Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[Marcelle]

Load of Ballax..Greg Hancock 4 TIMES WORLD CHAMPION...Nuff said!

[BWitcher]

 

That's the name of the series. They could just as easily have written A rider who has entered the Speedway Grand Prix series and refuses or is unable to take part.....'

 

The salient point is this - '....and up to three days after the meetings concerned'. In other words '....up to three days after the meetings he did not take part in'.

 

As I posted, the words 'take part' and 'meetings' are an important part of the rule. Now show me where it mentions 'rides'.

 

Greg Hancock did take part in the Melbourne GP, he rode three heats. He did not transgress this rule.

 

It is the name of the series, it is also the name of the Championship, and it is the name of the event that if you withdraw from it you become ineligible.

 

So again, what did Hancock withdraw from?

 

You won't answer that question because it totally invalidates your argument.

 

I know it, Nicki Pedersen knows it and most importantly the FIM know it hence the cover story. There would be absolutely no need for them to say they'd given permission otherwise.

Edited October 27, 2016 by BWitcher

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

It is the name of the series, it is also the name of the Championship, and it is the name of the event that if you withdraw from it you become ineligible.

 

So again, what did Hancock withdraw from?

 

You won't answer that question because it totally invalidates your argument.

 

I know it, Nicki Pedersen knows it and most importantly the FIM know it hence the cover story. There would be absolutely no need for them to say they'd given permission otherwise.

 

He withdrew from a couple of rides, not the event. He rode three rides therefore TOOK PART and, according to regulation 077.3.3 that is the only requirement.

[AFCB Wildcat]

Ineligible for the remainder of the season means exactly that , he can't ride for the rest if the season not ineligible from being world champ!! What he did was shocking but those on here saying he is ineligible to be world champ are in cloud cuckoo land

But you've said it means "exactly that" then quoted something it doesn't say I.e. "he can't ride for the rest of the season"

If that was the case it would say "ineligible to compete in further rounds for the remainder of the season"

What it does say is ineligible for the FIM world championship for the remainder of the season and Bewitcher is absolutely correct in saying that this makes you ineligible to be world champion and that can't be argued. The "remainder of the season" aspect would mean that the punishment ends at the end of the season and he would be legible for next season's competition.

If whoever wrote the rule did not mean it this way then it is badly worded but otherwise as far as I'm concerned it's quite clear.

[BWitcher]

 

He withdrew from a couple of rides, not the event. He rode three rides therefore TOOK PART and, according to regulation 077.3.3 that is the only requirement.

 

So the rides are not part of the World Championship, that is now your claim?

 

You're getting sillier with every post.

Edited October 27, 2016 by BWitcher

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

So the rides are not part of the World Championship, that is now your claim?

 

You're getting sillier with every post.

 

They were part of the event, but that is not the issue. The requirement, as stated in the rule, is that he takes part (those words are in the rule) in the meeting concerned (those words are in the rule too) and he did that, taking three rides in the Melbourne GP. The rule makes no mention of how many rides a rider has to take, just that he has to take part. He did that.

 

I do not think Greg was right in what he did but that is not the point. The point is that he fulfilled the requirement of the regulation by taking part and, as such, is the rightful World Champion. Your boy will have another go next year and I'm sure he'll win it again some time in the future.

 

Answer me this, did Greg Hancock take part in the meeting concerned, the Melbourne GP?

Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[BWitcher]

 

They were part of the event, but that is not the issue. The requirement, as stated in the rule, is that he takes part (those words are in the rule) in the meeting concerned (those words are in the rule too) and he did that, taking three rides in the Melbourne GP. The rule makes no mention of how many rides a rider has to take, just that he has to take part. He did that.

 

I do not think Greg was right in what he did but that is not the point. The point is that he fulfilled the requirement of the regulation by taking part and, as such, is the rightful World Champion. Your boy will have another go next year and I'm sure he'll win it again some time in the future.

 

Answer me this, did Greg Hancock take part in the meeting concerned, the Melbourne GP?

 

 

 

"A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned."

