On Oct 31, 10:12*pm, "Mike" <n... (AT) none (DOT) none> wrote:
Unless the contract explicitly stipulates equality in terms of
everything, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. Any team
would WANT both their drivers to do well, but if one is consistently
doing better than the other then that driver will get extra attention.
There is nothing sinister or unfair about that.

A guy who understood the situation well was Gerhard Berger. He was
quite frank about it: During his time at McLaren Senna got
preferential treatment. When the new car was being designed they would
build in some of Senna's preferences etc etc. He was asked if he was
frustrated by this. His reply was along the lines of "Ayrton is worth
a second a lap. You would have to spend millions of dollars and do a
lot of development work to get that much more speed out of the car. He
gives them that and they quite rightly favour him in several ways. If
it were my team I'd do the same."

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:12:21 -0600, Mike wrote
(in article <38er86.1rv.17.1 (AT) news (DOT) alt.net>):

Kovalain

<snip>

So just where are you going with this?

--
Cheers!

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply

On Oct 31, 10:12*pm, "Mike" <n... (AT) none (DOT) none> wrote:
It occurs to me that, well, he would say that, wouldn't he? If he can
sow seeds of FUD in the minds of other prospective McLaren signings
and they decide to take their business elsewhere then the chances of
him retaining a drive at McLaren are improved.

Mike wrote:

#1: Even if this was true, most teams have a 'preferred' driver.
#2: We see a pattern emerging here. Both drivers who have driven with LH
at McClaren leave bitching that he had preferential treatment. It
couldn't possibly be that LH is just faster could it?

On Nov 3, 6:15*pm, "Phil Da Lick!"
<phil_the_l... (AT) REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP (DOT) hotmail.com> wrote:
IIRC Alonso left McLaren saying that he'd been given a fair shot at
the title, good equipment etc etc. He'd be hard put to make such a
suggestion stick anyway, because as 2007 progressed he slowly gained
the upper hand and outscored Hamilton in the 2nd half of the season.

Bob Dubery <megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hmmmm....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6744297.stm

And why did Alonso stop rubbishing Hamilton?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article1963838.ece

Because he was told to shut up.

On Nov 3, 11:05*pm, Bob Dubery <megap... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
In fact Fred's beef was not that McLaren had favoured Hamilton but
that they had not given him preferred status. It would seem that this
was never guaranteed but Fred figured it was his due anyway. Fred's
beef was over equality.

On Nov 3, 11:35*pm, %ste... (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
Both of those have headlines that speak of sensationalist sub-editing.
The first has Alonso saying "I'm not complaining", the second is an
article by a member of the press reacting to a deal between the two
drivers RE what they will say to the press - a deal that would impose
as many limits on Hamilton as it did on Alonso.

Bob Dubery <megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

If you ignore everything else he said, yes.

Saying "I'm not complaining" after complaining, whining, moaning and
groaning doesn't work like a magic eraser.

"Tu Quoque" is a fallacy. Alonso didn't rubbish Hamilton after that
event, as he did all season before it, because he was told to STFU by
Ron.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 18:55:55 -0800 (PST), Bob Dubery
<megapode (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

I still can't understand why Ferrari want him so badly.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker