foamfence 2,917 Posted October 27, 2016 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. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bonzo 59 Posted October 27, 2016 There aren't any alternatives, so it has no competition. If you don't like your newspaper you can try another. If you think it's rubbish then the alternative is to stop buying it. Everything is available on line nowadays anyhow. Seems like some just need something to whinge about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted October 27, 2016 If Greg Hancock "rose above" the accusation is hate to see him take exception to it and react to the situation! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New Science 1,059 Posted October 27, 2016 I genuinely feel if there was another GP at the Etihad within the next month they would get close to 30k after that racing and of course an Aussie winner. Whether or not it will carry on to 1 years time we shall have to wait and see. Atmosphere was pretty good too. Put it this way there was as much noise when the Aussies did well as there was in Warsaw when the poles did well and it was half the crowd.. Unfortunately this GP venue is showing the traits of many others before it on temporary tracks in big stadiums. Encouraging to start with attendance wise which gradually diminishes year on year eventually becoming extinct, read Parken and Stockholm. As Phil Rising says speedway is a minority sport with the only 2 serious markets being in Poland and Great Britain.There are numerous reasons why Cardiff and Warsaw shouldn't work but they do due the loyalty and enthusiasm of the fans in both countries Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
foamfence 2,917 Posted October 27, 2016 If you think it's rubbish then the alternative is to stop buying it. Everything is available on line nowadays anyhow. Seems like some just need something to whinge about. Agreed (I stopped). I think some get them out of habit and to catch up on a few things you don't see on line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
June01 270 Posted October 27, 2016 (edited) ...and they are surprisingly joined by Hans Nielsen who thinks the exclusion was a farce. Perhaps not so surprising when you consider he wouldn't use Denmark's best option for the World Cup race-off squad, and the reasons he gave for that decision, which ultimately cost Denmark their place in the final. Great rider, but questionable opinions. Edited October 27, 2016 by June01 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hodgy 976 Posted October 27, 2016 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? As did several others that were smarter than Mr Grin, it was obvious but more difficult to prove. In addition the WTC couldn't have been more fixed in certain races, did the culprits become 'ineligible'? The rule is not CLEAR (using your favoured word) but as we learn you know best. You've made your point several times, created your own thread campaign, but what do you want? Hancock to be disqualified (oh,,, that wasn't in the rule but expect your usual response) so your golden child becomes the champion by default? Going into Melbourne Hancock was the deserved WC after the sad loss of Doyle's participation. Albeit concluding in a severe impact on his reputation. I think that's enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fromafar 10,375 Posted October 27, 2016 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" Funny that it never stopped the bike though,next he will be saying it was dangerous but he nursed it to the finish.He certainly dug a big hole for himself with his excuses. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robert72 845 Posted October 27, 2016 Should Greg be charged with putting riders at risk if he had knowingly had mechanical problems ? It's a shame that a great career has been ruined over the last two years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
r8gdp 461 Posted October 27, 2016 Just a thought what if the polish promoters don t like the fact that Hancock helped holder trying to get him in the top three if they decide to get together and block Hancock from riding in Poland Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark 1,497 Posted October 28, 2016 What more should they have written? Not being facetious, genuine question. John Leslie has written plenty but here is my Q&A. Why no questioning about why GH appeared to gain speed after Holder went past him. Why no questioning about why GH rode tight with Holder around bends 3 and 4 on Lap 4 when he stated he went wide in the race in case he lost a chain, fell and got run over. How can he question the FIM jury's inspection of the bike as they know what works on a bike, what doesn't, what slows it down. They didn't believe GH. A less bias article you will struggle to find but if you see Burbidge's twitter feed you'll see why. He loves his mate Grin. It was poor journalism. There are no accusations to make. He cheated. It was investigated. His bike was checked. He cheated. Guilty as charged. Correct 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OldRacer 84 Posted October 28, 2016 You've made your point several times, created your own thread campaign, but what do you want? Hancock to be disqualified (oh,,, that wasn't in the rule but expect your usual response) so your golden child becomes the champion by default? Not disqualified, ineligible for the championship. Which is in the rule. Obviously the powers that be have interpreted the rule differently, but trying to pretend that isn't a reasonable reading of the rule is deliberately obtuse. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hodgy 976 Posted October 28, 2016 Not disqualified, ineligible for the championship. Which is in the rule. Obviously the powers that be have interpreted the rule differently, but trying to pretend that isn't a reasonable reading of the rule is deliberately obtuse. 'Considered' and 'Remainder' always conveniently left out. Hancock was guilty in my opinion but so were a number of others that changed / fixed the outcome. Why no campaign to ban them all? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
poole keith 911 Posted October 28, 2016 read speedway star last nite have to say very very poor reporting of the gp, totally biased and unbalanced, the articles could have been written by the monster (ugh) pr dept.No questioning or analysis of hancocks bewildering and somewhat ridiculous explanations.ps will not cancel my subscription as i invariably thoroughly enjoy the publication Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grachan 7,362 Posted October 28, 2016 'Considered' and 'Remainder' always conveniently left out. Hancock was guilty in my opinion but so were a number of others that changed / fixed the outcome. Why no campaign to ban them all? People are referring to Hancock pulling out of the meeting, not engineering the race positions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
