Auto Racing "Not A Sport"

[BHRxRacer]

....and there it is, folks.

You wanted me to. Niky kept nitpicking.

There are things that should be illegal, and they're eventually made so. Name me current rules that you think are "unfair", and they can be debated.

And until they're deemed illegal, whoever abuses them has no sportsmanship.

You didn't answer my question about the FIA.

My mentality is that I'm in it to have fun. Which is why I have never been a champion in any sport.

Maybe you were good enough to be champion, but all the others were ***** that will do anything to win

Champions do everything the can to win. Some of them cheat. And thankfully, they have been stripped of their championships when they do. (ref. Schumacher on Hill)

Thanks for proving everything I said. I should stop replying now, but I'll finish this one up.

Seriously, that's what a champion is to you? If so, it's not a sport. A champion that cheats to win, only proves that he can't win on his own merit. He proves he's not good enough to win, and doesn't deserve to.

Legal weapons are a part of any sport. Intentionally holding a player and sacrificing a foul to stop the game clock. Going into a clinch in boxing to avoid being hit.

..And taking ages to serve in Tennis. Or faking an injury to get a time out so you can cut off your opponent's momentumAhem Rafael Nadal. All of which are acts of unsportsmanship. True champions don't have to resolve to such tactics.

Your example is pretty poor. You tell a kid he can't eat ice cream. If he eats two ice creams, he's obviously afoul of the rule and gets punished. That's fair.

If, instead, he has some chocolate, you can't punish him (if there is no standing ban on chocolate without permission) because then you'd be arbitrary, unfair and a pretty piss-poor parent... making up rules to punish him with that weren't there in the first place.

If you tell him he can have nothing sweet and he has that chocolate, that's against the rules, and you'd be right to reprimand him.

No no no no, that's why it's not a poor example. It's so silly, and obviously against the rule but you can have an interpretation of which it's legal. Maybe the kids parents wanted to increase his calcium intake and encourage him to eat plenty of ice cream.

If you insist, the proper analogy here would be; asking a kid not to eat chocolate because he has diabates, the kid eats ice cream instead because it wasn't explicitly forbidden. Ignoring the spirit of the rule, which is no sweets, because of diabetes.

Does this mean that if something is not banned, it shouldn't be? Of course not. If it's dangerous, it should be banned. Definitely. If it isn't, and if it's unenforceable (team orders), then it can't and shouldn't. (Mind you, I hate team orders, but you can't force drivers to fight if it's not in their best interests).

Sure, some things are not enforceable, so there isn't anything that the officials can do. That, however, shouldn't stop YOU or any fan from expressing anger at the cheaters. What you said earlier is that if it's technically legal, it should be ok.

It was determined, from onboard telemetry that Schumacher, after his incident, deliberately parked the car in the middle of the track. You don't accidentally block the entire track with an engine problem... not when you have runoff right in front of you where you can park the car. That one is pretty obvious. And, "technically", it's illegal. As intentionally blocking or impeding other drivers in qualifying has long been illegal in the sport.

Probably determined by the same guys that determined Brune Senna wasn't weaving in the braking zone at Barcelona 2012. Again, are you surrendering to what the stewards and the FIA say? Is that how you weigh on who's cheating and who isn't? You ignored that question before. It wasn't rhetorical.

Oh and btw, that deliberate parking happened before at Monaco. They didn't punish the driver by sending him to the back of the ****ing grid and costing him the world championship.

Schumacher squeezed Barrichello against the pit wall and over the edge of the track. Note... over the edge of the track. Barrichello has all four wheels outside the white line:

That is not one car's width. And that's on the straight, where you're obliged (under the rules) to leave that space (again, corners have separate regulations). And "dangerous driving" also falls under the code, and thus he was penalized, and rightly so.

"dangerous driving" is subjective, which is why it shouldn't be a rule in the first place.

As far as the incident goes, from the FIA's point of view, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to push farther than the white lines on the straights. Otherwise we'd have penalties for drivers at the start of every race. Personally? I would've reprimanded him as well but I'm not talking about my opinion.

And here it comes out.

Isn't that what you wanted?

Which twitter account? The one with the big picture of the last GP as the header, or the one titled @F1LH? Just so we're perfectly clear where he's completely leaving out any mention of F1.

His official twitter account, which had the pictures he took of the set up in his last Mclaren year. It was also verified. He changed his bio to a more respectful one some time last year.

And who are you to say what a man can and can't do with his life outside of his profession? If Button can have his triathlons, Kubica his rallying and Kimi whatever else he does when he's not drinking or pretending to be a robot for the amusement of the media, Lewis has every right to do what he wants to do outside of the track.

Did you not understand what I said? I don't care what he does off track. He wrote that **** in his BIO and he has a verified account, so he's accountable. Doing that is a big FU to racing and formula one. If it had come from some rich asshole that bought his way into a seat, I'll accept it. But to come from someone who's only skill/fame in life is from racing, it's unacceptable. The fact that it's hip hop does make it worse in the sense that, that culture in itself is has a theme of anti-professionalism.

 

[niky]

And until they're deemed illegal, whoever abuses them has no sportsmanship.

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't answer my question about the FIA.

I did.

There are things that should be illegal, and they're eventually made so.

Does this mean that if something is not banned, it shouldn't be? Of course not. If it's dangerous, it should be banned. Definitely. If it isn't, and if it's unenforceable (team orders), then it can't and shouldn't. (Mind you, I hate team orders, but you can't force drivers to fight if it's not in their best interests).

Thanks for proving everything I said. I should stop replying now, but I'll finish this one up.

Proving what? That those who cheat are rightfully stripped of their titles? You're suggesting that I am saying cheating is right, which, if you've read any of my responses, you know I am not.

Seriously, that's what a champion is to you? If so, it's not a sport. A champion that cheats to win, only proves that he can't win on his own merit. He proves he's not good enough to win, and doesn't deserve to.

Do you even read what you are quoting?

And thankfully, they have been stripped of their championships when they do. (ref. Schumacher on Hill)

..And taking ages to serve in Tennis.

Which you can get penalized for.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/tennis-open-nadal-idINDEEA0J07O20140120

Or faking an injury to get a time out so you can cut off your opponent's momentumAhem Rafael Nadal.

