Melbourne 2016

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

gee jay.Trust me .If you like to tel me i'll try and expain

Edited October 26, 2016 by Bald Bloke

[IanT 44]

Well. well.has there ever been a more hotly debated topic?

 

I have read through the posts here and there are many perfectly good and valid points. The biggest loser here is the sport of speedway, closely followed by Greg Hancock's reputation, which is now definitely in the bin!

 

Like many others in this forum I have been watching speedway for many many years and seen many many races. I know what a mechanical failure, or a mechanical issue looks like on track. Watching heat 9 on TV Greg Hancock disappeared off my screen, he went that wide. Initially I did think it was mechanical but amazingly he found the speed again and "raced" to the line, didn't feel the need to go too wide on the last bend though! Comments on here saying proof beyond reasonable doubt are not necessarily needed at this point. We are not in a court of law. Not yet anyway! Everyone can only go on what they see, similar to any tribunal in sport. What was seen was enough for a riders camp to protest, an experienced referee and panel to agree, experienced ex-riders to comment that he "allowed" the pass and for the authorities to administer a suitable punishment. The only thing heard in his defence is "no-one can prove it" That's pretty much it. It's a bit like finding a dead body next to a man with a gun, and the guys says you didn't see me shoot therefore you cannot prove it. Hancock is guilty here. If he felt that hard done by then come on camera and say so, protest your innocence, show your bike to the camera, ride the rest of the meeting under protest if necessary, come out and try to win your remaining races and demonstrate what a racer and competitor you actually are. To walk out in a prima dona style strop is totally unacceptable, and adds to his guilt in the incident. (how dare you accuse me of cheating!!!)) To then insult the intelligence of the speedway public with such a lame and pathetic statement further exposes what type of character we have here.

 

I would not advocate stripping him of the title, despite it being very funny, it would actually serve no purpose. We are talking about his behaviour in one meeting not over the series. Walking out of a GP cannot be excused under any circumstances. You are cheating the series,you are cheating the paying public and you are cheating the other riders. The riders involved in Hancock's last 2 heats had their chances of scoring points significantly improved.

 

My view is that we need a statement of condemnation from either BSI or the FIM, or both. This then needs to be followed up with a level of punishment that befits the offence. My personal view would be ban from the opening 2, or maybe 3 GPs of next season. Send out a clear message that riders cannot simply walk away from decisions they don't like.

 

It's a shame that the season has finished this way as I thought this years was a great series. Bit of an anti-climax with Doyle's injury though, but the racing has been good.

[Fromafar 10,375]

No.They are only there for the start.Once the bike is moving they are not needed.

 

If they are fitted they need to be good or clutch slip will ocour.If u take them out once on the move it wont make a differeance

The only thing wrong with Greg's bike was his throttle hand,the rest is Bullsh#t IMO .Should get a ban or points deduction next season.It probably won't happen though.

[Mark 1,497]

It will be a good read in the Star. I hope they analyse all the facts including the report, with some FIM quotes, on Hancock's bike being in good shape after the heat. And then I hope they condem Hancock and say what we are all saying on here. Anything less would be poor journalism and weak. Anything less would be sucking up to Monster and Hancock.

Edited October 26, 2016 by marky

[foamfence 2,917]

It will be a good read in the Star. I hope they analyse all the facts including the report, with some FIM quotes, on Hancock's bike being in good shape after the heat. And then I hope they condem Hancock and say what we are all saying on here. Anything less would be poor journalism and weak. Anything less would be sucking up to Monster and Hancock.

I would be extremely surprised if what you 'hope' happens, they aren't exactly known for condemnations or passing opinions. Doubtless Philip will be on later to refute this.

[Grand Central 2,654]

There has never been anything written in the Star over the years that would give any reason to believe that it would carry ANY overt criticism of the sainted-one.

 

Quite the reverse.

 

 

I imagine they will give a 'factual summary of both sides of the debate', as they will see it.

Make reference to 'social media' comments, in the usual condescending way of the 'print media'.

Give maximum exposure to Hancock's pathetic ramblings and pass them off as being 'plausable'.

And then return to unadulterated hagiography, as always.

[Midland Red 2,383]

Well. well.has there ever been a more hotly debated topic?

 

I have read through the posts here and there are many perfectly good and valid points. The biggest loser here is the sport of speedway, closely followed by Greg Hancock's reputation, which is now definitely in the bin!

 

Like many others in this forum I have been watching speedway for many many years and seen many many races. I know what a mechanical failure, or a mechanical issue looks like on track. Watching heat 9 on TV Greg Hancock disappeared off my screen, he went that wide. Initially I did think it was mechanical but amazingly he found the speed again and "raced" to the line, didn't feel the need to go too wide on the last bend though! Comments on here saying proof beyond reasonable doubt are not necessarily needed at this point. We are not in a court of law. Not yet anyway! Everyone can only go on what they see, similar to any tribunal in sport. What was seen was enough for a riders camp to protest, an experienced referee and panel to agree, experienced ex-riders to comment that he "allowed" the pass and for the authorities to administer a suitable punishment. The only thing heard in his defence is "no-one can prove it" That's pretty much it. It's a bit like finding a dead body next to a man with a gun, and the guys says you didn't see me shoot therefore you cannot prove it. Hancock is guilty here. If he felt that hard done by then come on camera and say so, protest your innocence, show your bike to the camera, ride the rest of the meeting under protest if necessary, come out and try to win your remaining races and demonstrate what a racer and competitor you actually are. To walk out in a prima dona style strop is totally unacceptable, and adds to his guilt in the incident. (how dare you accuse me of cheating!!!)) To then insult the intelligence of the speedway public with such a lame and pathetic statement further exposes what type of character we have here.

