on points parity with Hill, who
got to drive in all of them.

Of course, if Senna was still around, he would have romped home the title.
At the initial races, the Williams was uncompetitive, but I think Senna
actually lapped Hill in the same car. Hill was then able to be competitive
against Schumacher at the end of the year in this car. If Senna had still
been around, he possibly could have been lapping the whole field.

[Vile Merchant]

Post by Mark
Of course, if Senna was still around, he would have romped home the title.
At the initial races, the Williams was uncompetitive, but I think Senna
actually lapped Hill in the same car. Hill was then able to be competitive
against Schumacher at the end of the year in this car. If Senna had still
been around, he possibly could have been lapping the whole field.

this is possible, but it's hardly any reason to award Hill the title
over Schumacher.

[Hal S.]

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.
--------------------------------------------

The twit has to go back 12 years to dig that up. A lot of relevance to the
present situation and time.

Hal S.

[j***@sympatico.ca]

Post by Hal S.

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.
--------------------------------------------

The twit has to go back 12 years to dig that up. A lot of relevance to the
present situation and time.
Hal S.

Exactly!

[Geoff May]

[snipped]
The twit has to go back 12 years to dig that up. A lot of relevance to the
present situation and time.

Yup, 100% correct.

Cheers

Geoff

[Doc Knutsen]

Post by Hal S.

Post by Botham
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=36316
Williams' engineering director Patrick Head has revealed that his
team would have protested Michael Schumacher's 1994 world title
victory had it not been for Ayrton Senna's fatal accident earlier
that year.
"Because 1994 was the terrible year it was, because Ayrton Senna had
been killed in one of our cars at Imola - we didn't really think it
would have been right for Damon to win the world championship that
year, especially if he'd done so in court, so we didn't protest the
illegality of the Benetton car.
"What I find remarkable is the mood of righteous indignation adopted
by some people in the Ferrari team about what Michael did at Monaco,"
he said.
"I'm not one of the extreme ones calling for him to be kicked out
of F1, but what this episode proves - just as it did at Adelaide 1994
and on a number of other occasions - is that he isn't a sportsman
in the sporting sense of the word.
"He has an overwhelming urge to win and it seems quite clear that he
doesn't care how he achieves that aim.
"But I'm just amazed that people are surprised that he does these
things, given the track record.
--------------------------------------------

The twit has to go back 12 years to dig that up. A lot of relevance to the
present situation and time.

Unfortunately, yes it has.
Doc

Post by Hal S.
Hal S.