Which you can get penalized for... if you can prove it was faked. And he still lost that match. If the other guy is in better condition than you, after the rest break, he will still be in better condition than you.

All of which are acts of unsportsmanship. True champions don't have to resolve to such tactics.

Which is exactly in my post from the other thread that you quoted:

You don't have to drive dirty. But you have to be committed to winning, no matter what.

No no no no, that's why it's not a poor example. It's so silly, and obviously against the rule but you can have an interpretation of which it's legal. Maybe the kids parents wanted to increase his calcium intake and encourage him to eat plenty of ice cream.

In what court can "telling a kid not to eat an ice cream" be interpreted as "you can eat two ice creams?" Or, more concretely, where does: "You cannot kill a person" become "It's okay to kill two people"? Again, poor example.

If you insist, the proper analogy here would be; asking a kid not to eat chocolate because he has diabates, the kid eats ice cream instead because it wasn't explicitly forbidden. Ignoring the spirit of the rule, which is no sweets, because of diabetes.

Again, that makes you a poor parent. There's a reason laws are written in a very specific manner.

Sure, some things are not enforceable, so there isn't anything that the officials can do. That, however, shouldn't stop YOU or any fan from expressing anger at the cheaters. What you said earlier is that if it's technically legal, it should be ok.

If it's unenforceable and not dangerous, yes.

Probably determined by the same guys that determined Brune Senna wasn't weaving in the braking zone at Barcelona 2012. Again, are you surrendering to what the stewards and the FIA say? Is that how you weigh on who's cheating and who isn't? You ignored that question before. It wasn't rhetorical.

I disagree with the stewards on a lot of things. And they do sometimes make bad calls. But our fundamental disagreement here (come on, you know what it is) is about what's legal or not. If you want to discuss it, bring it out.

Oh and btw, that deliberate parking happened before at Monaco. They didn't punish the driver by sending him to the back of the ****ing grid and costing him the world championship.

They sometimes make bad calls, but what's illegal is illegal. And if it is, you can call them out on it.

"dangerous driving" is subjective, which is why it shouldn't be a rule in the first place.

That much is true. It is subjective, and thankfully they keep rewriting rules to make less of it subjective. (Isn't a little flexibility wonderful?)

But the provisions which Schumacher violated on giving space? They are not.

As far as the incident goes, from the FIA's point of view, I'm pretty sure you're allowed to push farther than the white lines on the straights. Otherwise we'd have penalties for drivers at the start of every race. Personally? I would've reprimanded him as well but I'm not talking about my opinion.

You ought to read the rules again. The FIA defines the white lines as the track boundary. If you push someone over the white line, you are not leaving one car width of space.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8683/fia.html

Isn't that what you wanted?

Well, I wanted us to take this up in a separate thread, but yes, that will do. If you're going to say something, just say it. No need to take snide jabs in the background when it's pretty obvious you won't let it go.

His official twitter account, which had the pictures he took of the set up in his last Mclaren year. It was also verified. He changed his bio to a more respectful one some time last year.

And here we come back to this:

people can change

But then, who cares? He was doing other stuff he liked. Big.Deal.

Did you not understand what I said? I don't care what he does off track. He wrote that **** in his BIO and he has a verified account, so he's accountable. Doing that is a big FU to racing and formula one. If it had come from some rich asshole that bought his way into a seat, I'll accept it. But to come from someone who's only skill/fame in life is from racing, it's unacceptable. The fact that it's hip hop does make it worse in the sense that, that culture in itself is has a theme of anti-professionalism.

It's pretty obvious you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't be so worked up about it.

Let's get this straight:
1. He's a paid driver.
2. He does other stuff.
3. He likes doing other stuff.

It's no shame in admitting you don't like Hamilton. A lot of people don't. But there's rational criticism and then there's whatever you're doing right now. To say that a lifestyle choice is unacceptable for a racing driver is... what? What lifestyle choice is "acceptable"? No mansions or chalets in Monte Carlo? No yachts? No supercars? No partying at clubs with all the other twenty-somethings in the city?

I'm sure they have a right to be there... because they're not racing drivers. Who obviously have no right to be anything else.

The rock/rap/popstar lifestyle is stupid. It's vapid. It eventually leads to bankruptcy in old age and much regrets. It's the same lifestyle many young athletes are drawn to. Is it sad? Yes. Does it have anything to do with their dedication to their craft?

Well, if they're driving one of the best seasons of their lives, obviously not.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You didn't answer the question.

You didn't ask a question. You asked me to name things I'm not satisfied with at the moment in regards to the rules. This isn't the topic, and quite frankly I don't want to get into it unless something happens in a grand prix soon.

I did.

My question was, is your criteria for what's fair/sportsmanlike or not the FIA's decisions? It's a simple yes or no.

Proving what? That those who cheat are rightfully stripped of their titles? You're suggesting that I am saying cheating is right, which, if you've read any of my responses, you know I am not.

No. First of all, it's not whether or "cheating" is right or wrong. It's what defines cheating or fighting dirty, and whether or if you do so translates into a great competitor.

What proved my point is "A champion does everything he can to win". Your words. That implies, a true champion will do any and everything to win, inclusive of cheating or bending the rules. That's false. Like I said, true champions don't do everything they can to win, they do everything they can within the spirit of the sport, to win. There's a difference.

Which you can get penalized for.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/20/tennis-open-nadal-idINDEEA0J07O20140120

I'll be damned, I actually didn't know he was penalized for it for once in his entire career. I know there's a rule for it, but I've never seen it enforced. He always gets off with a warning, if any.

Which you can get penalized for... if you can prove it was faked. And he still lost that match. If the other guy is in better condition than you, after the rest break, he will still be in better condition than you.

Yes, but it's not an enforceable rule so it's up to us, the fans, to boo the ****er when he pulls off **** like that. I assume you know which match I'm talking about. It wasn't about the physical condition, rather mental. Wawrinka was on fire. He was playing happy. Nadal wanted to take a break to regain focus and kill his opponent's rhythm. Not the first time he does that crap, which is why I don't consider him a true champion.

In what court can "telling a kid not to eat an ice cream" be interpreted as "you can eat two ice creams?" Or, more concretely, where does: "You cannot kill a person" become "It's okay to kill two people"? Again, poor example.



Again, that makes you a poor parent. There's a reason laws are written in a very specific manner.

