Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[Joe Beevers]

Mr BWitcher is absolutely correct here I'm afraid. Ineligible means he is no longer considered a part of the competition as soon as he breaks the rule.

 

The reason the wording states 'remainder of the season' is for a scenario where, for example, a rider says 'I'm not competing in x round because I feel the referee is incompetent, but I'll do the rest'. The regulation wording prevents that. BWitcher is correct that 'ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship' means exactly that.

 

Legally, if the FIM did decide to take the title from him, Greg could use the 'force majeure' part of the regulation, which for those unfamiliar with the term basically means exceptional circumstances, because he has been accused of cheating in a roundabout way and even though he allowed his machine to be examined by the race director, the jury decided he was guilty without even checking the bike, which could be a big error on their part. Greg could argue he has a right of appeal against such an accusation and since they couldn't be arsed to check the facts, he is in a good position.

 

I personally wouldn't want a title decided this way and if I was Tai I wouldn't want to accept the trophy, it would feel very hollow.

 

Even though technically Greg should be ruled out, I don't think it will happen because like I said, he has a good argument for exceptional circumstances and someone in the jury would have to answer questions as to why a proper investigation wasn't made.

It also states 'he shall be considered ineligible for the FIM SGP for the remainder of the season'.

 

1) It is not definitely ineligible if 'he shall be considered ineligible' presumably by the rulemakers who are the only ones with power of authority to 'consider' ineligibility.

2) 'For the remainder of the season' surely means no further rides. As he walked out, he was given no score for those last couple of rides and as there are no GPs remaining, he cannot be excluded from anymore as there are none to compete in.

3) I am pretty sure to disqualify a rider for walking out of a meeting after he has already won the World Championship would lack common sense and I can't see any rule being devised to take away a title for not riding the last two rides of the last meeting.

 

Say for example any rider..it was his first world title with two heats to go. He was a young rider who was over the moon and just got the bumps with his home crowd going wild and throws his helmet, gloves and perhaps his leathers into the crowd out of sheer joy but has no idea of no rulings and realised he couldn't ride his last heat or two because he had thrown his belongings to the crowd with the title bagged.

 

Does that mean this rider who doesn't or cannot ride with no gear on (probably another rule but won't go into depth) lose his world title through a passionate moment of joy. Common sense would say it would be stupid to give the title to the second place rider.

[Steve Shovlar]

This is a nonsense thread. If Hancock rode for Wolves it wouldn't have even been started.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Steve Shovlar

[Bonzo]

I can't see that that makes it any better. How many times have we seen riders excluded for incidents that weren't their fault? Or, at least, don't think it's their fault, and get on the phone to the ref? How many times have we seen riders "furious" with the decision?

 

What do they do next? They get back on their bikes and carry on with the meeting.

 

I suppose it's too much to expect that the World Champion should behave like a normal rider and pay the fans back for their support (and money) by carrying on.

 

This is true but there is a difference between an exclusion for causing a stoppage and being accused of cheating.

 

I'm not saying what Greg did is right here by the way, I'm just saying he has an argument. I'm not going to get all holier-than-thou on the bloke either because I don't believe, hand on heart, that any of us wouldn't react badly to being accused of cheating. Easy to say 'I would have carried on' but in truth, not one of us could honestly say how we would react until put in the situation.

 

All I am saying here is that he has an argument, which is probably good enough for no further action to be taken.

It also states 'he shall be considered ineligible for the FIM SGP for the remainder of the season'.

 

1) It is not definitely ineligible if 'he shall be considered ineligible' presumably by the rulemakers who are the only ones with power of authority to 'consider' ineligibility.

2) 'For the remainder of the season' surely means no further rides. As he walked out, he was given no score for those last couple of rides and as there are no GPs remaining, he cannot be excluded from anymore as there are none to compete in.

3) I am pretty sure to disqualify a rider for walking out of a meeting after he has already won the World Championship would lack common sense and I can't see any rule being devised to take away a title for not riding the last two rides of the last meeting.

 

Say for example any rider..it was his first world title with two heats to go. He was a young rider who was over the moon and just got the bumps with his home crowd going wild and throws his helmet, gloves and perhaps his leathers into the crowd out of sheer joy but has no idea of no rulings and realised he couldn't ride his last heat or two because he had thrown his belongings to the crowd with the title bagged.

 

Does that mean this rider who doesn't or cannot ride with no gear on (probably another rule but won't go into depth) lose his world title through a passionate moment of joy. Common sense would say it would be stupid to give the title to the second place rider.

