Senna - Prost Crash Japan 1990

[Rollo]

Thankfully Senna punished prost in the right way a year later

I have a few major problems with this statement:

1. Why is it acceptable to use a car as a weapon?
2. Why do you think that Senna had the right to "punish" Prost?
3. Why is deliberately causing an accident and causing harm the right way to do anything?

If that "accident" happened on the road in the UK, then Senna could have been quite rightly charged with both "Dangerous Driving"* or "Criminal Damage with intent or being reckless to endanger life"**

Why it is acceptable to do something on the racetrack which could result in a prison sentence if it occurred on the open road?


*Road Traffic Act 1988 s.2
Dangerous Driving: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dangerous_driving/)
**Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.1(2)
Damage with intent: Sentencing Manual: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/damage_with_intent/)

[Mark]

1990 was simple. It was completely unacceptable. 7 years later Schumacher was banned from the championship for acting with less forethought than Senna did on this occasion.

[555-04Q2]

Senna was a royal pr!ck who got away with murder. But he was also a good driver, motivated and ruthless to the last. He wanted to be #1 no matter what the consequences. I have a bit of that traight in myself too.

I was a Prost fan in the late 80' and early 90's but I don't hold any grudge against Senna. I know why he did it...the rest is history.

[Garry Walker]

Senna was a royal pr!ck who got away with murder. But he was also a good driver, motivated and ruthless to the last. He wanted to be #1 no matter what the consequences. I have a bit of that traight in myself too..
Same here. That is why I cant badmouth Senna for that move, despite him being 100% at fault. Considering the situation, I probably would have done the same.




1. Why is it acceptable to use a car as a weapon?
2. Why do you think that Senna had the right to "punish" Prost?
3. Why is deliberately causing an accident and causing harm the right way to do anything?


1) It isnt
2) As a revenge for the **** Prost and Balestre threw at him in 1989 and 1990. An eye for an eye.
3) Again, it isnt.

[raphael_2]

It was a racing incident at the time, however people like to make more of it, and blame Prost, as a way of justifying what Senna did in 1990, which really was disgraceful.

[D-Type]

I have now seen the film.

It clearly shows that pole position was on the right in 1988 and 1989 and apparently nobody complained. The film appears to show Senna talking to the race director while the latter is in his car, - if that is the only time that Senna raised the matter it is not surprising that nothing was done at that late stage. I see that in 1991 it was on the left hand side.

As to the on-track incident; what sets the 1990 one apart from other 'coming togethers' is that this was premeditated. (Senna admitted that later)

[intheway]

Totally agree Senna was completely in the wrong.

And it wasn't just Prost he put in danger - there were 20 other cars coming up behind them at speed. Ridiculously dangerous.

[chunder27]

I think the main issue with this is that Senna was prepared to drive into someone, anyone at 150mph to prove HIS point, not anyone elses, his.

Even Schumacher did it on a slow corner, Senna was not even prepared to wait and see what happened, see if Prost was competitive later on, he simply decided, to have a hissy fit in the car because Prost got an amazing start and beat him to the corner.

You only have to listen to the almost spine chilling childishness and inner weirdness of the man after that wet 92 win in Brazil to realise here was someone who really did not care about anything but winning when he was in the car, that voice was almost babylike and out of control, very spooky. To have that much emotion actually scared me when I was listening to it.

Out of the car, quite the opposite, perhaps one of teh most caring men around. But the lack of respect shown to Sir Jackie when he dared to criticise his style, the total disregard for life at Suzuk, the childish strop in the Balestre drivers briefing.

All signs of a very spoilt, very self possesed boy of a man. And why I can never, ever rank him even in a top 5 of drivers. Clark, Prost, Stewart even Mansell and modern guys like Hakkinen and Alonso had more class, respect and realism than Ayrton.

They might not have been as fast, but speed isnt everything

[D-Type]

Interesting you should mention Balestre. If you follow the Hockenheim briefing in the film you'll see that in his pompous way Balestre was actually favouring the drivers rather than the organising club. remember that 20 years ago the race organisers were not as closely aligned with the FIA as they are today.

[harvick#1]

I have a few major problems with this statement:

1. Why is it acceptable to use a car as a weapon?
2. Why do you think that Senna had the right to "punish" Prost?
3. Why is deliberately causing an accident and causing harm the right way to do anything?


this problem is with almost all sports, especially with hockey, players taking baseball swings to the head with a carbon fiber stick, they get suspended but dont warrant an arrest for some reason. Bertuzzi almost killing Moore on the ice was another prime example of why a athlete should be tried for an incident in a professional game if its a serious injury that wasnt by accident but with intent.

what Senna did was wrong, should've been stripped of the title, which Schumacher received a few years later.

