Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[June01]

It did happen in Sweden did it not?

Yeah, it did, officially, but I've not seen any evidence that it happened in practice. To remove his points would have changed teams' league points and meeting results, which I don't think happened, possibly because no one could be bothered to go back through them all and work out the ramifications at the end of an already decided league situation. I stand to be corrected though, and will check up on it later.

 

Edited to say SVEMO are still showing the results as unaltered. He even rode in the meeting following the Latvian GP, and those results remain unchanged, as do the others.

Edited October 28, 2016 by June01

[Barney Rabbit]

 

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.

 

Really? Would cause a load of problems.

 

I'd be intrigued to know when the rule was penned and brought in. If, as I believe it to be, it has existed since the inauguration of the GP style championship then I would say it refers to meetings missed, not rides. I contend it was introduced to stop the lower-end riders missing a far-off GP which would see them eliminated after just two rides in favour of riding two or three league meetings instead. The one day before (the day of compulsory practice back then) and the three days after encompass the Polish and Swedish league meetings and are not just a random number of days.

 

The likes of, say, Mario Jirout would have made more money riding a British match or two on the Friday and/or Monday, a Polish match and a Swedish one rather than travelling to a GP for just a couple of rides before elimination. I'd say the rule was brought in to prevent them doing that.

[BWitcher]

 

Really? Would cause a load of problems.

 

I'd be intrigued to know when the rule was penned and brought in. If, as I believe it to be, it has existed since the inauguration of the GP style championship then I would say it refers to meetings missed, not rides. I contend it was introduced to stop the lower-end riders missing a far-off GP which would see them eliminated after just two rides in favour of riding two or three league meetings instead. The one day before (the day of compulsory practice back then) and the three days after encompass the Polish and Swedish league meetings and are not just a random number of days.

 

The likes of, say, Mario Jirout would have made more money riding a British match or two on the Friday and/or Monday, a Polish match and a Swedish one rather than travelling to a GP for just a couple of rides before elimination. I'd say the rule was brought in to prevent them doing that.

 

You can say, conject, speculate, dream, imagine all you want too.

 

That's not how rules work.

 

If it was referring to meetings missed, it would say meetings missed. It doesn't. It specifically and quite clearly states the Championship itself.

[Barney Rabbit]

 

You can say, conject, speculate, dream, imagine all you want too.

 

That's not how rules work.

 

If it was referring to meetings missed, it would say meetings missed. It doesn't. It specifically and quite clearly states the Championship itself.

 

That's exactly how rules work. Anybody having to interpret the rule will read beyond the first 17 words which you seem to get stuck at. They will read the words 'take part', as you do, but will go on to see the words 'Grand Prix meetings concerned'. They won't see 'part-meetings' or 'rides', which is what Greg Hancock didn't take part in. He did take part in the meeting.

 

Also, when considering a rule, the reason for it's inception will be considered and, if the reason was as in my previous post it will be considered whether you like it or not because that's how rules work.

 

However, since Greg was apparently given permission to stand down from those rides, we will never find out the correct interpretation.

[BWitcher]

 

That's exactly how rules work. Anybody having to interpret the rule will read beyond the first 17 words which you seem to get stuck at. They will read the words 'take part', as you do, but will go on to see the words 'Grand Prix meetings concerned'. They won't see 'part-meetings' or 'rides', which is what Greg Hancock didn't take part in. He did take part in the meeting.

 

Also, when considering a rule, the reason for it's inception will be considered and, if the reason was as in my previous post it will be considered whether you like it or not because that's how rules work.

 

However, since Greg was apparently given permission to stand down from those rides, we will never find out the correct interpretation.

 

Yes and if they understand English they will clearly understand that 'grand prix meetings concerned' is specifically related to the length of the suspension from all racing and when it is enforced to and from. By 'Grand Prix Meetings' concerned it is referring to the meeting the offence occurred. To understand what the offence is, you go back to the first seventeen words.

 

Greg Hancock refused to take part in his final two rides. That is indisputable. The fact that some continue to try and deflect away from that is staggering.

 

Once again I point out, if the rule was as you and a few others have dreamed up, the FIM wouldn't have to give any form of permission at all... unless you think they give permission to not break a rule? Why would he need permission if there is no rule against it? It's quite simple.

[June01]

Just thought I'd bung this article in here and duck for cover.

 

http://sportowefakty.wp.pl/zuzel/641055/przyczepny-12-jak-zostac-mistrzem-i-zrazic-do-siebie-ludzi

 

"Another thing that is equally absurd as Greg's behaviour are the voices calling for depriving him of his title. The American gained it through injury to a rival - but he won it by working hard all season, and his behaviour in Melbourne, although extremely unsportsmanlike, should not have anything to do with it."

Edited October 28, 2016 by June01

[Vincent Blachshadow]

 

Yes and if they understand English they will clearly understand that 'grand prix meetings concerned' is specifically related to the length of the suspension from all racing and when it is enforced to and from. By 'Grand Prix Meetings' concerned it is referring to the meeting the offence occurred. To understand what the offence is, you go back to the first seventeen words.

 

Greg Hancock refused to take part in his final two rides. That is indisputable. The fact that some continue to try and deflect away from that is staggering.

 

Once again I point out, if the rule was as you and a few others have dreamed up, the FIM wouldn't have to give any form of permission at all... unless you think they give permission to not break a rule? Why would he need permission if there is no rule against it? It's quite simple.

 

Absolute cobblers!

 

Out of politeness Greg tells someone in authority he's pulling out, they said ok. It could be no more than that.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[Barney Rabbit]

 

 

Greg Hancock refused to take part in his final two rides. That is indisputable. The fact that some continue to try and deflect away from that is staggering.

 

 

 

I don't think anybody is trying to deflect away from that, but that in no way makes him liable to be thrown out of this season's GP competition.

 

I do not condone what he did but he broke no rule (as I and some others read it, you read it differently) and rightly keeps the World Championship he won over the season.

[BWitcher]

 

Absolute cobblers!

 

Out of politeness Greg tells someone in authority he's pulling out, they said ok. It could be no more than that.

 

Now I know you're on the wind up.

 

"Hey I know we've got 20,000+ fans in here and we're trying to promote the sport, but I can't be bothered with my last couple of rides."

 

"No problem Greg, go ahead! That's great for our sport. Anyone else not fancy the rest of their rides?"

[waiheke1]

Wouldn't it be good if the sport had a magazine which could ask questions of the fim such as:.

Who granted greg permission to miss his last rides and at what stage did they do so?

What is their view of greg Hancock public statement which contradicts their own findings regarding his machinery

Had they not granted permission to him to withdraw, would that have meant he was inelegible to be world champion, or only inelegible to ride in subsequent meetings (if there were some)?

[R87]

 

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!

 

And Speedway loses yet more credibility - not that there's much left to lose anyway.

 

No wonder Hancock does what he wants if he gets away with assaulting another competitor during a meeting (any other sport, this would land you with a very lengthy ban at least). Now blatantly throwing races and then issuing statements to try and talk his way out of it. The amount of power and influence he has over the other top riders is extremely unhealthy for Speedway.

 

If you need to get out of a difficult situation, give Teflon Greg a call......