Our Damon in Adelaide
Discussion
REALIST123 said:
Question is whether a 4 race ban was appropriate. Many think not.
It wasn't a 4 race ban really.They were disqualified from the British GP for totally disregarding the stewards. That is entirely appropriate. They were given a 2 race ban, which was suspended on appeal.
Once again - a suspended ban pending good behavior is not unheard of in the annals of sporting history. Actually more than fair (unless directly disobeying the organisers isn't serious s
t in any one else's book?)They finished the Belgian GP with an overly worn plank - the rules are there and others seemed to finish the race running over kerbs with theirs. So they were disqualified for a technical infringement.
And as with anyone who is naughty with a suspended sentence hanging over them - that was then enforced.
2 x disqualifications (one for a technical infringement and one for being a bit of a knob)
2 x race ban because they had a suspended ban and chose to be at least negligent when they should have been careful.
Break it down into its component parts rather than having a little tantrum that is was just because he passed pole on the formation lap - and it makes sense.
In fact NONE of the ban or disqualification were actually related to the overtake on the formation lap - that was just a 5 second penalty - the ban was all Benetton's own work.
Vocal Minority said:
Possibly seen as pedantry but - He was excluded from the race for ignoring a penalty for over taking a car on the formation lap. Then he was banned for two races for ignoring the black flag he got because he ignored the penalty.
You are clearly pro-Schumacher - and that's fine. I am pro-Hill and agree with your sum up of the man. However, you surely have to admit that letting someone off for simply ignoring the rulings of the officials of the meeting sets a very poor precedent.....so hardly a nonsense.
They managed to turn a 5 second penalty into a 4 race ban effectively - through their own arrogance
I'm not what could be called a Hill fan. Not the most exciting driver to watch for most of his career. Once out of the Williams he seemed to liven up a bit and in the nondescript Arrows put in a couple of good races. He seems like a pleasant chap by all accounts, but I'm sure that, like anyone else on the grid, he had his hard side. You are clearly pro-Schumacher - and that's fine. I am pro-Hill and agree with your sum up of the man. However, you surely have to admit that letting someone off for simply ignoring the rulings of the officials of the meeting sets a very poor precedent.....so hardly a nonsense.
They managed to turn a 5 second penalty into a 4 race ban effectively - through their own arrogance
I felt he took the weight of Senna crashing well. He lapped his team mate, Prost, at Donington so he is probably a much better driver than I give him credit for, not to mention better than many others did.
I'm no Schumacher fan either, the difference being he was exciting to watch when he had to fight for his position, which, let's face it, didn't seem all that often. He brought the lack of ruth to a new level though and the Adelaide crash looked like he drove into Hill on its own. With his history, I little doubt that it was a deliberate act - little here being the same as don't.
I was at Silverstone when Schumacher took the lead on the parade lap. As soon as we saw the start, the chap next but one to me in the stands said that he was trying to rattle Hill. British GP, British driver on pole; he was after an edge. Also I would point out, Schumacher spun his rear tyres, which was then against the rules, ensuring a decent amount of grip at the start.
The stealing of the lead, even if only on the parade lap, was a matter of some discussion in the crowd.
There was a genuine lack of sympathy from the crowd for Schumacher's penalty, despite my point of view; that it ruined what could have been an exciting race. Whilst it irritated me at the time, and still a bit (those grandstand seats are not cheap), there can be no doubt that it was a deliberate act. He had it coming. Whether we spectators did is another matter.
I've got a video of the start, at least on the diamond screen, somewhere. I'll dig it out.
Sam993 said:
True, my posts can come across like that but they only are like that when I respond to internet bullies who need to be put in their place or smart asses who can't tell the difference between facts and opinions and challenge you thinking that their opinions are facts - like our friend cb1965 did in the JV thread by assuming that I must be one of the "our Damon" types and that everyone else knows that Schumacher wasn't at fault (I don't know anyone who would have thought that actually).
Firstly you need to get a wider circle of friends, maybe ones with objectivity.Secondly most F1 fans outside of Britain do actually think Schumacher wasn't at fault, that is fact not conjecture.
Thirdly which am I? Internet bully or smart arse?
Sam993 said:
cb1965 said:
Secondly most F1 fans outside of Britain do actually think Schumacher wasn't at fault, that is fact not conjecture.
DACH countries are a fraction of global population, you can't make up statistics and claim that they are facts. You seem to read things that aren't written.
