Albertson's Conspiracy Theory

mxracer816 wrote:

Whats with the goofy apostrophes Kongols?

pilotdude wrote:

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he...

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he hadn't passed him in the section in question. I agree. I mean, it's not like the only reason the guy won is because of the flagged section was there. I just wish RV had passed JS elsewhere instead so that the almost unbelievable amount of bullshit this week could have been avoided.

pilotdude wrote:

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he...

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he hadn't passed him in the section in question. I agree. I mean, it's not like the only reason the guy won is because of the flagged section was there. I just wish RV had passed JS elsewhere instead so that the almost unbelievable amount of bullshit this week could have been avoided.

pilotdude wrote:

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he...

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he hadn't passed him in the section in question. I agree. I mean, it's not like the only reason the guy won is because of the flagged section was there. I just wish RV had passed JS elsewhere instead so that the almost unbelievable amount of bullshit this week could have been avoided.

flarider wrote:

I was there, and mark my words, no one was going to beat RV on that track, that night. Period But that doesn't change the fact...

I was there, and mark my words, no one was going to beat RV on that track, that night.
Period

But that doesn't change the fact that a rule infraction was committed, possibly two, and that with at least the one he was penalized, the application for that penalty was improper and unfair.
Had the race NOT been red-flagged, the penalty would have been applied at the conclusion of the race, not mid-race, as was with applying the penalty to RV at the red flag restart.

Hypothetically, had, after the restart, Davi Millsaps doubled or tripled on any other red cross situation, would the race have been stopped and a three rider penalty then applied?
No, the race would have continued and the penalty would have been applied at the conclusion of the race.
This is what makes the application of RV's three rider penalty improper and unfair, it's an unfair advantage, it gives the rider the opportunity to recover from their infraction whereas any other rider in any other situation would not be given that opportunity.

flarider wrote:

I was there, and mark my words, no one was going to beat RV on that track, that night. Period But that doesn't change the fact...

I was there, and mark my words, no one was going to beat RV on that track, that night.
Period

But that doesn't change the fact that a rule infraction was committed, possibly two, and that with at least the one he was penalized, the application for that penalty was improper and unfair.
Had the race NOT been red-flagged, the penalty would have been applied at the conclusion of the race, not mid-race, as was with applying the penalty to RV at the red flag restart.

Hypothetically, had, after the restart, Davi Millsaps doubled or tripled on any other red cross situation, would the race have been stopped and a three rider penalty then applied?
No, the race would have continued and the penalty would have been applied at the conclusion of the race.
This is what makes the application of RV's three rider penalty improper and unfair, it's an unfair advantage, it gives the rider the opportunity to recover from their infraction whereas any other rider in any other situation would not be given that opportunity.

TomZ wrote:

There has been 2 issues raised here - 1. The AMA made a judgement at their discretion that some people don't agree with. It isn't the...

There has been 2 issues raised here -

1. The AMA made a judgement at their discretion that some people don't agree with. It isn't the first or last time we will see that happen this season. After listening to those who were there and acknowledging the bias of everyone involved the AMA made a call that kept the championship race lively. There is nothing new to this idea in any sporting event. It sounds like RV had everyone covered on that night he did nothing that put anyone in danger.......in fact a case could be made that the flagger should have stowed the Red Cross flag as the downed rider was on his bike and preparing to race.

2. Lets borrow GuyB's line of questioning here - What does a journalist have to gain or lose by " investigating". If you assume that there is really some sort of conspiracy and the journalist uncovered something that showed bias........then what ?? He proved to 50 hardcore Vital moto heads that there is bias ?? Maybe it would be easier to just agree that there is bias in nearly everything from time to time and move on. The question of what does a journalist have to lose........why would a sound thinking journalist spend who knows how much time and energy digging into a questionable judgement call made in the middle of a race that might or might not have some effect on the outcome of the overall championship......... If a journalist really wants to prove himself he should focus on something really big like proving that Bernie Eccelstone is actually an alien being sent here to destroy racing as the world currently knows it or some equally compelling theory.

pilotdude wrote:

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he...

In listening to all the podcasts and reading the articles, there seems to be very little doubt that RV would have gotten Stewart even if he hadn't passed him in the section in question. I agree. I mean, it's not like the only reason the guy won is because of the flagged section was there. I just wish RV had passed JS elsewhere instead so that the almost unbelievable amount of bullshit this week could have been avoided.

flarider wrote:

I was there, and mark my words, no one was going to beat RV on that track, that night. Period But that doesn't change the fact...

I was there, and mark my words, no one was going to beat RV on that track, that night.
Period

But that doesn't change the fact that a rule infraction was committed, possibly two, and that with at least the one he was penalized, the application for that penalty was improper and unfair.
Had the race NOT been red-flagged, the penalty would have been applied at the conclusion of the race, not mid-race, as was with applying the penalty to RV at the red flag restart.

Hypothetically, had, after the restart, Davi Millsaps doubled or tripled on any other red cross situation, would the race have been stopped and a three rider penalty then applied?
No, the race would have continued and the penalty would have been applied at the conclusion of the race.
This is what makes the application of RV's three rider penalty improper and unfair, it's an unfair advantage, it gives the rider the opportunity to recover from their infraction whereas any other rider in any other situation would not be given that opportunity.

Mr. Ted wrote:

While I agree it is probably time to put it to bed, as no further action is going to be taken, I would have to say...

While I agree it is probably time to put it to bed, as no further action is going to be taken, I would have to say that Flarider's argument as to why the penalty was unfairly applied is probably one of the better one's that I have read.

TomZ wrote:

There has been 2 issues raised here - 1. The AMA made a judgement at their discretion that some people don't agree with. It isn't the...

There has been 2 issues raised here -

1. The AMA made a judgement at their discretion that some people don't agree with. It isn't the first or last time we will see that happen this season. After listening to those who were there and acknowledging the bias of everyone involved the AMA made a call that kept the championship race lively. There is nothing new to this idea in any sporting event. It sounds like RV had everyone covered on that night he did nothing that put anyone in danger.......in fact a case could be made that the flagger should have stowed the Red Cross flag as the downed rider was on his bike and preparing to race.

2. Lets borrow GuyB's line of questioning here - What does a journalist have to gain or lose by " investigating". If you assume that there is really some sort of conspiracy and the journalist uncovered something that showed bias........then what ?? He proved to 50 hardcore Vital moto heads that there is bias ?? Maybe it would be easier to just agree that there is bias in nearly everything from time to time and move on. The question of what does a journalist have to lose........why would a sound thinking journalist spend who knows how much time and energy digging into a questionable judgement call made in the middle of a race that might or might not have some effect on the outcome of the overall championship......... If a journalist really wants to prove himself he should focus on something really big like proving that Bernie Eccelstone is actually an alien being sent here to destroy racing as the world currently knows it or some equally compelling theory.

jtomasik wrote:

The times where journalism and the media have given anything of real value from their 'product' is when an individual stops caring about what they'll personally...

The times where journalism and the media have given anything of real value from their 'product' is when an individual stops caring about what they'll personally gain from the situation and uncovers the truth. If it's an isolated incident, then it is. If it's something more, then I'd like it to be uncovered. My only 'dog in the fight' is the fairness of the sport to all riders. I don't care who benefits or loses because of the rules, only that the rules are used properly and consistently.