Fixed! Now do you see where we are coming from?
But it's not evdence! "Evidence" is clear proof of something having happened; in this context, clear proof that the FIA is corrupt. You cannot present the passing incident at Spa as evidence of anyhting other than a disputed penalty. If Hamilton had let Raikkonen back through an then caught him half a lap later only to find he was penalised for it,
that would be evidence of wrong-doing. But as it stands, it is
not evidence. You don't even know what the wrong-doing
is, much less show proof of it happening. What is the FIA doing? Accepting bribes from Ferrari? Paying race marshalls off to mke a certain decision? Show me a clear-cut example of where, when and how the FIA have been conspiring against one team in favour of another. And by clear-cut, I don't mean a decision by the stewards that divided opinions, like any of the penalties at Spa or Fuji. Show me something that proves beyond resonable doubt that the FIA passed a decision or took action that was intended to restrict a team's ability to be competitive in favour of another team. All you've done so far is quoted me and changed a few words around and expected that I suddenly understand where you're coming from.
You cannot conclusively prove that Brawn's diffuser has been banned, much less prove that it was banned with the intenton of slowing Brawn down. No major news sources are reporting that the diffuser was even being questioned by the Powers That Be, and that's before you get to the part where none of the said news sources are reporting that the diffuser has been banned outright.
You have no proof! You have
nothing, nothing more than an opinion that the FIA are guilty of some kind of wrong-doing simly because you disagree with them. It's like trying to play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, except that there is no donkey to begin with, but you remained convinced that if you squint your eyes and tilt your head just so, a donkey will be visible somewhere on the wall if you know where to look. You make one pretty poor investigator, largely because you're building your case out of you opinion rather than solid, believable, verifable
fact. Give me something to work with here: don't just change a few words around and expect that it is more than enough to make me change my stance here, because believe me right now when I say it's not ging to happen. Give me proof; show me a case where the FIA have clearly taken action -
any action - against a team for no reason other than to favour another. I'm willing to bet that you can't do it. You can't even define
how the FIA are corrupt.
So go ahead: take me up on my challenge. I'm dying to be proven wrong here, but the best you can do is throw specious arguments at me. Right now, I feel like the jury in a murder trial and the prosecution's argument consists solely of the defendant being guilty because he owns a kitchen knife when the vicitm was stabbed with
a kitchen knife. Not specifically the defendant's kitchen knife, but because kitchen knives are involved in this case, the prosecution expect that it will b enough to convict the accused.
Oh, and by the way, the more you throw this useless garbage at me or change a few words of my post and expect me to suddenly side with you, the more likely it is that I'm not only going to demand more of you to prove your so-called case, but I'm also going to be harder and harder to please when you
do give me something to work with. Because I'm a firm believer in Ockham's Razor, the notion that when you have two or more conflcting ideas, the one that requires less stretch of the imagination is more likely to be true. In this case, we have 1) the FIA being corrupt and favouring one team over all the others because of a handful of penalties to one team and the reputation of the other as well as a massive payment to said reputable team made by someone who was
not the FIA; and 2) a handful of penalties actually relating to racing incidents, and while perhaps the decisions were not made in the best interest of the sport, they were made based on the evidence at hand. You can see why the latter requests far less of a stretch of the imgination than the former; it doesn't involving some vast-reaching conspiracy (and most of those in real life - the Gemstone File, the New World Order
et al - are proven to be untrue).
So now you see where I'm coming from. And I didn't have to edit two wods of your post and expect you to take what I say as Gospel truth. Your move.
