Melbourne 2016

[Fromafar]

I reserved judgement until I'd had a chance to read this week's Spar, but I have to say that the reporting of the GP was absolutely ridiculous biased waffle. I'd be embarrassed to put that out as a journalist.What are they actually paying though? BSI's reported revenue has been declining over the past few years, and there's been no increase in the amounts coming out North America. The sponsorship may be coming via a European subsidiary, but normally sponsors and organisers alike to trumpet how much they're investing.

Your right about Star Report absolute waffle,must have been worried about their invitation to end of season booze up.Water of a ducks back springs to mind.

[JoeW]

Just read this week's Star. Seems all (apart from Peter White who does't say anything much about the meeting) is written by Paul Burbidge and it is all "Grin this and Grin that'". Seems he can't do anything wrong despite cheating and pulling out of a meeting because he apparently didn't feel right. And, amazingly, getting no punishment at all.No comment at all from Rising, Clark & Skeels? Hope next week's edition includes a more balanced view. Or do Monster Energy actually control world speedway and the press these days? Been buying the Star since 1961 and it is sad to see what it has become. Just renewed my subscription three weeks ago and I have serious doubts if I will bother next year. The rules in British Speedway over the last twenty years are bad enough without our only weekly magazine not giving a balanced view.

[PHILIPRISING]

YOU want a comment? Okay, Paul did a brilliant job. Spoke to all parties concerned as he should have done. He reported what went on and while you and others might think that was with a biased eye I certainly wouldn't agree. It was not Paul's job to be judge and jury or give what the end of the day would simply be a personal view, no different to mine or anyone on here. Those of you bitterly complaining about what he wrote are only doing so because you don't agree with what Hancock says and what action the FIM took. As I say, plenty do.

 

I have watched a rerun of Heat 9 several times and can understand why many on here, but certainly no all in the great big world out there, think Hancock pulled over. I get that impression too but it has not in my view been proven beyond all reasonable doubt even if the FIM Jury decided so. Had it gone to an appeal in a Court of Law the outcome may have been very different.

 

But, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: why would he actually do that? Why so early in the meeting gift Holder a point when Chris was assured of a top eight place and still had two rides to compete to qualify for the semis and two more to actually win the final? So much could have happened to make that race irrelevant. Did the result of that race actually have any bearing on the outcome of the meeting? It was not as though it was a semi-final or final. So, I repeat, why do it?

 

Without what Hancock perceived as a gross miscarriage of justice he would not have taken the subsequent action that he did and this whole furore would not have taken the form that it has.

 

And comments like those made by Fromafar are as petty as they are ridiculous. End of season booze up? We should be so lucky.

[False dawn]

Well let's review this sensibly. We all know that the odds are on that Jason Dolye would have won the championship had he not been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Come back fighting, we want someone to challenge Emil for the championship next year. Yes I'm a big Greg fan. He always give opponents racing room even when it costs him points/meeting wins. Jumping in on others interviews, letting others through (?), walking out on world championship meetings, are all silly, even unacceptably. You've lost a big chunk of that admiration the general speedway public had for you winning a fourth WC at 46.

But forget any idea that the FIM is going to strip Greg of his title. You can debat the rules till you're blue in the face. The 2016 World Champion is Greg Hancock.

[JoeW]

Thanks for the response Philip. Hancock had enough points to win the World Championship. He did not need anymore so let Holder past - simple as that. He was rightly excluded from the race. So I don't understand the point you are trying to make. In years gone by most of the Star's reporters (and I am aware some had more than one name) had articles on finals. I just think Paul is biased towards Hancock (Grin) and that your magazine is also biased because of this. No reference at all to Nikki Pedersen's thoughts which I believe were before your printing deadline. Monster Energy have too much influence with sponsoring (or perhaps running) a competition and sponsoring three riders who appear therein. This should not happen.

[waiheke1]

YOU want a comment? Okay, Paul did a brilliant job. Spoke to all parties concerned as he should have done. He reported what went on and while you and others might think that was with a biased eye I certainly wouldn't agree. It was not Paul's job to be judge and jury or give what the end of the day would simply be a personal view, no different to mine or anyone on here. Those of you bitterly complaining about what he wrote are only doing so because you don't agree with what Hancock says and what action the FIM took. As I say, plenty do.

 

I have watched a rerun of Heat 9 several times and can understand why many on here, but certainly no all in the great big world out there, think Hancock pulled over. I get that impression too but it has not in my view been proven beyond all reasonable doubt even if the FIM Jury decided so. Had it gone to an appeal in a Court of Law the outcome may have been very different.