Are you messing with me or you really don't get the point? You're taking this literally here.

If it's unenforceable and not dangerous, yes.

No. Not in a sport. That's the whole point of this discussion. enforceable or not, dangerous or not, bending or breaking the rules to gain an advantage is unsportsman-like behaviour.

You've been trying hard to make it about Hamilton or some ****, and missing the point.

But the provisions which Schumacher violated on giving space? They are not.



You ought to read the rules again. The FIA defines the white lines as the track boundary. If you push someone over the white line, you are not leaving one car width of space.

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/sporting_regulations/8683/fia.html

Please not this again. It's an unwritten law to turn a blind eye to the white line thing on the straight. The same way a lot of race start incidents are ignored unless they're absolutely crazy. Heck, I can get you footage of at least 10 grand prix starts where someone pushes his opponent over the white lines on the straight. No penalties are given. Yes, doing it at 310 km/h is dangerous driving in MY opinion, but it would even if there weren't any white lines.

Well, I wanted us to take this up in a separate thread, but yes, that will do. If you're going to say something, just say it. No need to take snide jabs in the background when it's pretty obvious you won't let it go.

I'm sorry that's how you and @Samus interpreted my post. It had nothing to do with what you think it had to do with. Sport or no sport issue bugs me, and I talked about it before. Look:

You need to make up your minds whether racing is a sport or not, before you can give people **** for judging driver's personalities. If it's not a sport, that's fine. Judge them by success/skill alone. If you consider it a sport then you'll have to judge them by personalities as well.

This thread has nothing to do with Hamilton or other drivers/incidents in particular. As much as you want it to be.

It's pretty obvious you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't be so worked up about it.

Let's get this straight:
1. He's a paid driver.
2. He does other stuff.
3. He likes doing other stuff.

No. Why do you insist on putting words into my e-mouth? I didn't even get involved in the whole hat thing last GP's thread. Quote me if I did.

And here we come back to this:

But then, who cares? He was doing other stuff he liked. Big.Deal.

It's no shame in admitting you don't like Hamilton. A lot of people don't. But there's rational criticism and then there's whatever you're doing right now. To say that a lifestyle choice is unacceptable for a racing driver is... what? What lifestyle choice is "acceptable"? No mansions or chalets in Monte Carlo? No yachts? No supercars? No partying at clubs with all the other twenty-somethings in the city?

I'm sure they have a right to be there... because they're not racing drivers. Who obviously have no right to be anything else.

The rock/rap/popstar lifestyle is stupid. It's vapid. It eventually leads to bankruptcy in old age and much regrets. It's the same lifestyle many young athletes are drawn to. Is it sad? Yes. Does it have anything to do with their dedication to their craft?

Well, if they're driving one of the best seasons of their lives, obviously not.

When did I deny I don't like Hamilton, Vettel, Senna or others? I suppose you think I hate Vettel because of his lifestyle outside the track too, right? :/

Take my word for it or don't. Read what I said in the previous post. Athletes can do what they want outside the sport, stupid as it may be. I honestly don't care. I'll care about what you say in interviews, how you treat your fans, and your team, but that's a different story. Personal lifestyle? No. UNTIL of course, you start identifying yourself as something you're not, over what you actually do for a living and what made you famous. It's insulting. His bio screamed "I'm a fake gangsta, not a driver. Being in music is so much better than being F1". If you can't see anything offensive in that, may god have mercy on your soul.

Seriously, it's not the stupid hat. It's not the stupid dog. It's not the girl. I don't recall saying anything about those before.

 

[niky]

You didn't ask a question. You asked me to name things I'm not satisfied with at the moment in regards to the rules. This isn't the topic, and quite frankly I don't want to get into it unless something happens in a grand prix soon.

And sportsmanship wasn't the topic, either, until you brought it up.

My question was, is your criteria for what's fair/sportsmanlike or not the FIA's decisions? It's a simple yes or no.

And the answer is an even simpler: It depends.

When they're right, they're right. When they're not right, it's debatable.

No. First of all, it's not whether or "cheating" is right or wrong. It's what defines cheating or fighting dirty, and whether or if you do so translates into a great competitor.

What proved my point is "A champion does everything he can to win". Your words. That implies, a true champion will do any and everything to win, inclusive of cheating or bending the rules. That's false. Like I said, true champions don't do everything they can to win, they do everything they can within the spirit of the sport, to win. There's a difference.

Someone who loses a championship because of cheating is no longer a champion.

Cheating is treated as an offense in regard to the competition in which the cheating occurred. If a driver is stripped of points in one race due to cheating occurring in that race, I would not bat an eyelid (as shown in the quotes I cited). If you were to strip one of all their championships and points over their career over one offense, that's overboard.

Again, you are reading implications into what I say while ignoring the rest. That's cherry-picking. If a person breaks the rules to win, then they should be penalized, and should not gain from it. That's all there is to it.

Yes, but it's not an enforceable rule so it's up to us, the fans, to boo the ****er when he pulls off **** like that. I assume you know which match I'm talking about. It wasn't about the physical condition, rather mental. Wawrinka was on fire. He was playing happy. Nadal wanted to take a break to regain focus and kill his opponent's rhythm. Not the first time he does that crap, which is why I don't consider him a true champion.

Don't really care for the man, either way. But if it is illegal (and under the rules, it apparently is) he should be punished.

Are you messing with me or you really don't get the point? You're taking this literally here.

No, I'm illustrating how rules and rule interpretation works. You can successfully argue against a rule if it's sufficiently vague. Which helps refine the rules, and improves the sport. I'm fairly satisfied that this system works, even if I disagree with some of the rule changes.

As someone who's worked in Quality Assurance and who has written rulebooks, manuals, handbooks and guidelines (for car testing) at work and in my spare time, I can tell you... no one can think of everything beforehand. What matters is that once the problem is spotted, you move to correct it, to ensure it never happens again.

Would it be nice if we could cover all the possible cheats and issues up front? Of course! Is it even remotely possible? Nope.

No. Not in a sport. That's the whole point of this discussion. enforceable or not, dangerous or not, bending or breaking the rules to gain an advantage is unsportsman-like behaviour.

If it is demonstrable, it can be banned. You can't penalize someone for vague intent, but you can for discrete actions taken on the field. Delaying a game for x seconds. Certain verbal exchanges. Exceeding a certain speed or time separation in qualifying. Making specific steering movements in a corner.