 

To be honest here, the fact that there are people coming up with all kinds of scenarios and interpretations of the regulation, says to me that there is a level of ambiguity involved. Like BWitcher, I asked a legal friend of mine, who has no connection to speedway by the way, and he said that he would interpret the wording to mean Greg should be out of the competition altogether.

 

He did also say that the regulation is open to challenge because the wording could be deemed as not thorough enough in it's description.

 

I'm not trying to take sides in case anyone thinks I'm being an apologist here. I have already said I wouldn't want Greg to lose the title this way and frankly anyone who does needs to ask themselves the real reason why.

 

I've seen BWitcher accused of only starting the thread because he's a Tai fan. I don't know the bloke so I can't say but that's not the impression I got. It is a talking point and since this is a forum for such things then there's no reason not to bring it up.

 

I hope common sense prevails here and the result as it is now stands.

[NickRushbrook]

I don't condone the actions of Greg on Saturday (or the SWC) but I don't quite understand the amount of hate thrown at him.

 

Ok, we've discovered that he's not a perfect human bring and that sometimes perhaps, his 'grin' is a facade.

 

No question though, whether fake or not, he has always had time to talk to the fans over the years and never looks like he's trying to get away.

 

Also, no question that he's quite simply one of the best SPORTSMEN ever.

 

46 and still number one. Staggering achievement.

[Bryce]

Regarding the Melbourne GP, Greg should have completed the meeting. Should he face a sanction of some sort? Yes. Should he be stripped of his title? No way. That would make a mockery of the entire season. I don't think Tai would want the title handed to him in that way either.

 

Regarding Greg Hancock as a person. I think he is a genuinely nice man. An example. My brother has quite severe autism and his social skills are those of a small child rather than the 57 year old man he is. At the Rico memorial meeting Greg was swamped by fans seeking autographs and pictures. Despite the numbers, he was patiently speaking to everyone. When my brother went up to him he spoke rather excitedly about his memories of Greg when he started out at Cradley. My brother's social difficulties mean he sometimes comes across oddly, and I was concerned he was doing just that to Greg. Greg couldn't have been nicer. He spent a good 5 minutes chatting to my brother and when we left my brother felt 100 feet tall because of the way Greg had spoken with him.

 

Is he perfect? No, but who is? He is a genuine legend of the sport and rightly so.

[BWitcher]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/motorsport/556642/Nicki-Pedersen-Strip-Greg-Hancock-of-the-Speedway-world-title

[billywamill]

There's as much chance of Greg being stripped of the title as there is of another EU referendum.

 

I read it that a rider would be kicked out of any remaining Grand Prix and I think the lawyers would have a field day if any action was taken.

 

Makes it more interesting for next year though. Looks a great line up.

 

Let's hope Doyle returns 100% next year and claim the title he deserved this year.

[June01]

Given that they've missed a simple word from the first sentence of the rule, I think a lot of people are overestimating the ability of whoever wrote it to string together a comprehensive sentence...which throws the meaning of anything else written into question.

 

I think we have to assume the FIM know what their interpretation of that rule is, have applied it accordingly, and considered it to be the end of the matter.

[JoeW]

Given that they've missed a simple word from the first sentence of the rule, I think a lot of people are overestimating the ability of whoever wrote it to string together a comprehensive sentence...which throws the meaning of anything else written into question.

 

I think we have to assume the FIM know what their interpretation of that rule is, have applied it accordingly, and considered it to be the end of the matter.

What simple word is missing?

[June01]

What simple word is missing?

You didn't write it, did you?

 

From.

[BWitcher]

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule.

 

Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that.

 

When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter.

 

Everything else is people making things up.

[waiheke1]

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule.

 

Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that.

 

When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter.

 

Everything else is people making things up.

Tbf, if the intention was the rider be inelehible for the world championship the phrase "remainder of" becomes unnecessary.

There could be no debate if the rule said "inelegible for the world chsmpionship" or "disqualified from the world championship."

I know you think it is well and clearly worded,but if the interpretation you have is different to that which was intended (as indicated by fim decision) surely that indicates the rule is actually terribly worded?

[Vincent Blachshadow]

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule.

 

Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that.

 

When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter.

 

Everything else is people making things up.

 

I would have thought that if that rule was meant to disqualify a rider from the World Championship there would be something along the lines of 'would forfeit any points previously gained' included in the wording.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[BWitcher]

 

I would have thought that if that rule was meant to disqualify a rider from the World Championship there would be something along the lines of 'would forfeit any points previously gained' included in the wording.

 

Why do you need to forfeit points?

 

You're ineligible. It doesn't matter!

 

Did Shawn Moran forfeit points? Nope. His points are still there on record. However, he doesn't have 2nd place.

