RPNY Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Anyway it was a cracking GP... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Anyway it was a cracking GP... Fully agree, one of the best temporary track GP's there have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 On a side note.. was the Collins brothers team riding in the 82 overseas final run off a greater or lesser breach of ethics than penhalls infamous tootling at the back against his compatriots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post John Leslie Posted October 27, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I have only one question for those of you cynics who claimed that today's Speedway Star would be full of Hancock/Monster-biased bulldroppings and completely one-sided rubbish... ...Can you give me next week's lottery numbers? You were spot on. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) Fully agree, one of the best temporary track GP's there have been. I genuinely feel if there was another GP at the Etihad within the next month they would get close to 30k after that racing and of course an Aussie winner. Whether or not it will carry on to 1 years time we shall have to wait and see. Atmosphere was pretty good too. Put it this way there was as much noise when the Aussies did well as there was in Warsaw when the poles did well and it was half the crowd.. Edited October 27, 2016 by RPNYC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Furthermore, he shall be considered as ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season. It's about as clear as mud. Try to strip him of the title based on that phrase and you may as well bend over and take the shafting that the court will give you. For the record, I think what he did was despicable and i wish the rule was clearer so that they could strip him of the title. ineligible for the remainder of the season is exactly what it says, he is ineligible to ride in it for the rest of the season. There is nothing that says he is ineligible to win the word title at all so I've no idea where it comes from that he should be stripped of the crown. It just means if there's more rounds then he can't ride in them. Nowhere can I see that he should lose his points or lose his title. Ineligible for the rest of the season means if there was 2 rounds to go he couldn't take part. Does not mean that he is ineligible to be world champion. What Hancock did was cheat and then act like a spoilt child and pull out which is shocking actions but to day he shouldn't be World Champion is just daft as the rules do not say he can't be World Champion but that he can't ride for the remainder of the season 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Blachshadow Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) But his own website says he withdrew from the meeting in protest!!!! 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. Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WembleyLion Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) On a minor point we all watched Hancock celebrate being World Champ after his first race when he was mathematically certain but actually that wasn't quite the case as what if the meeting had been abandoned (unlikely I know that a BSI event could be messed up) without a result being declared and to be rerun at Bydgoszcz in a few weeks time (again I accept that is most unlikely to happen - well not a second time anyway!) Edited October 27, 2016 by WembleyLion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 ineligible for the remainder of the season is exactly what it says, he is ineligible to ride in it for the rest of the season. There is nothing that says he is ineligible to win the word title at all so I've no idea where it comes from that he should be stripped of the crown. It just means if there's more rounds then he can't ride in them. Nowhere can I see that he should lose his points or lose his title. Ineligible for the rest of the season means if there was 2 rounds to go he couldn't take part. Does not mean that he is ineligible to be world champion. What Hancock did was cheat and then act like a spoilt child and pull out which is shocking actions but to day he shouldn't be World Champion is just daft as the rules do not say he can't be World Champion but that he can't ride for the remainder of the season 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. There is no problem. The rule merely states a rider has to 'take part'. It does not mention individual rides. He took part and scored five points. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I have only one question for those of you cynics who claimed that today's Speedway Star would be full of Hancock/Monster-biased bulldroppings and completely one-sided rubbish... ...Can you give me next week's lottery numbers? You were spot on. I imagine they will give a 'factual summary of both sides of the debate', as they will see it. Make reference to 'social media' comments, in the usual condescending way of the 'print media'. Give maximum exposure to Hancock's pathetic ramblings and pass them off as being 'plausable'. And then return to unadulterated hagiography, as always. Spooky isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Gave both sides of the story. How terrible of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Gave both sides of the story. How terrible of them. Hancock's side and Holder's side... 