If it's a rule you can't make without penalizing legal actions, then it can't be a rule.

You've been trying hard to make it about Hamilton or some ****, and missing the point.

Okay, let's set that aside. The point is, there are things you are upset about because they're not illegal in the sport. Which is why I asked the question up top as to what specific things you think should be changed.

You're also upset by athletes bending rules. I agree they should be penalized for breaking them, but bending them? That depends on what kind of bending and whether it's something that can be defined in a concrete manner as illegal.

If the basketball league allows zone defense, you'd be a fool not to use it. If it allows you four non-shooting fouls before assigning free-throws, you'd be a fool not to use them to break the rhythm of the other team. And basketball is one game where breaking the rhythm of the other team is part and parcel of the game.

In racing, it's frowned upon simply because it's dangerous to drive erratically in a formation lap. So we penalize that.

Please not this again. It's an unwritten law to turn a blind eye to the white line thing on the straight. The same way a lot of race start incidents are ignored unless they're absolutely crazy. Heck, I can get you footage of at least 10 grand prix starts where someone pushes his opponent over the white lines on the straight. No penalties are given. Yes, doing it at 310 km/h is dangerous driving in MY opinion, but it would even if there weren't any white lines.

They are a little more lenient on race starts because it's difficult for drivers to keep track of all the other drivers on the track. And it is difficult to prove deliberate crowding if the driver in question is being pushed off line by yet another driver. But they can (and do) penalize people when necessary.

Schumacher, driving in completely clean air, had no excuse.

I'm sorry that's how you and @Samus interpreted my post. It had nothing to do with what you think it had to do with. Sport or no sport issue bugs me, and I talked about it before. Look:

A driver's life is his own business. As long as he isn't doing anything illegal, like driving drunk, then it's still his own business.

No. Why do you insist on putting words into my e-mouth? I didn't even get involved in the whole hat thing last GP's thread. Quote me if I did.

Fair enough.

UNTIL of course, you start identifying yourself as something you're not, over what you actually do for a living and what made you famous. It's insulting. His bio screamed "I'm a fake gangsta, not a driver. Being in music is so much better than being F1". If you can't see anything offensive in that, may god have mercy on your soul.

I'd have to see it.

Because, as far as I can tell, by trawling the historical archives of his twitter feed via The Wayback Machine, his twitter bio read thus in 2013:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130829105506/https://twitter.com/LewisHamilton

Inspired to be the greatest In all I do. Formula 1 driver, Artist, singer/songwriter/musician, H.A.M till the day I die. God comes 1st...

All around the World!!

And the times when it didn't, he's had cover pictures of race tracks or references to races in there.

Aside from "H.A.M till the day I die" (unless it means Hamilton at Mercedes and not McLaren... we all know how that worked out), I don't see anything wrong with it.

(edited: browser chopped up original post a bit)

 

[sanrensho]

I love auto-sports and racing. I think calling drivers "sportsmen" is correct. Calling them "athletes" starts to cheapen the coinage of the term "athlete". Cyclist = athlete. Driver = Sportsman.

 

[Bo]

They are among the fittest people in sports. People are too quick to forget, or ignore this.

Top racing drivers are athletes. There's no question to it.

 

[alonsof1fan91]

Here in germany too many people think they are sporty when driving their company cars (overweight german diesel wagons with automatic transmission lol) at the autobahn. Recently I had a discussion about sports cars with my co worker because we saw an Alfa 4C (which looks awesome from behind, but terribad from the front xD). He said how stupid such a "low quality italian" car was, that nobody could even manage to get seat into such a low car etc. Then he pointed out how awesome it would be to drive a RS6. Oh and he himself is driving a diesel Golf.

I just guess too many people just don`t care about motorsports. They do care about cars (especially big, expensive ones) but not about sport.

 

[BHRxRacer]

And sportsmanship wasn't the topic, either, until you brought it up.

It should be the topic, there's no sport without sportsmanship. That's not what I see these days from racing fans and it bothers me. That's why I brought it up.

So yeah, stick to that very topic.

edit

By the way, apparently I'm not the only one bothered by it. Murray walker said the same thing last week. Not the first time someone here starts a big argument before an official experienced F1 person agrees with what I say in some interview.

/end edit

And the answer is an even simpler: It depends

When they're right, they're right. When they're not right, it's debatable.

There's no such thing. Just because you sometimes agree with them doesn't mean "it depends". You either have your own view, or you follow whatever the FIA tells you to follow. The latter is how you behave. "It ain't cheating unless you get caught". That's my problem, you either think of it as a sport or you follow that saying.

Someone who loses a championship because of cheating is no longer a champion.

On paper, right? There you go again.

Cheating is treated as an offense in regard to the competition in which the cheating occurred. If a driver is stripped of points in one race due to cheating occurring in that race, I would not bat an eyelid (as shown in the quotes I cited). If you were to strip one of all their championships and points over their career over one offense, that's overboard.

Again, you are reading implications into what I say while ignoring the rest. That's cherry-picking. If a person breaks the rules to win, then they should be penalized, and should not gain from it. That's all there is to it.

I'm not reading into anything. You literally said a champion does everything to win. That contradicts you saying motorsport is a sport, because in sport a champion does/should not do "everything" to win.

Quit bringing up Schumacher's incidents into these. I know the FIA pretends to treat it as a sport by punishing drivers that they think cheated. It's not the point.

Don't really care for the man, either way. But if it is illegal (and under the rules, it apparently is) he should be punished.

Apart from that, which doesn't get enforced anyway.

Some things are technically legal, or can't be proven/enforced. If one abuses those things, one is an asshole. This must be the 10th time I repeat this. You keep going off point.

No, I'm illustrating how rules and rule interpretation works. You can successfully argue against a rule if it's sufficiently vague. Which helps refine the rules, and improves the sport. I'm fairly satisfied that this system works, even if I disagree with some of the rule changes.

As someone who's worked in Quality Assurance and who has written rulebooks, manuals, handbooks and guidelines (for car testing) at work and in my spare time, I can tell you... no one can think of everything beforehand. What matters is that once the problem is spotted, you move to correct it, to ensure it never happens again.

Would it be nice if we could cover all the possible cheats and issues up front? Of course! Is it even remotely possible? Nope.

