To fill the Christmas stocking with 'Soupful' glee, I've been taking a look at some of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of the MotoGP series. A more "off-the-cuff", provocative approach will be entered into here to warm your winter blood although, as always here on SuperbikePlanet.com, we will aim to be fair.

Let's start with the rules. I've just finished reading some rather interesting opinions of the MotoGP rules and their birth and application on some of the fan Web sites. Interesting, while at the same time, more than just a little disturbing.

It would seem that Honda, the mighty red machine, or, "the evil empire", as they appear to be known in some circles, have had the MotoGP rules rigged in their favor. Yes folks, the suggestion seems to be that this situation is in place so that Honda, seemingly at will it would seem, can manipulate the series owners into implementing any rule change that will, apparently, give Honda an unfair advantage over the other manufacturers competing in the premier class of motorcycle road racing for the foreseeable future.

In effect, the accusation is that HRC, to put it bluntly, cheats!!

Is it possible that Honda, the most successful manufacturer in recent Grand Prix history, through underhanded means and crooked politics has constructed its own underground labyrinth of deceit within the MotoGP series commanding power even over the very organizations that run the series?

Is this aforementioned group of cynical race fans right? Are we being fooled and cheated by Honda and are they really filling the back pocket of Dorna with piles of filthy lucre to get just about anything they want?

And, just where is the backlash from the other members of the MSMA?

Let's take a look at the main points of disgruntlement, and, we start with a disclaimer of sorts aimed at allowing all viewpoints a fair hearing.

Freedom of speech anyone? I can hear the baying crowd calling as we speak. "Hey, Mr. Reporter, who do you think you are, we have the right to say what we want, freedom of speech old chap, vitriolic it may be but we have the right!"

Quite so, however, where do you draw the line between healthy questioning based on a lack of full understanding and the outright accusations I have seen today based, it would appear, on the arrogance of so-called knowledge or, in some cases, a simple issue of slander or libel at will?

Strong words, yes, but after all, we're talking about reputation, and reputation is everything in professional life--be it linked to a company's involvement in a tarmac-based sport or a Wall Street stock exchange cat-fight.

Is this cheating, bending, manipulating theory/accusation a new one? Of course, it isn't. Any successful conglomerate will have its fair share of backers, as it will also attract its fair share of nay-sayers. It comes with the territory, but is it fair?

My response in this instance is no, it isn't fair and here's why.

Is Honda powerful? Yes. Cash-laden? Yes, but not to the extent many think. Influential? Damn right. Well prepared? Yes. And willing to put their expertise where their mouth is? Absolutely. But, bent as a $9 dollar bill? No, they are not.

Now, without appearing to be a flag-waving Hondarite, which I am most certainly not, there are a few simple explanations that can put this situation in a clearer light. Firstly, Honda wrote the MotoGP 4-stroke rules package to their liking and "obviously" handed that plan to Dorna and on receipt of said "rigged" rules, Dorna and the MSMA, under the guidance of the FIM, passed those rules as law, right?

Rubbish. Honda was instrumental in making strong suggestions for the evolution in the rules for new 990cc prototypes that were to be used from 2002, but there were other members of the MSMA involved in the process of drawing up the framework agreement. Honda did not dream up the whole MotoGP rules package for their own benefit and they certainly did not "force" everyone else concerned to go along with it.

There were also contributions on the working, mechanical aspects for the new series and contributions on the financial implications from other leading voices of reason from within the sport. Kenny Roberts and Mick Doohan, to name two, along with a panel of some of the leading engineers in the field and officials from the governing bodies, and in conjunction with major sponsors, all looked at the implications of the changes.

There wasn't a Honda-shirted official there who sat alone with Carmelo Ezpeleta (Dorna CEO), cooking the books while everyone else was handcuffed to the railings outside Dorna HQ with no way of objecting to what was going on.

Ducati, for example, has been involved right along the line with the various negotiations, agreeing with some of the proposed HRC ideas and disagreeing with others, the touted drop to 800cc for one, if you believe the rumors at the time. There have been others. In fact all of the MSMA members have been involved in the rule package thought process.

So, does that mean that Ducati must have cheated as well then because they had MotoGP plans, 4-stroke based, V4 engine configuration back in late 2000 when they initially made plans to return to Grand Prix, the same time that HRC were planning their 4-stroke project. I take it because it's Ducati it isn't cheating-it's 'forward planning'?

You don't think Ducati suddenly woke up one morning in 2002 (after HRC had allegedly already fixed the rules in place) and thought, "Hmmmmmmm, better shake a leg here and get a MotoGP project slung together based on Honda's rigged rules", do you?

So, if Ducati had plans in the pipeline from two years before, the same as HRC, knowing about the rigged rules, why is Ducati not being accused of cheating or manipulating the rules for their V4 project? Or, is it a case that success breeds resentment, especially if there is longevity in your success? Are people just sick of seeing HRC win and are, in turn, venting their frustration?

The MSMA, on behalf of its other members, would never stand for HRC actually drawing up the rules and getting Dorna to effectively lie for them so that they could introduce said rules so that HRC could then cheat a head start, which is what is being suggested. There would be legal action all over the place. The MSMA is there for this very reason, to ensure ALL of its members are happy with parity in the rules no matter how you apply your engineers to their task, no matter what configuration you run, and no matter who is the most successful.

In May 2004, there was a press release regarding impending and planned rules changes and here it is below. Notice the inclusion, during talks described below, of ALL manufacturers represented by the MSMA.

The Motorcycle Sports Manufacturers' Association (MSMA) have announced plans to reduce the capacity of MotoGP machines from 990cc to 900cc by 2007.

"A possible reduction of the 22 litres fuel tank capacity will be defined during 2005."

How much 'cheating' by HRC, or anyone else for that matter, did you see in that press release, a release agreed upon by all MSMA members?

Next, Honda controls grid slot allocation, right?

Wrong. They don't control it, they have simply benefited from Dorna's blurry application of its own guidelines. The manipulation of said guidelines appears to be so that should anyone have the financial clout to provide more rider/sponsor/team diversity on the grid they would be allowed to, shall we say, traverse the 'official line'. The Tamada/Montiron/Konica team slot being one such instance because if you remember the original agreement was for 12 two man-teams, not for single entities.

This is Dorna allowing such things to occur and not HRC holding a gun to the head of Carmelo Ezpeleta forcing his hand and indeed the hand of IRTA who have been known to object to such so-called political moves. If Suzuki or Kawasaki for instance had the means and put forward a solid sponsor package Dorna would be in the position to allow them to achieve what Montiron and Japan Italy Racing have—a single team entry or an additional (odd-numbered) bike to add to an existing pair.

In fact, Kawasaki almost completed a deal to run three machines in 2005. However, they decided, on reflection, they didn't have a commercially viable package for a third Ninja machine. HRC have got a viable package and are entering seven RCV's next season, not because they rigged the rules, not because they cheated, but because they have been allowed to do so by Dorna and IRTA. And, the other MSMA members don't appear to be waving solicitors letters about the paddock because of this situation, do they?

HRC had six grid slots from Dorna in 2003 (seven in total with a leased D'Antin slot), and they were granted those extra grid slots, originally, as a way of filling out the grid with NSR500's in 2002 alongside the two 4-stroke works bikes of Rossi and Ukawa (and from Brno, Kato). Without those extra HRC machines, the grid would have looked horribly depleted. There was no great conspiracy. Honda could, Honda did, and Honda now carries that benefit forward. Does that scenario need to be reviewed to balance the top number of machines per manufacturer? Possibly, but if that reduces Honda to four entries and that, in turn, leaves the grid looking sparse, what would you have Dorna do?

Doesn't MotoGP need teams like Japan Italy Racing, fresh ideas and healthily sponsored or because they are running Honda machines, does that make them 'un-healthy'?

The future is rigged for a Honda V3 revolution, right?

Wrong. Rules changes coming in now (reduction in fuel tank capacity) and in 2007 (reduction from 990cc to 900cc) will see, in my opinion, sooner rather than later, a Honda V3 on the grid, on Bridgestone tires initially (my view), and again, they are preparing early, getting the jump on the other manufacturers, but it is NOT cheating!

Is this above scenario fair to the other MSMA members?

Of course, it is. If the other MSMA members had the financial clout, they would have a V3 (or their chosen engine configuration), on track behind closed doors with their test riders. HRC has the cash. What can you do, sling them out because they have the means that others don't?

Honda appears to be about to take advantage of the weight allowances agreed by ALL the MSMA members and not because they wrote the rules and passed them behind the back of those MSMA members.

