Vincent Blachshadow

That article in question states he wants to ride in the World Games. 'Woffinden underlined his desire to represent GB in a special one-off FIM pairs event at this summer’s World Games, which take place at his Polish track Wroclaw on July 29. But he is currently being overlooked for a team place'

I wonder why.

The point I was making is that nobody that attends (League) speedway today does so because of the play-off carrot, they go for their love of four blokes on bikes so would most likely still be going if speedway was being run as it was back then and the sport would not have lost many of those that have packed up because of the constant tinkering. The whys and wherefores of the play-offs have been done to death on countless other threads and Belle Vue made some cash out of them but I often wonder how much is lost on the way by people not attending many of the qualifying matches.

Would it though? I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of those that go now would still be going (they don't attend just because of play-offs, tac rides or whatever so would have started going anyway), the sport would most likely have kept quite a few of those that have stopped going (TWK and Barney Rabbit for a start) and they could well have introduced more newbies. I honestly believe it would more likely be in better fettle (maybe only slightly better, but better) rather than dead.

The laying of a speedway track is a specialist procedure that needs some level of supervision by somebody who knows what should be happening. I would have expected this to be raised during initial parleys between Gordon, Morton, the Council and any prospective contractors and the presence of interested third parties during the procedure should have been sorted at the outset.

I think the supply of cakes went out the window some time ago. The current thinking seems to be the reverse of the old Marie Antoinette line - 'let them eat bread'.

There's two different sorts of 'assets'. Those that became club assets by riding a requisite number of matches for a club and those that were paid for by an individual or club. Should it ever get to court I believe they would be treated as separate issues - though I doubt it would ever get as far as a court room. But that doesn't solve the financial aspect for next season.

That may well be what they'd like to see happen, but I'd love to see a legit precedent that allows a body of promoters get their collective claws on any fees paid for riders Frost paid 20k or more each for.

So what's the significance of the 'what even is speedway in UK. Anymore' bit. Seems to me he's decrying the sport over here in total, not just Poole.

Anybody remember heat 20, Bydgoszcz, 2000?

Absolute cobblers! Out of politeness Greg tells someone in authority he's pulling out, they said ok. It could be no more than that.

Has that ever happened though? Riders have missed GPs in the past but their absence was known at least the day before. So you're saying that, if Harris had dropped out of one of his races in a fit of pique during the GP his points would have to be expunged from the previous evening's EL match?

The thing that points to the rule pertaining to meetings rather than rides is the fact he is suspended from riding the day before the meeting he doesn't take part in. How does anybody know he will pull out of a ride in tomorrow's GP to stop him riding at, say, Lakeside in an EL match the day before? His intention to not ride in a GP would be known so the suspension the day before could be activated.

"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. Furthermore, he shall be considered as ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season. A rider who has started in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship must participate therein unless prevented from doing so by injury or other force majeure. A suitably qualified medical practitioner must certify injury or illness in writing to that effect." It isn't rocket science that the rule is talking about meetings, the word is in the rule, highlighted. There is no mention of how many rides a rider has to take nor does it say he has to complete the meeting, merely that he has to take part. Greg took part. The name of the competition you highlighted is just that, the name of the competition concerned. Clearly, we will not agree on this (despite the fact you did agree in post #494 in the Melbourne GP thread) so there seems little point in continuing.

They were part of the event, but that is not the issue. The requirement, as stated in the rule, is that he takes part (those words are in the rule) in the meeting concerned (those words are in the rule too) and he did that, taking three rides in the Melbourne GP. The rule makes no mention of how many rides a rider has to take, just that he has to take part. He did that. I do not think Greg was right in what he did but that is not the point. The point is that he fulfilled the requirement of the regulation by taking part and, as such, is the rightful World Champion. Your boy will have another go next year and I'm sure he'll win it again some time in the future. Answer me this, did Greg Hancock take part in the meeting concerned, the Melbourne GP?

He withdrew from a couple of rides, not the event. He rode three rides therefore TOOK PART and, according to regulation 077.3.3 that is the only requirement.

That's the name of the series. They could just as easily have written A rider who has entered the Speedway Grand Prix series and refuses or is unable to take part.....' The salient point is this - '....and up to three days after the meetings concerned'. In other words '....up to three days after the meetings he did not take part in'. As I posted, the words 'take part' and 'meetings' are an important part of the rule. Now show me where it mentions 'rides'. Greg Hancock did take part in the Melbourne GP, he rode three heats. He did not transgress this rule.

The only person seeing things that aren't there is you. The word 'meetings' is in the rule, the word 'rides' is not.

Yes, the suspension covers the period one day before and three days after the meeting a rider didn't take part in. What cover story? They're merely telling us why he pulled out of two of his rides, having ridden in three others and therefore having taken part in that meeting.

Notice the phrase at the end of the first sentence 'the Grand Prix meetings concerned'. So it does specify 'in a meeting'.

Why was he 'ineligible'? The rule states, quite simply, he had to 'take part' in the meeting. He took part. "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. Furthermore, he shall be considered as ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season. A rider who has started in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship must participate therein unless prevented from doing so by injury or other force majeure. A suitably qualified medical practitioner must certify injury or illness in writing to that effect."

The rule states a rider has to 'take part' in the GP. It makes no mention of how many rides he has to take. Greg took part and scored five points. Why he withdrew is irrelevant.

Why? He 'took part' in the Melbourne GP as the rule requires him to. There is no mention of a rider having to take all his rides.

Shawn Moran was before the current GP system so the two cases aren't the same. Agreed the rule is to stop riders picking and choosing which GPs to ride in. Whether or not it includes an individual ride in a GP is open to question. The rule states 'refuses or is unable to take part'. Greg did 'take part' in the Melbourne GP, he has five points to prove it.

Because if it had then Hancock would have to lose his Championship and your boy would get it. No question. But since it doesn't, the rule is open to interpretation. You see it one way, most of the others see it the other.