Melbourne 2016

[John Leslie 3,213]

Gave both sides of the story. How terrible of them.

Hancock's side and Holder's side...

[Grand Central 2,654]

One has to admire Mr Burbidge though.
For putting so many different viewpoints.
Into so many different and varied articles.

Prolific, doesn't do him justice.

And so impartial.

.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Grand Central

[RPNY 608]

What more should they have written?
Not being facetious, genuine question.

[Fromafar 10,453]

But his own website says he withdrew from the meeting in protest!!!!

Maybe so but he said they gave him permission,that's what I am saying.

[iris123 21,099]

 

 

They're not poorly phrased in the slightest. They are very clear if you can read.

 

The event Hancock is ineligible for is the World Championship. Everything else is folk inventing things.

 

There is nothing to interpret.

 

The more I think about it the more clear that the rule was intended that way too. It's clearly a deterrent to riders. Walk out of the 1st meeting of the year, you have no chance of becoming World Champion as you are ineligible. The same applies whatever meeting you walk out. Otherwise you're advocating two completely different levels of punishment for the same offence.

 

 

I don't know....forgive me forlaughing,but for days you have been saying it is crystal clear and there is nothing to interpret.I mean,you don't disappoint,you even do it again in this post.....then go on straight after to give us a new interpretation of what the rule is supposed to be for

[TheReturn 1,724]

Been working away for a couple of days, what did I miss? Hancock, that sensitive soul, still pretending he wasn't in the right frame of mind which is why he pulled out?

[Jacques 3,114]

Been working away for a couple of days, what did I miss? Hancock, that sensitive soul, still pretending he wasn't in the right frame of mind which is why he pulled out?

 

 

No, it's just the usual suspects still banging on about it

[John Leslie 3,213]

For anyone who doesn't get the Speedway Star (you lucky people) here's a brief summary of their (non) reporting of Hancock's cheat-gate.

 

Cover page - Picture of Hancock - headline "Grin, and Grin, and Grin, and Grin" (?) (not sure what that means.... Grin and Grim may have summed it up better).

 

pages 2&3 - Main story (by Paul Burbridge) from Hancock perspective - how the poor sod was "hard done to". how he was "hurt" and "bizarrely excluded from heat 9". (think they mean he was disqualified from heat 9 after bizarrely cheating). It repeats all the Hancock Bull-excrement excuses about the clutch, but doesn't challenge this nonsense with any facts. It doesn't go into any detail about Hancock spitting his dummy and walking out

 

To the left of this main article is "Holder - Shocked" (by Paul Burbridge). Holder is reportedly "shocked" by Hancock's disqualification. It repeats the clutch nonsense without pointing out that it is nonsense.

 

To the right of the main article is - "FIM Stand by decision" (by Paul Burbridge). It basically reports that the FIM investigated Hancock's actions. The jury viewed replays of the race, examined the bike, decided unanimously that Hancock had broken the rules, and disqualified him as per the rules. It doesn't report any FIM comments on Hancock's walking out of the meeting. Mr Burbridge doesn't seem interested in this side of the story.

 

Page 6 - The meeting report (by Paul Burbridge) Tells us "American legend Greg Hancock underlined why he's one of speedway's all time class acts on and off the track as he rose above FIM accusations to celebrate his fourth World title"

 

Yes...Mr Burbridge believes blatant cheating, failing to own up to cheating, and them throwing toys out of the pram makes you a "class act". Mr Burbridge tells us that Hancock's cheating and spoilt brattishness will "vanish into the mists of time" (so that's ok) but his great record in joining Hans Nielsen and Barry Briggs on 4 titles won't ever vanish.

 

(This arse-licking drivel continues onto page 8.)

 

 

Page 9 brings us an article "Jury Justice?" It tells us "What should have been one of the greatest night's of Greg Hancock's storied career was unfortunately tarnished by the bizarre decision to boot him out of heat 9"

 

It doesn't tell us who wrote this drivel (but we could guess his initials may be P.B.). Basically this is more "woe is me" stuff. It's not Hancock's fault he cheated. Not his fault he spat his dummy....etc etc It is totally the FIM jury's fault for upholding the rules.

 

Page 10 and we have some (selective) social media comments (compiled with a certain bias by who other than the ubiquitous Mr P.B.) Of course we have the tweets of those two empty vessels Middleditch and Havelock, and they are surprisingly joined by Hans Nielsen who thinks the exclusion was a farce.

The hundreds of tweets and other social media comments from all of those who thought Middlo and Havvy were talking out of their backsides, don't make it into the Star. The only one who slightly dares to side with commonsense and integrity is Chris Louis who "agrees with the FIM for upholding the integrity of the sport".

 

Page 14 gives us a meeting report from long-serving Aussie correspondent Peter White. His view on Hancock's cheating is... "We'll forget the Hancock issue entirely in this column and focus on the good"...... Well that's bloody helpful! Someone who may be able to give an unbiased opinion ducks out. All we know is that he doesn't rate that part of events as being part of the "good".

