FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[vaptin]

Id say the consensus at the moment is that there is no conspiracy but there is favouritism.

And we needed 8 pages to get to that conclusion.....??

Apparantly Though thats about the view I started from. Ive yet to see any evidence that either moves me towards a conspiracy or away from favouritism.

Hey, don't ask people to prove a negative, it's your job to convince us.

TBH I can remember a similar level of blown calls and a moody Hamilton throughout his career.

[racechick]

Hamilton's just not a media bunny, slimy git, street wise, whatever you want to call it. Its probably part of the attraction of him, aside from the amazing things he does in cars,when they're going on the limit instead of on a go-slow.
I cant do double negatives, its like tyring to read a map when its not the right way round for the way the road goes. So what should I be asking people to prove/disprove? favouritism? Conspiracy?

[acosmichippo]

We skeptics adopt a "null hypothesis" by default. In this case, the Null Hypothesis is that there is no organized plot against Hamilton, or even a petty favoritism held by the team principal strong enough to compromise WCC points that could mean a loss of tens of millions of dollars.

You are the one asserting the "alternative hypothesis", which, as I understand it, claims at the very least there is favoritism in the team leading to unfair treatment, and even on top of that could be an organized plot against Hamilton to benefit Button.

From wikipedia:

It is important to understand that the null hypothesis can never be proven. A set of data can only reject a null hypothesis or fail to reject it. For example, if comparison of two groups (e.g.: treatment, no treatment) reveals no statistically significant difference between the two, it does not mean that there is no difference in reality. It only means that there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis (in other words, the experiment fails to reject the null hypothesis).

[darwin dali]

Yes, and in order to disprove the null hypothesis (which says there is NO conspiracy or favoritism), racechick will have to come up with evidence to the contrary, i.e., evidence for favoritism. Once that evidence has been widely accepted as correct and true evidence, then the null hypothesis can be safely dismissed.

[vaptin]

Hamilton's just not a media bunny, slimy git, street wise, whatever you want to call it. Its probably part of the attraction of him, aside from the amazing things he does in cars,when they're going on the limit instead of on a go-slow.
I cant do double negatives, its like tyring to read a map when its not the right way round for the way the road goes. So what should I be asking people to prove/disprove? favouritism? Conspiracy?

It's only my opinion, I'm not an expert and not trying to tell others what to do, but the way I see it, the default position is always the "negative" (the simplest solution is the likeliest), in this case that McLaren say they are treating their drivers equally, the drivers say that, pretty much all of the media seem to say that, so that is the accepted position.

Your trying to suggest there is some form of "bias" (arguing whether it comes to an organised conspiracy is just semantics, but conspiracy seems to be the most reasonable description to me) against Lewis from McLaren. It's up to you to prove that, the rest of us aren't required to prove the bias does not exist, just to come up with reasons to counter your reasons in proving the bias against Lewis.

[andrew]

So what should I be asking people to prove/disprove? favouritism? Conspiracy?

You made certain claims re. favouritism/conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. The onus is on you to prove these claims or withdraw said claims if you are unable to categorically prove them. You shouldn't be asking anyone to prove anything. You should be proving what you're saying.

For example, in a previous life, if I was making a claim against a tenant of a property (on behalf of a landlord) I would have to prove said claim to the tenant and/or their representative. Pretty much the same principle here.

[racechick]

Yes, and in order to disprove the null hypothesis (which says there is NO conspiracy or favoritism), racechick will have to come up with evidence to the contrary, i.e., evidence for favoritism. Once that evidence has been widely accepted as correct and true evidence, then the null hypothesis can be safely dismissed.

Thats easy then Just have to prove favouritism. Easy peasy, its obvious. Ive already given loads of evidence but I'll gather together a propr case (rubs hands together in glee)

[Jabberwocky]

in short Mclaren are innocent until proven guilty

[andrew]

in short Mclaren are innocent until proven guilty

Exactly and nothing factual at all has been proven yet. We just have a series of opinions gained from one persons interpretation of certain observations.

[racechick]

in short Mclaren are innocent until proven guilty

Now that is a lot easier to understand than all that jargon before. But I dont think a case needs anwering against Mclaren, that would be admitting to a conspiracy, which I dont think there is.
Do you remember how everyone thought Briatore and co were innocent?......then they got proved guilty. Now in that case it was a conspiracy, but if it was suggested at the time ..shudder, horror, you cant say that, loonies, conspiracies, tin foil hats etc etc.

[vaptin]

in short Mclaren are innocent until proven guilty

Now that is a lot easier to understand than all that jargon before. But I dont think a case needs anwering against Mclaren, that would be admitting to a conspiracy, which I dont think there is.
Do you remember how everyone thought Briatore and co were innocent?......then they got proved guilty. Now in that case it was a conspiracy, but if it was suggested at the time ..shudder, horror, you cant say that, loonies, conspiracies, tin foil hats etc etc.

Correlation,

It's still correct to not believe in things without evidence, otherwise I could suggest loads of things, just because they would occasionally turn out to be true, doesn't make my method of predictions valid, it was just guess work, pot-luck.

[Jabberwocky]

in short Mclaren are innocent until proven guilty

Now that is a lot easier to understand than all that jargon before. But I dont think a case needs anwering against Mclaren, that would be admitting to a conspiracy, which I dont think there is.
Do you remember how everyone thought Briatore and co were innocent?......then they got proved guilty. Now in that case it was a conspiracy, but if it was suggested at the time ..shudder, horror, you cant say that, loonies, conspiracies, tin foil hats etc etc.

I think that in the case of Briatore no one wanted to believe

[acosmichippo]

Yes, and in order to disprove the null hypothesis (which says there is NO conspiracy or favoritism), racechick will have to come up with evidence to the contrary, i.e., evidence for favoritism. Once that evidence has been widely accepted as correct and true evidence, then the null hypothesis can be safely dismissed.

Thats easy then Just have to prove favouritism. Easy peasy, its obvious. Ive already given loads of evidence but I'll gather together a propr case (rubs hands together in glee)

some questions that you should strive to answer with your case:

- Is Whitmarsh's alleged "favoritism" of Jenson strong enough to sacrifice WCC points? In a business with millions and millions of dollars/pounds on the line, do you really think the CEO of the group would let petty favoritism get in the way of profit?

- If not, then who f'ing cares?

- If so, why are Ron Dennis (Chairman and majority owner of the group, and strong supporter of Lewis) and the other owners letting him do it?

- If so, why isn't Lewis (or his manager, family, etc) up in arms about this? Why is no one actually close to Lewis and McLaren shouting conspiracy?

[Jabberwocky]

Yes, and in order to disprove the null hypothesis (which says there is NO conspiracy or favoritism), racechick will have to come up with evidence to the contrary, i.e., evidence for favoritism. Once that evidence has been widely accepted as correct and true evidence, then the null hypothesis can be safely dismissed.

Thats easy then Just have to prove favouritism. Easy peasy, its obvious. Ive already given loads of evidence but I'll gather together a propr case (rubs hands together in glee)

some questions that you should strive to answer with your case:

- Is Whitmarsh's alleged "favoritism" of Jenson strong enough to sacrifice WCC points? In a business with millions and millions of dollars/pounds on the line, do you really think the CEO of the group would let petty favoritism get in the way of profit?

- If not, then who f'ing cares?

- If so, why are Ron Dennis (Chairman and majority owner of the group, and strong supporter of Lewis) and the other owners letting him do it?

- If so, why isn't Lewis (or his manager, family, etc) up in arms about this? Why is no one actually close to Lewis and McLaren shouting conspiracy?

because everyone knows Jenson was on the grassy knoll

[racechick]

Answers to some of the other questions you asked

[i][i]- Is Whitmarsh's alleged "favoritism" of Jenson strong enough to sacrifice WCC points? In a business with millions and millions of dollars/pounds on the line, do you really think the CEO of the group would let petty favoritism get in the way of profit?[/i][/i] No, I think the sacrificing of points is not part of the game plan. Its a case of either driver A or driver B being put in a better position to get more points. So long as the points come Mclaren's way preferably by the favoured driver, thats all good. (Of course this can go wrong and having given favoured driver the best strategy he then crashes-so its a calculated risk. And the more times it goes wrong the riskier it gets as more and more less loonie people start to ask questions)

- If not, then who f'ing cares? Not sure what you mean by this question? Do you mean who cares if one driver gets favoured?


[u]- If so, why are Ron Dennis (Chairman and majority owner of the group, and strong supporter of Lewis) and the other owners letting him do it? [/u] Now this is a good question!! Im always pleased when Ron is in the garage because I think the favouritising will be curtailed. But Im not sure it is. Maybe Ron just cant put his finger on why these things keep happenning to Lewis. I shouldnt think he was too happy with Bahrain though! I dont know, this one's a mystery. I'll keep digging on this.


- If so, why isn't Lewis (or his manager, family, etc) up in arms about this? Why is no one actually close to Lewis and McLaren shouting conspiracy?
Because its not a conspiracy. Lewis has said things,and gets in trouble when he does. He also looks unhappy and angry(this will be when he knows its happened). His dad has only just started coming back in the garage, I dont think he and Whitmarsh get on(ripping up of Lewis' contract saga) and his dad is no longer his manager. Nevertheless he did say if you remember, last year, that McLaren should be giving Lewis more support. Lewis should never have got rid of his dad!! Management... well the Simon Fuller bit I imagine will be managing contract negotiations and advertisng contracts/marketing and the new one (who use to manage Mika) well he's new, probably still gathering evidence.