BWitcher

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.

There's nothing more mickey mouse than blatantly ignoring the rules! They're not poorly phrased in the slightest. They are very clear if you can read. The event Hancock is ineligible for is the World Championship. Everything else is folk inventing things. There is nothing to interpret. The more I think about it the more clear that the rule was intended that way too. It's clearly a deterrent to riders. Walk out of the 1st meeting of the year, you have no chance of becoming World Champion as you are ineligible. The same applies whatever meeting you walk out. Otherwise you're advocating two completely different levels of punishment for the same offence. Edited to add: After concurring with my lawyer friend he says that the above is the nail on the head. The punishment for an offence must be equal across the board. It cannot be as people are trying to claim it is as that would mean a rider committing the offence in the final GP of the season receives no punishment, compared to a rider committing the same offence earlier in the year. It has to be consistent. Which is why the rule states, commit the offence, you are ineligible for the Championship. Game Over. You cannot win it. When you commit the offence is immaterial.

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule. Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that. When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter. Everything else is people making things up.

How clearer can it be? What title has he won? The FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. What is he ineligible for? Oh yes, the same thing. Dear me....

Again, you've made up your own theory. It is quite clear. There is only one thing he is ineligible from that is the FIM Grand Prix World Speedway Championship. There is no mention of rounds. It is the Championship he is ineligible. It couldn't be any clearer. Making up rules to suit is a corrupt sport. Anyway, the line up for next year looks awesome

So you advocate a corrupt sport then!

No, insanity is ignoring the rules of the sport. The rule itself can be described as insanity, there's a difference

No he isn't, he's inventing an interpretation. There is no interpretation, it's quite clear. There is no interpretation regarding the word 'ineligible'. The FIM are just ignoring it because they know the rumpus it would cause with BSI and Monster. A precedent has been set now where the 'rules' don't mean a thing.

His points are meaningless, he is INELIGIBLE. What part of that word do you not understand? Did Shawn Moran have his points 'taken away'?

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/motorsport/556642/Nicki-Pedersen-Strip-Greg-Hancock-of-the-Speedway-world-title

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/motorsport/556642/Nicki-Pedersen-Strip-Greg-Hancock-of-the-Speedway-world-title

Of course I am recognising the word remainder.. He is INELIGBLE for the REMAINDER of the season. Quite simple. So when you come to award the winner of the FIM Grand Prix World Speedway Championship, Hancock doesn't qualify.. as he is ineligible for the REMAINDER of the season. It's not even complicated.

Once again you're talking about taking away points.. his points are irrelevant. There is no 'interpretation' required. That's if you know what ineligible means. in·el·i·gi·ble ˌinˈeləjəb(ə)l/ adjective legally or officially unable to be considered for a position or benefit. "they were ineligible for jury duty" Now, Hancock is ineligible for the FIM Grand Prix World Speedway Championship. Not a Grand Prix itself.. not several Grand Prix's, not some races... but the actual Championship. As such, he legally or officially is unable to be considered for a position or benefit... I'd suggest being considered Champion of the "FIM Grand Prix World Speedway Championship" is a benefit. I've had two qualified lawyers look at this, one a fan, the other not, both concur, there simply isn't an argument and in legal terms he can't be champion. There is no interpretation to be made. The FIM will hide behind a smokescreen of 'interpretation' because they know they've cocked up on the rule.

No it doesn't. It's another post that has added something that isn't there. It does not mention any rounds or pts, these are things people are creating to suit their point. It is very clear. He is ineligible for the FIM Grand Prix World Speedway Championship. So tell me, how can you win something you are ineligible for? I'll save your time... you can't. The GP season ends when the World Championship trophy is presented. Hancock is still ineligible for that championship as per the rules, stupid as they may be.

What on earth are you talking about? The Holder incident is completely irrelevant. Hancock withdrew from the meeting and was not signed of by a doctor for doing so. As such he became ineligible for the FIM Grand Prix World Speedway Championship. That's it. End of story. His pts don't matter. What races he threw don't matter. From the moment he withdrew he became ineligible. You quite simply cannot win something if you are ineligible. The rule is a poor one and needs changing, nobody disagrees with that but this constant attempt to re-write the English language because you don't agree with the rule is madness.

Actually, it wouldn't, utter stupidity is ignoring rules. Now, the rule itself is utter stupidity, that part I agree with.

Dear me. English really isn't some folks strong point. You've answered it again. He is INELIGBLE. How can you win something you are ineligible for? It doesn't need interpreting, that is what the rule says.

I don't 'advocate' any sort of action. Their RULES do. So what you are telling us is that rules don't matter?

It can be your second and final post on the matter, it makes no difference. He is INELIGIBLE for the remainder of the season for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. What happened at the end of the Grand Prix? Ah yes, they award the World Championship to the winner of the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship, something Hancock is now INELIGIBLE for. It really isn't rocket science unless you are either a Hancock lackey or just arguing for the sake of it. Whether or not that was the intention of the rule is another matter, but that is what the rule says. Don't blame me, I didn't write the rule. It's been reported in the Danish media the rule is very clear. Nicki Pedersen has stated the rule is clear and although he doesn't feel Hancock should be stripped of the title, that rules should be followed.

Do try and learn the English language before making such nonsense posts. When you've learnt what ineligible actually means, come back. It doesn't have to mention points.. they are completely irrelevant.. why? Because HE IS INELIGIBLE.

Mr Rising, Can you ask BSI why they and the FIM have ignored the rules of the sport and crowned Greg Hancock World Champion? He is ineligible. As Nicki Pedersen says, the rule may not be fair, but it's a rule.. and rules should be followed.

But do we know for sure all 16 refused to race.. Didn't Harris want to carry on? Silver medal??