Melbourne 2016

[June01]

Would have been a completely different story if Nicki was behind him.

[waiheke1]

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.

Seriously? you are really asking why?

By letting holder past, greg ensured holder secured an extra point in his effort to catch zmarzlicks point lead.

Had greg feigned an ef, then both holder and zmarzlick (in the same heat remember) would have gained a point. so that wouldn't have helped holder at all.

AS for your earlier comment about "being a genius to work it out" - it doesn't take much thoufht to work out that an extra point is useful in a close battle for a medal.

But again, the key topic should surely be whether greg was inelegible to be world champion after refusing to take part in the rest of the series.

[tyler42]

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.

As others have said. Surely if... your having bike problems and you think you are going to be a danger to the other three riders, then in a safe manner, your hand goes up to let the other riders know you are having problems. What Hancock did was slow down, rode wide in to the turn. Let Holder pass and then speed up to make sure the other two did not get by.

 

Sorry but if you can't see that, then you are defending the indefensible.

 

The major problem hear is..... Team Monster imo. If Holder were not a Monster sponsored rider, then I don't think Hancock would have let him past.

 

I don't know what can be done, but it does seem as if Monster Joe has a lot more influence than meets the eye!

[Grand Central]

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.

 

This reads like an audition to replace Roger Lloyd Pack as Trigger.

[iris123]

WHEN you read the contributions to this forum by Phil and gustix,you really wonder what job interviews at the Star were like.But i guess they haven't improved much going by this 'contribution' by Burbidge.Letting their readership down by not giving the whole story

[norbold]

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.

Really? Is that the best you can come up with? I think others have explained why above. Those elusive straws are getting further away than ever, Phil. Stop digging.

Edited October 30, 2016 by norbold

[Guest]

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.

 

I don't see how you can be more specific than that PHILRISING.

[Vincent Blachshadow]

Anybody remember heat 20, Bydgoszcz, 2000?

[Gavan]

Very strange how Mr Rising states that Greg should have just faked an engine failure and pulled off!!

 

That wouldnt have given Holder an extra point over Zmarlik!!!

Anybody remember heat 20, Bydgoszcz, 2000?

Yep where according to Shovlar it was their 5th ride and Screen spent the whole race looking over his shoulder for Mark , and the fact that Screen was flying and Mark wasnt (but yet it was Marks 3rd ride and he won his previous one, and it was Screens 6th ride)

 

When in reality Screen moved over on bend 3 of lap one , let Mark up the inside and then made sure Hampel couldnt get past.

He didnt look for 3 laps making it blatant, he simply moved over on lap one.

 

He didnt say he had engine problems , he just moved out of the way and admitted it.

 

Hancock looked far more obvious

He then threw a hissy fit

And made up some crap about his cluthch.

[WembleyLion]

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.

 

Firstly I must say that I really do appreciate you coming on here Philip especially as you know you are on a hiding to nothing on occasions.

 

However, I am amazed by your comment above and staggered that you haven't yet worked out that the best way for Hancock to help Holder was exactly as he did - he needed to stay second in the race to avoid Zmarzlik making up the point he had just gifted to Holder!

Edited October 30, 2016 by WembleyLion

[John Leslie]

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.

Did you really just write that???????

 

Do you really not realise that Hancock slowing to let Holder past, but then speeding up to keep Zmarzlik behind, was designed to help Holder gain an extra point in the bid to catch Zmarzlik?

 

Do you really not realise that if Hancock faked an engine failure he would be handing an extra point to every other rider in the race, which wouldn't give Holder any advantage in the bid to catch Zmarzlik?

 

 

Perhaps if there had been a full (non-monster biased) report in the Speedway Star explaining how the cheating plan was designed to work, and how it was foiled by correct application of the rules, then you may have been able to read it and then you would understand.

[PHILIPRISING]

AS I stated earlier, for those who haven't grasped it, I was playing Devil's Advocate. The only person who actually knows what happened is Greg Hancock.He gave his version and the FIM Jury, along with many on here refused to believe it. As I have said it looked suspicious to me too but it still amounted to Greg's word against the FIM Jury, which I'm not sure would have been a cast iron case in a Court of Law.

 

I have known Greg since he first had a practice spin at Cradley Heath. Sure, beneath that 'Grin" facade lays a tough cookie who like most riders, most of us probably, will do what is best for himself. But I have never known him lie or cheat which is perhaps why I find it hard to think he would have done so in Melbourne on the rather spurious reason that one point might have helped Holder overtake Zmarzlik. It didn't. But I really don't know without a shadow of a doubt.

 

If, in fact, Greg did deliberately allow Holder to pass then he made a pig's ear of it, hence the subsequent furore, and was even more stupid in not envisaging the storm that would follow, especially after the FIM issued a directive to riders about not giving 100 per cent in races.

 

I reiterate, he was plainly wrong to withdraw from the meeting but the FIM chose to take no further action but even if they had ruled him ineligible for the rest of the championship it would not have resulted in him being denied the World title. I am at a loss to find that some find that hard to grasp.

[TheReturn]

AS I stated earlier, for those who haven't grasped it, I was playing Devil's Advocate. The only person who actually knows what happened is Greg Hancock.He gave his version and the FIM Jury, along with many on here refused to believe it. As I have said it looked suspicious to me too but it still amounted to Greg's word against the FIM Jury, which I'm not sure would have been a cast iron case in a Court of Law.

