Melbourne 2016

[Grand Central]

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

 

 

YES

 

Clearly, as the competent legal entity of the FIM Jury has 'convicted' him.

And he has not appealed.

 

So definitively guilty, beyond doubt, of breaking the FIM Sporting Code,

.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Grand Central

[RPNY]

I think that is a very fair assessment Phil.

And personally I would say the damage to his reputation and legacy will be a bigger punishment than any fine the FIM throw at him.

YES

Clearly, as the competent legal entity of the FIM Jury has 'convicted' him.
And he has not appealed.

So definitively guilty, beyond doubt, of breaking the FIM Sporting Code,
.

Only reason he hasn't appealed is because it doesnt effect his world title. otherwise he would and there is simply no way of proving beyond doubt that he let Holder pass - even tho we would all bet our houses on it...

It's too much of a grey area here. As I previously said this isnt the first time it happened and wasnt even the last time it happened that night...

[Grand Central]

Jury found him guilty.

He does not appeal.

 

He rightly remains guilty.

 

All the rest is for the birds.

[IronScorpion]

Heat 9 Only

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-XE87sPuCc

 

Greg looks behind twice on each of the 1st 3 laps, once passed gains speed down back straight & races tightly round bends 3 & 4. Could he have passed Chris, did he try.

If Doyle was still fit & the other riders with a shout of the title, would Greg have still felt that strong about a decision to withdraw from the meeting.

 

I doubt it.

 

Plenty of "if's" & "buts" surrounding the Melbourne GP

[AFCB Wildcat]

[quote name="PHILIPRISING" post="2869400" timestamp="147740

 

 

 

Hancock has come up with a plausible explanation and one that a court of law might find hard to discount. Only he knows whether or not his bike suffered a mechanical failure. No one can definitively prove one way or another.

 

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

 

Has he come up with a plausible explanation though?

The explanations I've seen allegedly from Greg say firstly a lever attached to the handlebars then a lower bracket assembly on the clutch arm coming loose. I don't see how either would cause a slipping clutch which is what he described.

The only reason I can see for the clutch slipping would be failure of the friction plates or springs.

The problems described could only fail to release the clutch which would not be a hazard while riding and after the race he would only need to pull the kill cord after slowing the bike down or stall the engine so to me it doesn't make sense unless someone can explain otherwise?

[Dawkins20]

BUT it doesn't. He could not score any more points but the regulations say nothing about taking away any he has already accumulated.

I am not defending Greg here, and publicly denounced his non-appearance in the latter stages of the SWC, but the fact is that none of us know 100 per cent or can prove without a shadow of a doubt that he allowed Holder to pass him.

 

Hancock has come up with a plausible explanation and one that a court of law might find hard to discount. Only he knows whether or not his bike suffered a mechanical failure. No one can definitively prove one way or another.

 

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

 

....

 

https://translate.google.hu/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hu&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsportowefakty.wp.pl%2Fzuzel%2F640196%2Fbadanie-motocykla-grega-hancocka-nie-wykazalo-usterki&edit-text=

 

It writes here that the race jury made a technical inspection of his bike after the race and found no failure at all.

 

So yes that makes him guilty and a liar as well. The FIM and BSI as well should come out with a statement and not dig their heads in the sand assisting in Hancocks lying and cover up.

[BWitcher]

BUT it doesn't. He could not score any more points but the regulations say nothing about taking away any he has already accumulated.

I am not defending Greg here, and publicly denounced his non-appearance in the latter stages of the SWC, but the fact is that none of us know 100 per cent or can prove without a shadow of a doubt that he allowed Holder to pass him.

 

Hancock has come up with a plausible explanation and one that a court of law might find hard to discount. Only he knows whether or not his bike suffered a mechanical failure. No one can definitively prove one way or another.

 

Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt?

 

He will and does argue that the FIM's decision to deduct his points from Heat 9 branded him a cheat without a fair trial. His withdrawal in protest at that alleged accusation was, I agree, ill-tempered and without thought for the speedway world at large but it did not risk him losing the title because there is nothing in the regulations, as seen by the FIM, to retrospectively take points away.

 

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.

Edited October 25, 2016 by BWitcher

[RPNY]

Think there's just different interpretations here Bwitch, in fairness all he tried to do was explain how he sees the situation as a whole..

[Trees]

https://translate.google.hu/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hu&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsportowefakty.wp.pl%2Fzuzel%2F640196%2Fbadanie-motocykla-grega-hancocka-nie-wykazalo-usterki&edit-text=

 

It writes here that the race jury made a technical inspection of his bike after the race and found no failure at all.

 

So yes that makes him guilty and a liar as well. The FIM and BSI as well should come out with a statement and not dig their heads in the sand assisting in Hancocks lying and cover up.

Now that is damning!!

[iris123]

Even if the rule means he should be out of the world championship(which i and others don't think it does) the FIM don't agree.How often in speedway do the authorities have their own interpretation of when the rules apply?Importantly i wonder who writes these rules?If it is the same person that writes some of the FIM press releases then their first language isn't english anyway.

 

Undoubtedly though,Hancock should be punished for his actions due to the heat 9 incident.

 

 

One action that could be possible,although unlikely is for a fan(an American citizen who was at the meeting) to take action against Hancock or the FIM for robbing them of an honest end to the world championship.Employ an American lawyer to look into possible corruption,as the US has done with FIFA?

