Our Damon in Adelaide

[angrymoby]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

I still find it quite unbelievable that people still state that Schumacher took Damon out.

i still find it quite unbelievable that people don't ...some may have given him the benefit of the doubt at the time, but after his subsequent antics- really?

ELUSIVEJIM said:

But for the Damon fans, he finally got his Championship when Schumacher was driving a red bus

I'm not a Damon fan ...i was actually coming round to being a Schumi fan- up until that point

[anonymous-user]

angrymoby said:

I'm not a Damon fan ...i was actually coming round to being a Schumi fan- up until that point

Antics being Jerez 1997?

The head-on shot of that incident looks 100% Schumacher but the onboard with Schumacher shows Villeneuve diving up the inside and it would be questionable if he had made the corner if the Ferrari was in the way.

Schumacher did turn into the Williams once Villeneuve was alongside and that was questionable.

His antics at Monaco in 2006 was dirty.

[FourWheelDrift]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

I still find it quite unbelievable that people still state that Schumacher took Damon out.

Because he always had form for doing it. Ask Derek Warwick, Frentzen, Villeneuve, Barrichello, Hakkinnen.

[anonymous-user]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

angrymoby said:

I'm not a Damon fan ...i was actually coming round to being a Schumi fan- up until that point

Antics being Jerez 1997?

The head-on shot of that incident looks 100% Schumacher but the onboard with Schumacher shows Villeneuve diving up the inside and it would be questionable if he had made the corner if the Ferrari was in the way.

Schumacher did turn into the Williams once Villeneuve was alongside and that was questionable.

Villeneuve has many times stated he would not have made the corner without Schumacher hitting him. He said he could see no way past so decided to chuck it up the inside and hope Schumacher's instinct would be to block him and let the cars contact effectively barging his way past..... it worked a treat. He played the psychology game with Schumacher and won. Schumacher and he never saw eye to eye after that, from Schumacher's perspective he knew he'd been outfoxed whereas JV resented all the subsequent wins and championships despite the fact he wasn't half the driver Schumacher was.

ELUSIVEJIM said:

His antics at Monaco in 2006 was dirty.

Hmmm, agreed not very sporting, but we don't castigate Rosberg for a very similar (but smarter) move.

[angrymoby]

cb1965 said:

Hmmm, agreed not very sporting, but we don't castigate Rosberg for a very similar (but smarter) move.

Errr ...apart from every single Ham vs Ros argument /thread, never mind the 'whattaboutery'

[anonymous-user]

angrymoby said:

cb1965 said:

Hmmm, agreed not very sporting, but we don't castigate Rosberg for a very similar (but smarter) move.

Errr ...apart from every single Ham vs Ros argument /thread, never mind the 'whattaboutery'

Hmmm, well I must admit I try and avoid those as my view that Rosberg was not that far behind Hamilton is not popular.

[Sam993]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

angrymoby said:

tbf to Damon, if someone cost me a WDC i'd be crashing into them or making their life a misery at every single race thereafter ...so those 3 incidents seems quite tame to me

I still find it quite unbelievable that people still state that Schumacher took Damon out.

Damon attempted a move that was just never going to work out.

Are you still rehashing the Adelaide subject we've all agreed the revisionists like yourself are wrong about? Or the one in Silverstone where Hill attempted a move that was just never going to work out?

In case you need reminding, this was Adelaide 94. A perfectly normal overtaking attempt (minus the doors slammed shut), 1000's of which happened before and after this event. If you're prepared to pay good money I will prepare a top 10 of similar overtakes in the history of the WOOORLD.

[Sam993]

cb1965 said:

Villeneuve has many times stated he would not have made the corner without Schumacher hitting him. He said he could see no way past so decided to chuck it up the inside and hope Schumacher's instinct would be to block him and let the cars contact effectively barging his way past.....

Source? I've never heard/seen Villeneuve admit to this on video/in writing, is this something he might have allegedly admitted to you imaginary friends in the sport off the record?

[anonymous-user]

Sam993 said:

Are you still rehashing the Adelaide subject we've all agreed the revisionists like yourself are wrong about? Or the one in Silverstone where Hill attempted a move that was just never going to work out?

In case you need reminding, this was Adelaide 94. A perfectly normal overtaking attempt (minus the doors slammed shut), 1000's of which happened before and after this event. If you're prepared to pay good money I will prepare a top 10 of similar overtakes in the history of the WOOORLD.

Just to clarify

The F.I.A. race stewards examined the accident from various camera angles and decided not to penalize Schumacher.

