BWitcher Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 As did several others that were smarter than Mr Grin, it was obvious but more difficult to prove. In addition the WTC couldn't have been more fixed in certain races, did the culprits become 'ineligible'? The rule is not CLEAR (using your favoured word) but as we learn you know best. You've made your point several times, created your own thread campaign, but what do you want? Hancock to be disqualified (oh,,, that wasn't in the rule but expect your usual response) so your golden child becomes the champion by default? Going into Melbourne Hancock was the deserved WC after the sad loss of Doyle's participation. Albeit concluding in a severe impact on his reputation. I think that's enough. You appear to be missing something pretty basic here. The others weren't excluded from a race for cheating and didn't then withdraw from the FIM Grand Prix Speedway World Championship, so why on earth would they become ineligible? Try and debate the point sensibly instead of inserting phrases such as 'golden child'. What you 'think' is irrelevant. What past riders may or may not have done is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rule, which you are unable to argue with. The discussion is moot anyway as the FIM, fully aware of what the rule says and means have given the cover story of him being given permission to withdraw due to being upset. Not disqualified, ineligible for the championship. Which is in the rule. Obviously the powers that be have interpreted the rule differently, but trying to pretend that isn't a reasonable reading of the rule is deliberately obtuse. I think it's pretty clear they haven't interpreted the rule differently. That is why it's been stated (after the event of course and after questions were being asked) that the FIM gave permission for him to withdraw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 FIM,Hancock and integrity of the sport are in Sh#t,but as usual they will just sit and do nothing and wait for it to blow over.That seems to be their policy on Major C#ck-UpS.Roll on next season!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 FIM,Hancock and integrity of the sport are in Sh#t,but as usual they will just sit and do nothing and wait for it to blow over.That seems to be their policy on Major C#ck-UpS.Roll on next season!!! They have done something, they've covered their backs by saying Hancock was given permission to withdraw due to him being 'upset'. Quite ridiculous of course, but it covers them on the rule rendering Hancock ineligible for the title. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodgy Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 You appear to be missing something pretty basic here. The others weren't excluded from a race for cheating and didn't then withdraw from the FIM Grand Prix Speedway World Championship, so why on earth would they become ineligible? Try and debate the point sensibly instead of inserting phrases such as 'golden child'. What you 'think' is irrelevant. What past riders may or may not have done is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rule, which you are unable to argue with. The discussion is moot anyway as the FIM, fully aware of what the rule says and means have given the cover story of him being given permission to withdraw due to being upset. I think it's pretty clear they haven't interpreted the rule differently. That is why it's been stated (after the event of course and after questions were being asked) that the FIM gave permission for him to withdraw. There were several fixed races in that meeting, Hancock just made it too obvious. At no point did the referee exclude Hancock. His actions were stupid, trying to deny it increased his stupidity. He wasn't the only one denying the paying public - yet you think that's ok as they were not caught. You create a thread titled 'TW 2016 WC' and then tell me to debate sensibly. You are impossible to debate with as you previously clearly stated you are always right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 John Leslie has written plenty but here is my Q&A. Why no questioning about why GH appeared to gain speed after Holder went past him. Why no questioning about why GH rode tight with Holder around bends 3 and 4 on Lap 4 when he stated he went wide in the race in case he lost a chain, fell and got run over. How can he question the FIM jury's inspection of the bike as they know what works on a bike, what doesn't, what slows it down. They didn't believe GH. Fair enough, he coulda been probed on those points yes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromafar Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 They have done something, they've covered their backs by saying Hancock was given permission to withdraw due to him being 'upset'. Quite ridiculous of course, but it covers them on the rule rendering Hancock ineligible for the title. I quoted that earlier,it's a joke .Wonder if all riders would get that permission!!!!!! Doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) There were several fixed races in that meeting, Hancock just made it too obvious. At no point did the referee exclude Hancock. His actions were stupid, trying to deny it increased his stupidity. He wasn't the only one denying the paying public - yet you think that's ok as they were not caught. You create a thread titled 'TW 2016 WC' and then tell me to debate sensibly. You are impossible to debate with as you