 

As can be seen, it's quite clear that the event that riders refusing to take part in are punished for is the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship, NOT a grand prix meeting, or it would say so.

 

The Grand Prix meeting concerned is referring to when the offence of refusing to take part took place and setting the dates for the suspension.

 

In Melbourne Greg Hancock refused to take part in his fourth and fifth rides of the Australian GP in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. As such his suspension is for 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meeting concerned, which of course in this case is the Australian GP in Melbourne.

 

It's not complicated.

 

The FIM have covered themselves from applying this and the more severe element of the rule where he is rendered ineligible by saying they 'allowed' him to withdraw. Which again, they simply wouldn't need to do if the rule is how you keep claiming it to be.

 

To add, your false claims regarding the rule would mean a rider could race one heat in a GP, refuse to race in the rest of a meeting and face zero punishment. Of course that wouldn't be the case.

Edited October 28, 2016 by BWitcher

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

 

 

"A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned."

 

As can be seen, it's quite clear that the event that riders refusing to take part in are punished for is the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship, NOT a grand prix meeting, or it would say so.

 

The Grand Prix meeting concerned is referring to when the offence of refusing to take part took place and setting the dates for the suspension.

 

In Melbourne Greg Hancock refused to take part in his fourth and fifth rides of the Australian GP in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. As such his suspension is for 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meeting concerned, which of course in this case is the Australian GP in Melbourne.

 

It's not complicated.

 

The FIM have covered themselves from applying this and the more severe element of the rule where he is rendered ineligible by saying they 'allowed' him to withdraw. Which again, they simply wouldn't need to do if the rule is how you keep claiming it to be.

 

"A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned. Furthermore, he shall be considered as ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season.

A rider who has started in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship must participate therein unless prevented from doing so by injury or other force majeure. A suitably qualified medical practitioner must certify injury or illness in writing to that effect."

 

It isn't rocket science that the rule is talking about meetings, the word is in the rule, highlighted. There is no mention of how many rides a rider has to take nor does it say he has to complete the meeting, merely that he has to take part. Greg took part. The name of the competition you highlighted is just that, the name of the competition concerned.

 

Clearly, we will not agree on this (despite the fact you did agree in post #494 in the Melbourne GP thread) so there seems little point in continuing.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[Grachan]

 

"A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned. Furthermore, he shall be considered as ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship for the remainder of the season.

A rider who has started in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship must participate therein unless prevented from doing so by injury or other force majeure. A suitably qualified medical practitioner must certify injury or illness in writing to that effect."

 

It isn't rocket science that the rule is talking about meetings, the word is in the rule, highlighted. There is no mention of how many rides a rider has to take nor does it say he has to complete the meeting, merely that he has to take part. Greg took part.

 

Clearly, we will not agree on this (despite the fact you did agree in post #494 in the Melbourne GP thread) so there seems little point in continuing.

 

Greg Hancock refused to take part. You are actually proving the argument go are trying to disprove.

 

Maybe they mean the rule to stop riders picking and chosing meeting, and preventing them from taking part in future GPs if refusing to ride in one. Maybe the intent of the rule is that riders cannot take further rides in the future once pulling out of a meeting.

 

But that is not what the rule says. The rule uses the word "ineligible" without stating from further rides. It says from the Championship. The rule does, if taken literally, mean Greg Hancock should not be world champion.

 

If you don't believe it, look up the word "ineligible".

[BWitcher]

 

 

 

It isn't rocket science that the rule is talking about meetings, the word is in the rule, highlighted. There is no mention of how many rides a rider has to take nor does it say he has to complete the meeting, merely that he has to take part. Greg took part. The name of the competition you highlighted is just that, the name of the competition concerned.

 

 

The rule doesn't mention not taking part in meetings. It's a figment of your imagination. It states the World Championship, of which every single ride is a part of.

 

As for you saying the part I have highlighted is 'just the name of the competition'... of course it's the name of the competition, that's why it's there! It's that competition which the rule says you cannot refuse to take part in.

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

Greg Hancock refused to take part. You are actually proving the argument go are trying to disprove.