 

But, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: why would he actually do that? Why so early in the meeting gift Holder a point when Chris was assured of a top eight place and still had two rides to compete to qualify for the semis and two more to actually win the final? So much could have happened to make that race irrelevant. Did the result of that race actually have any bearing on the outcome of the meeting? It was not as though it was a semi-final or final. So, I repeat, why do it?

 

Without what Hancock perceived as a gross miscarriage of justice he would not have taken the subsequent action that he did and this whole furore would not have taken the form that it has.

 

And comments like those made by Fromafar are as petty as they are ridiculous. End of season booze up? We should be so lucky.

No comment at all on the key issue, which is the withdrawal from the meeting which would seem to make Hancock inelegible for the world chsmpionship?

 

And seriously questioning why do it? surely that was blatantly obvious, to give a sponsored mate an extra point in his quest for a medal. surely irrelevant what stage of the meeting it was, a point is a point. It was about the Championship not the meeting itself.

And no mention that Greg's explanation didn't match either the fim inspection of his bike or his behaviour as soon as passed by Holder?

Edited October 29, 2016 by waihekeaces1

[zlata prilba]

Bottom line is Hancock is the World Champion - just move on.

 

It might keep some people awake at night but nothing is going to change the situation.

What about the people that had a bet on the meeting result that got screwed by Hancocks actions by walking out I can imagine some big money was placed on this meeting

Edited October 29, 2016 by zlata prilba

[Star Lady]

YOU want a comment? Okay, Paul did a brilliant job. Spoke to all parties concerned as he should have done. He reported what went on and while you and others might think that was with a biased eye I certainly wouldn't agree. It was not Paul's job to be judge and jury or give what the end of the day would simply be a personal view, no different to mine or anyone on here. Those of you bitterly complaining about what he wrote are only doing so because you don't agree with what Hancock says and what action the FIM took. As I say, plenty do.

 

 

 

 

 

So did he speak to Pawlicki, who allegegly made the complaint in the first place? Did he speak to any of the Polish contingent? Did he speak to any of the Danes or Swedes? Did he speak to Armando Castagna? Or Krister Gardell? or any other FIM officials?

 

I ask because I haven't read it but I would suggest that all those above are interested parties, so if he did speak to them did he quote them. If so could you be kind enough to tell us their replies. I'd especially be interested in the views of Castagna and Gardell as they apparently formed part of the FIM jury that imposed the punishment and I doubt they changed their minds before the SS was published.

[PHILIPRISING]

No comment at all on the key issue, which is the withdrawal from the meeting which would seem to make Hancock inelegible for the world chsmpionship?

 

And seriously questioning why do it? surely that was blatantly obvious, to give a sponsored mate an extra point in his quest for a medal. surely irrelevant what stage of the meeting it was, a point is a point. It was about the Championship not the meeting itself.

And no mention that Greg's explanation didn't match either the fim inspection of his bike or his behaviour as soon as passed by Holder?

BUT the extra point didn't get him a medal and he would have been a genius to work out that it would.. Hancock's withdrawal from the meeting (which I profoundly disagree with) didn't make him ineligible for the title only any subsequent rounds had there been any. The FIM, as reported, chose to take no further action.

 

Why was it necessary to "mention' that Greg's version of events didn't match that of the FIM's? It was there in black and white.

What about the people that had a bet on the meeting result that got screwed by Hancocks actions by walking out I can imagine some big money was placed on this meeting

AGREE, that was wrong.

 

So did he speak to Pawlicki, who allegegly made the complaint in the first place? Did he speak to any of the Polish contingent? Did he speak to any of the Danes or Swedes? Did he speak to Armando Castagna? Or Krister Gardell? or any other FIM officials?

 

I ask because I haven't read it but I would suggest that all those above are interested parties, so if he did speak to them did he quote them. If so could you be kind enough to tell us their replies. I'd especially be interested in the views of Castagna and Gardell as they apparently formed part of the FIM jury that imposed the punishment and I doubt they changed their minds before the SS was published.

YES, he spoke to all the FIM officials. Don't think it was Pawlicki who allegedly made a complaint but certainly no one wanted to make any public comment. And, with respect, if you want to know their replies buy a copy of Speedway Star.

