MotoGP 2015

[turbof1]

Care to explain how Rossi managed to aim a kick so perfectly that it went around the handlebar guards and operated the brake pedal?

He did not aim. It was obvious hitting the brake pedal was not intended but a very unlucky hit. But the kick itself was intentional.

[Tim.Wright]

Care to explain how Rossi managed to aim a kick so perfectly that it went around the handlebar guards and operated the brake pedal?

He did not aim. It was obvious hitting the brake pedal was not intended but a very unlucky hit. But the kick itself was intentional.

I'm not going to get into this argument because there is nothing conclusive either way.

I'm refuting Honda's claim that their telemetry proves Rossi's kicked and it operated the brake lever. It can only show that the brake lever was operated. Not how.

Rossi may have kicked Marquez - Marquez may have driven into Rossi. Either of those are possible causes if you look at it from a pure objective point of view.

[Andres125sx]

Care to explain how Rossi managed to aim a kick so perfectly that it went around the handlebar guards and operated the brake pedal?

Care to explain how any part of Rossi´s body or Yamaha´s bike went around the handlebar guards and operated the brake pedal?

I´m not saying he aimed the brake, but he hitted it anycase so the only part wich in a reasonable manner can go around the guard is a foot wich is not attached to the bike (footpeg), read, wich was intentionally throwed as a kick.

Otherwise no part of Rossi´s body or Yamaha´s bike can go around the guard

[turbof1]

I'm refuting Honda's claim that their telemetry proves Rossi's kicked and it operated the brake lever. It can only show that the brake lever was operated. Not how.

Oh but they can. They have to sync the video footage with the telemetry timing. They can easily prove that at moment x Marquez had Y steering lock, at moment Z touched Rossi due sudden decompression in suspension and at moment A1 had another sudden change in suspension parameters along with a brake pedal input.

Followed by that, they can prove that the exact same moment that Rossi's kick hit Marquez, the brake pedal got operated. There's no one in this world who would believe that being coincidence. Again, this is called causality.

Let's also not forget Rossi never disputed that he hit Marquez his brake. I think he even confirmed it at one point.

@Andres the foot indeed seems very reasonable to have hit the pedal. Again there's very little, actually nothing at all, else that explains brake input at that moment.

[Tim.Wright]

Yes, the part you failing to get is that his foot/ankle/whatever could hit the brake lever in 2 ways:

1. Rossi kicking Marquez
2. Marquez riding into Rossi's leg

[turbof1]

Yes, the part you failing to get is that his foot/ankle/whatever could hit the brake lever in 2 ways:

1. Rossi kicking Marquez
2. Marquez riding into Rossi's leg

I'm not failing to realise that at all. I simply reject that hypothesis. He leaned on Rossi's leg before it happened. Marquez went down right after we saw the kick from Rossi. Again, this where causality comes in. And it can be proven by timing telemetry to footage that while Marquez leaned on Rossi's leg there was no brake input, but when Rossi kicked there was.

The only thing you could make a case of it, is that Marquez dislodged Rossi's leg and Rossi tried in a reflex to put it back quickly. I find that is highly doubtable since Rossi never mentioned any of this in his defence, but atleast it makes more sense that Marquez crashed due him hitting Rossi's foot while leaning on him. The timing for the latter is simply off.

[sgth0mas]

I think all Tim is saying is that this is all circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence when it comes to kicking the brake lever. And that is an absolutely correct statement by the very definition of circumstantial evidence.

[turbof1]

I think all Tim is saying is that this is all circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence when it comes to kicking the brake lever. And that is an absolutely correct statement by the very definition of circumstantial evidence.

I know what he is saying, and for what it matters it is quite intelligent to question what's in front of you. I just don't accept it is circumstantial. You can link telemetry to video footage to know what happens. The FIM probably do not accept that as valid evidence, which is their good right. But it does nothing off the the significance of it.

It does not matter, not beyond our own moral and ethical beliefs anyway. It might still have an impact on the Sport Arbitration Whatever Court, but we'll have to wait for that. tomorrow or friday we'll know if the penalty of Rossi gets suspended. Aside from my personal intuition that he should have been punished heavier, appealing for a suspension of the penalty is highly dangerous. With the penalty he has gotten he atleast still has a chance to win the title. If the penalty gets suspended and he is found guilty afterwards during the real trial, they cannot retrospective apply the grid penalty and will have to give him a time penalty which by almost certainly will make him loose the title.