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) One has to admire Mr Burbidge though.For putting so many different viewpoints.Into so many different and varied articles.Prolific, doesn't do him justice. And so impartial.. Edited October 27, 2016 by Grand Central 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 What more should they have written?Not being facetious, genuine question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 But his own website says he withdrew from the meeting in protest!!!!Maybe so but he said they gave him permission,that's what I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 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. I don't know....forgive me forlaughing,but for days you have been saying it is crystal clear and there is nothing to interpret.I mean,you don't disappoint,you even do it again in this post.....then go on straight after to give us a new interpretation of what the rule is supposed to be for 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReturn Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Been working away for a couple of days, what did I miss? Hancock, that sensitive soul, still pretending he wasn't in the right frame of mind which is why he pulled out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Been working away for a couple of days, what did I miss? Hancock, that sensitive soul, still pretending he wasn't in the right frame of mind which is why he pulled out? No, it's just the usual suspects still banging on about it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post John Leslie Posted October 27, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 For anyone who doesn't get the Speedway Star (you lucky people) here's a brief summary of their (non) reporting of Hancock's cheat-gate. Cover page - Picture of Hancock - headline "Grin, and Grin, and Grin, and Grin" (?) (not sure what that means.... Grin and Grim may have summed it up better). pages 2&3 - Main story (by Paul Burbridge) from Hancock perspective - how the poor sod was "hard done to". how he was "hurt" and "bizarrely excluded from heat 9". (think they mean he was disqualified from heat 9 after bizarrely cheating). It repeats all the Hancock Bull-excrement excuses about the clutch, but doesn't challenge this nonsense with any facts. It doesn't go into any detail about Hancock spitting his dummy and walking out To the left of this main article is "Holder - Shocked" (by Paul Burbridge). Holder is reportedly "shocked" by Hancock's disqualification. It repeats the clutch nonsense without pointing out that it is nonsense. To the right of the main article is - "FIM Stand by decision" (by Paul Burbridge). It basically reports that the FIM investigated Hancock's actions. The jury viewed replays of the race, examined the bike, decided unanimously that Hancock had broken the rules, and disqualified him as per the rules. It doesn't report any FIM comments on Hancock's walking out of the meeting. Mr Burbridge doesn't seem interested in this side of the story. Page 6 - The meeting report (by Paul Burbridge) Tells us "American legend Greg Hancock underlined why he's one of speedway's all time class acts on and off the track as he rose above FIM accusations to celebrate his fourth World title" Yes...Mr Burbridge believes blatant cheating, failing to own up to cheating, and them throwing toys out of the pram makes you a "class act". Mr Burbridge tells us that Hancock's cheating and spoilt brattishness will "vanish into the mists of time" (so that's ok) but his great record in joining Hans Nielsen and Barry Briggs on 4 titles won't ever vanish. (This arse-licking drivel continues onto page 8.) Page 9 brings us an article "Jury Justice?" It tells us "What should have been one of the greatest night's of Greg Hancock's storied career was unfortunately tarnished by the bizarre decision to boot him out of heat 9" It doesn't tell us who wrote this drivel (but we could guess his initials may be P.B.). Basically this is more "woe is me" stuff. It's not Hancock's fault he cheated. Not his fault he spat his dummy....etc etc It is totally the FIM jury's fault for upholding the rules. Page 10 and we have some (selective) social media comments (compiled with a certain bias by who other than the ubiquitous Mr P.B.) Of course we have the tweets of those two empty vessels Middleditch and Havelock, and they are surprisingly joined by Hans Nielsen who thinks the exclusion was a farce. The hundreds of tweets and other social media comments from all of those who thought Middlo and Havvy were talking out of their backsides, don't make it into the Star. The only one who slightly dares to side with commonsense and integrity is Chris Louis who "agrees with the FIM for upholding the integrity of the sport". Page 14 gives us a meeting report from long-serving Aussie correspondent Peter White. His view on Hancock's cheating is... "We'll forget the Hancock issue entirely in this column and focus on the good"...... Well that's bloody helpful! Someone who may be able to give an unbiased opinion ducks out. All we know is that he doesn't rate that part of events as being part of the "good". And that's it....that's all the Star give us. it's almost as if no one cheated......no one gave a bull-excrement excuse for cheating...no one spat a dummy, threw toys or walked out. After all it will all soon be forgotten in the mists of time... 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 It headlines there was controversy then gives the opinions of those involved. What more were they supposed to do? Can't just accuse people because that would satisfy some people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.