 

I would not advocate stripping him of the title, despite it being very funny, it would actually serve no purpose. We are talking about his behaviour in one meeting not over the series. Walking out of a GP cannot be excused under any circumstances. You are cheating the series,you are cheating the paying public and you are cheating the other riders. The riders involved in Hancock's last 2 heats had their chances of scoring points significantly improved.

 

My view is that we need a statement of condemnation from either BSI or the FIM, or both. This then needs to be followed up with a level of punishment that befits the offence. My personal view would be ban from the opening 2, or maybe 3 GPs of next season. Send out a clear message that riders cannot simply walk away from decisions they don't like.

 

It's a shame that the season has finished this way as I thought this years was a great series. Bit of an anti-climax with Doyle's injury though, but the racing has been good.

 

WAITING to hear from Philip on this

(see what I did with the first word there, I must be a journalist!)

[jim3751 88]

If Greg wants to save his reputation at this stage in his career I would suggest he holds his hands up now as there's a good chance that by March it will have blown itself out. If he doesn't I can see even Kelvin and Nigel being tongue tied to describe him as a highly respected elder statesman of speedway.

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

I think there might be a bit of a problem if you took the clutch plates out! :0

I think you might be right about the plates.I had drank lots of falling down water last night.Think I had a brain fart.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

There has never been anything written in the Star over the years that would give any reason to believe that it would carry ANY overt criticism of the sainted-one.

 

Quite the reverse.

 

 

I imagine they will give a 'factual summary of both sides of the debate', as they will see it.

Make reference to 'social media' comments, in the usual condescending way of the 'print media'.

Give maximum exposure to Hancock's pathetic ramblings and pass them off as being 'plausable'.

And then return to unadulterated hagiography, as always.

THEN you obviously don't read SS very often. Publicly criticised his contract negotiations in Poland and his withdrawal from the SWC.

 

Haven't seen this week's edition myself but would expect them to report the FACTS.

 

Let's not forget that there has been plenty of riders and others on Twitter and the like defending Hancock and saying that his explanation of Heat 9 was sound. It is all about opinions.

Edited October 26, 2016 by PHILIPRISING

[Steve Shovlar 10,439]

Not sure Holder did anything wrong?!?

Of course he didn't.

[RPNY 608]

All Holder did was rode his nuts off and was a joy to watch. And it isnt easy for me to praise any Aussie sporting success!

[Fromafar 10,375]

THEN you obviously don't read SS very often. Publicly criticised his contract negotiations in Poland and his withdrawal from the SWC.

 

Haven't seen this week's edition myself but would expect them to report the FACTS.

 

Let's not forget that there has been plenty of riders and others on Twitter and the like defending Hancock and saying that his explanation of Heat 9 was sound. It is all about opinions.

Probably the that were helped by his withdrawal from the meeting.The question that should be asked straight to his face is why did he not pull up when he went wide put his hand up was all he had to do there was no one near him.But we all know why he didn't!!!! he was talking about rider safety it would have been much worse is his bike had stopped going up the back straight with riders behind you.Pure waffle from him. Edited October 26, 2016 by Fromafar

[foamfence 2,917]

Probably the that were helped by his withdrawal from the meeting.The question that should be asked straight to his face is why did he not pull up when he went wide put his hand up was all he had to do there was no one near him.But we all know why he didn't!!!! he was talking about rider safety it would have been much worse is his bike had stopped going up the back straight with riders behind you.Pure waffle from him.

Some seem to be more gullible than you.....And the ref of course.

[Grand Central 2,654]

THEN you obviously don't read SS very often. Publicly criticised his contract negotiations in Poland and his withdrawal from the SWC.

 

Haven't seen this week's edition myself but would expect them to report the FACTS.

 

Let's not forget that there has been plenty of riders and others on Twitter and the like defending Hancock and saying that his explanation of Heat 9 was sound. It is all about opinions.

 

The really obvious, almost cliched response to that would be to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies ...

 

 

But dealing with that response more 'head on'.

 

I think it would be pretty damned obvious that I DO read Speedway Star very often.

A Speedway Supporter of fifty years standing will always be a regular reader of the only Speedway weekly.

One would have to be pretty stupid to think for one moment that I would not.

 

Having done so, religiously.

I have formed the 'opinion' of it's coverage that I have just expressed.

 

One may think it better for the Managing Editor to take a little head of contrary views, rather than be so knee-jerk in his rejection of any opinion other than his own.