[henry]

I think all Tim is saying is that this is all circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence when it comes to kicking the brake lever. And that is an absolutely correct statement by the very definition of circumstantial evidence.

I know what he is saying, and for what it matters it is quite intelligent to question what's in front of you. I just don't accept it is circumstantial. You can link telemetry to video footage to know what happens. The FIM probably do not accept that as valid evidence, which is their good right. But it does nothing off the the significance of it.

It seems like it would be perfectly feasible to synchronise telemetry with video. Maybe the FIM have done so. But am I right to think that you don't know if it has been done and nor, if it has, have you seen it? If so how can you possibly know that something you don't know exists and haven't seen proves your hypothesis?

[sgth0mas]

I think all Tim is saying is that this is all circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence when it comes to kicking the brake lever. And that is an absolutely correct statement by the very definition of circumstantial evidence.

I know what he is saying, and for what it matters it is quite intelligent to question what's in front of you. I just don't accept it is circumstantial. You can link telemetry to video footage to know what happens. The FIM probably do not accept that as valid evidence, which is their good right. But it does nothing off the the significance of it.

It does not matter, not beyond our own moral and ethical beliefs anyway. It might still have an impact on the Sport Arbitration Whatever Court, but we'll have to wait for that. tomorrow or friday we'll know if the penalty of Rossi gets suspended. Aside from my personal intuition that he should have been punished heavier, appealing for a suspension of the penalty is highly dangerous. With the penalty he has gotten he atleast still has a chance to win the title. If the penalty gets suspended and he is found guilty afterwards during the real trial, they cannot retrospective apply the grid penalty and will have to give him a time penalty which by almost certainly will make him loose the title.

It is by the exact definition circumstantial evidence that he kicked the brake lever. You cannot physically see it so you have to link events. It may be massively strong circumstantial evidence, but it still is not direct evidence. You are saying its not circumstantial because you can piece together this data with that video. Thats the equivalent of saying "that shape is not a square, its a quadralateral with 4 equal sides and 4 right angles". On the flip, there is also circumstantial evidence that MM was intentionally holding rossi up.

I agree there can be strong circumstantial evidence. I would almost agree the penalty is fair if MM were penalized as well.

[Tim.Wright]

Linking to the video feed isn't going to help because there is no clear evidence of a "kick" in any of the angles I have seen.

All you see is that his foot comes off the peg. It's not at all clear if this happens before, during or after they touch or indeed if he moves his foot off the peg or if Marquez's bike moves it off the peg. The fact that you are inferring that this is a kick is the very definition ofcircumstantial evidence.

Its all too muddy to come to any clear conclusions.

[aleks_ader]

I got here new alternative angle of incident in Sepang...
https://www.facebook.com/michael.desant ... 6951550339

[Andres125sx]

Yes, the part you failing to get is that his foot/ankle/whatever could hit the brake lever in 2 ways:

1. Rossi kicking Marquez
2. Marquez riding into Rossi's leg

If you explain me how Marquez riding into Rossi´s leg can cause Marquez´s brake being pushed by accident despite the guard, then I´ll agree with you

But I fail to see how that could happen without Rossi kicking intentionally, when in a corner rider´s body (Marquez in this case) is hanging from his bike, so it´s between both bikes, and the front brake lever is far from any part of Rossi body or Yamaha bike



Even without guard it would be quite difficult, but with a guard I find it unbelieveble

[jz11]

didn't you read that the contact dislodged Rossis foot from the peg - and you cannot imagine that at that bank angle MM could have droven into the peg with his right hand - and the foot/peg pushed on his hand - which then pushed onto the brake lever? Is that so hard to imagine? Brake guard isn't bullet and reckless driving proof, it doesn't work 100% of time...

anyway - I would suggest MM look into brake guard that is in a shape of mud guards on off road bikes, but rigid

[sgth0mas]

I will also add that in most cases that im aware of, the fingers are attached to the hand which is then attached to the arm. Could it be the whole hand or arm was dislodged?! No way...not possible...rossi must have aimed for the brake lever while negotiating a turn, and executed flawlessly with a rigid boot after getting brushed by MM.