[D-Type]

With Schumacher it appeared a rather pointless punishment - he was stripped of his second place in the championship in 1997. But it did allow the FIA to demonstrate that they could punish a driver. Until then nobody was really sure whether the FIA had the power to strip him of the 1994 title after his collision with Hill or Senna of the 1990 title - it might have been overturned on appeal. But when nobody queried the 1997 decision the precedent was set set.

And Farina should have received a lifetime ban for the Marcel Lehoux (Deauville 1936) and Lazlo Hartmann (Tripoli 1938) fatal accidents.

[Marbles]

Senna was a royal pr!ck who got away with murder. But he was also a good driver, motivated and ruthless to the last. He wanted to be #1 no matter what the consequences. I have a bit of that traight in myself too.


Same here. That is why I cant badmouth Senna for that move, despite him being 100% at fault. Considering the situation, I probably would have done the same.

I think some people here might underestimate themselves. Senna's choice is weak and verging on the pathological IMHO... but he was a helluva racer ferchrisakes! :)



You only have to listen to the almost spine chilling childishness and inner weirdness of the man after that wet 92 win in Brazil to realise here was someone who really did not care about anything but winning when he was in the car, that voice was almost babylike and out of control, very spooky. To have that much emotion actually scared me when I was listening to it.


It is unsettling. I heard it originally at the time (1991) without any commentary but you can hear it in the background around the 5:30 mark in this German coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOmpGuG-P64

I vaguely recall an incident. I believe Senna was leading and Mansell(?) followed closely. Senna oversteered leading onto the front straight, slid to the inside and was perpendicular to the racing line. As Mansell(?) followed past a floundering Senna, it almost appeared as if Senna had reversed his sliding car back across the racing line in an attempt to nail Mansell(?) as he passed. I can't remember the track or the date, possibly '92. Anybody recall any such thing or did but saw it differently?

[Bruce D]

I think some people here might underestimate themselves. Senna's choice is weak and verging on the pathological IMHO... but he was a helluva racer ferchrisakes! :)

Your ability to drive a racing car should never excuse your move to deliberately drive someone off the circuit at high speed with 24 other guys coming up behind. But that's IMO anway...


I vaguely recall an incident. I believe Senna was leading and Mansell(?) followed closely. Senna oversteered leading onto the front straight, slid to the inside and was perpendicular to the racing line. As Mansell(?) followed past a floundering Senna, it almost appeared as if Senna had reversed his sliding car back across the racing line in an attempt to nail Mansell(?) as he passed. I can't remember the track or the date, possibly '92. Anybody recall any such thing or did but saw it differently?

I think you are refering to the 1991 Spanish GP at Barcelona when Senna half-spun at the final corner then got the car into reverse and ended up on the grass on the outside. Honestly I never saw it the way you did, I thought it was very quick reflexes to get the car off the racing line before anyone hit him, remembering that at that time that corner was a 5th gear one so people were coming around there quickly.

[Garry Walker]

Out of the car, quite the opposite, perhaps one of teh most caring men around. But the lack of respect shown to Sir Jackie when he dared to criticise his style, the total disregard for life at Suzuk, the childish strop in the Balestre drivers briefing.Stupid Stewart asked a dumb question and Senna responded with much more restraint than he should have.



All signs of a very spoilt, very self possesed boy of a man. And why I can never, ever rank him even in a top 5 of drivers. Clark, Prost, Stewart even Mansell and modern guys like Hakkinen and Alonso had more class, respect and realism than Ayrton.Prost, Mansell and Alonso have class? You do realize that from now on you are the laughing stock of this entire forum for stating something that idiotic.



what Senna did was wrong, should've been stripped of the title, which Schumacher received a few years later.Then you will of course agree that Prost also should have been stripped of his 1989 title? Yes?



I vaguely recall an incident. I believe Senna was leading and Mansell(?) followed closely. Senna oversteered leading onto the front straight, slid to the inside and was perpendicular to the racing line. As Mansell(?) followed past a floundering Senna, it almost appeared as if Senna had reversed his sliding car back across the racing line in an attempt to nail Mansell(?) as he passed. I can't remember the track or the date, possibly '92. Anybody recall any such thing or did but saw it differently?
Really really bad recollection of things. Embarrassing to read.

[chunder27]

Well what an insightful little poster you are Mr Walker.

When I talk about class I talk about it in context, not out of the car or anything else. I don't really like Mansell that much, or Alonso for that matter. But in the car and racing, they and many other champions were very FAIR and proper in how they drove.

I would perhaps suggest Alonso is verging on being a little more dubious, as is Vettel, but I think that is more due to the modern way of driving and safety which is why Schumacher is also that way.

