Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[foamfence 2,917]

I think he could because as he has already, maybe smartly said, the incident left him furious and he didn't feel in a correct mental state to be racing.

 

I think the FIM would be unwise to take the title from him because it could get messy.

And Mr Parsons wont like it.

[New Science 1,059]

Got the feeling this thread would not have been started if anyone other than Tai Woffinden had finished 2nd

[HenryW 1,178]

Tai doesn't have to be World Champ if Greg was deemed not to be eligible to receive the title.

 

No-one was promoted to 2nd in 1990 when they deemed Shawn Moran wasn't eligible to race in the Final after a prior drug test failure.

[JoeW 46]

Got the feeling this thread would not have been started if anyone other than Tai Woffinden had finished 2nd

BWitcher opened this topic after reading my opinion on another topic. I am not a fan of Woffinden but decided to look at the regulations when I saw that Greg had not received any punishment for his walk out. Even if he is a fan of Woffinden (which he may be - I don't know) why should he be criticised for opening the topic?

[norbold 7,116]

I think he could because as he has already, maybe smartly said, the incident left him furious and he didn't feel in a correct mental state to be racing.

I can't see that that makes it any better. How many times have we seen riders excluded for incidents that weren't their fault? Or, at least, don't think it's their fault, and get on the phone to the ref? How many times have we seen riders "furious" with the decision?

 

What do they do next? They get back on their bikes and carry on with the meeting.

 

I suppose it's too much to expect that the World Champion should behave like a normal rider and pay the fans back for their support (and money) by carrying on.

[Joe Beevers 207]

Mr BWitcher is absolutely correct here I'm afraid. Ineligible means he is no longer considered a part of the competition as soon as he breaks the rule.

 

The reason the wording states 'remainder of the season' is for a scenario where, for example, a rider says 'I'm not competing in x round because I feel the referee is incompetent, but I'll do the rest'. The regulation wording prevents that. BWitcher is correct that 'ineligible for the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship' means exactly that.

 

Legally, if the FIM did decide to take the title from him, Greg could use the 'force majeure' part of the regulation, which for those unfamiliar with the term basically means exceptional circumstances, because he has been accused of cheating in a roundabout way and even though he allowed his machine to be examined by the race director, the jury decided he was guilty without even checking the bike, which could be a big error on their part. Greg could argue he has a right of appeal against such an accusation and since they couldn't be arsed to check the facts, he is in a good position.

 

I personally wouldn't want a title decided this way and if I was Tai I wouldn't want to accept the trophy, it would feel very hollow.

 

Even though technically Greg should be ruled out, I don't think it will happen because like I said, he has a good argument for exceptional circumstances and someone in the jury would have to answer questions as to why a proper investigation wasn't made.

It also states 'he shall be considered ineligible for the FIM SGP for the remainder of the season'.

 

1) It is not definitely ineligible if 'he shall be considered ineligible' presumably by the rulemakers who are the only ones with power of authority to 'consider' ineligibility.

2) 'For the remainder of the season' surely means no further rides. As he walked out, he was given no score for those last couple of rides and as there are no GPs remaining, he cannot be excluded from anymore as there are none to compete in.

3) I am pretty sure to disqualify a rider for walking out of a meeting after he has already won the World Championship would lack common sense and I can't see any rule being devised to take away a title for not riding the last two rides of the last meeting.

 

Say for example any rider..it was his first world title with two heats to go. He was a young rider who was over the moon and just got the bumps with his home crowd going wild and throws his helmet, gloves and perhaps his leathers into the crowd out of sheer joy but has no idea of no rulings and realised he couldn't ride his last heat or two because he had thrown his belongings to the crowd with the title bagged.

 

Does that mean this rider who doesn't or cannot ride with no gear on (probably another rule but won't go into depth) lose his world title through a passionate moment of joy. Common sense would say it would be stupid to give the title to the second place rider.

[Steve Shovlar 10,439]

This is a nonsense thread. If Hancock rode for Wolves it wouldn't have even been started.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Steve Shovlar

[Bonzo 59]

I can't see that that makes it any better. How many times have we seen riders excluded for incidents that weren't their fault? Or, at least, don't think it's their fault, and get on the phone to the ref? How many times have we seen riders "furious" with the decision?

 

What do they do next? They get back on their bikes and carry on with the meeting.

 

I suppose it's too much to expect that the World Champion should behave like a normal rider and pay the fans back for their support (and money) by carrying on.

 

This is true but there is a difference between an exclusion for causing a stoppage and being accused of cheating.

 

I'm not saying what Greg did is right here by the way, I'm just saying he has an argument. I'm not going to get all holier-than-thou on the bloke either because I don't believe, hand on heart, that any of us wouldn't react badly to being accused of cheating. Easy to say 'I would have carried on' but in truth, not one of us could honestly say how we would react until put in the situation.