If it's 0.01% or 99.99% vague then my analogy did it's job. I know it's impossible for rules to cover all the possibilities, and I know it's even harder to properly enforce the rules. That's exactly why we have, or should have sportsmanship. Relying on the rules and officials alone isn't going to make things as fair as possible.

If it is demonstrable, it can be banned. You can't penalize someone for vague intent, but you can for discrete actions taken on the field. Delaying a game for x seconds. Certain verbal exchanges. Exceeding a certain speed or time separation in qualifying. Making specific steering movements in a corner.

If it's a rule you can't make without penalizing legal actions, then it can't be a rule.

No, but we can give them **** for it instead of over-glorifying them.

Okay, let's set that aside. The point is, there are things you are upset about because they're not illegal in the sport. Which is why I asked the question up top as to what specific things you think should be changed.

No. Again, that's not why I'm here.

You're also upset by athletes bending rules. I agree they should be penalized for breaking them, but bending them? That depends on what kind of bending and whether it's something that can be defined in a concrete manner as illegal.

The last sentence does it for me. Some things cannot be defined in a concrete manner as illegal, deal with it. If you do those things, you lack sportsmanship/ethics/whatever.

If the basketball league allows zone defense, you'd be a fool not to use it. If it allows you four non-shooting fouls before assigning free-throws, you'd be a fool not to use them to break the rhythm of the other team. And basketball is one game where breaking the rhythm of the other team is part and parcel of the game.

You'd be a fool not to use them, but you'd also be a good loser.

They are a little more lenient on race starts because it's difficult for drivers to keep track of all the other drivers on the track. And it is difficult to prove deliberate crowding if the driver in question is being pushed off line by yet another driver. But they can (and do) penalize people when necessary.

...So what you're saying is they're sometimes lenient, and other times they're not. Good. Thanks.

A driver's life is his own business. As long as he isn't doing anything illegal, like driving drunk, then it's still his own business.

I wasn't talking about their personal life. I'm talking about their behavior with their teams, the press and the fans.

I'd have to see it.

Of course you do. I'm glad you'd at least agree with me given what I said is true. Which it is.

Because, as far as I can tell, by trawling the historical archives of his twitter feed via The Wayback Machine, his twitter bio read thus in 2013:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130829105506/https://twitter.com/LewisHamilton



And the times when it didn't, he's had cover pictures of race tracks or references to races in there.

Aside from "H.A.M till the day I die" (unless it means Hamilton at Mercedes and not McLaren... we all know how that worked out), I don't see anything wrong with it.

(edited: browser chopped up original post a bit)

I was referring to his timeline 2012 the days he removed some tweets after Whitmarsh told him to. Coincidentally, there's only one archive at the very beginning of that year.

The bio you quoted is almost identical to the one I'd read but I'm quite sure "F1 driver" wasn't there. Let's drop this please, it's off topic and I'm tired of it.

They are among the fittest people in sports. People are too quick to forget, or ignore this.

Top racing drivers are athletes. There's no question to it.

Yeah there's a big difference between people that like cars, and people that like racing/driving. Pretty much everyone I know in real life thinks cars as either means of commute, a fashion accessory or both. Nothing more. Sad.

 

[niky]

It should be the topic, there's no sport without sportsmanship. That's not what I see these days from racing fans and it bothers me. That's why I brought it up.

So yeah, stick to that very topic.

edit

By the way, apparently I'm not the only one bothered by it. Murray walker said the same thing last week. Not the first time someone here starts a big argument before an official experienced F1 person agrees with what I say in some interview.

/end edit

When you want back-up, post the link. This isn't the first time you've appealed to authority and it's been shown they haven't exactly said what you claimed they said.

If we're talking about the quote on dog-walking, yes, I agree... the F1 paddock is not a good place for dogs. And yes, I think it's ridiculous (and I've joked about it here in the past... it is indeed ridiculous). If we're talking about his praising Mercedes for the 2014 season during his quarterly report card...

There's no such thing. Just because you sometimes agree with them doesn't mean "it depends". You either have your own view, or you follow whatever the FIA tells you to follow. The latter is how you behave. "It ain't cheating unless you get caught". That's my problem, you either think of it as a sport or you follow that saying.

I have no idea how anything I said can be construed as "it ain't cheating unless you get caught" as I have stated that if you're cheating under the rules, you're cheating. My disagreement with the FIA is when they've made poor calls. Which are common in any sport.

I have never said cheaters should not be punished. And have said quite a lot to the contrary.

On paper, right? There you go again.

When an athlete is stripped of their championship, there's a whole lot of ignonimity that goes along with it. People will remember you were stripped of that championship, and why.

I'm not reading into anything. You literally said a champion does everything to win. That contradicts you saying motorsport is a sport, because in sport a champion does/should not do "everything" to win.

And yet, I clarified right after that, that it doesn't mean driving dirty, it just simply means putting everything on the line. And I've clarified that by pointing to where I've said cheating is not right. If you have to keep going back to the original argument and ignoring the clarifiers I posted right with it, then you're arguing with a strawman and there's nothing more to talk about.

Quit bringing up Schumacher's incidents into these. I know the FIA pretends to treat it as a sport by punishing drivers that they think cheated. It's not the point.

Actually doing their job is pretending?

Apart from that, which doesn't get enforced anyway.

Some things are technically legal, or can't be proven/enforced. If one abuses those things, one is an asshole. This must be the 10th time I repeat this. You keep going off point.

While I agree with the asshole part, I would still like to know exactly what actions there are in racing that can't be enforced that should be illegal.

If it's 0.01% or 99.99% vague then my analogy did it's job. I know it's impossible for rules to cover all the possibilities, and I know it's even harder to properly enforce the rules. That's exactly why we have, or should have sportsmanship. Relying on the rules and officials alone isn't going to make things as fair as possible.

Relying on officiating, yes, is problematic at times. But proper rules are important.

And your rule was not vague. It was fairly concrete. The analogy itself was simply incorrect, because under your own rules, the child should have been punished. Rule vagueness doesn't work like that.

No, but we can give them **** for it instead of over-glorifying them.

Apparently. Even when no one else, not even the "victim", is complaining that cheating was used to affect the outcome.

No. Again, that's not why I'm here.