 

Maybe they mean the rule to stop riders picking and chosing meeting, and preventing them from taking part in future GPs if refusing to ride in one. Maybe the intent of the rule is that riders cannot take further rides in the future once pulling out of a meeting.

 

But that is not what the rule says. The rule uses the word "ineligible" without stating from further rides. It says from the Championship. The rule does, if taken literally, mean Greg Hancock should not be world champion.

 

If you don't believe it, look up the word "ineligible".

 

The thing that points to the rule pertaining to meetings rather than rides is the fact he is suspended from riding the day before the meeting he doesn't take part in. How does anybody know he will pull out of a ride in tomorrow's GP to stop him riding at, say, Lakeside in an EL match the day before? His intention to not ride in a GP would be known so the suspension the day before could be activated.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[Grachan]

 

The thing that points to the rule pertaining to meetings rather than rides is the fact he is suspended from riding the day before the meeting he doesn't take part in. How does anybody know he will pull out of a ride in tomorrow's GP to stop him riding at, say, Lakeside in an EL match the day before? His intention to not ride in a GP would be known so the suspension the day before could be activated.

 

Not neccesarily. He might just not turn up.

 

Suppose, for example, Darcy Ward had realised he might be over the alcohol limit so just decided not to ride the next day. He would still have been refusing to ride even if he hadn't given prior notice.

Edited October 28, 2016 by grachan

[BWitcher]

 

The thing that points to the rule pertaining to meetings rather than rides is the fact he is suspended from riding the day before the meeting he doesn't take part in. How does anybody know he will pull out of a ride in tomorrow's GP to stop him riding at, say, Lakeside in an EL match the day before? His intention to not ride in a GP would be known so the suspension the day before could be activated.

 

No it doesn't at all.

 

Harris has ridden on a Friday night then in the GP on a Saturday.

 

The section you keep referring to are simply the parameters for the suspension. If a rider had raced on the Friday night it would be applied retrospectively, as SHOULD have happened with the Darcy Ward case.

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

Not neccesarily. He might just not turn up.

 

 

Has that ever happened though? Riders have missed GPs in the past but their absence was known at least the day before.

 

No it doesn't at all.

 

Harris has ridden on a Friday night then in the GP on a Saturday.

 

The section you keep referring to are simply the parameters for the suspension. If a rider had raced on the Friday night it would be applied retrospectively, as SHOULD have happened with the Darcy Ward case.

 

So you're saying that, if Harris had dropped out of one of his races in a fit of pique during the GP his points would have to be expunged from the previous evening's EL match?

Edited October 28, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[Grachan]

 

Has that ever happened though? Riders have missed GPs in the past but their absence was known at least the day before.

 

Maybe not, I don't know. I don't see how that is relevent though. It still could.

[BWitcher]

 

 

So you're saying that, if Harris had dropped out of one of his races in a fit of pique during the GP his points would have to be expunged from the previous evening's EL match?

 

Correct.

 

If Harris didn't ride in the GP, or withdrew from the meeting in progress without permission, he would be suspended from the dates outlined in the rule.

[AlanF]

 

Correct.

 

If Harris didn't ride in the GP, or withdrew from the meeting in progress without permission, he would be suspended from the dates outlined in the rule.

Not saying you are wrong but try explaining that to the casual fan on Coventry. "Remember that meeting we went to last week. Well we actually lost even though we won, because Chris Harris pulled out of a ride in the GP last night."

[Grand Central]

Mind you, I recall that a certain rider had a ruling against him by the FIM for a misdeamour at a GP in 2014.

And that ruling required that points scored in certain league fixtures be expunged.

It didn't happen, of course.

 

But it is probably politically incorrect to speak of such matters today.

[Grachan]

Mind you, I recall that a certain rider had a ruling against him by the FIM for a misdeamour at a GP in 2014.

And that ruling required that points scored in certain league fixtures be expunged.

It didn't happen, of course.

 

But it is probably politically incorrect to speak of such matters today.

 

And I recall there being quite a debate on here at the time that it should have happened.

[BWitcher]

 

And I recall there being quite a debate on here at the time that it should have happened.

 

It did happen in Sweden did it not?