 

All I am saying here is that he has an argument, which is probably good enough for no further action to be taken.

It also states 'he shall be considered ineligible for the FIM SGP for the remainder of the season'.

 

1) It is not definitely ineligible if 'he shall be considered ineligible' presumably by the rulemakers who are the only ones with power of authority to 'consider' ineligibility.

2) 'For the remainder of the season' surely means no further rides. As he walked out, he was given no score for those last couple of rides and as there are no GPs remaining, he cannot be excluded from anymore as there are none to compete in.

3) I am pretty sure to disqualify a rider for walking out of a meeting after he has already won the World Championship would lack common sense and I can't see any rule being devised to take away a title for not riding the last two rides of the last meeting.

 

Say for example any rider..it was his first world title with two heats to go. He was a young rider who was over the moon and just got the bumps with his home crowd going wild and throws his helmet, gloves and perhaps his leathers into the crowd out of sheer joy but has no idea of no rulings and realised he couldn't ride his last heat or two because he had thrown his belongings to the crowd with the title bagged.

 

Does that mean this rider who doesn't or cannot ride with no gear on (probably another rule but won't go into depth) lose his world title through a passionate moment of joy. Common sense would say it would be stupid to give the title to the second place rider.

 

To be honest here, the fact that there are people coming up with all kinds of scenarios and interpretations of the regulation, says to me that there is a level of ambiguity involved. Like BWitcher, I asked a legal friend of mine, who has no connection to speedway by the way, and he said that he would interpret the wording to mean Greg should be out of the competition altogether.

 

He did also say that the regulation is open to challenge because the wording could be deemed as not thorough enough in it's description.

 

I'm not trying to take sides in case anyone thinks I'm being an apologist here. I have already said I wouldn't want Greg to lose the title this way and frankly anyone who does needs to ask themselves the real reason why.

 

I've seen BWitcher accused of only starting the thread because he's a Tai fan. I don't know the bloke so I can't say but that's not the impression I got. It is a talking point and since this is a forum for such things then there's no reason not to bring it up.

 

I hope common sense prevails here and the result as it is now stands.

[NickRushbrook 202]

I don't condone the actions of Greg on Saturday (or the SWC) but I don't quite understand the amount of hate thrown at him.

 

Ok, we've discovered that he's not a perfect human bring and that sometimes perhaps, his 'grin' is a facade.

 

No question though, whether fake or not, he has always had time to talk to the fans over the years and never looks like he's trying to get away.

 

Also, no question that he's quite simply one of the best SPORTSMEN ever.

 

46 and still number one. Staggering achievement.

[Bryce 349]

Regarding the Melbourne GP, Greg should have completed the meeting. Should he face a sanction of some sort? Yes. Should he be stripped of his title? No way. That would make a mockery of the entire season. I don't think Tai would want the title handed to him in that way either.

 

Regarding Greg Hancock as a person. I think he is a genuinely nice man. An example. My brother has quite severe autism and his social skills are those of a small child rather than the 57 year old man he is. At the Rico memorial meeting Greg was swamped by fans seeking autographs and pictures. Despite the numbers, he was patiently speaking to everyone. When my brother went up to him he spoke rather excitedly about his memories of Greg when he started out at Cradley. My brother's social difficulties mean he sometimes comes across oddly, and I was concerned he was doing just that to Greg. Greg couldn't have been nicer. He spent a good 5 minutes chatting to my brother and when we left my brother felt 100 feet tall because of the way Greg had spoken with him.

 

Is he perfect? No, but who is? He is a genuine legend of the sport and rightly so.

[BWitcher 12,453]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/motorsport/556642/Nicki-Pedersen-Strip-Greg-Hancock-of-the-Speedway-world-title

[billywamill 32]

There's as much chance of Greg being stripped of the title as there is of another EU referendum.

 

I read it that a rider would be kicked out of any remaining Grand Prix and I think the lawyers would have a field day if any action was taken.

 

Makes it more interesting for next year though. Looks a great line up.

 

Let's hope Doyle returns 100% next year and claim the title he deserved this year.

[June01 270]

Given that they've missed a simple word from the first sentence of the rule, I think a lot of people are overestimating the ability of whoever wrote it to string together a comprehensive sentence...which throws the meaning of anything else written into question.

 

I think we have to assume the FIM know what their interpretation of that rule is, have applied it accordingly, and considered it to be the end of the matter.

[JoeW 46]

Given that they've missed a simple word from the first sentence of the rule, I think a lot of people are overestimating the ability of whoever wrote it to string together a comprehensive sentence...which throws the meaning of anything else written into question.

 

I think we have to assume the FIM know what their interpretation of that rule is, have applied it accordingly, and considered it to be the end of the matter.

What simple word is missing?

[June01 270]

What simple word is missing?

You didn't write it, did you?

 

From.