Red Bull F1 driver Max Verstappen is mad. Which, yeah, is SOP for the guy, but this time it’s a relatable kind of frustration: he’s fed up with his spotty internet connection.

Just like you and me.

Earlier this year, Verstappen was in a comfortable lead towards the end of the 24 Hours of Le Mans Virtual when his internet went out, dropping his team to 15th, two laps behind the new leader. Always calm under pressure, he immediately retired from the race. Although in fairness, even the most hardened Verstappen hater would have to concede that by the time his connection was back up, there was no way he could make up the difference.

Frustration aside, the dropped connection does raise some questions about virtual racing as a viable competitive sport. Connections are dropped, they’re throttled, some are better than others. Then there are software issues—at one point on iRacing, the infield grass was faster than the tarmac. If those are the racing conditions, those who take advantage of it virtually can’t be blamed even if they’d be sanctioned IRL. The whole thing can sandbag pros, while elevating amateurs.

That’s the angle the Washington Post examined it from, and it goes beyond just the challenges of a stable ISP. How equal is the virtual playing field? How could the ISP issue be mitigated, and could that cause its own problems? Granted, the Post doesn’t address the difference in physical demands between real and virtual racers (even Tony Stewart was more fit than most people in his prime) nor how the teens in the SeaQuest DSV episode Playtime could have such a stable connection after the apocalypse. Otherwise, it’s a good examination of what gaming can—and can’t—give us.

An F1 champ lost a virtual race to lag. Is the sport ready for primetime? [via The Washington Post]