ChatterBank0 min ago
Let Him By
I'm aware there are a few F1 fans on here .
What on earth is all this fuss about ?
https:/
F1 is a team sport - That is to say each team are competing against the other teams for the Driver's and constructor's titles .
Valtteri is not in the race for the title -Vettel and Hamilton, are
Valtteri , with the same machinery has not performed to the standard of Hamilton this season - so at this stage in the proceedings should accept that he will have to be the wing man to Hamilton .
//"You need to weigh it up. Do I want to be the baddie on Sunday evening for many of the right reasons or the idiot in Abu Dhabi at the end of the season? I would rather be the baddie today and not the idiot at the end of the year."//
Well said Toto
What are your opinions on this issue ?
I would appreciate it if ( as is often the case ) that if you are not interested , then don't spoil the question with silly comments about F1
What on earth is all this fuss about ?
https:/
F1 is a team sport - That is to say each team are competing against the other teams for the Driver's and constructor's titles .
Valtteri is not in the race for the title -Vettel and Hamilton, are
Valtteri , with the same machinery has not performed to the standard of Hamilton this season - so at this stage in the proceedings should accept that he will have to be the wing man to Hamilton .
//"You need to weigh it up. Do I want to be the baddie on Sunday evening for many of the right reasons or the idiot in Abu Dhabi at the end of the season? I would rather be the baddie today and not the idiot at the end of the year."//
Well said Toto
What are your opinions on this issue ?
I would appreciate it if ( as is often the case ) that if you are not interested , then don't spoil the question with silly comments about F1
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bazile. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It would definitely mess up the betting if you didn't know it could happen.
If you did know, then it should influence the betting but not mess it up. For example, Bottas winning the next race would have to mean that Hamilton was never in a position to be let through, which means that the odds on Bottas winning should be longer.
If you did know, then it should influence the betting but not mess it up. For example, Bottas winning the next race would have to mean that Hamilton was never in a position to be let through, which means that the odds on Bottas winning should be longer.
ellipsis, there are no hard and fast orders, they react to circumstances. In other situations they have been permitted to race. Wolf was reacting these specific circumstances. Spicey, even when outlawed they did it using their own method. The famous Smedley: (northern accent): to Massa, "Fernandoor is fasta than yooo"!
It's cheating, pure cheating!
They deprived the public of a 'race', they contrived a result.
In any other sport they would both be banned for cheating, it was not a fair run race, what if this had happened in a horse race when an owner has more than one horse in the same race, jockey one slows down to let jockey two win, it would all turn into a farce!
What about the punters who had bet on Botta to win?
Its turning it all into a farce!
They deprived the public of a 'race', they contrived a result.
In any other sport they would both be banned for cheating, it was not a fair run race, what if this had happened in a horse race when an owner has more than one horse in the same race, jockey one slows down to let jockey two win, it would all turn into a farce!
What about the punters who had bet on Botta to win?
Its turning it all into a farce!
SaintPeter, I am offering only explanations here, I'm not saying it's right but it is with the current rules of the sport. Your horse racing analogy does have some validity and no doubt there are people who backed Bottas feeling cheated too but in horse racing it is against the rules. In F1 the odds are set such that what happened is a possibility.
"Just to have a different point of view. I'm fairly certain that F1 banned such blatant race fixing one time. (obviously the rule has now been rescinded)"
Yes, from 2011 (IIRC), spicey.
"And know for a fact that a bet I once had on F1 was stymied by such cheating. Can you imagine an owner/trainer pulling such a stunt in a horse-race."
Yes, spicey, but F1 was, from its outset, a constructors’ championship. The drivers’ title was something of a “bolt-on” and anyone gambling on the latter must realise that, with or without “team orders” there is always the chance that one driver may be favoured over another.
Interestingly, in relation to horse racing, I believe in France, there is a system called “Parimutuel” betting (similar to the “Tote”). I’m not sure if it’s still so, but at one time a punter could not bet onf a single horse where a trainer had more than one entry in the same race. He had to back them all.
“It's cheating, pure cheating!”
It would only be cheating if it was contrary to the rules.
“…what if this had happened in a horse race when an owner has more than one horse in the same race,…”
It would be cheating because it’s contrary to the rules.
“…what about the punters who had bet on Botta to win?”
They would have lost. And when placing their bets they should have been fully aware that what happened yesterday is a possibility. My grandfather once offered me this very wise advice: “Never bet on nuffink that can talk!”
Yes, from 2011 (IIRC), spicey.
"And know for a fact that a bet I once had on F1 was stymied by such cheating. Can you imagine an owner/trainer pulling such a stunt in a horse-race."
Yes, spicey, but F1 was, from its outset, a constructors’ championship. The drivers’ title was something of a “bolt-on” and anyone gambling on the latter must realise that, with or without “team orders” there is always the chance that one driver may be favoured over another.
Interestingly, in relation to horse racing, I believe in France, there is a system called “Parimutuel” betting (similar to the “Tote”). I’m not sure if it’s still so, but at one time a punter could not bet onf a single horse where a trainer had more than one entry in the same race. He had to back them all.
“It's cheating, pure cheating!”
It would only be cheating if it was contrary to the rules.
“…what if this had happened in a horse race when an owner has more than one horse in the same race,…”
It would be cheating because it’s contrary to the rules.
“…what about the punters who had bet on Botta to win?”
They would have lost. And when placing their bets they should have been fully aware that what happened yesterday is a possibility. My grandfather once offered me this very wise advice: “Never bet on nuffink that can talk!”
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Crosswords19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
News32 mins ago
Food & Drink52 mins ago
