Everything I seem to read about the situation with RB and MS in Ferrari is totally nonsense. Despite RB's continuing excuses, i have no doubt in my mind that RB has the same equipment to work with as MS. I admit that this was not the case with Irvine, but Ferrari have no incentive to provide RB with an inferior car. Would they rather have McLaren beat Shui or RB beat shui? I think the latter is obviously correct. In terms of strategy, its normal that the race leader is going to have the widest options. When your constantly lying fifth or sixth, a gamble is often taken. In terms of Canada and Montreal, I cant understand what all the fuss is about. Michael was comfortably leading by 30 sec and pacing himself with RB's times(in the 1:35's) and not wanting to take any risks he begins to slow down, sometimes as much as four seconds a lap. Its not that Rubens was going faster, MS was going rightfully slower. If MS had just lost 3 secs instead of 4 in one of those last laps, RB would not have been that close on the last corner, and therefore couldnt have claimed that he could have one the race.Even if he was under team orders not to pass, then how does this differ to the cases with McLaren telling Mika to stop hounding DC at silverstone? Or jordan telling Ralf to stop harrasing Damon at Spa? If people dont like Shui then they should just state it, rather than trying to make up bull#### stories of why he shouldnt have won a race. And if RB wants to claim his capable of winning a race and beating Shui, then he needs to prove it on the track, where he has an equal car and is free from discrimination from the Ferrari team.
|