The last sentence does it for me. Some things cannot be defined in a concrete manner as illegal, deal with it. If you do those things, you lack sportsmanship/ethics/whatever.

Which comes back to the problem. Sportsmanship should cover your attitude and actions on the field of battle. Every action on the field can be defined in a fairly concrete manner. Every finger movement, every utterance, every wiggle of the chassis. Anything other than sticking to the racing line or making the single defensive move (with the other driver not alongside you) can and is defined under the rules.

You'd be a fool not to use them, but you'd also be a good loser.

So a basketball team that never uses a holding foul to stop the clock is a good one? Or a tennis player that doesn't waste their first serve trying to hit an ace? To bad those don't exist. There are numerous rules made for reasons other than those to which athletes and teams use them for.

...So what you're saying is they're sometimes lenient, and other times they're not. Good. Thanks.

I'm saying that you have to show reasonable proof that the driver intentionally ran another off the road without being forced aside himself. And that stewards can't see everything. I'd be perfectly happy if Formula One (and many other sports) would apply retroactive penalties based on replay data and telemetry. It would improve boxing, for one thing, though so much money is tied up in boxing, including both legal and illegal gambling, that it's a small hope.

That said, judges have lost their careers due to poor decisions in fights. And about time, too.

I wasn't talking about their personal life. I'm talking about their behavior with their teams, the press and the fans.

Of course you do. I'm glad you'd at least agree with me given what I said is true. Which it is.

I was referring to his timeline 2012 the days he removed some tweets after Whitmarsh told him to. Coincidentally, there's only one archive at the very beginning of that year.

The telemetry tweet. Not his bio. Which yes, was stupid. And is available online in many different places.

The bio you quoted is almost identical to the one I'd read but I'm quite sure "F1 driver" wasn't there. Let's drop this please, it's off topic and I'm tired of it.

If you have no proof, not even a news item, then yes, we should.

 

[BHRxRacer]

When you want back-up, post the link. This isn't the first time you've appealed to authority and it's been shown they haven't exactly said what you claimed they said.

"Whilst i have this gigantic admiration and respect for him in those terms, I'm also aware of his utter ruthlessness, and the fact that his driving could be and very often was unduly aggressive. and lead to a trend for that to be the way to do it these days which is not something I'm pleased about "

That's from the very end of SkyF1's journalist special about Senna. I doubt it'll be on youtube because they take these things quickly, so I won't bother looking. If you still don't believe me (as usual), I'll upload where he says that to a private video and give you the link in private. It's very exhausting having to give sources or quote everything I hear in person or on TV. I wouldn't want to have a "pub debate" with you guys.

And please don't stop making such claims. If you're referring to the Hamilton-Mercedes issue and Jenson's interview, you're wrong. If it's another incident, refresh my memory in private and we can discuss it.

If we're talking about the quote on dog-walking, yes, I agree... the F1 paddock is not a good place for dogs. And yes, I think it's ridiculous (and I've joked about it here in the past... it is indeed ridiculous). If we're talking about his praising Mercedes for the 2014 season during his quarterly report card...

Standard presumptions made about me, or what I say. Wasn't the topic at all, as you're aware now by reading the Walker quote. Let's move along

I have no idea how anything I said can be construed as "it ain't cheating unless you get caught" as I have stated that if you're cheating under the rules, you're cheating. My disagreement with the FIA is when they've made poor calls. Which are common in any sport.

I have never said cheaters should not be punished. And have said quite a lot to the contrary.

And yet, I clarified right after that, that it doesn't mean driving dirty, it just simply means putting everything on the line. And I've clarified that by pointing to where I've said cheating is not right. If you have to keep going back to the original argument and ignoring the clarifiers I posted right with it, then you're arguing with a strawman and there's nothing more to talk about.

R3


Yeah I know what you said, but you approve(d) when athletes exploit so called grey areas and insisted on it by saying "as long as it's technically legal, it's ok". Big contradiction. Hence, my problem.

According to you playing dirty means you're doing something illegal. That's not dirty, that's cheating. Dirty means abusing the rules.

When an athlete is stripped of their championship, there's a whole lot of ignonimity that goes along with it. People will remember you were stripped of that championship, and why.

The whole Schumacher thing was off topic on your part but, what if he(not necessarily Schumacher) was wrongfully stripped of that title?

Actually doing their job is pretending?

Attempting to do their job and trying to convince people that they are. Not the topic. Ignore it.

While I agree with the asshole part, I would still like to know exactly what actions there are in racing that can't be enforced that should be illegal.

If you agree with the asshole part we have nothing further to discuss. Then again, refer to R3.



BTW anyone knows how to use HTML-like anchor points on this new board?

Relying on officiating, yes, is problematic at times. But proper rules are important.

And your rule was not vague. It was fairly concrete. The analogy itself was simply incorrect, because under your own rules, the child should have been punished. Rule vagueness doesn't work like that.

Important but not enough.

I won't discuss my analogy further.

Its* in my last post, sorry.

Apparently. Even when no one else, not even the "victim", is complaining that cheating was used to affect the outcome.

When did I talk about an incident where the victim didn't complain? How many times do I have to ask you to stop assuming things?

So a basketball team that never uses a holding foul to stop the clock is a good one? Or a tennis player that doesn't waste their first serve trying to hit an ace? To bad those don't exist. There are numerous rules made for reasons other than those to which athletes and teams use them for.

I didn't comment on basketball specifically because I don't know or care much about it. Let's do another take. /edit Football /end edit Cup final, extra time, you're one goal up against a team 10x better than you and have more left in the tank. Team about to score, unless you make a horrible tackle. By your standards, you'd be a fool to risk going into penalties against such team. By sports' standards, if you don't do the illegal tackle and end up losing in the penalty shootout, you're a good loser. If you take out the attacker , sure you'll get a red card, rules are in place etc etc etc but it'll award you the cup as well. That's not right.

Oh and please don't argue that the player can be suspended from ever playing again or whatever. Nothing will hand back the cup to the other team. I know you'll want to do that, please don't.

I'm saying that you have to show reasonable proof that the driver intentionally ran another off the road without being forced aside himself. And that stewards can't see everything. I'd be perfectly happy if Formula One (and many other sports) would apply retroactive penalties based on replay data and telemetry. It would improve boxing, for one thing, though so much money is tied up in boxing, including both legal and illegal gambling, that it's a small hope.

