RPNY Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 Amen to that brother Id put money on a Red Bull rider winning next year too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 Amen to that brother Id put money on a Red Bull rider winning next year too! But then, what if you lose your potential winnings because one rider deliberately throws a race to make his main sponsor look good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanF Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) But then, what if you lose your potential winnings because one rider deliberately throws a race to make his main sponsor look good? In all honesty I just want to see the best 15 riders and I think we're as near dam it as we've ever been. Edited October 26, 2016 by RPNYC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 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. 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iris123 Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 But it doesn't say for the season,just the remainder,which as PR mentions doesn't mean his points up to that point are void If one or 2 of these lawyers are so certain of the wording let them take the case on.Bet they wouldn't and i bet the FIM have a lawyer who is also certain they are in the right 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanF Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 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.... You can be as patronizing as you like. Doesn't make you right. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noggin Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 One thing needs to stop and that is certain riders TW & GH the worst culprits, from assing about in other riders interviews, and the grin acting like a teenager, I mean ffs grow up, and I agree Monster joe should be no where near the pits if for no other reason than health & safety, I for one will be glad when the fake grin retires, never liked the bloke. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 One thing needs to stop and that is certain riders TW & GH the worst culprits, from assing about in other riders interviews, and the grin acting like a teenager, I mean ffs grow up, and I agree Monster joe should be no where near the pits if for no other reason than health & safety, I for one will be glad when the fake grin retires, never liked the bloke. Agree, jumping in on other riders' interviews is just not funny, clever or necessary, in fact a total embarrassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) 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 There's nothing more mickey mouse than blatantly ignoring the rules! 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. 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. Edited October 26, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 They're not poorly phrased in the slightest. They are very clear if you can read. My English comprehension is excellent and my interpretation is that the regulations are not clear. Lawyers of course always see the opportunity for conflict, but if you really have consulted two that claim it's black-and-white, then they're certainly not lawyers that I'd employ. I also have to wonder how well lawyers in Portugal grasp the nuances of English grammar, even though they no doubt have a respectable level of English. It's not that I'm in disagreement there should be some sanction, but it ultimately doesn't matter what anyone other than the FIM decides the regulation says. If people disagree then take it to the CAS, but who really wants to waste their money on lawyers arguing the toss over who won a gong in a minor sport? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 (edited) 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. For me this is your most persuasive argument. According to the reading of others who have a contrary view to BWitcher. If #45 had been 43 points ahead with two rounds to go; he could have stayed in Sweden after Stockholm on September 24 and not bothered with the the last two rounds at all. Despite being fit and healthy. He would still have have enough points so as to be unassailable. And there would be no sanction to prevent him. He could have avoided all the nonsense of travelling to Australia. And have side-stepped the prize giving ceremony completely at the Etihad. He could just have nipped along to the Berlin FIM Ceremony at the end of November, knowing that his prize was waiting for collection. Or would someone at the FIM have THEN invoked the rule BWitcher is quoting specifically to prevent such a travesty? YES they would. And BSI would have been clamouring behind the scenes to bring it about. It is to specifically preclude this scenario that could decimate the concluding GPs that this rule exists in this exact form. BWitcher's interpretation is correct JUST so that we avoid a situation where the World Champion-designate who is way ahead near the end cannot sh!t on us in this way and still claim the prize. Edited October 26, 2016 by Grand Central 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted October 26, 2016 Report Share Posted October 26, 2016 I think in that case fim would have taken quite a different interpretation. As that scenario is I think 1 of 2 scenarios the rule sims to address - riders picking and choosing meetings, and riders who are unable to take place due to say suspension or incarceration. Interestingly under that rule a rider who was unable to get a visa for a country would be ruled out of the series. But then, what if you lose your potential winnings because one rider deliberately throws a race to make his main sponsor look good?Tbf that has been a risk for all speedway history, you could add compatriot or club mate to the list.Walking out of the meeting was far worse than letting holder by imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foamfence Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 I think in that case fim would have taken quite a different interpretation. As that scenario is I think 1 of 2 scenarios the rule sims to address - riders picking and choosing meetings, and riders who are unable to take place due to say suspension or incarceration. Interestingly under that rule a rider who was unable to get a visa for a country would be ruled out of the series. Tbf that has been a risk for all speedway history, you could add compatriot or club mate to the list. Walking out of the meeting was far worse than letting holder by imo. There hasn't been betting allowed 'for all speedway history.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 One thing you are forgetting is Hancock says they gave him permission to withdraw,on grounds he wasn't in the the " frame of mind "to continue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeW Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 One thing you are forgetting is Hancock says they gave him permission to withdraw,on grounds he wasn't in the the " frame of mind "to continue.But his own website says he withdrew from the meeting in protest!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 But his own website says he withdrew from the meeting in protest!!!! As George W Bush might say we 'misunderestimate' Mr Hancock. His ability to 'retrofit' excuses to previous 'misspeaks' to suit his current needs is of a standard worthy of a Presidential Candidate. In the 'Land of the Free' trust is a 'monstrously' scare commodity at the moment. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 One thing you are forgetting is Hancock says they gave him permission to withdraw,on grounds he wasn't in the the " frame of mind "to continue. That's the cover story concocted afterwards by all parties. He looked really upset didn't he when he gatecrashed Holder's interview. You can be as patronizing as you like. Doesn't make you right. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f-s-p Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 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. Have you had any work done this week, or the stuff you normally do? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 27, 2016 Report Share Posted October 27, 2016 Have you had any work done this week, or the stuff you normally do? Oh ****.. I knew there was something I was forgetting 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.