MotoGP, Jorge Accused of “madness” or “accident”?

Yesterday’s accident at Montmelò on the second lap of the first gear hairpin bend did not fortunately cause physical damage to the four riders involved but it affected the result of the race, with consequences on the same championship. That’s why, precisely because of the “weight” of the riders “on the ground” (Lorenzo, Dovizioso, Vinales, Rossi), the story has had polemical consequences far from closed because we do not know yet if there will be disciplinary consequences, with penalties for Jorge Lorenzo, held out loud but not without excellent exceptions (for example Marquez and Rossi …) the main and only responsible for the strike yesterday in Barcelona.

There is no doubt that, visually, the accident was triggered by the Mallorcan arrembante that after an extreme pinch in a braking “dead father” lost the front knocking out with his Honda crazy that has machined the bikes around the asphalt. That said, the accident opens however to different interpretations on the evolution of what happened in those few, incandescent and convulsive moments and consequently on the responsibilities of those who triggered the patatrac. Daring and reckless manoeuvre of Lorenzo, already too “long” in braking, or “forced” manoeuvre of the Majorcan for the sudden and excessive slowdown of Dovizioso (apparently, almost a nailed) in the attempt to cross in trajectory Marquez?

Hot and under the impact of the tam tam media and put on the cross by growling exponents of some opponents pits, Lorenzo admitted his mistake, apologizing, head down. Well. But only the analysis of telemetry can shed light, technically, on the matter. The rest are simply interpretations and opinions. The race starts at the green light and ends under the checkered flag so that to attack there is no before or after: the driver always tries everywhere – in respect of opponents and regulations – to pass, especially if he is behind and if he feels able to do so. The history of motorcycling is full of accidents like yesterday’s, unfortunately not always finished without physical consequences for the riders. This does not mean that in yesterday’s strand there is no responsibility and unfairness in the logic of: “all responsible, no guilty, all acquitted”.

Liability whether sanctioned or not is up to Fim to decide, even if here is to be totally excluded the intentionality. The official regulations (contained in the yellow Fim booklet) say: “Drivers must drive responsibly… which must not cause danger to other drivers etc. etc.”. Did Jorge drive in an unresponsible manner causing danger to other drivers? If so – demonstrated with the support of telemetry data – it is right to punish him. In fact, according to the “wrong guy pays” rule, not only is it right but it’s “mandatory”. In races the error is there, but if there is and causes damage to others, must be sanctioned. Here, it must be reiterated, there has been no intentionality. The question of “lack of lucidity” remains.

The Majorcan himself admitted that he was in that “too excited” phase of the race. What does that mean? Isn’t this an “unusual” condition for a champion, who can put at risk his lucidity and therefore his safety for himself and for others? Probably Jorge, in an excess of guilt car, used the expression “too excited” instead of “too determined”. One must also understand Dovizioso’s disappointment and opposition, but his reaction: “Jorge wasn’t lucid” is not worthy of a “Mr pilot” such as Forlì is. The ball, or rather the hot potato, at Fim. The rules are clear and must be enforced not in the logic of “double standards”: but motorcycling can not be affected by the bureaucracy of the “yellow book” much less distorted. Racing is about fighting and risk, and the rider is on the track to fight aware of the risks. Motorcycling with a “bite” dies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
22 − 18 =