Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans
** ignoring insult mode ON**You misunderstand, possibly deliberately, possibly not.
** ignoring insult mode OFF**You expound that a real champion upholds the rules, even if making sure that they are applied correctly disadvantages him or her. Ferrari broke the rules, as you alluded to by the mention of the stewards' punishment and this infringement was upheld by the WMSC. The rule is stupid, barely enforceable, but it is still a rule. Whether or not the rule is wrong, it is in force this season and I was highlighting your double standards in lauding Moss for going with his conscience while finding nothing wrong with rule-breaking by Ferrari.
To avoid a protracted argument based upon semantics, I must point out that I am completely in agreement with you on the subject of team orders. It is a bad rule. My comments relate to your apparent view that because a rule is against the ethos of Ferrari then it is not a valid rule and does not figure into whether or not it should be obeyed.
There is a distinction that you have missed. In the case of Stirling Moss, he spoke up because he knew someone was being wrongfully penalized.
In the case you are quoting, Ferrari have accepted their punishment.
Now, if it is your supposition that, when a driver, in the eyes of the stewards "breaks any rule", irrespective of the penalty they are given, they should also be not entitled to win a championship, then, you can count out pretty much every driver in this year's WDC because they have all been penalised. I quoted the most obvious case of Lewis when he passed the safety car and was given a penalty that didn't involve the loss of any points as well. In both cases yours is, to me, a silly proposition. If you break the rule in the opinion of the stewards, you get the penalty, and that is that.
If you really think there should be some arbitrary additional penalty when, some pundits don't think the applied penalty is hard enough, go right ahead and lobby for it.
** ignoring insult mode ON**You misunderstand, possibly deliberately, possibly not.
** ignoring insult mode OFF**You expound that a real champion upholds the rules, even if making sure that they are applied correctly disadvantages him or her. Ferrari broke the rules, as you alluded to by the mention of the stewards' punishment and this infringement was upheld by the WMSC. The rule is stupid, barely enforceable, but it is still a rule. Whether or not the rule is wrong, it is in force this season and I was highlighting your double standards in lauding Moss for going with his conscience while finding nothing wrong with rule-breaking by Ferrari.
To avoid a protracted argument based upon semantics, I must point out that I am completely in agreement with you on the subject of team orders. It is a bad rule. My comments relate to your apparent view that because a rule is against the ethos of Ferrari then it is not a valid rule and does not figure into whether or not it should be obeyed.
There is a distinction that you have missed. In the case of Stirling Moss, he spoke up because he knew someone was being wrongfully penalized.
In the case you are quoting, Ferrari have accepted their punishment.
Now, if it is your supposition that, when a driver, in the eyes of the stewards "breaks any rule", irrespective of the penalty they are given, they should also be not entitled to win a championship, then, you can count out pretty much every driver in this year's WDC because they have all been penalised. I quoted the most obvious case of Lewis when he passed the safety car and was given a penalty that didn't involve the loss of any points as well. In both cases yours is, to me, a silly proposition. If you break the rule in the opinion of the stewards, you get the penalty, and that is that.
If you really think there should be some arbitrary additional penalty when, some pundits don't think the applied penalty is hard enough, go right ahead and lobby for it.
Insult? Maybe, maybe not; it's a 50/50 choice and interesting that you assume the worst.
I made no such supposition but if it suits you to believe so, then fine. We're all entitled to our opinion.
Back to the OP, someone else said it all. You could ask any one of the drivers whether there is value in beating a supreme champion in an uncompetitive car and you'd probably get the same answer.
Listen this thread is a lot to do about absolutely nothing... the way things stand Kubica or Sutil could have made the same statement about Schumacher and that alone illustrates what is being said.
....... some might simply say that it's an unfair comparison because his car isn't competitive ......
I just thought of something, Michael has finished ahead of Lewis 3 out of the last four races
I just thought of something, Michael has finished ahead of Lewis 3 out of the last four races
and........
...Well, if there's not value in beating him, what happens when you don't beat him?
.....
I stopped by to say goodbye to this thread.
Why even say it? To me there's no point. MS isn't in the hunt.
Why even say it? To me there's no point. MS isn't in the hunt.
You dont know the context the journo got this statement. Alot of the times they will ask the question, its not like Lewis called a press conference to say this
See our F1 related articles too!