If the race stewards saw what you think you saw Schumacher would not have been Champion.

[Sam993]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

Sam993 said:

Are you still rehashing the Adelaide subject we've all agreed the revisionists like yourself are wrong about? Or the one in Silverstone where Hill attempted a move that was just never going to work out?

In case you need reminding, this was Adelaide 94. A perfectly normal overtaking attempt (minus the doors slammed shut), 1000's of which happened before and after this event. If you're prepared to pay good money I will prepare a top 10 of similar overtakes in the history of the WOOORLD.

Just to clarify

The F.I.A. race stewards examined the accident from various camera angles and decided not to penalize Schumacher.

If the race stewards saw what you think you saw Schumacher would not have been Champion.

That literally means nothing. Just to clarify, those were different times back then - e.g. they didn't penalise Senna for taking Prost out in a more blatant and obvious (and dangerous) way. That said, once Scummy reoffended in the same fashion in 97 nobody had any doubts and/or reasons not to penalise him.

[angrymoby]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

Just to clarify

The F.I.A. race stewards examined the accident from various camera angles and decided not to penalize Schumacher.

If the race stewards saw what you think you saw Schumacher would not have been Champion.

only means he was given "the benefit of the doubt" imo ...which was subsequently removed for Jerez (hence the exclusion)

swap Jerez for Adelaide & the FIA would've done exactly the same ...& let it go as a first offence

in fact if you take Jerez into isolation, it seems incredibly harsh for the FIA to exclude him, not only from the race but also the championship (not that it mattered- which is why they did it)

[anonymous-user]

Sam993 said:

cb1965 said:

Villeneuve has many times stated he would not have made the corner without Schumacher hitting him. He said he could see no way past so decided to chuck it up the inside and hope Schumacher's instinct would be to block him and let the cars contact effectively barging his way past.....

Source? I've never heard/seen Villeneuve admit to this on video/in writing, is this something he might have allegedly admitted to you imaginary friends in the sport off the record?

Still irked I see

All you have to do is read about the sport, it's really not hard.

Auto Bild Motorsport article in 2012:

[quote]"I still know it: There was actually no way to overtake him. I tried it anyway. And I'll disclose it today: I knew from the beginning that he would try to shoot me off. Why? I saw the Formula 3 Finale 1990 in Macao. He did the same with Hakkinen there. I remembered in that moment."

"Of course I wouldn't have made the corner without his hit.", he admits. "But I just thought: 'I'll surprise him. And then he really did it! He hit me and got stuck in the gravel. I could continue driving. In the next lap I saw him standing on the wall. Then I thought: Yes, that's it!"

[Sam993]

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

cb1965 said:

Villeneuve has many times stated he would not have made the corner without Schumacher hitting him. He said he could see no way past so decided to chuck it up the inside and hope Schumacher's instinct would be to block him and let the cars contact effectively barging his way past.....

Source? I've never heard/seen Villeneuve admit to this on video/in writing, is this something he might have allegedly admitted to you imaginary friends in the sport off the record?

Still irked I see

All you have to do is read about the sport, it's really not hard.

Auto Bild Motorsport article in 2012:

notAutoBildMotorsportbutmotorsport-totalbutforcbgb'sitmakesnodifference said:

"I still know it: There was actually no way to overtake him. I tried it anyway. And I'll disclose it today: I knew from the beginning that he would try to shoot me off. Why? I saw the Formula 3 Finale 1990 in Macao. He did the same with Hakkinen there. I remembered in that moment."

"Of course I wouldn't have made the corner without his hit.", he admits. "But I just thought: 'I'll surprise him. And then he really did it! He hit me and got stuck in the gravel. I could continue driving. In the next lap I saw him standing on the wall. Then I thought: Yes, that's it!"

Let me provide you with the source of what you've copied here, since you can't even get this st right.

https://www.motorsport-total.com/formel-1/news/jer...

Rooooooight, do you actually realise the meaning of what JV said here? Shall I rephrase it, how does what JV said there actually help your defence of Schumacher's dhead behaviour? (I'll provide you with a hint, it doesn't - it actually incriminates him even more and makes you look like a bigger fool)

[angrymoby]

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

cb1965 said:

Villeneuve has many times stated he would not have made the corner without Schumacher hitting him. He said he could see no way past so decided to chuck it up the inside and hope Schumacher's instinct would be to block him and let the cars contact effectively barging his way past.....