 

And that's it....that's all the Star give us. it's almost as if no one cheated......no one gave a bull-excrement excuse for cheating...no one spat a dummy, threw toys or walked out.

 

After all it will all soon be forgotten in the mists of time...

[RPNY 608]

It headlines there was controversy then gives the opinions of those involved. What more were they supposed to do? Can't just accuse people because that would satisfy some people.

[Jacques 3,114]

For anyone who doesn't get the Speedway Star (you lucky people) here's a brief summary of their (non) reporting of Hancock's cheat-gate.

 

Cover page - Picture of Hancock - headline "Grin, and Grin, and Grin, and Grin" (?) (not sure what that means.... Grin and Grim may have summed it up better).

 

pages 2&3 - Main story (by Paul Burbridge) from Hancock perspective - how the poor sod was "hard done to". how he was "hurt" and "bizarrely excluded from heat 9". (think they mean he was disqualified from heat 9 after bizarrely cheating). It repeats all the Hancock Bull-excrement excuses about the clutch, but doesn't challenge this nonsense with any facts. It doesn't go into any detail about Hancock spitting his dummy and walking out

 

To the left of this main article is "Holder - Shocked" (by Paul Burbridge). Holder is reportedly "shocked" by Hancock's disqualification. It repeats the clutch nonsense without pointing out that it is nonsense.

 

To the right of the main article is - "FIM Stand by decision" (by Paul Burbridge). It basically reports that the FIM investigated Hancock's actions. The jury viewed replays of the race, examined the bike, decided unanimously that Hancock had broken the rules, and disqualified him as per the rules. It doesn't report any FIM comments on Hancock's walking out of the meeting. Mr Burbridge doesn't seem interested in this side of the story.

 

Page 6 - The meeting report (by Paul Burbridge) Tells us "American legend Greg Hancock underlined why he's one of speedway's all time class acts on and off the track as he rose above FIM accusations to celebrate his fourth World title"

 

Yes...Mr Burbridge believes blatant cheating, failing to own up to cheating, and them throwing toys out of the pram makes you a "class act". Mr Burbridge tells us that Hancock's cheating and spoilt brattishness will "vanish into the mists of time" (so that's ok) but his great record in joining Hans Nielsen and Barry Briggs on 4 titles won't ever vanish.

 

(This arse-licking drivel continues onto page 8.)

 

 

Page 9 brings us an article "Jury Justice?" It tells us "What should have been one of the greatest night's of Greg Hancock's storied career was unfortunately tarnished by the bizarre decision to boot him out of heat 9"

 

It doesn't tell us who wrote this drivel (but we could guess his initials may be P.B.). Basically this is more "woe is me" stuff. It's not Hancock's fault he cheated. Not his fault he spat his dummy....etc etc It is totally the FIM jury's fault for upholding the rules.

 

Page 10 and we have some (selective) social media comments (compiled with a certain bias by who other than the ubiquitous Mr P.B.) Of course we have the tweets of those two empty vessels Middleditch and Havelock, and they are surprisingly joined by Hans Nielsen who thinks the exclusion was a farce.

The hundreds of tweets and other social media comments from all of those who thought Middlo and Havvy were talking out of their backsides, don't make it into the Star. The only one who slightly dares to side with commonsense and integrity is Chris Louis who "agrees with the FIM for upholding the integrity of the sport".

 

Page 14 gives us a meeting report from long-serving Aussie correspondent Peter White. His view on Hancock's cheating is... "We'll forget the Hancock issue entirely in this column and focus on the good"...... Well that's bloody helpful! Someone who may be able to give an unbiased opinion ducks out. All we know is that he doesn't rate that part of events as being part of the "good".

 

And that's it....that's all the Star give us. it's almost as if no one cheated......no one gave a bull-excrement excuse for cheating...no one spat a dummy, threw toys or walked out.

 

After all it will all soon be forgotten in the mists of time...

 

Ah, Paul Burbidge,the Poole fan and fawner, say no more!

[Blazeaway 1,501]

I still can't believe buy that rag anyway!

[BWitcher 12,453]

It headlines there was controversy then gives the opinions of those involved. What more were they supposed to do? Can't just accuse people because that would satisfy some people.

 

There are no accusations to make. He cheated. It was investigated. His bike was checked. He cheated. Guilty as charged.

 

He's lucky it's speedway, haven't you noticed the severity in other sports for 'fixing' or 'throwing' a match/game/result?

[RPNY 608]

I never read that the bike was checked. In the Star Holder said "The took the cover off Gregs bike, hit clutch arm came off and the clutch was burnt out"

[Bonzo 59]

Strange that so many claim to hate the Star yet continue to buy it. Odd. Very odd,

[foamfence 2,917]

Strange that so many claim to hate the Star yet continue to buy it. Odd. Very odd,

There aren't any alternatives, so it has no competition. If you don't like your newspaper you can try another.