But Senna set the standard! He is the only driver who is literally admitted to driving into someone at 150mph, his throttle trace shows it and he has admitted it.

Prost? Yes he should have been done, he deliberately tried to crash with Senna, but the main difference here is: it was at the lowest speed part of the track, and he was so utterly rubbish at it, he made it look so damn obvious, he was never that kind of driver. And I think he did it to prove a point to Senna, in that if you want it so much you are prepared to do ANYTHING, literally anything then I am not prepared to let you pass me.

As for Stewart, well if you think that question was dumb, then you are pretty much there anyway!!

[Garry Walker]

Well what an insightful little poster you are Mr Walker.You dont have to call me Mr, you can do that later on when you are polishing my shoes.



When I talk about class I talk about it in context, not out of the car or anything else. I don't really like Mansell that much, or Alonso for that matter. But in the car and racing, they and many other champions were very FAIR and proper in how they drove.
Were they?


I would perhaps suggest Alonso is verging on being a little more dubious, as is Vettel, but I think that is more due to the modern way of driving and safety which is why Schumacher is also that way. So modern safety makes it more okay than it was 20 years ago?



But Senna set the standard! He is the only driver who is literally admitted to driving into someone at 150mph, his throttle trace shows it and he has admitted it.
Yeah, how awful of him.


Prost? Yes he should have been done, he deliberately tried to crash with Senna, but the main difference here is: it was at the lowest speed part of the track, and he was so utterly rubbish at it, he made it look so damn obvious, he was never that kind of driver. And I think he did it to prove a point to Senna, in that if you want it so much you are prepared to do ANYTHING, literally anything then I am not prepared to let you pass me.Ah, excuses for why for Prost to do it was okay.
Prost did his share of filthy things on track, he was no angel.



As for Stewart, well if you think that question was dumb, then you are pretty much there anyway!!Yes, the way Stupid worded the question, it was dumb and Senna treated it with the kind of contempt that it so throughly deserved.

[D-Type]

Come on folks!

Can't you disagree and put forward your viewpoints without throwing personal abuse?

[SGWilko]

Come on folks!

Can't you disagree and put forward your viewpoints without throwing personal abuse?

Where's the fun in that? ;)

[Daniel]

Tbh I think if Senna hadn't died then I don't think he'd have been viewed in such a saintly way now. Anyone who crashes into another driver on purpose on such a high speed part of the track doesn't deserve to be in the top 100 drivers no matter how good they are.

[Marbles]

Your ability to drive a racing car should never excuse your move to deliberately drive someone off the circuit at high speed with 24 other guys coming up behind. But that's IMO anway...

I completely agree with you.



I think you are refering to the 1991 Spanish GP at Barcelona when Senna half-spun at the final corner then got the car into reverse and ended up on the grass on the outside.

That's the one! Thanks.

[chunder27]

Well said Daniel.
And in reality, some people can't be agreed with, it simply is not worth it! Ha

[Bezza]

As an isolated incident, Senna on Prost in 1990 was an outrageous piece of driving. However, this is not an isolated considering the large back story preceding the incident.

In 1989, Prost drove into Senna, it is quite clear. Senna got going again and went on to win the race perfectly fairly. He was then thrown out by Prost's fellow Frenchman, Jean-Marie Balestre on a technicality "rejoined the race at the wrong location" - it is quite obvious that they perused the rule book to find something to throw Senna out on. Considering it was Prost who had caused the crash, it was a double whammy. It was a completely shocking decision, which was clearly biased in favour of Prost, who was cozy with his fellow Frenchman who was head of the FIFA-esque FIA at the time.

Consider that Senna had the rest of 1989 and then the whole 1990 season to ponder a lost title due to what could amount to race fixing, you can imagine how determined he was to make sure the same thing didn't happen again. He may not have won in 1989 as there was another race left to go, but we never found out due to Balestre's farcical decision.

Then, in Suzuka 1990 Senna qualified on pole yet a very strange decision was made to put the pole-sitter on the dirty side of the track. This had not happened before and didn't happen afterwards.

Senna in his mind probably thought "OK - I am going to make you have to make a proper decision now" and drove into Prost at the start of the race. He did it to make a point, not to win the championship, as there was a race left in Australia after this one. What he did was give the FIA a decision to make - are they going to strip Senna of the title? This had never happened before. He was fed up with the dogdy decisions building up to this and made this move as a statement.

I don't agree with what he did but I understand why he did it. In the same situation with all those events, many of us I'm sure would've done the same, given the opportunity.

[Bruce D]

He may not have won in 1989 as there was another race left to go, but we never found out due to Balestre's farcical decision.

Well I know he would not have been world champion in '89 even if the Japanese race result had stood cos he proceeded to drive like a maniac in Australia and drove into the back of Brundle.

And I know people love to harp on about this whole "Frenchmen vs Senna" thing, but quite frankly if I was the FIA/FISA president at the time of that '90 accident, I would have banned Senna for life, so he got off damn lightly.

[Bruce D]

DP

[Bezza]

Well I know he would not have been world champion in '89 even if the Japanese race result had stood cos he proceeded to drive like a maniac in Australia and drove into the back of Brundle.



This would not have happened had the result stood. The common rule of causality means this set of circumstances would never have played out. He may indeed have someone else though, or somebody might have hit him - but we were robbed of a deciding duel in Australia.

[Mintexmemory]

@ Bruce D. - Except Balestre had already demonstrated so much anti-Senna bias that banning him for life might have made his private domain at the FIA in Paris untenable. Interesting to note that in those days all contact was treated as a racing incident and nobody got drive-throughs etc. Hard competition stepped over the line at this time and all parties take a share of the blame.

[The Black Knight]

Stupid Stewart asked a dumb question and Senna responded with much more restraint than he should have.
Agreed. Steward asked him a dumbass question and Senna responded accordingly. I see nothing really wrong with how he responded. I'm not sure I'd have shown such restraint myself.

Then you will of course agree that Prost also should have been stripped of his 1989 title? Yes?
You're forgetting here that had Senna and Prost not come together in 1989 that Senna would still not necessarily have been champion. It would have simply brought the title down to the wire in Australia. Senna did what he did knowing he would become world champion in 1990. I am a huge Senna fan but if I had to choose a low point of his career then this would be it. What happened the previous year under no circumstances justifies his endangering, not alone Prosts life but other drivers lives. And what about the spectators? Imagine if a piece of the car had come off and rocketted into one of the stands opposite that corner? It was an insanely stupid thing to do and, as much as I love Senna to bits, I know it was a stupid thing to do. I see why he did it but the cause doesn't justify the action.

[The Black Knight]

I think the main issue with this is that Senna was prepared to drive into someone, anyone at 150mph to prove HIS point, not anyone elses, his.

Even Schumacher did it on a slow corner, Senna was not even prepared to wait and see what happened, see if Prost was competitive later on, he simply decided, to have a hissy fit in the car because Prost got an amazing start and beat him to the corner.

You only have to listen to the almost spine chilling childishness and inner weirdness of the man after that wet 92 win in Brazil to realise here was someone who really did not care about anything but winning when he was in the car, that voice was almost babylike and out of control, very spooky. To have that much emotion actually scared me when I was listening to it.

Out of the car, quite the opposite, perhaps one of teh most caring men around. But the lack of respect shown to Sir Jackie when he dared to criticise his style, the total disregard for life at Suzuk, the childish strop in the Balestre drivers briefing.

All signs of a very spoilt, very self possesed boy of a man. And why I can never, ever rank him even in a top 5 of drivers. Clark, Prost, Stewart even Mansell and modern guys like Hakkinen and Alonso had more class, respect and realism than Ayrton.

They might not have been as fast, but speed isnt everything

That's called passion and love for your home country and racing. He was a proud Brazilian and loved his people. He wanted to give them the win as much as they wanted to see him win it. After trying so many times to win and faling, to finally succeed was simply overwhelming.

[D-Type]

Can we keep discussion on Suzuka 89 and what followed on the other thread "Senna - Prost Crash, Japan 1989" .

The subject of this thread is what happened on track at Suzuka in 1990.

My take:

There have been countless occasions where two drivers have had a coming together and related discussions and race stewards' decisions as to who was [more] to blame. But Suzuka 1990 is different. The difference is that Ayrton Senna made a premeditated decision: if Prost was ahead of him into the first corner he would deliberately drive into him - Prost was and he did. This was a premeditated decision - Senna later admitted as much.

I think that no matter what his reasons and the way that he justified them to himself and to the public, Senna's decision and the action he took were simply wrong. The background is irrelevant - it may explain his decision but it can't turn wrong into right.

[zako85]

Senna was guilty in Suzuka 1990, alright. However, guilty is decidedly correct word only if you judge him by some kind of higher universal standards (e.g. do not kill, do not lie, etc) instead of the standard of a crocked system that Formula 1 was at that time. I do wonder about one issue.. why hasn't been Senna punished in 1990? I suspect that being driven by business considerations first of all, the FIA and others did not want to piss off Senna too much. What could have happened if Senna was disqualified, banned, etc? The most logical conclusion is that F1 loses its most popular personality to American CART (Didn't disappointed Senna test a CART car in 1992/1993 or so? This was a real possibility.)