Point is: Sometimes the stewards don't enforce certain rules in some situations. Another one is the 107% rule which Charlie Whiting said will be practically ignored this season. Don't reply to the last sentence, it's off topic. Just an example.

The telemetry tweet. Not his bio. Which yes, was stupid. And is available online in many different places.

Maybe I assume more than you do. /edit I always assume you follow what I say. /end edit

Niky baby, I'm not talking about the tweet. I'm talking about Hamilton's bio at the time he made those tweets. That time(tho not exactly), was when he had the offensive-to-F1 bio. The archived bio you linked is from 2013, not the one I referred to.

If you have no proof, not even a news item, then yes, we should.

I'm sorry I don't have twitter, and that I don't take snapshots of his bio everyday.

 

[niky]

"Whilst i have this gigantic admiration and respect for him in those terms, I'm also aware of his utter ruthlessness, and the fact that his driving could be and very often was unduly aggressive. and lead to a trend for that to be the way to do it these days which is not something I'm pleased about "

That's from the very end of SkyF1's journalist special about Senna. I doubt it'll be on youtube because they take these things quickly, so I won't bother looking. If you still don't believe me (as usual), I'll upload where he says that to a private video and give you the link in private. It's very exhausting having to give sources or quote everything I hear in person or on TV. I wouldn't want to have a "pub debate" with you guys.

And please don't stop making such claims. If you're referring to the Hamilton-Mercedes issue and Jenson's interview, you're wrong. If it's another incident, refresh my memory in private and we can discuss it.

See? It helps to be precise.

I agree with the ruthless part. You must always ensure that you do not cause an accident. Drivers who unnecessarily chop other drivers will often get their comeuppance, but not always, sadly. Gladly, most of the majors know exactly how much room to leave each other nowadays... though for some, the learning experience was more protracted than for others.

-

RE: incident: Pitlane notebook video. Shanghai. Which is why direct quotes or citations are necessary.

Standard presumptions made about me, or what I say. Wasn't the topic at all, as you're aware now by reading the Walker quote. Let's move along

Again, it would help if you came out and quoted it right away.

Yeah I know what you said, but you approve(d) when athletes exploit so called grey areas and insisted on it by saying "as long as it's technically legal, it's ok". Big contradiction. Hence, my problem.

According to you playing dirty means you're doing something illegal. That's not dirty, that's cheating. Dirty means abusing the rules.

There's dirty and there's smart.

Knowing the rules in detail, and exploiting them to your advantage is smart. Breaking the rules is cheating.

Attempting to injure another athlete for an advantage, that... that is dirty. It is not the term I'd use for zone defense, shooting to draw a foul, committing an intentional (holding) foul to stop the game clock.

The whole Schumacher thing was off topic on your part but, what if he(not necessarily Schumacher) was wrongfully stripped of that title?

If he was, then they weren't doing their job right. I can name a number of wrongfully given penalties in F1, but that wasn't one of them.

Attempting

to do their job and trying to convince people that they are. Not the topic. Ignore it.

It's very hard to ignore such a serious claim. If you make a claim, you have to be ready to defend it.

I didn't comment on basketball specifically because I don't know or care much about it. Let's do another take. /edit Football /end edit Cup final, extra time, you're one goal up against a team 10x better than you and have more left in the tank. Team about to score, unless you make a horrible tackle. By your standards, you'd be a fool to risk going into penalties against such team. By sports' standards, if you don't do the illegal tackle and end up losing in the penalty shootout, you're a good loser. If you take out the attacker , sure you'll get a red card, rules are in place etc etc etc but it'll award you the cup as well. That's not right.

Oh and please don't argue that the player can be suspended from ever playing again or whatever. Nothing will hand back the cup to the other team. I know you'll want to do that, please don't.

Intentionally injuring another player should be considered a criminal act, and should be punished as so. Interestingly, a casual search shows that some countries are starting to prosecute assault in football as assault... though a tackle meant to cause injury should also mean a lifetime ban, as well, rather than a simple multi-game suspension.

See, that's breaking the rules, and committing an illegal act, all in one.

Proving that these acts were ordered from up top is another matter altogether. Since individual athletes can be stripped of points or wins for such behaviour, it stands to reason that teams should, too. Of course, this is a fault with that rulebook, but not F1's.

Point is: Sometimes the stewards don't enforce certain rules in some situations. Another one is the 107% rule which Charlie Whiting said will be practically ignored this season. Don't reply to the last sentence, it's off topic. Just an example.

Again: special case, because it's hard to prove deliberate malfeasance. But they do punish recklessness with an iron hand.

-

You know full well why the 107% is not being enforced at the moment. And it's nothing to do with sportsmanship.

Maybe I assume more than you do. /edit I always assume you follow what I say. /end edit

Following a vague section of argument is difficult, yes. Which is why citation is important.

Niky baby, I'm not talking about the tweet. I'm talking about Hamilton's bio at the time he made those tweets. That time(tho not exactly), was when he had the offensive-to-F1 bio. The archived bio you linked is from 2013, not the one I referred to.

I'm sorry I don't have twitter, and that I don't take snapshots of his bio everyday.

You quoted portions of the purported bio. Those portions of the bio you quoted only appeared in late 2013. From a trawl through the archives, he changes his bio very infrequently. (every several months) While it is possible he had the same bio in late 2012 without the "F1 driver" portion, it's not very plausible.

Here is what his bio looked like October, just a month after the telemetry scandal, and during the "Jenson unfollowed me" idiocy:

Which is the same bio he had through the first half of 2013.

I don't recall any discussion at all regarding "offensive bios" at the time of the scandal, and it's not something that nobody would notice or take a screenshot of, given how juicy his twitter account was proving for the media at that time.

Again, if it was really offensive... where's the smoke for that fire?

 

[FormulaKimball]

Guys this discussion has been fascinating

I have to agree with the spirit of what BHRxRacer has been saying, that while it's in a driver's best interest to be as selfish as possible and take every advantage and bend the rules as far as they can without receiving penalties (or incurring calculated penalties that still are advantageous), a true sportsman simply won't do that because it's not as honorable as racing clean and beating someone fair and square on one's own talent alone. (Now when it comes to ingenuity in designing the car "within the rules", that's another matter... but there are plenty of engineers who have the same attitude that spending extra time and money on hidden exotic barely-legal advantages is kind of chicken-🤬.)

