At the beginning of the season we had some doubts about the relevance of this world championship, due to the absence from the first race of the reigning world champion.
We were swamped with criticism - some of it fair - for our position, even though no one in their right mind can deny that the 2020 MotoGP World Championship, above all due to the historical moment in which it took place - and for how it is taking place - cannot be classified as a 'normal' world championship.
A compressed calendar, double races, teams decimated by Covid, Grands Prix held in very different weather conditions, as well as tyres probably created to be 'understood' by teams in a regular world championship, have distanced it totally from what can be called ‘normal’ in our opinion.
Then, by all means, whoever wins will be the world champion and his name will be engraved on the MotoGP 'tower', but there is no doubt that there have been many, probably too many, variables in this championship.
All a matter of opinion, of course… Until yesterday.
When, in fact, due to a technical irregularity like the replacement of a vital component such as valves, Yamaha was only given a slap on the wrist - the loss of points in the World Constructors’ Championship, which counts almost nothing - it really hit rock bottom.
In motor sports a technical irregularity leads to exclusion from the competition
In fact, ever since motorsports have existed, any technical irregularity has been punished with the exclusion of the driver/rider from the competition. Even when, and it has happened many times, the irregularity was a tyre pressure outside the norm, without having to investigate whether it was a mistake or wilful misconduct to obtain greater grip.
And this is because ignorantia legis non excusat. A concise expression of the legal maxim concerning the presumption of knowledge of the law. Its meaning is: ignorance of the law does not excuse.
The importance of the 'rationale' of the law: you don't need a degree to understand it
It does not take a degree in law - we do not claim to be lawyers - to understand the rationale of the law: if it were not so we could exonerate ourselves of any crime by claiming that we are not aware of that particular restriction.
Well, in the case of Yamaha this assumption has been completely ignored. Worse: it was interpreted in a Solomonic way, dividing the blame between the manufacturer and the riders. In short, the ‘baby’ was cut in half. Because it is evident and completely understandable that a technical rule serves, in fact, to equalize the values on the track to prevent a rider from having an unexpected technical advantage.
It is decisions like these that send blood rushing to our head, because they certify two things unequivocally and indisputably.
A decision like the Yamaha one means only one thing: the judges are not independent
First: whoever judged is of an ignorance that we refuse even to imagine.
Second: it was a political decision. Which implies a third consideration: the judges are not independent.
We don’t know which is more serious, whether to have incompetent judges or judges that we cannot define as corrupt, but who are in any case 'accommodating'. And we quite literally cry because over the years some of them have been our friends…
Well, this is not the motorcycling that we want, nor the sport we want. It is not a question of being ‘executioners’… but just ‘just’.
And the mere fact that there was an agreement - we undoubtedly believe we cannot be denied in saying this - sealed by the meeting of the MSMA which decided that no one would appeal, makes everything even sadder.
With what excuse, then? To protect the outcome of the championship? The sport? On the contrary, sport in its purity has been indelibly stained…
The decision to safeguard the show leaves an indelible mark on the sport
But we are idealists and we think that safeguarding the show - because that's what it was, anything but sport! - is not correct. Because the laws are made but not adjusted according to our wishes.
And at this point we could add the interpretation of the Covid-19 rule which, applied to the letter, should have led to quarantine for Vinales, even though he had used every precaution available with his technician. Because any distinction opens holes in the 'bubble'. Because it is difficult to try to justify a stop for Arbolino who had simply travelled with someone who tested positive.
Of course, one could always object summa ius, summa iniuria. It is true, the maximum of justice is the maximum of injustice, but this only means that the law must not be applied uncritically.
We acquit the FIM, Dorna and the Stewards’ Panel for Vinales, but whoever decided about Yamaha must step down from the bench...
The precedent created is an abomination. A monstrous decision…
The Link LonkNovember 08, 2020 at 12:34AM
https://ift.tt/357T0tz
Why acquitting Yamaha for the valves is a monstruous decision… - GPone English
https://ift.tt/2ZqQevw
Yamaha
No comments:
Post a Comment