Conspiracy mentality hits F1
Research into people's mental consideration of information, even when that information is entirely innocent, has shown that if there is a conspiracy based or suspicious motive that can be applied to it, then the majority will accept that motive in preference to the more boring, innocent, alternative.
Michael Schumacher made a serious mistake in the Monaco qualifying, but that mistake wasn't to stop on the track and end the session with himself in pole position. His mistake was to make a driving error and not smash the front of car as a result. Why should he have? The session was all but over, he wasn't going to go any faster, so when he caught his mistake, his first reaction would have been to save the car for the race. Had he had the time to think and plan the way the his detractors claim, he would (as Jackie Stewart suggested) have organised the stop so he tapped the wall and knocked the front wing off, just to make sure no-one would say he did it deliberately. By not damaging the car, it showed he made a mistake, recovered and saved it, and didn't plan anything.
And I'm not a Schumacher fan, he's too arrogant, and I'm fed up watching him win.
There's another point. For all the critics that claim he planned this move to secure his pole position – if they're right, and he was planning this stop to secure his pole, can they explain why someone planning such a move wouldn't foresee the controversy it would cause? To me at least, pulling that stunt (especially without smashing the car) would almost guarantee that it would result in a steward's enquiry, and a near certain shift to the back of the grid. If planning ahead, that doesn't seem like a very good outcome.
I need to rest now, and recover from speaking in support of Michael – even I don't believe I did! (but I don't support witch-hunts either).