So Prost who had nothing to do with it, deserved to lose a title to a kid with the hump?
Your telling me, and this is not putting words in your mouth, your saying it. That Senna had the right to force a competitor off cause he dared to take a corner after Senna explained plublicly what would happen if he did.
No but he did have the right to go for a gap.
True, but you cant complain when anytime Senna had this right, it didnt turn out well. 1989 was Senna going for a gap that wasnt there. 1990 was just taking a rival off to win. from 1988-90 Prost and Senna had a right to the title each year, but ive always felt and ive seen a lot, that all the Mclaren days should have been Prosts, as he had more points then Senna in 88 and was taken out needlessly in suzuka 89 when he was going to win, and 1990 should have been Sennas if only cause that pole side he wanted to switch should have been, and i guess taking out Prost was actually the only way to get back at the FIA, oh no wait it wasnt, cause there were 60 off laps left of the grand prix to take first place back... 
ALL THREE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSTS.
I'm not complaining about that at all.
In 1989 Senna went for a gap, prost didn't budge (or as some say turned in on him) and they went off Senna recovered and drove amazingly to recover the win to only have it taken off him.
Thus the chance of a WDC was taken away by a steward which is disgusting because what he did was just recover not cut a chicane.
Senna won in 88 fair and square, was denied the chance in 89 and was the rightful winner in 90.
To say all should of been prosts is daft.
Senna going for gaps is one of the main reasons Prost had a chance at beating him in all three of them years, Senna won almost all the races he and Prost finished 1-2 but Prost was easier on the car and thus suffered less retirements AND the drawback of Sennas attitude like Prosts is that he was a points man not a go for the win man, was that Senna would needlessly take himself out with his own mentality.
Senna did not drive amazingly well, by the time Senna recovered did a whole friggin lap with a broken front wing, pitted and came out, he was only FOUR seconds behind the new leader, thats how dominant the car he drove was. Nanini didnt even fight for the position. Christ give Senna the credit where hes due like the pole laps by a second but dont make claims like that when it was pretty simple for Senna to do.
Senna did win in 1988 fair, but Prost had more points, the same decision by men in suitsthat decided to disqualify Senna a year later robbed Prost of a WDC, what comeback can you actually say to that, considering almost all seasons were decided on who has more points, sure thats the rules, but ive already stated Senna won it fairly. Im saying Prost was the man that should have won.
In 1989, Prost led the Grand Prix from Senna, who took what? 40 odd laps to close down a gap of a few seconds, if not less, he tried a maneouveure in desperation and took Prost out, how can you just paste over an incident in determining who should have won it like Senna taking out his rival whilst he drove on. The moment Prost got out and Senna continued is the moment the title should have been Prosts.
In 1990, Senna was denied the pole quite unfairly, but is it Prosts choice that JMB was bias towards him,no its not. Heres a quote from Senna at the 1992 Portugese GP " I think if Prost wants to come back (to Williams in 1993) in a sporting way, he should be sporting, the way he is doing, he is behaving like a coward. If he wants to be sporting he must be prepared to race anybody on equal terms."
1. You were the least sporting driver of the 80's ayrton.
2. You vetoed Derek Warwick from Lotus in 1985.
Hypocrite much?
To say all three should have been Prosts is an UNDERSTATEMENT.
Alain Prost - Lewis Hamilton - Kamui Kobayashi - Fernando Alonso - Kimi Raikkonnen - Jenson Button
You just managed to have an argument with someone that's been dead most of your life.
