What recovery drive was the best for you?

[Just_a_fan]

Villeneuve and Hill would beg to differ LOL.

That's right, he drove into 2 people that were behind him whilst they were both moving in the same direction.

If you think Schumacher didn't drive into Villeneuve at Jerez then go back and look at it again. He hit the sidepod of the Williams - so not only did he drive into Villeneuve, he was also behind him - in an effort to take him out of the race. I think I'm right in saying he has since accepted the blame for that crash?

You're wasting your time. Andrew has defended Schuie's nefarious moves in a number of threads. He sees nothing wrong in anything Michael did. I think he's even defended the "Monaco parking incident" too.

I should move on if I were you...

[beelsebob]

You're wasting your time. Andrew has defended Schuie's nefarious moves in a number of threads. He sees nothing wrong in anything Michael did. I think he's even defended the "Monaco parking incident" too.

I should move on if I were you...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E5Pxmvz0r8[/youtube]

Villeneve clearly drove into a shrinking wedge. Obviously it was his fault.

[Shrieker]

Villeneve clearly drove into a shrinking wedge. Obviously it was his fault.

Lovin' the irony, haha


----------------------------------------------------
andrew... Can't you for once be objective ? Let it go man. Let it go. Even Schumi himself said he would change it if he could go back...

[Just_a_fan]

Love that video - the clear double move by Schuie as he starts to turn in, sees Villeneuve, pauses then goes for the hit. Blatant attempt to take out a competitor. And Villeneuve was so far ahead of him in to the corner there was no way he could claim "I didn't see him". The right outcome all round really...

[andrew]

You're wasting your time. Andrew has defended Schuie's nefarious moves in a number of threads. He sees nothing wrong in anything Michael did. I think he's even defended the "Monaco parking incident" too.

I should move on if I were you...

Yes I sincerely apologise for disagreeing and standing by my beliefs. How dare I have a different opinon!!!

[andrew]

andrew... Can't you for once be objective ? Let it go man. Let it go. Even Schumi himself said he would change it if he could go back...

Be objective?! I must look aback at some of your Hamilton flag waving. If I have to let it go then why drag it up? Trolling?

[Tufty]

You're wasting your time. Andrew has defended Schuie's nefarious moves in a number of threads. He sees nothing wrong in anything Michael did. I think he's even defended the "Monaco parking incident" too.

I should move on if I were you...

Yes I sincerely apologise for disagreeing and standing by my beliefs. How dare I have a different opinon!!!

There is no problem having a different opinion, but ignoring solid evidence when it's put in front of you is a little strange. The video clearly shows that Villeneuve was AHEAD of Schumacher when the two collided. Schumacher himself, as mentioned by me and others before, has said he wishes he hadn't made that move, effectively admitting it was an error of HIS, not Villeneuve's. There is nothing for you to defend from Schumacher's side in that incident.

If you were making the same comments regarding the 1994 incident, I would personally disagree BUT that's a less clear-cut event, and neither party has actually made a conclusive comment on it. In this case it's Schumacher's fault, and failure to see that is simply denial of the facts.

[Gary]

You're wasting your time. Andrew has defended Schuie's nefarious moves in a number of threads. He sees nothing wrong in anything Michael did. I think he's even defended the "Monaco parking incident" too.

I should move on if I were you...

Yes I sincerely apologise for disagreeing and standing by my beliefs. How dare I have a different opinon!!!

There is no problem having a different opinion, but ignoring solid evidence when it's put in front of you is a little strange. The video clearly shows that Villeneuve was AHEAD of Schumacher when the two collided. Schumacher himself, as mentioned by me and others before, has said he wishes he hadn't made that move, effectively admitting it was an error of HIS, not Villeneuve's. There is nothing for you to defend from Schumacher's side in that incident.

If you were making the same comments regarding the 1994 incident, I would personally disagree BUT that's a less clear-cut event, and neither party has actually made a conclusive comment on it. In this case it's Schumacher's fault, and failure to see that is simply denial of the facts.

Spot on. We're dealing with a fanatic, which Winston Churchill described as "One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

[andrew]

There is no problem having a different opinion, but ignoring solid evidence when it's put in front of you is a little strange. The video clearly shows that Villeneuve was AHEAD of Schumacher when the two collided. Schumacher himself, as mentioned by me and others before, has said he wishes he hadn't made that move, effectively admitting it was an error of HIS, not Villeneuve's. There is nothing for you to defend from Schumacher's side in that incident.