Edited October 29, 2016 by PHILIPRISING

[Humphrey Appleby]

Okay, Paul did a brilliant job. Spoke to all parties concerned as he should have done. He reported what went on and while you and others might think that was with a biased eye I certainly wouldn't agree. It was not Paul's job to be judge and jury or give what the end of the day would simply be a personal view, no different to mine or anyone on here. Those of you bitterly complaining about what he wrote are only doing so because you don't agree with what Hancock says and what action the FIM took. As I say, plenty do

I don't really care about rights and wrongs of the Hancock situation, and it would not be unreasonable to report on Hancock's perspective regardless of whatever cobblers is used to justify pulling out of the meeting (and BTW, once the FIM Jury made a ruling, it was no longer 'alleged').

 

However, Burbridge's report was nothing more than a shill piece for Monster, and even Peter White seems to have been censored from discussing Hancock.

 

Of course supposedly independent journalists can pass comment on events as they see them - they do it all the time in other sports. But even if you had to toe an uncritical party line, then that could be done by presenting the viewpoints of other observers.

 

As it was, the 'brilliant' reporting wouldn't have disgraced Pravda.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Humphrey Appleby

[John Leslie]

YOU want a comment? Okay, Paul did a brilliant job.

 

I'm sure you're saying that because you have to. I'd hate to think you actually believed it.

[Fromafar]

YOU want a comment? Okay, Paul did a brilliant job. Spoke to all parties concerned as he should have done. He reported what went on and while you and others might think that was with a biased eye I certainly wouldn't agree. It was not Paul's job to be judge and jury or give what the end of the day would simply be a personal view, no different to mine or anyone on here. Those of you bitterly complaining about what he wrote are only doing so because you don't agree with what Hancock says and what action the FIM took. As I say, plenty do.

 

I have watched a rerun of Heat 9 several times and can understand why many on here, but certainly no all in the great big world out there, think Hancock pulled over. I get that impression too but it has not in my view been proven beyond all reasonable doubt even if the FIM Jury decided so. Had it gone to an appeal in a Court of Law the outcome may have been very different.

 

But, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: why would he actually do that? Why so early in the meeting gift Holder a point when Chris was assured of a top eight place and still had two rides to compete to qualify for the semis and two more to actually win the final? So much could have happened to make that race irrelevant. Did the result of that race actually have any bearing on the outcome of the meeting? It was not as though it was a semi-final or final. So, I repeat, why do it?

 

Without what Hancock perceived as a gross miscarriage of justice he would not have taken the subsequent action that he did and this whole furore would not have taken the form that it has.

 

And comments like those made by Fromafar are as petty as they are ridiculous. End of season booze up? We should be so lucky.

Are you pretending to forget that Zmarlik was also in that heat.Another one digging a hole IMO . Edited October 29, 2016 by Fromafar

[PHILIPRISING]

I don't really care about rights and wrongs of the Hancock situation, and it would not be unreasonable to report on Hancock's perspective regardless of whatever cobblers is used to justify pulling out of the meeting (and BTW, once the FIM Jury made a ruling, it was no longer 'alleged').

 

However, Burbridge's report was nothing more than a shill piece for Monster, and even Peter White seems to have been censored from discussing Hancock.

 

Of course supposedly independent journalists can pass comment on events as they see them - they do it all the time in other sports. But even if you had to toe an uncritical party line, then that could be done by presenting the viewpoints of other observers.

 

As it was, the 'brilliant' reporting wouldn't have disgraced Pravda.

YOU can be really quite stupid at times. Peter White censored? Give me a break. Pravda? Give me another break. Your jaundiced view of Speedway Star and self-proclaimed expertise on journalism is breathtaking.

 

I'm sure you're saying that because you have to. I'd hate to think you actually believed it.

HATE away ...

[SCB]

YOU want a comment? Okay, Paul did a brilliant job

So you think Greg "rose above" the FIM accusations? Christ.

[Hodgy]

I didn't 'deflect' your opinion. You've staggeringly questioned why other riders you claim 'cheated' didn't become 'ineligible'.

 

Well that's quite simply because cheating, throwing a race doesn't make you ineligible.

 

The discussion is regarding Hancock withdrawing from the meeting, as such your post was entirely irrelevant.

 

In an attempt to humor you I asked you to name me these other riders who you seem keen to bracket alongside Hancock i.e. excluded for cheating. Unable to name a single one you have come back with some childish petulance.

 

So if the discussion is all about Hancock withdrawing why do you continue with the cheating / particular race fixing allegation posts. You can't even keep up with yourself.

 

Open question. Do you think any other rider in the meeting assisted a team / country / sponsor mate?