//j17 said:
The rest of the world, and myself right from watching the race live on TV saw Schumacher well ahead of Hill and Hill just not bothering with things like breaking and throw his car at the corner. Schumacher, on the normal racing line turned in at the normal racing turn-in point and was driven in to by and out-of-control Hill. And that was my view as someone with a general ABF (Anyone But Fiat) bias.
And yet, three years later, Schu did a similar but unsuccessful move and his results were nullified or the year. Nampahc Niloc said:
cb1965 said:
Whatever, it's not for this thread, but if you wish to start one please do. Just don't whinge about 'our Damon' in Adelaide 94 as the British fans' version of events aren't the same as the rest of the world's.
Just out of curiosity, how does the rest of the world see this?Schumacher great driver but a massive cheat.
El stovey said:
I was at the race, everyone I spoke to afterwards (no British) though Schumacher turned in deliberately on Hill.
Schumacher great driver but a massive cheat.
I don't think there was any doubt that he turned right. But I think there are a multitude of reasons that it wasn't cheating.Schumacher great driver but a massive cheat.
After the passage of time and being quite agnostic these days for who I follow, I think it was a racing incident.
carl_w said:
//j17 said:
The rest of the world, and myself right from watching the race live on TV saw Schumacher well ahead of Hill and Hill just not bothering with things like breaking and throw his car at the corner. Schumacher, on the normal racing line turned in at the normal racing turn-in point and was driven in to by and out-of-control Hill. And that was my view as someone with a general ABF (Anyone But Fiat) bias.
And yet, three years later, Schu did a similar but unsuccessful move and his results were nullified or the year. 
cb1965 said:
Eh? I didn't say anything about DACH countries or make anything up, I said most F1 fans outside of Britain.
You seem to read things that aren't written.
You and your chums don't qualify as majority or most or whatever you think the power they think they have might be. There's literally no factual source which you could provide to support your wishful thinking.You seem to read things that aren't written.
cb1965 said:
Yet they weren't nullified in 1994..... does that not tell you something?
Yes, as I mentioned earlier in 1994 he was granted the benefit of the doubt. In 1997 nobody had any doubts what really happened and those who remained in doubt well... Sam993 said:
Mark-C said:
Sam993 said:
Mark-C said:
Sam993 said:
You could argue that it was a racing incident and despite many Hill fans worldwide (the "our British Damon" thing is a bullste statement of a deluded old man) seeing it as deliberate there was no way to prove it. Until Jerez 1997. If anyone had any doubts they should have vanished by then. The guy is mentally unstable (as he had proven in subsequent years too) and should have been stripped of his 1994 title too.
Just so you know Sam - when I see your name next to a post I just don't bother reading it ...te statement of a deluded old man) seeing it as deliberate there was no way to prove it. Until Jerez 1997. If anyone had any doubts they should have vanished by then. The guy is mentally unstable (as he had proven in subsequent years too) and should have been stripped of his 1994 title too. Or are you just upset about the "(the "our British Damon" thing is a bulls
te statement of a deluded old man)"?None of the words upset me at all - it's just that your posts are an example of everything that makes discussion on the internet tedious for people that want to have a discussion.
(what an odd place PH sometimes is)My views;
Schumacher was on a different level to Hill, which even Hill readily states these days.
I’d put Schumacher at greatest ever F1 driver.
Flaws yes, but still the greatest driver in my view.
Adelaide. Not pre-mediated by Schumacher. Build up to incident way too to long set up. He made the error and came back on track. Schumachers line was nothing unusual. What was odd was Hill steaming up the inside when caution should have been taken. It was always going to be closing gap.
Schumacher was on a different level to Hill, which even Hill readily states these days.
I’d put Schumacher at greatest ever F1 driver.
Flaws yes, but still the greatest driver in my view.
Adelaide. Not pre-mediated by Schumacher. Build up to incident way too to long set up. He made the error and came back on track. Schumachers line was nothing unusual. What was odd was Hill steaming up the inside when caution should have been taken. It was always going to be closing gap.
I'd put Schumacher in my top-three greatest ever.
If it wasn't for that over-zealous 3-race ban in 1994 to make a point, he would've wrapped that WDC with three or four rounds still to go. Obviously we were robbed of Senna taking the fight to him, which would've been eye-watering.
For me, a mark of a truly great driver is what they do in lesser machinery. And for that we only have to look at what Schumacher achieved in 1996 & 1997. That Ferrari had no right to be a title contender.
