Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

 

So you're saying that, if Harris had dropped out of one of his races in a fit of pique during the GP his points would have to be expunged from the previous evening's EL match?

 

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.

[AlanF 295]

 

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.

Not saying you are wrong but try explaining that to the casual fan on Coventry. "Remember that meeting we went to last week. Well we actually lost even though we won, because Chris Harris pulled out of a ride in the GP last night."

[Grand Central 2,654]

Mind you, I recall that a certain rider had a ruling against him by the FIM for a misdeamour at a GP in 2014.

And that ruling required that points scored in certain league fixtures be expunged.

It didn't happen, of course.

 

But it is probably politically incorrect to speak of such matters today.

[Grachan 7,362]

Mind you, I recall that a certain rider had a ruling against him by the FIM for a misdeamour at a GP in 2014.

And that ruling required that points scored in certain league fixtures be expunged.

It didn't happen, of course.

 

But it is probably politically incorrect to speak of such matters today.

 

And I recall there being quite a debate on here at the time that it should have happened.

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

And I recall there being quite a debate on here at the time that it should have happened.

 

It did happen in Sweden did it not?

[June01 270]

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 727]

 

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 12,453]

 

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 727]

 

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 12,453]

 

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 270]

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 2,937]

 

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 727]

 

 

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 12,453]

 

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 4,295]

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)?