FIA continues to help Ferrari

[beerbellybob]

Alonso should be innocent until proven guilty. If that was the case then we would assume that the FIA is innocent until proven guilty.

But...


...that is not the case.

[beerbellybob]

Massa may have the ability to reach decisions independently but remember Ferrari pay him a lot to not do just that. I think Massa wants to win races without having to worry about letting Michael past. But that's not going to happen. Same for Reubens and Eddie. Its the Ferrari way.

[Hudsonhawk.]

rules should not be changed mid season.
devices should not be deemed illegal mid season.

[Scuderia_Torque]

so last year, the FIA helped every other team apart from ferrari? I dont see any of the other teams struggling, bmw, mclaren, honda all moving forward while reno is going backwards.

[blackpebel]

yeah,,, i know they didnt do it,,, but FIA might have even changed the single tyre rule mid seson last year if ferrari wanted them to.

[Scuderia_Torque]

yeah,,, i know they didnt do it,,, but FIA might have even changed the single tyre rule mid seson last year if ferrari wanted them to.

Point is they didnt, ferrari didnt ask, didnt cry about it just did the best they could all season. Now renault is having some issues, they are blaming ferrari and the FIA. Seriosuly, a bird could fly down and hit alonsos car and some how the FIA and Ferrari would get the blame.

*Alonso homing bird device..

[Anz]

Or what could happen is that the FIA could actually do their job properly, eg, red flag the session to avoid damage, danger, and impeding people's laps if you like, and then Alonso and Renault wouldn't have to scream and shout everytime something goes wrong.

Ever considered that the reason Ferrari and Michael never complain the way Renault does is simply because they know that they are guilty???

P.S: Changing the tyre rule mid - season would have made all manufacturers and fans run with their money, and there would sit Ferrari and the FIA with nothing, not so clever hay?

[manchild]

so last year, the FIA helped every other team apart from ferrari?

Yes.

FIA intorduced once race one tyre rule for 2005 because Ferrari was the only team among 10 teams who supportet that idea. If they've voted NO like remaining 9 teams did FIA couldn't impement once race one tyre rule. Unfortunately for them, Bridgestone made awfull tyre so they cried again asking FIA for re-intorduction of tyre change in 2006.

All teams are advancing even Renault only their car and drivers suffer from unjust FIA punishments.

[Rob W]

so last year, the FIA helped every other team apart from ferrari?

Yes.

FIA intorduced once race one tyre rule for 2005 because Ferrari was the only team among 10 teams who supportet that idea.

Finally some says it... this whole 2005 one-tyre thing wasn't anti Ferrari. If anything it should have been an advantage to them. The only hitch was Bridgestone stuffed up with their tyre development.

Imagine if a team who couldn't adapt to a technical rule change complained and asked that the rules be changed. What would the response be then?

You guessed it - the answer would depend on which team was complaining.

Rob W

[mini696]

manchild, stop being so pathetic. MS never had anything to do with what happened at Monza...

You say Potato, I say... MS and Ferrari are one in the same, Massa bitched about being impeeded, to help himself, ferrari, and yes Michael.

...and the chance MS or Massa, after what happened last week, would impede Alonso or Fisichella is anyway very low.

Well MS has done this before... Remember monaco? MS is well known for his dirty tactics.

[mcdenife]

FLC Wrote:

So correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that for the FIA to make a decision - they need to show you some proof, and when the FIA-Ferrari connection is under the light - you dont need any real proof, because to you it smells and tastes and looks like crap and so it must be crap (even though you used the word 'suspicious' yourself)? Did I say or not say that you people are infected with double morale?
Oh and I know that it's not your job to supply the proof, but it seems that even the people that it is their job - cant do it. For the last 10(!) years according to some people's views here. So by the argument you gave - the FIA/Ferrari are innocent until proven guilty, isnt that so

As you have failed or are unable to see there are 2 issues I will try to make it simple for you.
1) If you penalize someone for something, is it imoral to expect you show the evidence you based your judgement on especially if the guilty party and everyone disagree/challenge the rulling? You appear to think so. So a simple question, can you answer, either way, whether or not Alonso's penalty was fair and why?

2) Relates to the governance of the sport: The point is that the fia as the governing body must be seen to be unbiased (even if they are not) hence the "crap" comment. You must be blind, naive or both if you think FIA has always been SEEN to be unbiased. If you really read and understood what I wrote you will note I did not say "therefore it must be crap". The implication was that Perception is everything and given that, what other conclusion can one draw?
I cannot see what this has to do with Ferrari's guilt or innocence, they are NOT the governing body.

[FLC]

I suggest you take a quick look at this thread's topic, just to remind yourself what wer'e talking about.

1)Alonso's penalty was fair according to the FIA's behaviour in the past. They treated him exactly as they treated other drivers/teams before and never had to display the evidence. If it's right or wrong - that has nothing to do with this topic.

2)I didnt say you said "it must be crap", it was phrased as a question, which you answered. 'seem', 'preception' and the likes are far from enough to prove the connection suggested in the topic. What conclusion can you draw? I can think of alternative ones for you: Renault wishes to play the crying 'underdog', Renault is preparing the grounds for a potential lose of the titles, Some people hate Ferrari, "No such thing as bad poblicity", etc.

Your last sentence is exactly what I wanted to read. I rest my case.

[captainmorgan]

the penalty is fair but it isnt in question. You only have to remember Fisi vs. Villeneuve earlier in the season to demonstrate that.

It is the steward's *judgment* that is in question

[mcdenife]

FLC wrote:

I suggest you take a quick look at this thread's topic, just to remind yourself what wer'e talking about.

If you take a look another look you and follow the thread you will see my that my debates were in response to your arguments starting Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:18 pm and that whilst I never suggested that FIA continues to help Ferrari, I asked what reasonable conclusion can be drawn looking at recent events and some other events over the past few years so I am not sure what you are resting your case on since topic never suggested that Ferrari was guilty of anything.

I can think of alternative ones for you: Renault wishes to play the crying 'underdog', Renault is preparing the grounds for a potential lose of the titles, Some people hate Ferrari, "No such thing as bad poblicity", etc.

Renault have every right to cry foul but I am sure I dont need to explain to you why. You would in their position.
But then what do I know. Fortunately I am fan of neither Ferrari or renault. You argument however seem to tinged red (or maybe you are a fan of the FIA). Me, I am an angry fan of the sport(?) and what I see as the destruction thereof.

[Principessa]

People people,

Everybody is saying the same things as other members already did here and this discussion can go on for ages if this keeps happening.
Let's close this topic and make room for a new and more up-to-date topic