[Mark]

Heat 9 Only

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-XE87sPuCc

 

Greg looks behind twice on each of the 1st 3 laps, once passed gains speed down back straight & races tightly round bends 3 & 4. Could he have passed Chris, did he try.

If Doyle was still fit & the other riders with a shout of the title, would Greg have still felt that strong about a decision to withdraw from the meeting.

 

I doubt it.

 

Plenty of "if's" & "buts" surrounding the Melbourne GP

In his evidence via statement Hancock said his bike was getting worse and he went wide to avoid getting run over in the event of his chain coming off. But on bend 3 and 4 of lap 3 he rode an inside line into the corner. Another contradiction of visual fact in his very flimsy statement.

 

https://translate.google.hu/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=hu&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsportowefakty.wp.pl%2Fzuzel%2F640196%2Fbadanie-motocykla-grega-hancocka-nie-wykazalo-usterki&edit-text=

 

It writes here that the race jury made a technical inspection of his bike after the race and found no failure at all.

 

So yes that makes him guilty and a liar as well. The FIM and BSI as well should come out with a statement and not dig their heads in the sand assisting in Hancocks lying and cover up.

It will take a lot to get out of this big hole now. Hancock has let himself and the sport down very badly.

Edited October 25, 2016 by marky

[Ghostwalker]

Even if the rule means he should be out of the world championship(which i and others don't think it does) the FIM don't agree.How often in speedway do the authorities have their own interpretation

of when the rules apply?Importantly i wonder who writes these rules?If it is the same person that writes some of the FIM press releases then their first language isn't english anyway.

 

Possible, rules are written like this with intent so that FIM has some manoeuvring space should situations like this arise.

[PHILIPRISING]

 

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.

I'M sorry but your interpretation is at odds with that of the FIM. They could have prevented him from appearing in subsequent rounds, although no doubt had that been the case with rounds still to go he would have immediately lodged an appeal, but they cannot and could not take way the points he had previously scored or disqualified him from championship.

 

And, incidentally, this is not a question of what I do or do not disagree with but how the FIM view it

[BWitcher]

I'M sorry but your interpretation is at odds with that of the FIM. They could have prevented him from appearing in subsequent rounds, although no doubt had that been the case with rounds still to go he would have immediately lodged an appeal, but they cannot and could not take way the points he had previously scored or disqualified him from championship.

 

And, incidentally, this is not a question of what I do or do not disagree with but how the FIM view it

 

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

1. 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.

[Midland Red]

1969 Wembley Ivan Mauger ,cheated Nigel Boocock out of a bronze medal by allowing his team mate Sjosten to pass him .in just asobvious a move as this one , back then there was little sponsorship and although many lost respect for him , the financialconsequences were zero , Hancocks case is quite different .It would only a take few Letters to monster energy pointing out that thebrand encouraged cheating and was damaging the sport and Hancock would lose a lot more than the points ..Monster energy world class cheats

I remember it well, and was well vexed by it. But Ivan, while he was applauded as the ultra-professional speedway rider (the like of which we'd not seen before), he was not put forward as Mr Nice Guy. Hancock, whilst a decent enough rider, has oft been put forward as Mr Nice Guy, but his actions (v Nicki, at SWC, at Melbourne) show he is exactly the opposite of that.

[PHILIPRISING]

 

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

1. 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.

AND no doubt you could find two lawyers who agree. That's what lawyers do. But nothing will change your mind, and nor should it, but nothing will change the FIM either.

 

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

1. 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.

AND no doubt you could find two lawyers who agree. That's what lawyers do. But nothing will change your mind, and nor should it, but nothing will change the FIM either.

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

one thing that is crystal clear on all this is that monster joe should be banned from entering the pits during a meeting , it should of been done a long time ago , you cant have a sponsor of a few riders openly acting like a chimp in the middle of what is supposed to be a professional pit area, he has no right to be there , last night I spoke to a member of the FIM who said in his opinion greg's actions were obvious but he doubted it was greg's idea, so it was obvious where he thought that idea had come from

[Bald Bloke]

Agree that Greg shouldn't loose his title.It was one race.I do think he should punished for pulling out of the meeting.

 

In the first statement from Greg I read something along the lines of the clutch lever came loose.It can cause the chain to come off.Really ?

 

The last I read said something like the lower clutch arm came loose.

 

If the clutch lever on the bars or the lower lever on the countershaft came loose the only thing it might do is cause the bike to creap farward on the start line.It wont cause the clutch to slip(loosing speed).Greg made a good start!! Once to the first corner you could take the levers off the bike and all the clutch plates for that matter and the bike will act the same.You only need them after the race when you pull the clutch in to turn around when you come back to the pits.Someone in the camp don't know their onions

 

Just my opinion

Edited October 25, 2016 by Bald Bloke

[foamfence]

one thing that is crystal clear on all this is that monster joe should be banned from entering the pits during a meeting , it should of been done a long time ago , you cant have a sponsor of a few riders openly acting like a chimp in the middle of what is supposed to be a professional pit area, he has no right to be there , last night I spoke to a member of the FIM who said in his opinion greg's actions were obvious but he doubted it was greg's idea, so it was obvious where he thought that idea had come from

Exactly!

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

just to add I don't think greg should lose his title but should get a big fine and start next season with a 10 point deduction