I don t race the way i view racing??? Why should i do this ? Absolute non sense!
Well, you're saying that you race differently to what you're commending in Ayrton Senna. So either you have one set of rules for one and one for Senna, or you're lying about how you feel about Senna's style, or you're lying about how you race.
I simply assumed that the first thing that you said was the truth, before you started trying to defend yourself.
Good for you. So why are you still defending someone who crashed their opponent out in the first corner of the race?
Sorry i don t have heros in motorsport and i am french , just like Prost that for me is a piece of 🤬 together with Ballestre , same mud.
Uh huh. Prost is just as bad as Senna. They both intentionally hit someone else. Arguably Prost did it at lower speed where there was less potential for serious injury, but it's ultimately the same BS. Prost should have had the book thrown at him in 1989 just as Senna should have in 1990.
Balestre brought the entire sport into disrepute, and arguably was the instigation for a lot of the hyper aggressive driving. From my point of view, that's worse. He failed to punish reckless driving when it happened, and so it became the norm. He admitted that he intentionally bent the rules to benefit Prost in 1989.
It's one thing to break the rules and put someone's life in danger. It's another to break the rules and put people's lives in danger when you're supposed to be the person responsible for upholding the rules. Balestre can go burn in hell.
He didn t say this, only journalist saying he says blablablablabla.
Only a journalist, eh?
That journalist was Jackie Stewart. A renowned motorsport champion. He is often considered one of the greatest drivers ever, up there with your hero Ayrton. Chances of him lying are pretty low. He didn't need to make a name for himself, and if I recall Senna got pretty mad at him afterwards.
Want to reconsider what you said?
You don t know what i do everyday of the year to survive me and my kids. I just can say you that it s man things. reals life things.
Good for you. You sound super manly, and not at all defensive about it.
You still can't admit that maybe at least once Senna was by his own admission kind of a dirty driver. The statement stands. Not being able to admit an honest mistake is not exactly how a man behaves. You want to promote clean racing? Great. Don't justify dirty driving just because someone had a movie made about them.
I think what he meant is that Senna crashed into Prost because, one year earlier, on that same race, Prost crashed into Senna and because of that took away Senna's chance to be the champion, and Prost got away with it. It was a huge controversy, so much that McLaren (which had Prost and Senna as drivers) went to sport court (or whatever that is called in English) to try to defend Senna against their own driver. That was how screwed up that decision was (Jean-Marie Balestre, a frenchman like Prost and very close friends with Prost, was the FIA president at the time and who made the decision to penalize Senna).
So, a year later when the situation was reverse (Prost needed the win or Senna would be the champion), Senna got some payback time. Furthermore, on that race Senna got the pole position, but Prost made sure that the pole position was on the dirty side of the track (which Senna protested vehemently to no avail). So, knowing that he would loose the first position right away, Senna decided to give Prost a bit of his own medicine.
Yes. And it's still wrong. We teach children at a very young age that two wrongs don't make a right. Prost crashing into Senna was wrong. Balestre penalising Senna for "cutting the chicane" (that still remains the biggest truckload of BS I've ever heard) was very wrong.
None of which makes Senna deciding to plow into Prost right. The right thing would have been to tuck in behind, race the race (where he had a very good chance of winning outright anyway), and continue to raise all the political BS that was going on with F1 off the track.
What if Prost had died? Would we still be defending this? Because Senna didn't know that he wouldn't when he made the move. He knew that he was punting two cars at very high speed across a gravel trap into a tyre wall.
I really don't understand why Jackie Stewart asked Senna that question and pressed him on the answer knowing openly about what happened a year before, and the fact that Jackie himself never asked Prost why did he crash into Senna (even thou there is plenty evidence that Prost turned way earlier on the corner to make sure he'd crash into Senna), but maybe Jackie just didn't want any problems with JM Balestre.
I'm not sure if Stewart was at Suzuka in 1989. But why would he not ask Senna that question? That's what journalists do, get quotes from the horse's mouth. Otherwise we might as well all sit at home and just make the news up, because we all know what happened and why already. Right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ccused-deliberately-crashing-Alain-Prost.html
A year had passed since our interview, and I was in Australia for the grand prix when Senna called me. He was a deeply religious man and he said: “Look. I am phoning to apologise because I do now admit that I did take Prost off the road intentionally and God won’t allow me to live this lie. I am going to announce it to the media tonight, but I want you to be the first to know”.
Seriously, we're all better off for that interview having taken place.
Anyway, I think what praiano63 is saying is not that it's ok to crash into other people racing, it's just that this particular case of Senna's crash (and Senna response) cannot be taken out of context because there is way too much baggage attached to that statement (and to the crash).
And that's wrong. Because none of the context changes anything to do with whether it's acceptable. It is not acceptable to simply drive into the side of someone. Not when you're mad at the FIA. Not when someone did the same to you last year. Not if they're an evil genius with a plan to destroy the world. That is not motorsport, and none of the surrounding circumstances makes the slightest bit of difference to intentionally driving your car into someone else's
That move in 1990 was wrong. Senna knew it and admitted as much. Every professional motorsports driver knows it. And yet they still respect Senna in spite of it. Jackie Stewart and Alain Prost were pallbearers at Senna's funeral for crying out loud. Prost was angry that the Senna movie glossed over the fact that he and Senna actually patched things up and were very good friends when he died.
Yet people on the internet playing pretend race cars still somehow hold that Senna move up as something defensible. It's not. It was a 🤬 up from a very good driver who was having a tough year in a sport with a lot of political bollocks going on. It's understandable why it happened, but never acceptable.
And when people bring "If you no longer go for a gap..." up as some sort of holy gospel of how close and respectful racing should be, it displays a profound misunderstanding of the entire circumstance behind that single phrase. Anyone who understands the circumstances knows that the phrase is actually a result of the
exact opposite of the type of clean racing that we enjoy.
3 and 4 lap races. No damage. Penalties for getting hit from behind. Ghosting cars....etc.