If it wasn't for that over-zealous 3-race ban in 1994 to make a point, he would've wrapped that WDC with three or four rounds still to go. Obviously we were robbed of Senna taking the fight to him, which would've been eye-watering.
For me, a mark of a truly great driver is what they do in lesser machinery. And for that we only have to look at what Schumacher achieved in 1996 & 1997. That Ferrari had no right to be a title contender.
Sam993 said:
cb1965 said:
Eh? I didn't say anything about DACH countries or make anything up, I said most F1 fans outside of Britain.
You seem to read things that aren't written.
You and your chums don't qualify as majority or most or whatever you think the power they think they have might be. There's literally no factual source which you could provide to support your wishful thinking.You seem to read things that aren't written.
Sam993 said:
cb1965 said:
Yet they weren't nullified in 1994..... does that not tell you something?
Yes, as I mentioned earlier in 1994 he was granted the benefit of the doubt. In 1997 nobody had any doubts what really happened and those who remained in doubt well... TobyTR said:
I'd put Schumacher in my top-three greatest ever.
If it wasn't for that over-zealous 3-race ban in 1994 to make a point, he would've wrapped that WDC with three or four rounds still to go. Obviously we were robbed of Senna taking the fight to him, which would've been eye-watering.
For me, a mark of a truly great driver is what they do in lesser machinery. And for that we only have to look at what Schumacher achieved in 1996 & 1997. That Ferrari had no right to be a title contender.
I think it's almost impossible to say who the greatest ever are as the sport has change so much. What Schumacher did do though was bring a level of professionalism never seen before to the sport even with Senna. He had a lot of talent, but also dedication not seen before or since and a huge amount of intelligence. He lived, ate and breathed F1 and was a huge part of the Ferrari team, not just a driver. My favourite seasons are the same as yours... 1996 - 1998... no one else in the sport at the time could have got the Ferrari to the last race with a chance of the championship in 97 and 98.If it wasn't for that over-zealous 3-race ban in 1994 to make a point, he would've wrapped that WDC with three or four rounds still to go. Obviously we were robbed of Senna taking the fight to him, which would've been eye-watering.
For me, a mark of a truly great driver is what they do in lesser machinery. And for that we only have to look at what Schumacher achieved in 1996 & 1997. That Ferrari had no right to be a title contender.
cb1965 said:
There's no factual source to support yours either, but at least mine is formed from spending a lot of time in other countries amongst F1 people.... if you ask F1 fans or people within the sport from countries outside of Britain about Adelaide 94 (and I have many times for reasons that you can probably work out if you try really hard) most don't even have it on their radar and then recall it as a racing incident. It's only a 'big thing' amongst British fans where 'our Damon was robbed' lives on as some great injustice.... even Hill himself has got over it (and did so several decades ago) so perhaps the Brits should too.
Oh come on, surely you can see why? It's a bit of British motor racing history, and it's not part of French, Belgian, Dutch, Malaysian or whoever's history. Damon is the son of a revered British motor racing champion, who himself came from a classic period of British motor racing history, possibly the zenith of the history. Had it involved a French driver I'm sure French fans would have a different view, as would Malaysian or |Chinese or Japanese or Australian or whoever.I'm sorry but you're flogging a dead horse here. We've seen one poster who says he was at the race and spoke to numerous non British fans and they expressed their view, plus as stated Schumacher was to do exactly the same again just three years later.
Schumacher was a great driver, I thought he was magnificent, he was better than his rivals post-Senna. But he's not fit to be categorised amongst the likes of Fangio (my favourite quote: "he won five world championships for four different manufacturers and never fell out with anybody") or Clark or Stewart. I mean Clark or Stewart would never turn in deliberately against rivals, I doubt the thought would ever cross their minds, and the sport was certainly no less competitive back then, not with so many tiny British outfits of 'garagistes' coming out with ever more world-changing designs.
IMO, Schumacher after his mistake saw Damon rightly coming through the gap on the inside and had the presence of mind to say “No you Don’t” and deliberately turned in on him.
He knew there was a good chance he would put Damon out of the race. His presence of mind to do so then was impressive, But not sporting.
I watched the race live back then and thought the same as I do now after watching the incident again on YT.
He knew there was a good chance he would put Damon out of the race. His presence of mind to do so then was impressive, But not sporting.
I watched the race live back then and thought the same as I do now after watching the incident again on YT.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff