A fact has to do with something that one can prove while an opinion has to do with one's beliefs and or feelings. Based on this paper, the discussion will be entirely on bringing out how facts and opinions have been used in the worst act of cheating in the history of sport based on the article and how this affects the audience. Taking this writings in accordance with the effects imposed on the audience we see that the author of the article wants to make it clear in black and white.
He talks of the worst act of cheating in the theme to show how deep the incident went in deceiving the crowd's eyes. The whole idea of the theme is to inform the audience of the treachery committed by the formula one company as per the article. From Renault, the statement that one of the drivers was told to crush sounds more of an opinion than a fact. Ideally, this was to alert the audience about the manner in which the crush originated.
One big star in formula one racing, son of the most famous three times champion-Nelson Piquet was forced into having an accident so as another racer could win. Let us look at this demand in a more elevated way, Piquet, a driver who is defined by the author to be desperate. He tries to bring out the fact that Piquet has the urge of climbing high in the sport, yet, there are various obstacles ahead of him.
As a matter of fact, he is forced into committing injustice against his own ambitions. The author talks of "accidents" trying to enlighten the audience on how dangerous the whole event is. Here the audience is brought to a standstill that the desperate nature of the driver made him a victim of such a despicable act.
The fact that Piquet's team mate won the race proves that he had adhered to this. Yet, the question lies: what was he to gain from such an act? From most readers, they will consider this act as inconsiderate, since they have never seen such crazy things in reality. Or even the spectators would consider it an accident since they saw it coming, but the fact that the driver caused it, sounds to the audience as much more of a story created to tarnish the drivers name than a reality.
We encounter more of the writings in a very classic manner, the author talks of how such a big company as the formula one, as in the article, get mixed up with sport. The article points it to the audience why the company should not have involved itself with the sport: "That is what happens when leading commercial concerns get mixed up in sport " it is stressed that the company's major interest is success on the expense of both the drivers and the spectators.
The disguise won by the formula one company in the article is so definite in such a way that the author draws it to the audience attention in the statement, "they are in it for image (timesonline.co.uk)" the author talks of how the company consideration for the driver's welfare being minimal, "while the faintest hint of sordidness and cheating is anathema"
While the above is true, may be some of the spectators who really witnessed piquet crushing could have some faith in the allegations that he had willingly caused the crush. The driver was kicked out of his team for his failure to secure victory, however, the audience is meant to know that the team is not aware of the forces that were applied to Piquet that caused his victory, well, we are definitely meant not to know, we can only assume that the decision was entirely on the driver based on merit.
However, we as the general audience are given the picture of how terrible it was for Piquet as far as his team is concerned. The author talks of him being sacked, so, this means there were no considerations for him. It is stressed in the article that the behavior of the company was not an exception; the audience is meant to know that the company's interests were deliberate. The phrase, "this is no run-of-the-mill piece of skullduggery (timesonline.co.uk)" tells that the kind of behavior exhibited is just uncouth.
The author further talks of the cheating as not being a simple fraud but a much more comprising one, yet the audience is met with much more exaggeration. The article discusses the fraud in an extent where one is placed in a position of surprise than understanding. This is clearly seen in the statement: "it was cheating as a potentially lethal act; as a potential murder" the cheating was impersonated to being a murderer. We are told that the cheating is not melodramatic, thus, it must be an act of deception. The use of strong verbs like "horrifying" shows as how the incidents in the article were life threatening. Moreover, such verbs are meant to give the audience the clear view on the reality of the incidents.