[norbold]

It is very sad seeing you defending the indefensible, Philip. Though I guess you have to defend the Speedway Star in public. Nevertheless it is still a poor day for speedway journalism that you find yourself in this position.

 

But, honestly, making a big point about why would Greg Hancock gift his "team mate" a point after he had already made sure of the Championship when that point could have helped Holder get into a medal position shows a naiivety beyond belief....and actually I don't believe it. Clutching at non-existent straws springs to mind. It's just not worthy of you, Philip.

[Daniel Smith]

 

 

But, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment: why would he actually do that? Why so early in the meeting gift Holder a point when Chris was assured of a top eight place and still had two rides to compete to qualify for the semis and two more to actually win the final? So much could have happened to make that race irrelevant. Did the result of that race actually have any bearing on the outcome of the meeting? It was not as though it was a semi-final or final. So, I repeat, why do it?

 

Holder was still chasing down a medal chance hence Zmarzlik's complaint.

Hancock only had 1 chance to help Holder as they only meet once in the heat format and the medal challenger (Zmarzlik) happened to also be in that heat.

In the heat Holder was 1st, Zmarzlik 4th until Hancock's exclusion.

Holder finished just 2 points behind Zmarzlik for 3rd overall.

Had Hancock not been excluded he'd of likely made the Semi's + possible Final.

A further opportunity to hand points to Holder and/or take points from Zmarzlik.

 

After Hancock sealed the World Championship the objective was to get "Team Monster" an overall 1-2-3.

 

Hancock's sulking off did effect the outcome imo to the detriment of his own sponsors & Holder

[Grand Central]

It is not uncommon for me to differ on matters of opinion with PR.

And I know that I may have established myself as a Speedway Star 'basher' over the years.

But I have tried to present my honest opinion.

 

So, in some respects, it is almost pointless for me to add to the comments others have made here about this week's coverage. If will be dismissed contemptuously, I know, as jaundiced and irrelevant.

 

But I do still feel compelled to register just how dreadful I do feel the five or six reports all written by the same hand were this week.

All the articles were crafted so as to present the illusion of 'balanced' reporting but also with the thinly-veiled but consistent core purpose of reiterating the innocent of Hancock. The MO of the writer was clear and common to each.

 

PB certainly did a fine job in that respect.

He does deserve a 'Monster' thank you from his friends.

 

But Norbold is so right in expressing his sadness at these words from PR in defence/justification.

Really sad to read.

Edited October 29, 2016 by Grand Central

[PHILIPRISING]

It is very sad seeing you defending the indefensible, Philip. Though I guess you have to defend the Speedway Star in public. Nevertheless it is still a poor day for speedway journalism that you find yourself in this position.

 

But, honestly, making a big point about why would Greg Hancock gift his "team mate" a point after he had already made sure of the Championship when that point could have helped Holder get into a medal position shows a naiivety beyond belief....and actually I don't believe it. Clutching at non-existent straws springs to mind. It's just not worthy of you, Philip.

THEN why didn't Greg just feign an engine failure and pull off to the side when in all probability no one would have said a word? These things happen. He's certainly not stupid and if he wanted to do Chris a favour that would have been the way to do it.

[cyclone]

I'll admit that I rate GH as one of the best, but this quote from him in the Speedway Star does puzzle me:-

 

"I rode a really wide line to stay out of harm's way basically. There was something wrong with the bike and I always felt like something was going to happen.

"It's the same thing if I have a flat tyre. I try to get out of the way because there are three guys behind you. If something breaks there are three guys who could run over you."

 

As Greg looked back several times during the race when comfortably leading, was this because of the bike problem?

 

If so, why was it that rather than slow down and pull onto the centre green or drift to a standstill on the very outside of the bend, thereby getting out of the way of all three following riders, it appeared that after Holder had went to the front, that he suddenly resumed a normal racing line and speed, despite Zagar and Zmarzlik still being behind him?

 

Perhaps either Burbidge or Rising can ask him and publish his explanation

THEN why didn't Greg just feign an engine failure and pull off to the side when in all probability no one would have said a word? These things happen. He's certainly not stupid and if he wanted to do Chris a favour that would have been the way to do it.

 

If one was being cynical, the reason could have been that instead of Holder gaining 3 points over Zmarzlik, it would have been reduced to 2.

 

It would also have hampered Zmarzlik's attempt to secure the the silver medal from Greg's fellow Monster team mate, Tai Woffinden, by a further point in the overall standings.

Edited October 30, 2016 by cyclone