Source? I've never heard/seen Villeneuve admit to this on video/in writing, is this something he might have allegedly admitted to you imaginary friends in the sport off the record?

Still irked I see

All you have to do is read about the sport, it's really not hard.

Auto Bild Motorsport article in 2012:

[quote]"I still know it: There was actually no way to overtake him. I tried it anyway. And I'll disclose it today: I knew from the beginning that he would try to shoot me off. Why? I saw the Formula 3 Finale 1990 in Macao. He did the same with Hakkinen there. I remembered in that moment."

"Of course I wouldn't have made the corner without his hit.", he admits. "But I just thought: 'I'll surprise him. And then he really did it! He hit me and got stuck in the gravel. I could continue driving. In the next lap I saw him standing on the wall. Then I thought: Yes, that's it!"

has that ever been repeated in the english speaking press? rather than just a google translation ...because i've never seen any other article & afaiaa it's never been repeated by him since, which is surprising considering he's such a rent-a-gob ...& he didn't mention it last year, when specifically talking about it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt-3KT6ktHU

Onboard also suggests that he would've made that corner too ...looks like it was going to be a perfectly executed block pass to me

[Sam993]

angrymoby said:

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

cb1965 said:

Villeneuve has many times stated he would not have made the corner without Schumacher hitting him. He said he could see no way past so decided to chuck it up the inside and hope Schumacher's instinct would be to block him and let the cars contact effectively barging his way past.....

Source? I've never heard/seen Villeneuve admit to this on video/in writing, is this something he might have allegedly admitted to you imaginary friends in the sport off the record?

Still irked I see

All you have to do is read about the sport, it's really not hard.

Auto Bild Motorsport article in 2012:

[quote]"I still know it: There was actually no way to overtake him. I tried it anyway. And I'll disclose it today: I knew from the beginning that he would try to shoot me off. Why? I saw the Formula 3 Finale 1990 in Macao. He did the same with Hakkinen there. I remembered in that moment."

"Of course I wouldn't have made the corner without his hit.", he admits. "But I just thought: 'I'll surprise him. And then he really did it! He hit me and got stuck in the gravel. I could continue driving. In the next lap I saw him standing on the wall. Then I thought: Yes, that's it!"

has that ever been repeated in the english speaking press? rather than just a google translation ...because i've never seen any other article & afaiaa it's never been repeated by him since, which is surprising considering he's such a rent-a-gob ...& he didn't mention it last year, when specifically talking about it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt-3KT6ktHU

Onboard also suggests that he would've made that corner too ...looks like it was going to be a perfectly executed block pass to me

The fact that he said it in an interview with German "press" and the fact that he now runs a service called rent-a-gob as you said would indicate that he will say st for the sake of creating "buzz", regardless of how valid, true or relevant it is.

Even then, what JV said there is that he made that move knowing that Schumacher being the dhead that he had proven to be (many times already back then) will try to be a dhead again and JV wasn't disappointed. And to defend Schumacher - like our friend cbgb's - by using JV as a support means that the person doing it (cbgb) lacks basic reading comprehension.

Cue cbgb coming back with a deflection stating that he wasn't defending Schumacher but was only stating that JV wouldn't have made that corner.

[anonymous-user]

Sam993 said:

The fact that he said it in an interview with German "press" and the fact that he now runs a service called rent-a-gob as you said would indicate that he will say st for the sake of creating "buzz", regardless of how valid, true or relevant it is.

Even then, what JV said there is that he made that move knowing that Schumacher being the dhead that he had proven to be (many times already back then) will try to be a dhead again and JV wasn't disappointed. And to defend Schumacher - like our friend cbgb's - by using JV as a support means that the person doing it (cbgb) lacks basic reading comprehension.

Cue cbgb coming back with a deflection stating that he wasn't defending Schumacher but was only stating that JV wouldn't have made that corner.

I am simply pointing you to the direction of a source that you asked for. You of course don't like that so now start down yet another path of baseless conjecture and accusations. As for basic reading comprehension, seeing as I write for a living and make a very very nice one I think I can read... how about you? Ah no, reading is not your thing as you're too busy smashing another aggravated reply into the keyboard Maybe more imbibing of information and less gobbing off would be an idea! Just saying

[Sam993]

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

The fact that he said it in an interview with German "press" and the fact that he now runs a service called rent-a-gob as you said would indicate that he will say st for the sake of creating "buzz", regardless of how valid, true or relevant it is.

