When roughly every other sentence anybody says sounds like innuendo, which is worse: the fact that your mind is evidently very far in the gutter, or the fact that 50% of everything you hear sounds perfectly normal?
~Tamsyn.
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Monday, 13 September 2010
Straight from the poster town of scorn and ritz
I am known for my strong opinions about pretty much everything, and Formula 1 is no exception to this rule.
My love with the sport began at a very young age: it's one of those sentimental memories which we all view through somewhat rose tinted spectacles. It was always on the television during my Sunday afternoon visits to my grandfather and I was intrigued by the technical and tactical sides in particular.
However, at the moment I am disgusted by the blatant lack of clarity in regards to one area: Team Orders.
Ferrari are known for being one of the most famous and best teams in F1. They should represent the sport in all ways. Their recent actions were, in my opinion, a blatant violation of this.
I don't know whether there is a section in the much lauded F1 'rulebook' that explicitly bans team orders. I doubt there is, but this doesn't matter. What Ferrari did was morally wrong- it makes the sport less competitive in a way other than the ability of the driver to race his car or the team to develop the technology or the efficiency to put him there.
Not only this, but it discourages teams from having one better driver and one worse driver in the aim of improving the latter one's skills through having direct contact with a more experienced team mate. It also encourages the growth of a two or three tier system- this has already been growing with the introduction of 'rookie' teams such as Virgin- and this is not the way in which I believe Formula One should go. If the gap continues to grow, F1 may as well be split in half- there's no need for Ferrari and McLaren to compete with teams that are seconds and seconds behind them.
It's not just Ferrari who I am disgusted with: the FIA haven't behaved correctly in my opinion either. Yes, the stewards may have hit Ferrari with a £65,100 fine, but this is breadcrumbs to any F1 team, never mind that it's Ferrari. Their decision to take no further action has set a landmark- team orders will be condoned in Formula 1. They claim that they decided not to punish Ferrari any further, despite the fact that they accepted that team orders had been issued, as other teams had used them in the past. Surely this is a sign of their failings in the past to police F1, not a valid excuse for their actions in this case.
Ferrari, in its defence, claimed that no direct team orders had been issued. Technically correct, but they'd concealed them in a 'code' so basic that even non-F1 watchers could understand it instantly. This only makes it worse in my mind: they wanted to do something that they obviously did not see as cheating but couldn't even be open about it. It also puts their second driver in a difficult position: Massa couldn't say 'no' to his team's 'coded' request whilst ensuring his seat in the future, but he did cement his position as number two driver with a lesser shot at the title.
As I write, the FIA are currently considering clarifying the rule on team orders. None too soon. It will require a great amount of 'clarification' to blow away the black storm clouds consisting of scandals ending in the suffix -gate that refuse to disperse any time soon.
~Malia
My love with the sport began at a very young age: it's one of those sentimental memories which we all view through somewhat rose tinted spectacles. It was always on the television during my Sunday afternoon visits to my grandfather and I was intrigued by the technical and tactical sides in particular.
However, at the moment I am disgusted by the blatant lack of clarity in regards to one area: Team Orders.
Ferrari are known for being one of the most famous and best teams in F1. They should represent the sport in all ways. Their recent actions were, in my opinion, a blatant violation of this.
I don't know whether there is a section in the much lauded F1 'rulebook' that explicitly bans team orders. I doubt there is, but this doesn't matter. What Ferrari did was morally wrong- it makes the sport less competitive in a way other than the ability of the driver to race his car or the team to develop the technology or the efficiency to put him there.
Not only this, but it discourages teams from having one better driver and one worse driver in the aim of improving the latter one's skills through having direct contact with a more experienced team mate. It also encourages the growth of a two or three tier system- this has already been growing with the introduction of 'rookie' teams such as Virgin- and this is not the way in which I believe Formula One should go. If the gap continues to grow, F1 may as well be split in half- there's no need for Ferrari and McLaren to compete with teams that are seconds and seconds behind them.
It's not just Ferrari who I am disgusted with: the FIA haven't behaved correctly in my opinion either. Yes, the stewards may have hit Ferrari with a £65,100 fine, but this is breadcrumbs to any F1 team, never mind that it's Ferrari. Their decision to take no further action has set a landmark- team orders will be condoned in Formula 1. They claim that they decided not to punish Ferrari any further, despite the fact that they accepted that team orders had been issued, as other teams had used them in the past. Surely this is a sign of their failings in the past to police F1, not a valid excuse for their actions in this case.
Ferrari, in its defence, claimed that no direct team orders had been issued. Technically correct, but they'd concealed them in a 'code' so basic that even non-F1 watchers could understand it instantly. This only makes it worse in my mind: they wanted to do something that they obviously did not see as cheating but couldn't even be open about it. It also puts their second driver in a difficult position: Massa couldn't say 'no' to his team's 'coded' request whilst ensuring his seat in the future, but he did cement his position as number two driver with a lesser shot at the title.
As I write, the FIA are currently considering clarifying the rule on team orders. None too soon. It will require a great amount of 'clarification' to blow away the black storm clouds consisting of scandals ending in the suffix -gate that refuse to disperse any time soon.
~Malia
For this I pray: we’ve got to shake the faith.
I am an atheist, but I have often considered which religion I regard most highly. Were I to have to become religious myself, Buddhism would be my first choice, due to its lack of a deity, but if this were not an option, perhaps due to the fact that it is regarded by some as more of a philosophy than a religion, then I would probably become Christian, simply because I have attended Christian schools and have therefore been most indoctrinated by Christian teachings.
Christianity has several branches, though, so I still have choices. In the most basic form, the options are Catholicism or Protestantism, the former being the more traditional form of Christianity and the latter being a more modern version. As somebody who is usually very open-minded (there are exceptions), it would seem that Protestantism would be the more appropriate choice to make, as Protestants are typically more lenient with their rules. However, I have fundamental issues with Protestantism: the Bible is their guide, as it is in Catholicism, but Protestant beliefs change to fit the times, whereas Catholic principles remain pretty much constant. This seems to be positive regarding the Protestants – indeed, I consider it better that things like the ordination of female bishops are now permitted in Anglican churches, in keeping with the modern views on equality, but I think it goes against the faith: Protestantism, to me, seems to be a case of:
“Here’s our holy book, everything it says is right.”
x years later:
“This bit isn’t actually quite right.”
Another x years later:
“We’ve changed this bit too.”
A further x years later:
“We’ve also changed our minds about this part.”
Catholicism, on the other hand, says, “Here is our book, these are our beliefs, and we’re sticking to them!” and whilst some of the views may not fit with the times, at least they are consistent. I have more respect for the people who follow what their Bible says as much as they can, rather than those who follow the Bible’s guidance to some extent and then do other things simply to fit in with society. I see Catholicism as Christians who truly believe in their faith, and want to adhere to the rules as closely as they can, but Protestantism, I think, is religion for cowards: they simply try to uphold moral values typical of most people in modern society and give it a religious title, meaning that they get to go to heaven at the end of it.
Whilst I may disagree with some of the viewpoints held by Catholics, I think they are the better, more real religion. For this reason, if I had to choose a faith to follow, Catholicism would be it. However, most definitely now and in the foreseeable future, I think atheism suits me perfectly.
~Tamsyn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)