Best video I've ever seen that says everything about sportsmanship, go to the 41:59 mark and check out how Stirling Moss essentially gave away his championship to Mike Hawthorn because he simply couldn't allow the stewards to make a bad call even if it favored himself:


I guess the moral is, can you live with four 2nd places and three 3rd places in the championship if it means you have the satisfaction of enduring fair play? Or would you rather be that guy who is so ruthless that it's more important to win, and occasional sacrifices of sportsmanship are a necessary evil? Moss won four of the races in 1958, yet Hawthorn won only one and still took the championship. So for Moss to argue in Hawthorn's favor on the last race takes hardcore sportsmanship if you ask me.

Lastly, to the OP, I think there was a day when you didn't have to be "athletic" to compete in motorsport, and maybe today the people who say it isn't a sport are still thinking with that old image in mind and not the crazy fitness an F1 driver needs today (and other series too of course). It's generally admitted that this season's cars are not nearly as physically demanding, but let's say back in Schumacher's day, there's a great article by Coulthard about how he was usually coughing up a lung due to the effort of racing at his maximum...http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/22512693

...or, those "not a sport" people can't get over anything that doesn't involve a little running. "They're just sitting there," right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Anyone can do many of the things that mainstream sports consist of.

Very few can do it repetitively with such skill, speed and accuracy that audiences will pay to watch them compete.

 

[BHRxRacer]

@niky I apologize but I have no energy to discuss anything at the moment. Some other time

 

[niky]

@BHRxRacer , no problem.. we have Monaco to watch, in the meantime, which will definitely lead to more stuff to discuss about. Whatever happens there, I expect it to be an exciting race.

 

[Jump_Ace]

If you are talking about Nascar, then no it's not a sport, anyone can drive to the left and draft. As for the other motorsports, yes it's definitely a sport.


Jerome

 

[Bo]

If you are talking about Nascar, then no it's not a sport, anyone can drive to the left and draft. As for the other motorsports, yes it's definitely a sport.


Jerome

That's just bad NASCAR trolling. It takes more physical and mental strength than most TC series.

 

[Jump_Ace]

That's just bad NASCAR trolling. It takes more physical and mental strength than most TC series.

No, that's just my opinion


Jerome

 

[Bo]

Well, it does take a lot of physical effort. That's as much as I can say.

 

[Tired Tyres]

NASCAR is Sports Entertainment, like WWE. You wouldn't call that sport would you?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

No, that's just my opinion


Jerome

Well your opinion would have to be based on something, and as given already in this thread you've either ignored the info or evidence given or more so don't care at all and are set on this. But it's quite ignorant to think such. Just as much as @Tired Tyres notion of it, because if what he thinks is the case then that would be saying that NASCAR is all one big set up which american wrestling is.

 

[Sixflags48]

Auto racing, bull riding, and rugby are sports, they require more than one ball. The others are all games to me.

 

[CinnamonOD]

That's just bad NASCAR trolling. It takes more physical and mental strength than most TC series.

Oh yeah, so many left turning can drive you crazy!

On a serious note, I think it is a sport, because it requires a certain level of physical effort and endurance to perform well, just like any other sport

 

[Bo]

Oh yeah, so many left turning can drive you crazy!

And let's brace ourselves for the "it's just turning left" party...

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Oh yeah, so many left turning can drive you crazy!

It's easy to make jokes about something without actually knowing the topic.

 

[Sixflags48]

Oh yeah, so many left turning can drive you crazy!

Having done a bit of short track oval racing, it does take a lot of mental strength. Sure the tracks are easier, but that means that the tracks are easier for everyone, the racing is closer, the cars are always within a car length of you, and one slip up in a corner could mean that you have to work back all the progress you just made. Also, 3/4 wide in corners and bump in runs are something that you don't see in road course racing. I was watching the Daytona 500 this year after watching nothing but GT3 for the most part last year, and I was astonished the drivers were driving so close together. Just takes different tactics and driving approaches.

Also from iRacing, it is rare you see someone that is amazing at both oval and road. People are usually either/or.

 

[vipahcheese]

Meh if people think it's not a sport, invite them to watch a race in person at a short track, show them around a garage/trailer, should fix that. XD

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Meh if people think it's not a sport, invite them to watch a race in person at a short track, show them around a garage/trailer, should fix that. XD

Why should one have to invite them, if they are not able to go and research some of these drivers that have taken part in more than one type of racing series that isn't oval limited. Or see the engineering involved first hand like I and others have due to groups I am apart of, then it is within full discretion for people to point out their gullibility. No one should have to take time out to expand someones willing myopic view on the subject.

 

[niky]

NASCAR is just plain nuts.

While it might not require the slim and fit physique that open wheel racing like Formula One or GP2 requires, it still requires a lot of strength, endurance and concentration. As shown by F1 transplants to NASCAR, it's not all that easy.

Driving in Formula One might be like running a triathlon with rocket propelled skates, but NASCAR is like playing Chess with Chopsticks at 200 miles an hour. Not for the faint of heart.

 

[FormulaKimball]

It's easy to make jokes about something without actually knowing the topic.

So true (nothing against AJHG1000 though, just in general). And it's too bad that so many people still think all NASCAR does is turn left. I was one of those people (not willfully against the sport, just had never seen the road races) ... then I happened to catch a NASCAR race at Watkins on tv while I was at the gym (in 2006 or 2007, can't remember). What the.... whoa! Sorry but even as a hardcore F1 fan, I was mega impressed to watch those stock cars bash through the bus stop section. After a while I learned to appreciate the skill involved in the ovals too (yeah, they might be easy if you went through the turns single-file; pack racing changes everything though). But I make sure to watch the Watkins race every year.

And in GT5, the #99 Ford Fusion became one of my *top 5* favorite cars to drive for laps on the NORDSCHLEIFE. One of the most fun cars actually. Did a lot of laps at Bathurst in GT6 too (before getting fed up with that game in general).

But I'm more of the mind of LMSCorvetteGT2 lately - at some point you grow weary of trying to change other people's minds or even express your own point of view for posterity. (Except sometimes in forums like this.) Just do your thing and maybe it will inspire someone. Not worth getting PO'd or frustrated about it.