previously clearly stated you are always right. Tell me which other riders were excluded for cheating. When you can, you have an argument. You don't seem to grasp that the debate is regarding a rider who was excluded and subsequently walked out of the meeting. Not who may or may not have done something. Edited October 28, 2016 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Hancock is a FIM ambassador. Maybe that explains why its being swept under the carpet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odds On Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 No doubt he'll have a farewell meeting somewhere in the UK when he decides to call it a day...well he can do one if he thinks I'm giving to give him a single penny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 (edited) Hancock is a FIM ambassador. In which case, he should be forced to hand back his Ferrero Rocher. . Edited October 28, 2016 by Grand Central Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReturn Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 No doubt he'll have a farewell meeting somewhere in the UK when he decides to call it a day...well he can do one if he thinks I'm giving to give him a single penny. Judging by his Twitter account, lots of sycophants will do! When he's back in Cardiff I hope speedway fans vocalise exactly what they think of him by loudly booing. They have done something, they've covered their backs by saying Hancock was given permission to withdraw due to him being 'upset'. Quite ridiculous of course, but it covers them on the rule rendering Hancock ineligible for the title. And his fine for attacking Nicki was peanuts too. There was no 'bringing the sport into disrepute' charge for his subsequent website post about NIcki. Seems to me like Hancock can do exactly what he wants and the speedway authorities and press simply roll over. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Judging by his Twitter account, lots of sycophants will do! When he's back in Cardiff I hope speedway fans vocalise exactly what they think of him by loudly booing. And his fine for attacking Nicki was peanuts too. There was no 'bringing the sport into disrepute' charge for his subsequent website post about NIcki. Seems to me like Hancock can do exactly what he wants and the speedway authorities and press simply roll over. No wonder he's always grinning then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Is Greg really that bad of a guy? I'm not that big a fan of his but people are really steaming into him these days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillipsr Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Is Greg really that bad of a guy? I'm not that big a fan of his but people are really steaming into him these days! No probably not the reason people are 'steaming in' is that he and his fans like to portray him as a whiter than white peoples champion, A man who would do no wrong ever and is a shining example for Speedway thankfully people are starting to see through that and are rightfully questioning why he keeps getting away with actions that others are lambasted for. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nw42 Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Is Greg really that bad of a guy? I'm not that big a fan of his but people are really steaming into him these days! He's brought it on himself over recent months, the facade has slipped and we're seeing he's just like plenty of others. So no he's not that bad but he sure ain't what he has presented himself as for all these years. He couldn't have picked a worse time to do what he did in terms of this forum, there's hardly any speedway to digest, so he's the focus of attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 He's brought it on himself over recent months, the facade has slipped and we're seeing he's just like plenty of others. So no he's not that bad but he sure ain't what he has presented himself as for all these years. He couldn't have picked a worse time to do what he did in terms of this forum, there's hardly any speedway to digest, so he's the focus of attention. Yea good point well made, it's the main talking point of the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secsy1 Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Lance Armstrong was always perceived as whiter than white and then look what happened. Greg did himself no favours by doing what he did in the Speedway World Cup, now this!!!!! Well everyone will make their own minds up irrespective of bias reports to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endeavour Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Few years ago he didn't turn up for the USA for a qualifier. A rider I have a lot of respect for but some of his actions have tarnished his image. If NP had tackled him all hell would have broke loose but Greg was congratulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPNY Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Because Greg is currently in the wrong it doesn't mean Nicki didn't get what was coming to him. Two very different issues! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endeavour Posted October 28, 2016 Report Share Posted October 28, 2016 Because Greg is currently in the wrong it doesn't mean Nicki didn't get what was coming to him. Two very different issues! Yes two very different issues. Get what's coming to him? Quite a statement . 3 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.