I give in, you guys are ****ing idiots if you don't understand why Senna wrecked prost in '90.
If you think it's for the championship then you don't know what you're talking about.
That was my point all along. Senna in that ONE moment is an example of why politics shouldn't be in sport as much as it is. Senna in that ONE moment made contact with another driver for the championship but it wasn't for revenge. It was an act of defiance to Balestre. Not to Prost.
Schumacher on the other hand did it more than one times for WDC '94, and attempted to do the same 3 years later in '97.
That is the difference. Schumacher wasn't getting pole position switched to the other side of the track and agreeing with the FiA president at the time, only for him to go back on his word.
Blueflame, I just want a litmus test: At Hungary in 2007, Alonso blocked the pit stall so that Hamilton couldn't get another fast lap in. Was it justified?
IMO the drivers don't do 'political' all they do is try to win. Senna, Schumacher, whoever, it's their job to win and in the end if they aren't entirely focused on that then they mustn't be a proper racing driver! That said, Senna was one of the best, and IMO his on track actions say that there's nothing he really wanted to do more than win.
For the two prior years (88/89), the pole started on the right side of the track, off the racing line. It wasn't changed for Prost, it wasn't changed at all actually.
Why don't you 'get' that Senna was just whining for starting on the wrong side of the track (yes, it is the wrong side IMO, however I see why they had it that way)? He openly admitted that he was going to not lift into T1 if Prost got the better start, and he did just that. Two wrongs don't make a right, and he shouldn't get a waveby while Schumacher gets the flack.
What about the fact that Hamilton had been favored all year? Or the fact that just minutes before the incident Hamilton had refused to let Alonso by to make a flying lap? That to me, is more of a political move than anything. A slap to the face for the team that he felt had repeatedly betrayed him all year. Think about it, at the time he was still behind Hamilton on the quali times, so it's not a move to block an 'attacking' driver, which is exactly what Schumacher and Senna both did.
Do you sincerely believe that Senna had no intention of winning in 1990 with his shunt, and that it was instead a move made to avenge being 'cheated' of a championship from an entire year ago?
Even if he had a single thought that hitting Prost would win him a championship, then IMO Senna is no different from Schumacher or any other cheating driver.
Not true, it was the Japanese stewards that said it was okay. Balestre never agreed to it at all.
Why should it be changed for one driver? And more importantly, why didn't that one driver complain the two previous seasons when he won pole and started on that very side of the track.
If Balestre changed it to what Senna wanted, people would think he was favoring Senna, however Balestre stayed consistent and suddenly he is favoring Prost?
@Shotglass: I know, figured it that way. I never look at it that way, and I'm sure most don't either.
Blueflame, I don't know how you perceive your world, but in the real life only actions matter, not the intents. And btw, next time when trying to argue do not pick a reason for doing something if the same reason can been used against some of your favorite drivers. You are really not convincing if you can't hold on to your arguments and values in every case.
A source wouldn't change any view about Senna, only Balestre. The given facts have been laid out for years. Interpret how you wish, but don't throw in ficticious stuff.
It does however take immense talent, skill and some luck to be in a position where wrecking someone will win you the F1 WDC. Nobody can argue against that either - without making a fool of themselves.
You could complain about jerez '97 but you could also see it from the perspective that Schumacher was able to compete for the title in a much slower car then the williams.