 

I have known Greg since he first had a practice spin at Cradley Heath. Sure, beneath that 'Grin" facade lays a tough cookie who like most riders, most of us probably, will do what is best for himself. But I have never known him lie or cheat which is perhaps why I find it hard to think he would have done so in Melbourne on the rather spurious reason that one point might have helped Holder overtake Zmarzlik. It didn't. But I really don't know without a shadow of a doubt.

 

If, in fact, Greg did deliberately allow Holder to pass then he made a pig's ear of it, hence the subsequent furore, and was even more stupid in not envisaging the storm that would follow, especially after the FIM issued a directive to riders about not giving 100 per cent in races.

 

I reiterate, he was plainly wrong to withdraw from the meeting but the FIM chose to take no further action but even if they had ruled him ineligible for the rest of the championship it would not have resulted in him being denied the World title. I am at a loss to find that some find that hard to grasp.

 

I accept you were playing devils advocate and I don't have a problem with you holding an opinion.

 

But why are people/speedway press not making more out of the fact he 'chose' to withdraw from the meeting because he was 'not in right frame of mind'. Just like the SWC at Belle Vue he's short changed the fans, and the excuse he used is pathetic beyond belief.

 

Greg does what Greg wants, and it's about time BSI, speedway authorities and the speedway press called him on it.

[Mark]

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?

 

No. I think the article was bias, as simple as that. There was no questioning of Hancock's statement about him going wide in the race. Burbidge forgets to ask "why did Hancock then ride tight to Holder on the last bend". No questioning of how the slowing Hancock entering the first bend of Lap 4 suddenly quickens up when Holder went past. The tape shows him gaining on Holder on the back straight. That is without doubt for the court of law. If his bike was not working properly, he was worried about losing a chain, then he would have continued to slow. He would have ridden wide of Holder on the last bend.

 

Burbidge challenges the FIM bike inspection but nothing Hancock says.

 

Why would he slow, why do it ? Are you that blind ? Hancock already Champion so lets do our best to get a Monster 1,2,3 on the podium by getting Holder up to 3rd place.

[Grand Central]

AS I stated earlier, for those who haven't grasped it, I was playing Devil's Advocate. The only person who actually knows what happened is Greg Hancock.He gave his version and the FIM Jury, along with many on here refused to believe it. As I have said it looked suspicious to me too but it still amounted to Greg's word against the FIM Jury, which I'm not sure would have been a cast iron case in a Court of Law.

 

I have known Greg since he first had a practice spin at Cradley Heath. Sure, beneath that 'Grin" facade lays a tough cookie who like most riders, most of us probably, will do what is best for himself. But I have never known him lie or cheat which is perhaps why I find it hard to think he would have done so in Melbourne on the rather spurious reason that one point might have helped Holder overtake Zmarzlik. It didn't. But I really don't know without a shadow of a doubt.

 

If, in fact, Greg did deliberately allow Holder to pass then he made a pig's ear of it, hence the subsequent furore, and was even more stupid in not envisaging the storm that would follow, especially after the FIM issued a directive to riders about not giving 100 per cent in races.

 

I reiterate, he was plainly wrong to withdraw from the meeting but the FIM chose to take no further action but even if they had ruled him ineligible for the rest of the championship it would not have resulted in him being denied the World title. I am at a loss to find that some find that hard to grasp.

 

 

YES ... At least in the midst of all the other nonsense you've stumbled across something correct

 

So why not tear a strip off the reporter who couldn't spot that and wouldn't report on it like that in his many thousands of words.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Grand Central

[Mark]

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.

If Hancock retired with a bike failure Holder would have won 3pts with Zmartzik 2pts. As Hancock was in between them Holder gets 3pts with Zmartzik 1pt.

 

I cannot believe you can't work that out.

Edited October 30, 2016 by marky

[JCookie]

Why not just hire a decent journalist who doesn't really know the inner workings of speedway? Burbidge just comes across like a work experience student who has been unwittingly thrust into the top job.

[Mark]

The only person who actually knows what happened is Greg Hancock.

that is something I would doubt very much.

[Grand Central]

The only person who actually knows what happened is Greg Hancock.

 

that is something I would doubt very much.

 

Oh yes.

Spot on, Marky

 

And quite ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Grand Central

[RPNY]

I'm amazed how some on here are so one sided in their views. Phil has amdmitted he thinks Greg's argument for Holder passing him was prettty thin & also that he feels Greg was completely in the wrong withdrawing from the rest of the meeting. However he makes a valid point in there were many better ways he could have allowed Holder through where he coulda have saved face. I also full respect his comment of having known Greg since he was 19 & just cannot see him cheat in that way. What I would say is, that he always keeps his nearest young rivals 'onside' so to speak. So I for one cannot seem him him screwing over Zmarzlik like that. It just isn't how Hancock plays the game.

Another side note, although I agree Monster Joe should not be jumping around in the pits like a cheerleader, I think some here massively overestimate how much power/sway he has. It really isn't that great. And for those of you who think he and Greg had a pre race conversation about making the start then gifting Holder a point are very much mistaken. Also remember Woffinden had run a last in his 2nd ride so gifting Holder points meant his silver medal was in jeopardy. He's another Monster rider.

Yes the last 4 years have produced 'Monster' world champions but we're any undeserved? As previously said maybe Holder was lucky in 2012 with the semi final but I stand by it was more Torun & Nicki's reputation that got him back in the re run.

I'm not saying I fully disagree with this who are annoyed at Hancock on here. But there are some vilifying people who are just to at least try and look at both sides of the story. And as much as I try and respect everyone's point of view on here, there are many current & previous riders who with nothing to gain, think gregs exclusion was pretty terrible. They know him as a rider & as a person & really their judgement sits a bit stronger the ours who just THINK we know..