Tbf, if the intention was the rider be inelehible for the world championship the phrase "remainder of" becomes unnecessary.

There could be no debate if the rule said "inelegible for the world chsmpionship" or "disqualified from the world championship."

I know you think it is well and clearly worded,but if the interpretation you have is different to that which was intended (as indicated by fim decision) surely that indicates the rule is actually terribly worded?

 

No it indicates the FIM have bottled it.

 

So tell me, how can the same discression have completely different levels of punishment depending upon whether you commit it in the first GP or the last GP? Of course it can't, it must be the same.

 

The rule is in place as a deterrent from riders either picking and choosing, or flat out walking out like Hancock did. They don't want a rider safely in the top 8, but no chance of a medal thinking, nah, I won't bother going to Australia, which could happen without the rule in place. With the rule, don't go to Australia, you're out the top eight as you become ineligible.

 

The FIM quite simply never envisaged someone as high profile as Hancock would do what he did. They haven't the guts to enforce their own rules and throw out a rider sponsored by the series sponsors.

Edited October 26, 2016 by BWitcher

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

Why do you need to forfeit points?

 

You're ineligible. It doesn't matter!

 

Did Shawn Moran forfeit points? Nope. His points are still there on record. However, he doesn't have 2nd place.

 

Because if it had then Hancock would have to lose his Championship and your boy would get it. No question. But since it doesn't, the rule is open to interpretation. You see it one way, most of the others see it the other.

[BWitcher]

 

Because if it had then Hancock would have to lose his Championship and your boy would get it. No question. But since it doesn't, the rule is open to interpretation. You see it one way, most of the others see it the other.

 

Once again, did Shawn Moran have his pts deducted from the 1990 World Final?

 

If not, why isn't he still the silver medallist?

 

Once you are ineligble, it matters not what pts you have. As with Moran, it should say Greg Hancock 150pts (ineligible). Or however many pts he has.

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

Once again, did Shawn Moran have his pts deducted from the 1990 World Final?

 

If not, why isn't he still the silver medallist?

 

Once you are ineligble, it matters not what pts you have. As with Moran, it should say Greg Hancock 150pts (ineligible). Or however many pts he has.

 

Shawn Moran was before the current GP system so the two cases aren't the same.

 

 

The rule is in place as a deterrent from riders either picking and choosing, or flat out walking out like Hancock did. They don't want a rider safely in the top 8, but no chance of a medal thinking, nah, I won't bother going to Australia, which could happen without the rule in place. With the rule, don't go to Australia, you're out the top eight as you become ineligible.

 

 

 

Agreed the rule is to stop riders picking and choosing which GPs to ride in. Whether or not it includes an individual ride in a GP is open to question. The rule states 'refuses or is unable to take part'. Greg did 'take part' in the Melbourne GP, he has five points to prove it.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[BWitcher]

 

Shawn Moran was before the current GP system so the two cases aren't the same.

 

Agreed the rule is to stop riders picking and choosing which GPs to ride in. Whether or not it includes an individual ride in a GP is open to question. The rule states 'refuses or is unable to take part'. Greg did 'take part' in the Melbourne GP, he has five points to prove it.

 

The Shawn Moran issue is to demonstrate that 'points' accrued are irrelevant if you are deemed ineligible, void, disqualified etc.

 

Your second point is a good one and there could well be grounds to argue the case there. You've not invented something that isn't there.

 

We could argue the toss on this for hours on end but as we know, the FIM won't be doing anything.

 

My biggest concern over this is, what would have happened if let's say the rider leading the Championship was Nicki Pedersen... and the rider in 2nd was a Monster rider.. and Nicki walked out in protest... would the same decision have been reached? Hypothetical I know, but I suspect it would have had a different conclusion!

[AFCB Wildcat]

Tbf, if the intention was the rider be inelehible for the world championship the phrase "remainder of" becomes unnecessary.

There could be no debate if the rule said "inelegible for the world chsmpionship" or "disqualified from the world championship."

I know you think it is well and clearly worded,but if the interpretation you have is different to that which was intended (as indicated by fim decision) surely that indicates the rule is actually terribly worded?

But I suppose you could argue that "remainder of the season" is intended to mean that the ineligibility is only till the end of the current season and they would be eligible for the next season subject to qualification I.e. not a permanent ban from the series.

I agree with you're last paragraph. I think it's badly worded and I guess only the person that wrote it knows what they meant regardless of what it literally says.

[Grachan]

If you use the Shawn Moran case as a parallel, Tai would not be World Champion. There would be no World Champion.