If you were making the same comments regarding the 1994 incident, I would personally disagree BUT that's a less clear-cut event, and neither party has actually made a conclusive comment on it. In this case it's Schumacher's fault, and failure to see that is simply denial of the facts.

If there is no problem with me having a different opinion then why keep trying to change my mind. If I was going to change my mind then I would have by now. I am not in denial of any "facts" (as you call them) but having reviewed the events many times is simply have a different take on things. I suggest to deal with that, allow me my opinion and move on.

Spot on. We're dealing with a fanatic, which Winston Churchill described as "One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

I resent being called a fanatic and see no need for the insult. If you don't like my opinion then tough. I'm not really one of those saps who likes to go with the common concensious just so I can feel that I am right, I prefer to think for myself and if that means I arrive at a conclusion that is not widely accepted then so what? I sure as hell don't care! So what if I have a different opinion. Does it hurt anyone, does it keep anyone up at night, does the earth stop turning? No of course it doesn't!

[Gary]

Well, there was the , indicating a certain lightness in the post but if you feel insulted, I regret that for it was not my intention. That said, Tufty made a dickens of a good point methinks!

Perhaps Voltaire is a tad less direct than Winnie, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

[i70q7m7ghw]

Andrew = Contrarian, ignore him.

Schumachers motives were clear as day, it's part of what made him such a ruthless competitor.

[Giblet]

Before the race at Jerez, the president of the FIA, Max Mosley, had promised to issue penalties to anyone who tried to influence the outcome of the championship.[5] Race officials issued a statement following the race stating that they had "unanimously concluded it was a racing accident and no further action is necessary."[6] However Schumacher was subsequently summoned to a disciplinary hearing by the FIA and on November 11, 1997 it was announced that Schumacher would be disqualified from the 1997 World Championship. This meant he lost his second place in the overall standings to Heinz-Harald Frentzen but he would retain his race victories and other results and would not be fined or face any further punishment in the following season. Max Mosley stated that the panel "concluded that although the actions were deliberate they were not premeditated".[7]
Ferrari also escaped unpunished despite Article 123 of the FIA International Sporting Code stating: "The entrant shall be responsible for all acts or omissions on the part of the driver." Under this rule, which has never been invoked for a driving incident, Ferrari could have been punished for failing to control its driver. When questioned on the subject Max Mosley said that the World Council had decided not to invoke Article 123. Another question which the World Council failed to address was whether or not there would be any public sanction against the stewards at Jerez, who had dismissed the Schumacher-Villeneuve incident, which, has been claimed, was a dereliction of their duty.

So only after talking to Schumacher in front of a panel did they decide that what he did was on purpose but not premeditated. Sounds like some truth was spoken behind closed doors, and may be the reason that Ferrari was not punished under Article 123.

All we know for sure is that Schumi purposefully punted JV and was punished.

[i70q7m7ghw]

From his point of view, he stood to lose the championship anyway, so I guess in Schumacher's mindset it was worth a try.

[Tufty]

There is no problem having a different opinion, but ignoring solid evidence when it's put in front of you is a little strange. The video clearly shows that Villeneuve was AHEAD of Schumacher when the two collided. Schumacher himself, as mentioned by me and others before, has said he wishes he hadn't made that move, effectively admitting it was an error of HIS, not Villeneuve's. There is nothing for you to defend from Schumacher's side in that incident.

If you were making the same comments regarding the 1994 incident, I would personally disagree BUT that's a less clear-cut event, and neither party has actually made a conclusive comment on it. In this case it's Schumacher's fault, and failure to see that is simply denial of the facts.

If there is no problem with me having a different opinion then why keep trying to change my mind. If I was going to change my mind then I would have by now. I am not in denial of any "facts" (as you call them) but having reviewed the events many times is simply have a different take on things. I suggest to deal with that, allow me my opinion and move on.

An opinion is fine, but when it is flying in the face of what is visible to ALL people, whether they choose to accept it or not, it becomes more contentious. The video of the incident PROVES that Villeneuve was AHEAD of Schumacher, and thus that Schumacher did not drive into someone behind him, but made a last-minute rash move in an effort to repeat the results of the 1994 crash with Hill, which as I mentioned before is a less clear-cut incident than the 1997 one.

Anyway, since this is dragging the thread hopelessly off-topic, I'm going to leave it there. I hope you can do the same. Have a nice day.

[xpensive]

Nobody seems to remember John Watson? In 1982 he won from 17th on the grid, at the hopeless-to-pass Detroit track?