Quote from Intrepid :

It's not JUST about them and their own success. But of course you wouldn't see that, you don't and never wil understand the pressures some of these guys face,

You don't know anything about me.

Quote from Yuri Laszlo :

This has got nothing to do with Intrepid's argument.

Several athletes come to the games under pressure to win gold at the risk of losing what little sponsorship they have managed to find. That's why they drug themselves, that's why they try and find shortcuts to ensure they get the best possible result.

Your workplace analogy would more accurately represent Intrepid's arguments had you posed the following question: "would you cheat at work to ensure your bosses are happy with the results, if you knew that you'd risk being left unemployed for the next four years if you failed to fulfill their expectations", to which the most common answer would be "yes".

I don't believe that is representative of the human condition. Also, you wouldn't be left unemployed for four years. Athletes can go and get a job if they are failures in sport, like all you other lazy cowardly cheats who would answer "yes" to your question.

You're much more likely to be left unemployed for four years if you're an athlete that cheats by taking drugs.

Drugs do not make up for physical inabilities - they make up for mental ones such as lack of desire and inability to control fear of losing.

Quote from Intrepid :

I'd like to see you take the attitude when those who paying the bills demand golds otherwise you lose funding. And playing fair to me is is doing everything to win that doesn't include a DSQ.

Do you cheat at work? do you hide your own mistakes, or blame others for them? Do you claim credit for stuff that was nothing to do with you? Would you deliberately do bad work on a project to ensure it reflects badly on the project lead?

It's the Nurburgring

Quote from Intrepid :

I'm sorry if I understand that athletes train to win gold... you know actually win the competition. They played the system, which is obviously flawed, but can you really blame them? I'd have done exactly the same thing. As I understand it there's nothing explicit in the regulations that prohibits such behaviour.

Your sole objective is to play to win gold. That's the 'spirit of the games'. If winning a game actually hinders this goal then that is the problem. It's certainly not pretty, but fully understandable. I think if that exclusion was in an F1 race arena the lawyers would easily get the ruling overturned, but I guess it's the Olympics and anything goes.

The people that organise the competition need to change the system, that's fairly obvious.

The athletes all swear to an "Olympic Oath":

In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams

What they did was not sportsmanship, nor did it honour their teams, nor probably did it comply with their sports regulations.

What they did was a cowardly act - they didn't have the balls to face the perceived better opponent, which if they want to win gold they would probably have to do eventually.

Yeah, the invention is the interesting bit, but if it is so fantastic why doesn't he just make a few billion out of that and then buy McLaren?

My favourite bit from that link:

2) I can bring tremendous attention to your brand, corporation, etc. for the following reasons;

A) I have the potential to win a F1 world championship. (it doesn’t matter what some people might think about this statement, they don’t know me).

B) I would be the oldest F1 champion in history, and definitely the oldest competing. I am 56 years old.

They got the James Bond bit a smidge wrong; Daniel Craig should have walked in to the Queen sitting, stroking a Corgi. "I've been expecting you, Mr Bond."

Otherwise, mostly well judged. They had to make it British rather than trying to compete with China's generally incredible mass choreography. I'm sure parts would have baffled the world audience, but not bad at all.

Anti-stall makes sense. I don't think it is possible to hit the wrong pedal unless she has to right foot brake. Stuck throttles don't happen anymore and there are various safety protocols in the ECU. For example it will cut throttle automatically if there is too much braking. Schumacher often gets warned that he is overlapping brake and throttle too much.

Hopefully she is okay.

Martin Whitmarsh's view. I think Blueflame should send him a letter telling him he's wrong aswell.

http://www.crash.net/f1/news/1 ... d_to_change_approach.html

Quote from englishlord :

3rd place gets you more points that 4th place, so you should be able to battle for a place without fear of getting punted into the barrier by a sulky pay driver. Regardless of how ****ed your tyres are.

Yes! Of course you should! But this is the real world, so it doesn't work like that.

The sport is about obtaining more points than anyone else, not about being macho. If you think scoring points is bullshit for sport then I really don't know where you're coming from.

There are times when you must stand your ground and times when you have to accept that a situation only has downsides for you. It's not about letting the bullies win, but Pastor had a podium on his mind and does not care about the championship. He therefore had less to lose than Hamilton, so although he was not at fault that's no good when you're stuck in the tyre wall.

It's a bit being stood at a zebra crossing with a car speeding towards it. You could step out, get run over and then complain from the hospital that it was your right of way, or you engage your brain and get across the road eventually.

I didn't say "jump out of the way" so, no.

You have to adjust the way you drive according to those you are driving against. If Alonso or Webber had been trying to pass Hamilton then there probably would not have been a problem. Hamilton knows that Maldonado is a bit of a head case but gave no leeway.

There's literally no point sitting in a steaming car bleating "it was my corner!"

I think Sato had to go for the lead at that point as he could not afford to lift and if Dario had got onto the back straight ahead then he would have blocked to the flag, so nothing was certain.

I think he tried to take him by surprise and the gamble failed, but you can't fault him for trying.

Stoner is a terrific rider and at least we've got the rest of this season to appreciate him.

Spare Repsol seat next year...

Bautista?

Well done to Maldonado - not a lucky win, although some teams must look at themselves and wonder if they did the best possible job this weekend.

Great for Sir Frank too. The car seems to have basic pace, so like Sauber they are ready to nip at the heels of the big teams when they get the right track and the sweet spot on the tyres.

Quote from CSF :

I don't think it will be. With the tyres as they are, Lewis won't be able to push. I'd be surprised if he was able to get more than a couple of points, especially given its Barcelona.

Wasn't really referring to Hamilton, but with him out of the way the action will be for 1st instead of 2nd. Webber, Schumacher and Kobayashi san will be the ones to watch. Jenson I think is genuinely struggling.

In terms of the spectacle tomorrow it is a great penalty. It looked like Hamilton would walk away with it, but now we'll be treated to Alonso and Maldonado knocking seven bells out of each other with a lot of fast cars out of position all sitting in the queue.

It is very harsh though. I think maybe 5 or 10 place penalty at most would have been sufficient.

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

Well what do you think? M5 is not exactly the cheap category.

It's all relative really, isn't it?

In the 80s the classic strategic choice was to pit or not to pit and it's not really comparable with today's racing, which is getting to the pit window without ruining your tyres.

F1 through history has often been a formula when compromise on speed is required. That could mean not going balls out in order to stay alive, to keep the car reliable, to save fuel or to save tyres.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well generally going off the track on a straight isn't an advantage. It's #1 a longer distance and #2 most tracks have grass by the side of the track or tarmac thats very dirty.

Generally, but not in this case. I guess they were more concerned with Rosberg and figured they couldn't both break the rules at the same time.

Quote from heson :

From what I saw (have not found a good replay) Hamiltons only alternative was to crash into Rosberg. The line Rosberg took to defend was OK, but considering the speed Hamilton had it was very dangeorus.

The Alonso incident was way slower.

Give the place back. Charlie usually tells them if that is required and rightly or wrongly it was not deemed necessary.