Melbourne 2016

[JoeW]

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

But this is not what the regulations say. He is not eligible to be the champion. You can't make up what you think the punishment should be if the actual punishment is set out in the regulations.

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

But this is not what the regulations say. He is not eligible to be the champion. You can't make up what you think the punishment should be if the actual punishment is set out in the regulations.

I know but im thinking about the sports already embarrassing reputation , can we really afford another big embarrassment ? I agree he shouldn't get off scott free but I care about my beloved sport and just feel this will make us more of a mickey mouse sport in the eyes of the general public

[JoeW]

I know but im thinking about the sports already embarrassing reputation , can we really afford another big embarrassment ? I agree he shouldn't get off scott free but I care about my beloved sport and just feel this will make us more of a mickey mouse sport in the eyes of the general public

I accept your sentiments but rules is rules and should be followed. Perhaps next month's AGM will get rid of many of the ridiculous rules that have ruined the sport since the turn of the millennium.

[AFCB Wildcat]

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

I think there might be a bit of a problem if you took the clutch plates out! :0

[Bald Bloke]

No.They are only there for the start.Once the bike is moving they are not needed.

 

If they are fitted they need to be good or clutch slip will ocour.If u take them out once on the move it wont make a differeance

Edited October 25, 2016 by Bald Bloke

[AFCB Wildcat]

No.They are only there for the start.Once the bike is moving they are not needed.

 

If they are fitted they need to be good or clutch slip will ocour.If u take them out once on the move it wont make a differeance

Agreed that the clutch lever and release mechanism are only used for the start but without the plates to transmit drive to the back wheel you won't be going anywhere.

[gee jay]

No.They are only there for the start.Once the bike is moving they are not needed.

 

If they are fitted they need to be good or clutch slip will ocour.If u take them out once on the move it wont make a differeance

what do you think transmits the power from the engine through the chain to the back wheel ? i think you'll find it's called a clutch.

[Mark]

Hancock should not lose the 2016 title as he won that fairly with more points than the rest. But he should get a ban from a GP or three in 2017 for being a cheat at Melbourne. I base that on the FIM panel adjudication that he broke a rule..

[Bald Bloke]

what do you think transmits the power from the engine through the chain to the back wheel ? i think you'll find it's called a clutch.

Gregs clutch was perfect from the start..If either of the 2 clutch levers went ** up once on the move it wouldn't affect the bike s drive

In effect the clutch would be fixed in the out position.

 

That was in the extreme but if it was how Greg said his clutch lever was it wouldnt affect the bike once out of start.

.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Bald Bloke

[Humphrey Appleby]

But this is not what the regulations say.

The regulations don't say that at all. They're poorly phrased but that would not be my interpretation of how to interpret them, regardless of what I think about Hancock's behaviour.

[Bald Bloke]

gee jay.Trust me .If you like to tel me i'll try and expain

Edited October 26, 2016 by Bald Bloke

[IanT]

Well. well.has there ever been a more hotly debated topic?

 

I have read through the posts here and there are many perfectly good and valid points. The biggest loser here is the sport of speedway, closely followed by Greg Hancock's reputation, which is now definitely in the bin!

 

Like many others in this forum I have been watching speedway for many many years and seen many many races. I know what a mechanical failure, or a mechanical issue looks like on track. Watching heat 9 on TV Greg Hancock disappeared off my screen, he went that wide. Initially I did think it was mechanical but amazingly he found the speed again and "raced" to the line, didn't feel the need to go too wide on the last bend though! Comments on here saying proof beyond reasonable doubt are not necessarily needed at this point. We are not in a court of law. Not yet anyway! Everyone can only go on what they see, similar to any tribunal in sport. What was seen was enough for a riders camp to protest, an experienced referee and panel to agree, experienced ex-riders to comment that he "allowed" the pass and for the authorities to administer a suitable punishment. The only thing heard in his defence is "no-one can prove it" That's pretty much it. It's a bit like finding a dead body next to a man with a gun, and the guys says you didn't see me shoot therefore you cannot prove it. Hancock is guilty here. If he felt that hard done by then come on camera and say so, protest your innocence, show your bike to the camera, ride the rest of the meeting under protest if necessary, come out and try to win your remaining races and demonstrate what a racer and competitor you actually are. To walk out in a prima dona style strop is totally unacceptable, and adds to his guilt in the incident. (how dare you accuse me of cheating!!!)) To then insult the intelligence of the speedway public with such a lame and pathetic statement further exposes what type of character we have here.

 

I would not advocate stripping him of the title, despite it being very funny, it would actually serve no purpose. We are talking about his behaviour in one meeting not over the series. Walking out of a GP cannot be excused under any circumstances. You are cheating the series,you are cheating the paying public and you are cheating the other riders. The riders involved in Hancock's last 2 heats had their chances of scoring points significantly improved.

 

My view is that we need a statement of condemnation from either BSI or the FIM, or both. This then needs to be followed up with a level of punishment that befits the offence. My personal view would be ban from the opening 2, or maybe 3 GPs of next season. Send out a clear message that riders cannot simply walk away from decisions they don't like.

