MotoGP » FMI defends Misano Moto2 decisions

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

FakeHelmet - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 3:16 PM

My first reaction was the same as everyone else, that the race should have been red flagged and the marshall treatment of shoya was wrong (i.e he should not have been moved due to the risk of spinal injury). However after reading Toby Moody's excellent article on aut@sport my mind has changed. Essentially if a rider is not breating ressucitation takes priority over everything else, including spinal injury. He therefore HAD to be moved to the ambulance at the side of the track. After he has been moved what was the point of Red Flagging the race?.... The crash debris and riders were removed long before the other riders appeared for the next lap. Scott's treatment though is another arguement.

red herring - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 3:24 PM

I understand moodys point about resuscitation, but let's face it, Motogp moves riders straight away whether they need resuscitation or not - as happened with Redding, Morales and others. And how can it be quicker to walk him through gravel than to leave him where he is and drive the ambulance through the exit/entry hole where the marshals walked to him? The resuscitation argument also works both ways. no point in getting him breathing if your going to kill someone through a spinal injury (not in this case but possible) on the way to ambulance. Oh, and why don't they pull unconscious drivers straight out of cars in F1 if its the best thing to do??

FakeHelmet - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 3:30 PM

Red Herring - That's a fair point.

I think the issue is that they have a 'one rule for all' policy which in fact was entirely appopriate in Shoya's case but was completely wrong for Redding Morlaes and others. I guess either way it points to Shoddy guidance from Dorna and the medical advisors.


September 09, 2010 3:39 PM


How can you drive an ambulance through the gravel? If Tomi wasn't breathing carrying him to the ambulance was the quickest way to a ventilator. Though I now believe that what we saw was the way it is done in all cases to keep the race going. That needs to be changed.


September 09, 2010 3:43 PM

If resuscitation was the issue they should have started manual CPR right there on the spot, red-flagged and brought resus equipment to him (defibrillator etc). For the whole time he was being bundled onto the stretcher and out through the gravel trap he was not receiving ANY form of resuscitation AT ALL. So it's a non-argument from Dorna about resus I'm afraid. I'd have serious doubts about whether the marshalls even checked his pulse.


September 09, 2010 3:49 PM

Again BS, they waited a good 15-20 minutes before he eventually got carted off in that ambulance and when they did the ambulance was driving at about 5-10mph. It was also quite a long drive and they could have landed a helicopter on the track instead of fannying about with the ambulance. By the time Shoya came round in the ambulance it was going so slow you wondered if he was alive.

Additionally this does not explain why they moved Scott in the way they did as he WAS BREATHING but unconcious, the more immediate worry for Scott was whether or not he had suffered a back or neck injury...the boy had 12 stitched in his back.

They can say what they like to those watching on the telly but they can't say that to those who were there at the track by the incident because i know and so do a few thousand others that this statement is complete and utter bollox

red herring - Unregistered

September 09, 2010 4:13 PM

@ aeolus

I thought there was an asphalt road leading from the entry/exit point in the barrier. There usually is some for of service road from these entry/exit points to teh track even if it runs around the gravel trap. Maybe Im wrong. obviously I dont mean drive over the gravel.

Page 1 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.