[mad=dog]

First of all Bridgestone got a little wind here. But once the dust settles the quistion will arise: "Have Brigdestone purposely let their teams drive on questionable tires?" And frankly the answer is most likely yes. Reviewing the season so far there have been numerous faults (including qualifier faults) that can only be attributed to inferior tires. Start counting the number of times Ferrari cars have retired with a flat.
So really we must review the incident a little more carefully. Is it in order to drive on inferior tires? Should the manifacturer report if there are chances of failure? Any action against Michelin is likely to have adverse effects and discourage reporting failures. As furious as I am over the Indianapolis farce I am also quite reluctant to give way on security issues.
It was in Ferraris interest that things went as it did. Of course they would insist on this outcome from a short term agenda. However I am sure they too have p*ssed off sponsors in the phone at the moment. Not many watched their glorious victory.
However was it really in the FIA managements interest? After all they are responsible for the sport as a whole. Why select the outcome they did? Conditions gave Ferrari an advantage that cannot be justified in results or qualification for that matter. Why couldn't other conditions take that away?
There are many regulations in the ruleset that could cover this incident. This gives space for interpretation. They chose to make the ruling they did, but you cannot claim that it was the only conclusion they could reach.

EDIT:
Since it is obvious that judgement can be clouded by self-interest I think it is in order to reveal that I am a long time Jaguar supporter and have switched to RBR when they stopped.

[ 06-22-2005, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]