In message <Xns97E760DF3C532zonkydialupwebnet (AT) 203 (DOT) 109.252.31>, Zonky
<zonky (AT) my_pants (DOT) dialup-web.net> writes
See below. You are completely wrong.

“But, as far as Australia 1994 is concerned, Monaco 2006 doesn’t
really make any difference.

“And that’s because, that day in Adelaide, we at Williams were
already 100% certain that Michael was guilty of foul play.

“It was so blatant.

“He was about to drive his stricken Benetton up the slip-road when he
spotted Damon’s Williams about to pass him and abruptly veered across
the track to prevent that happening.�

Head told the magazine that it was only unease over the tragic legacy of
the 1994 season that prevented Williams from officially protesting
Schumacher’s title.

“We seriously considered lodging a formal protest there and then, on
the grounds that it had been so blatant, but decided against it simply
because of what had happened earlier in the year,� he said.


--
Richard Miller

"Ralph Bergman" <ralph.bergman3 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote in
news:449612f5$0$9914$88260bb3 (AT) free (DOT) teranews.com:

It's self evident - I watched it at the time and on two occasions Damon
made what could be at best judged impetuous and at worst bloody minded
attempts that took both of them off the road. Damon received a one race
suspended ban for the Monza incident. But as he's not the whipping boy
around here that is conveniently forgotten.

Some of us don't need to resort to that - but I'm sure you will..

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."

Richard Miller <richard (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:qkedPQZB6jlEFw1K (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk:

That is utter rubbish though Richard..

I watched it and at the time with no reason for an accusation of
partiality. That is simply specious and moreso plainly incorrect.

He did what any driver did in that situation, he was desperate to defend
his position and took a defensive line into the corner without to regard to
the condition of his car or anything else.

The simple undigestible fact for you all is that Williams should have told
Damon to relax and not make a move that he likely thought was his only
chance and so overplayed.

Had Hill won it would have been a incredible injustice. MS had dominated
Hill that year in all but one race (Suzuka - which was a fine performance
by Damon).

--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."

..and all these post overlook the very real possibility that any protest
by Williams, either regarding the Benetton car or Michael's tactics,
could have been denied.

I think if Wiiliams felt they had an airtight case they would have gone
forward with the protest, regardless of how many drivers had died that
year.

It sounds more noble to say "we didn't do it out of respect for Senna's
memory" rather than "we didn't do it because our case was questionable
at best."

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:00:01 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net>
wrote:

They had all of 3 seconds to that.

Lemme see ....
Was that dominance down to having better;

1) driving?
2) car?
3) package?
4) fuel blend?
5) 5th gear?
6) black flag myopia?
7) plank wear?
8) refuelling rig?
9) change management?
10) mirrors?


13) software?

--
HooDooWitch

"ray o'hara" <roh (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote
Ray, on some subjects and on some newsgroups, I may
disagree with you - but I will not disagree or even quibble
on your above.

I believe in 1989 Senna had car to car disabeling contact
with Mansell, Berger, Prost, AND Brundle.

F1 drivers had long recognized that car to car contact
was a BAD thing in that it generally puts at least one
(often enough both) out of the race, and had a high
likelyhood of injury or death. They took care to avoid it.

Senna came along when car safety had gotten much better,
and in his great ambition to win, he was quite willing to
make clear to other drivers that he was willing to have
car contact in order to pass them, or prevent them from
passing him. Four collisions in 16 races is a horrible rate.
Senna was very fast, but I and others, deplore his
willingness to win by intimidation.

"Richard Miller" <richard (AT) seasalter0 (DOT) demon.co.uk> wrote

I don't see any "slip-road" that MS could have driven up. Further, if you
watch the video, he barely touches the wall, so who can claim that the
Bennetton was "stricken?" In the video it looks like Hill is at least
equally to blame. And this 12 year late claim seems to say the attitude was,
"Sorry, Damon, no WDC for you, we must honor Senna." That doesn't make any
sense. And back to viewing the video, I doubt a protest would have
culminated in a penalty for MS. But what it does do is allow Head to now
claim his illogical story line. However, had they failed the protest, MS
would have never had this particular cloud hanging over him.

http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/features/adel94.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...umacher+1 994

"CatharticF1" <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net> wrote

And that with MS effectively not showing up at four events.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:00:01 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferrari (AT) heaven (DOT) net>
wrote:

"At the time" - but you're commenting on it retrospectively...

Rubbish. Most drivers would not have deliberately driven into someone
else...

Would this be in the nanosecond before Schumacher deliberately drove
into him...?

Schumacher stealing the title by deliberately taking his main rival
out was the bigger injustice...

BTW, where's Topo Gigio? One assumes he's on holiday as he hasn't
slobbered all over this thread...

David

DC <gojphNOSPAMTA (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in
news:vkjd92lf8ufa1o2s4hnofdpmfnqa5sfdqt (AT) 4ax (DOT) com:

True - but that isn't what he did. That's what you're *arguing* he did.

Oh how hard is it to say "Schumacher has hit the wall"

Yes - because Damon had certainly put MS in the shade that year. Even you
don't believe that, David.

Maybe he's praying to Enzo for more speed. It's something all good tifoso
should do.


--
CatharticF1

"What you thought was Freedom is just Greed."