 

It's a shame that the season has finished this way as I thought this years was a great series. Bit of an anti-climax with Doyle's injury though, but the racing has been good.

[Fromafar]

No.They are only there for the start.Once the bike is moving they are not needed.

 

If they are fitted they need to be good or clutch slip will ocour.If u take them out once on the move it wont make a differeance

The only thing wrong with Greg's bike was his throttle hand,the rest is Bullsh#t IMO .Should get a ban or points deduction next season.It probably won't happen though.

[Mark]

It will be a good read in the Star. I hope they analyse all the facts including the report, with some FIM quotes, on Hancock's bike being in good shape after the heat. And then I hope they condem Hancock and say what we are all saying on here. Anything less would be poor journalism and weak. Anything less would be sucking up to Monster and Hancock.

Edited October 26, 2016 by marky

[foamfence]

It will be a good read in the Star. I hope they analyse all the facts including the report, with some FIM quotes, on Hancock's bike being in good shape after the heat. And then I hope they condem Hancock and say what we are all saying on here. Anything less would be poor journalism and weak. Anything less would be sucking up to Monster and Hancock.

I would be extremely surprised if what you 'hope' happens, they aren't exactly known for condemnations or passing opinions. Doubtless Philip will be on later to refute this.

[Grand Central]

There has never been anything written in the Star over the years that would give any reason to believe that it would carry ANY overt criticism of the sainted-one.

 

Quite the reverse.

 

 

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.

[Midland Red]

Well. well.has there ever been a more hotly debated topic?

 

I have read through the posts here and there are many perfectly good and valid points. The biggest loser here is the sport of speedway, closely followed by Greg Hancock's reputation, which is now definitely in the bin!

 

Like many others in this forum I have been watching speedway for many many years and seen many many races. I know what a mechanical failure, or a mechanical issue looks like on track. Watching heat 9 on TV Greg Hancock disappeared off my screen, he went that wide. Initially I did think it was mechanical but amazingly he found the speed again and "raced" to the line, didn't feel the need to go too wide on the last bend though! Comments on here saying proof beyond reasonable doubt are not necessarily needed at this point. We are not in a court of law. Not yet anyway! Everyone can only go on what they see, similar to any tribunal in sport. What was seen was enough for a riders camp to protest, an experienced referee and panel to agree, experienced ex-riders to comment that he "allowed" the pass and for the authorities to administer a suitable punishment. The only thing heard in his defence is "no-one can prove it" That's pretty much it. It's a bit like finding a dead body next to a man with a gun, and the guys says you didn't see me shoot therefore you cannot prove it. Hancock is guilty here. If he felt that hard done by then come on camera and say so, protest your innocence, show your bike to the camera, ride the rest of the meeting under protest if necessary, come out and try to win your remaining races and demonstrate what a racer and competitor you actually are. To walk out in a prima dona style strop is totally unacceptable, and adds to his guilt in the incident. (how dare you accuse me of cheating!!!)) To then insult the intelligence of the speedway public with such a lame and pathetic statement further exposes what type of character we have here.

 

I would not advocate stripping him of the title, despite it being very funny, it would actually serve no purpose. We are talking about his behaviour in one meeting not over the series. Walking out of a GP cannot be excused under any circumstances. You are cheating the series,you are cheating the paying public and you are cheating the other riders. The riders involved in Hancock's last 2 heats had their chances of scoring points significantly improved.

 

My view is that we need a statement of condemnation from either BSI or the FIM, or both. This then needs to be followed up with a level of punishment that befits the offence. My personal view would be ban from the opening 2, or maybe 3 GPs of next season. Send out a clear message that riders cannot simply walk away from decisions they don't like.

 

It's a shame that the season has finished this way as I thought this years was a great series. Bit of an anti-climax with Doyle's injury though, but the racing has been good.

 

WAITING to hear from Philip on this

(see what I did with the first word there, I must be a journalist!)

[jim3751]

If Greg wants to save his reputation at this stage in his career I would suggest he holds his hands up now as there's a good chance that by March it will have blown itself out. If he doesn't I can see even Kelvin and Nigel being tongue tied to describe him as a highly respected elder statesman of speedway.

[Bald Bloke]

I think there might be a bit of a problem if you took the clutch plates out! :0

I think you might be right about the plates.I had drank lots of falling down water last night.Think I had a brain fart.

[PHILIPRISING]

There has never been anything written in the Star over the years that would give any reason to believe that it would carry ANY overt criticism of the sainted-one.

 

Quite the reverse.

 

 

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.

THEN you obviously don't read SS very often. Publicly criticised his contract negotiations in Poland and his withdrawal from the SWC.

 

Haven't seen this week's edition myself but would expect them to report the FACTS.

 

Let's not forget that there has been plenty of riders and others on Twitter and the like defending Hancock and saying that his explanation of Heat 9 was sound. It is all about opinions.

Edited October 26, 2016 by PHILIPRISING