Having plans and being able to implement those plans are two entirely different things, and they do not automatically lean towards cheating should you be able to match the two before other manufacturers can. There is also the counter-argument that Honda had led the way to future evolution by showing the rest how best to accomplish your goals and the V5 project gave the other manufacturers a target to reach with their own choice of configuration. The goal, to beat that Honda machine by having a level of performance to scrutinize and decipher and implement that information into their own projects. Honda led the way and others followed, it isn't a crime in my book. If you want to lead, take the baton, employ the right people, find the cash, and away you go. Is that a cold, hard analysis? Yes, but the world of big business often is.

One such way to succeed, which HRC does well, is to employ the best engineers. Both Kenny Roberts, Sr. And Colin Edwards II both commented during the winter last year that all the likes of Yamaha had to do was to forget any fancy plans and just go offer the Honda engineers more money than Honda pay them and get them in on any project they decide to run. Okay, that sounds like a wild theory to actually apply, but it's a sound premise as HRC has some wonderful engineering staff on the test and development team in Japan and in the MotoGP garages. Couple that with Burgess and Rossi (the pair now sharpening the sword at Yamaha) and it's no wonder that HRC had the developmental edge and performance head start. Indeed, with Burgess and Rossi now getting the job done and implementing their genius with the revised M1 project (and taking the Yamaha engineers with them on the golden path of thought process), it shows that the whole 'package' is what gets the job done, not just scrambling with small pieces of the puzzle as can see elsewhere on the grid.

The one caveat to all that is, of course, one plus one makes three and you stumble. That was the case with HRC last season after Rossi and Burgess jumped the great Japanese divide to Yamaha. Not only did that unsettle HRC and its development project, but the confusing situation was also compounded still further when Michelin introduced the new evolution of its product.

The new 2004 tire, with a bigger footprint and carcass design differences, caused problems through the chassis response and through wheel arc misalignment, losing the pilot stability and drive. The problem was not as easily fixable as it appeared to be with the M1. The rigidity of the RCV chassis (which cut down the ability to compensate by adjusting the angle of the rake/trail and swingarm, and even the positioning of the pivot) caused the dreaded chatter problem. Its advantage was reduced, not obliterated, but it was enough to cause set-up woes not experienced with the 2003 tire. A smaller wheel rim size seemed to give the riders back a truer cornering arc but it also lost you the contact patch advantage enjoyed by the Yamaha riders after altering their chassis with the 2004 tire.

The overall package advantage of the RCV and Honda pilot was halted enough for Rossi and Burgess to strike. But, you still have to opine that, as an overall package, the RCV still gets the nod, problems or not, although, Honda has never been known to create the perfect chassis. It's the overall package application that they're good at. Just take a look at where Checa, Melandri and Abe finished at race meetings and in the overall standings. Again, the HRC engineers, for their part, are the best in the business. Will Biaggi and Nick Hayden (with possibly Kanemoto) using a refined chassis, and with a year's knowledge with the newer profile of Michelin tire, be the riders we see giving Honda the ability to strike back at the Rossi/Edwards factory Yamaha effort with their improved package (new engine especially) and with a tire that suits the set-up

If they, or possibly Gibernau, don't succeed and Yamaha becomes the dominant force, will Yamaha be branded cheats for not implementing new rules but for daring to be successful and forthright in doing so as there appears to be no rules when you play the game of accusation and counter-accusation?

Isn't that what HRC, in reality, have done? Haven't they simply been successful operating within the rules agreed by ALL of the MSMA members?

As mentioned above, Honda is powerful and is suggestively forceful but that doesn't mean that MotoGP is a rigged series because of that. That's not being naive, either. I can see that Honda will pressure where Honda can see an advantage. That's big business, but, that doesn't mean that every time the HRC racing directors want something, they get it including rigging the rules. That's why "the panel" consists of IRTA, the FIM and the MSMA as well as Dorna.

There's a fine line between failure and success in this game, and there's also a fine line between being strong with opinion and slandering due to apparent frustration aimed at the level of a company's success. Being powerful, arrogant and cold-hearted with decision-making, which Honda has been, and being underhanded are two entirely different things in my view.

Of course, if anyone has undeniable proof of wrongdoing, the fax machines at the offices of the FIM and the MSMA, and their contact email addresses, work perfectly.