Even then, what JV said there is that he made that move knowing that Schumacher being the dhead that he had proven to be (many times already back then) will try to be a dhead again and JV wasn't disappointed. And to defend Schumacher - like our friend cbgb's - by using JV as a support means that the person doing it (cbgb) lacks basic reading comprehension.

Cue cbgb coming back with a deflection stating that he wasn't defending Schumacher but was only stating that JV wouldn't have made that corner.

I am simply pointing you to the direction of a source that you asked for. You of course don't like that so now start down yet another path of baseless conjecture and accusations. As for basic reading comprehension, seeing as I write for a living and make a very very nice one I think I can read... how about you? Ah no, reading is not your thing as you're too busy smashing another aggravated reply into the keyboard Maybe more imbibing of information and less gobbing off would be an idea! Just saying

Yep, totally as expected and predicted in the last sentence of my previous post. Your source was provided in the context of discussion - since you write for living you should understand the meaning of "context".

PS not to mention that you didn't provide a source, you provided some quotes and tagged the source incorrectly. What a great journo you are
PSS Joe, is that you mate?

[anonymous-user]

Sam993 said:

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

The fact that he said it in an interview with German "press" and the fact that he now runs a service called rent-a-gob as you said would indicate that he will say st for the sake of creating "buzz", regardless of how valid, true or relevant it is.

Even then, what JV said there is that he made that move knowing that Schumacher being the dhead that he had proven to be (many times already back then) will try to be a dhead again and JV wasn't disappointed. And to defend Schumacher - like our friend cbgb's - by using JV as a support means that the person doing it (cbgb) lacks basic reading comprehension.

Cue cbgb coming back with a deflection stating that he wasn't defending Schumacher but was only stating that JV wouldn't have made that corner.

I am simply pointing you to the direction of a source that you asked for. You of course don't like that so now start down yet another path of baseless conjecture and accusations. As for basic reading comprehension, seeing as I write for a living and make a very very nice one I think I can read... how about you? Ah no, reading is not your thing as you're too busy smashing another aggravated reply into the keyboard Maybe more imbibing of information and less gobbing off would be an idea! Just saying

Yep, totally as expected and predicted in the last sentence of my previous post. Your source was provided in the context of discussion - since you write for living you should understand the meaning of "context".

PS not to mention that you didn't provide a source, you provided some quotes and tagged the source incorrectly. What a great journo you are
PSS Joe, is that you mate?

I didn't tag anything incorrectly, I didn't tag it at all as I assumed you could use the Internet, but then again you wouldn't have had to ask for a source if you could do that so apologies.

By the way I am not a journalist.

Maybe you should seriously take notice of the last line of my last post, think before you type!

[Sam993]

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

cb1965 said:

Sam993 said:

The fact that he said it in an interview with German "press" and the fact that he now runs a service called rent-a-gob as you said would indicate that he will say st for the sake of creating "buzz", regardless of how valid, true or relevant it is.

Even then, what JV said there is that he made that move knowing that Schumacher being the dhead that he had proven to be (many times already back then) will try to be a dhead again and JV wasn't disappointed. And to defend Schumacher - like our friend cbgb's - by using JV as a support means that the person doing it (cbgb) lacks basic reading comprehension.

Cue cbgb coming back with a deflection stating that he wasn't defending Schumacher but was only stating that JV wouldn't have made that corner.

I am simply pointing you to the direction of a source that you asked for. You of course don't like that so now start down yet another path of baseless conjecture and accusations. As for basic reading comprehension, seeing as I write for a living and make a very very nice one I think I can read... how about you? Ah no, reading is not your thing as you're too busy smashing another aggravated reply into the keyboard Maybe more imbibing of information and less gobbing off would be an idea! Just saying

Yep, totally as expected and predicted in the last sentence of my previous post. Your source was provided in the context of discussion - since you write for living you should understand the meaning of "context".

PS not to mention that you didn't provide a source, you provided some quotes and tagged the source incorrectly. What a great journo you are
PSS Joe, is that you mate?

I didn't tag anything incorrectly, I didn't tag it at all as I assumed you could use the Internet, but then again you wouldn't have had to ask for a source if you could do that so apologies.

Oh the irony and the delusion

cb1965 said:

By the way I am not a journalist.

JK Rowling is that you?

cb1965 said:

Maybe you should seriously take notice of the last line of my last post, think before you type!

Yes, I will give you your crayons.

PS please stay on topic, just as a reminder the topic is "Our Damon in Adelaide".


Cue cbgb's post where he explains that he is on topic and it was me who derailed it.

[anonymous-user]

FFS Sam, grow up!