BWitcher

No wonder he's always grinning then!

It did happen in Sweden did it not?

Tell me which other riders were excluded for cheating. When you can, you have an argument. You don't seem to grasp that the debate is regarding a rider who was excluded and subsequently walked out of the meeting. Not who may or may not have done something.

They have done something, they've covered their backs by saying Hancock was given permission to withdraw due to him being 'upset'. Quite ridiculous of course, but it covers them on the rule rendering Hancock ineligible for the title.

You appear to be missing something pretty basic here. The others weren't excluded from a race for cheating and didn't then withdraw from the FIM Grand Prix Speedway World Championship, so why on earth would they become ineligible? Try and debate the point sensibly instead of inserting phrases such as 'golden child'. What you 'think' is irrelevant. What past riders may or may not have done is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rule, which you are unable to argue with. The discussion is moot anyway as the FIM, fully aware of what the rule says and means have given the cover story of him being given permission to withdraw due to being upset. I think it's pretty clear they haven't interpreted the rule differently. That is why it's been stated (after the event of course and after questions were being asked) that the FIM gave permission for him to withdraw.

Correct. If Harris didn't ride in the GP, or withdrew from the meeting in progress without permission, he would be suspended from the dates outlined in the rule.

No it doesn't at all. Harris has ridden on a Friday night then in the GP on a Saturday. The section you keep referring to are simply the parameters for the suspension. If a rider had raced on the Friday night it would be applied retrospectively, as SHOULD have happened with the Darcy Ward case.

The rule doesn't mention not taking part in meetings. It's a figment of your imagination. It states the World Championship, of which every single ride is a part of. As for you saying the part I have highlighted is 'just the name of the competition'... of course it's the name of the competition, that's why it's there! It's that competition which the rule says you cannot refuse to take part in.

"A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned." As can be seen, it's quite clear that the event that riders refusing to take part in are punished for is the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship, NOT a grand prix meeting, or it would say so. The Grand Prix meeting concerned is referring to when the offence of refusing to take part took place and setting the dates for the suspension. In Melbourne Greg Hancock refused to take part in his fourth and fifth rides of the Australian GP in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. As such his suspension is for 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meeting concerned, which of course in this case is the Australian GP in Melbourne. It's not complicated. The FIM have covered themselves from applying this and the more severe element of the rule where he is rendered ineligible by saying they 'allowed' him to withdraw. Which again, they simply wouldn't need to do if the rule is how you keep claiming it to be. To add, your false claims regarding the rule would mean a rider could race one heat in a GP, refuse to race in the rest of a meeting and face zero punishment. Of course that wouldn't be the case.

So the rides are not part of the World Championship, that is now your claim? You're getting sillier with every post.

It is the name of the series, it is also the name of the Championship, and it is the name of the event that if you withdraw from it you become ineligible. So again, what did Hancock withdraw from? You won't answer that question because it totally invalidates your argument. I know it, Nicki Pedersen knows it and most importantly the FIM know it hence the cover story. There would be absolutely no need for them to say they'd given permission otherwise.

The word meetings is in reference to the time period he is suspended for. What part of "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" don't you understand? I'll ask you the simple question again. were Hancocks final two rides part of the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship"? It's a simple question.. yes or no?

There are no accusations to make. He cheated. It was investigated. His bike was checked. He cheated. Guilty as charged. He's lucky it's speedway, haven't you noticed the severity in other sports for 'fixing' or 'throwing' a match/game/result?

Again, making things up. The rule says nothing about a meeting. It states if you refuse to take part in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship". Are you claiming his final two rides were not in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" ?

Yes, but not in relation to the refusing to take part. That is specifically, refusing to take part in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. The Grand Prix meeting is simply to define when the 'suspension' from racing takes place from. If what you were claiming was correct, they wouldn't need the cover story would they?

Hmm... I originally thought you were onto something Vincent, but nope. Hancock did refuse to take part. Whether he took part beforehand is again irrelevant. The moment he withdrew from the meeting he was in essence refusing to take part. Again, you are having to invent something that isn't there to fit your argument. It doesn't state in a 'meeting'. It simply says, refuses or unable to take part. Hancock did that. As I have said before, that is why the cover story was needed that the FIM 'agreed' to him withdrawing due to him being so upset.

It doesn't mention riding. You've made it up. It simply says he is ineligible for the FIM World Speedway Championship. That is it. It's staggering how people continue to make stuff up that isn't there. If you are ineligible for the World Speedway Championship, you cannot win it. That is why they've concocted the cover story of the FIM giving him permission to withdraw from the meeting as he was so upset. Agreed, that is the only get out there is. Not all the nonsense other folk are making up. The fact that they have come up with a cover story and that he was 'given permission' to withdraw suggests the FIM are covering the bases though.

Making things up again.

Fully agree, one of the best temporary track GP's there have been.

Oh ****.. I knew there was something I was forgetting

Quite possibly, I think HenryW mentioned this earlier in the thread. I suppose the only difference is the Moran case was sometime afterwards.

That's the cover story concocted afterwards by all parties. He looked really upset didn't he when he gatecrashed Holder's interview. Patronising? haha. If you want to act the fool, go ahead. I explained it, you had no comeback so revert to the childish retort of 'patronising'. The FIM and Hancock both know hence concocting the cover story of 'permission being granted' because of his 'frame of mind'. No reason for that at all if the rule is as you and some others who don't understand the world ineligible claim.

The Shawn Moran issue is to demonstrate that 'points' accrued are irrelevant if you are deemed ineligible, void, disqualified etc. Your second point is a good one and there could well be grounds to argue the case there. You've not invented something that isn't there. We could argue the toss on this for hours on end but as we know, the FIM won't be doing anything. My biggest concern over this is, what would have happened if let's say the rider leading the Championship was Nicki Pedersen... and the rider in 2nd was a Monster rider.. and Nicki walked out in protest... would the same decision have been reached? Hypothetical I know, but I suspect it would have had a different conclusion!

Once again, did Shawn Moran have his pts deducted from the 1990 World Final? If not, why isn't he still the silver medallist? Once you are ineligble, it matters not what pts you have. As with Moran, it should say Greg Hancock 150pts (ineligible). Or however many pts he has.

Why do you need to forfeit points? You're ineligible. It doesn't matter! Did Shawn Moran forfeit points? Nope. His points are still there on record. However, he doesn't have 2nd place. No it indicates the FIM have bottled it. So tell me, how can the same discression have completely different levels of punishment depending upon whether you commit it in the first GP or the last GP? Of course it can't, it must be the same. The rule is in place as a deterrent from riders either picking and choosing, or flat out walking out like Hancock did. They don't want a rider safely in the top 8, but no chance of a medal thinking, nah, I won't bother going to Australia, which could happen without the rule in place. With the rule, don't go to Australia, you're out the top eight as you become ineligible. The FIM quite simply never envisaged someone as high profile as Hancock would do what he did. They haven't the guts to enforce their own rules and throw out a rider sponsored by the series sponsors.