Congratulations Tai Woffinden, 2016 World Speedway Champion

[BWitcher 12,453]

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule.

 

Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that.

 

When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter.

 

Everything else is people making things up.

[waiheke1 4,295]

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule.

 

Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that.

 

When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter.

 

Everything else is people making things up.

Tbf, if the intention was the rider be inelehible for the world championship the phrase "remainder of" becomes unnecessary.

There could be no debate if the rule said "inelegible for the world chsmpionship" or "disqualified from the world championship."

I know you think it is well and clearly worded,but if the interpretation you have is different to that which was intended (as indicated by fim decision) surely that indicates the rule is actually terribly worded?

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

It's laughable how people continue to try and create their own rule.

 

Oh it means this.. Oh there is a word missing.. Oh it means that.

 

When all along it's very simple. You walk out of a meeting or refuse to race you're ineligible for the Championship, whether it's the first meeting of the season, or the last. It doesn't matter.

 

Everything else is people making things up.

 

I would have thought that if that rule was meant to disqualify a rider from the World Championship there would be something along the lines of 'would forfeit any points previously gained' included in the wording.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

I would have thought that if that rule was meant to disqualify a rider from the World Championship there would be something along the lines of 'would forfeit any points previously gained' included in the wording.

 

Why do you need to forfeit points?

 

You're ineligible. It doesn't matter!

 

Did Shawn Moran forfeit points? Nope. His points are still there on record. However, he doesn't have 2nd place.

Tbf, if the intention was the rider be inelehible for the world championship the phrase "remainder of" becomes unnecessary.

There could be no debate if the rule said "inelegible for the world chsmpionship" or "disqualified from the world championship."

I know you think it is well and clearly worded,but if the interpretation you have is different to that which was intended (as indicated by fim decision) surely that indicates the rule is actually terribly worded?

 

No it indicates the FIM have bottled it.

 

So tell me, how can the same discression have completely different levels of punishment depending upon whether you commit it in the first GP or the last GP? Of course it can't, it must be the same.

 

The rule is in place as a deterrent from riders either picking and choosing, or flat out walking out like Hancock did. They don't want a rider safely in the top 8, but no chance of a medal thinking, nah, I won't bother going to Australia, which could happen without the rule in place. With the rule, don't go to Australia, you're out the top eight as you become ineligible.

 

The FIM quite simply never envisaged someone as high profile as Hancock would do what he did. They haven't the guts to enforce their own rules and throw out a rider sponsored by the series sponsors.

Edited October 26, 2016 by BWitcher

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

 

Why do you need to forfeit points?

 

You're ineligible. It doesn't matter!

 

Did Shawn Moran forfeit points? Nope. His points are still there on record. However, he doesn't have 2nd place.

 

Because if it had then Hancock would have to lose his Championship and your boy would get it. No question. But since it doesn't, the rule is open to interpretation. You see it one way, most of the others see it the other.

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

Because if it had then Hancock would have to lose his Championship and your boy would get it. No question. But since it doesn't, the rule is open to interpretation. You see it one way, most of the others see it the other.

 

Once again, did Shawn Moran have his pts deducted from the 1990 World Final?

 

If not, why isn't he still the silver medallist?

 

Once you are ineligble, it matters not what pts you have. As with Moran, it should say Greg Hancock 150pts (ineligible). Or however many pts he has.

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

 

Once again, did Shawn Moran have his pts deducted from the 1990 World Final?

 

If not, why isn't he still the silver medallist?

 

Once you are ineligble, it matters not what pts you have. As with Moran, it should say Greg Hancock 150pts (ineligible). Or however many pts he has.

 

Shawn Moran was before the current GP system so the two cases aren't the same.

 

 

The rule is in place as a deterrent from riders either picking and choosing, or flat out walking out like Hancock did. They don't want a rider safely in the top 8, but no chance of a medal thinking, nah, I won't bother going to Australia, which could happen without the rule in place. With the rule, don't go to Australia, you're out the top eight as you become ineligible.

 

 

 

Agreed the rule is to stop riders picking and choosing which GPs to ride in. Whether or not it includes an individual ride in a GP is open to question. The rule states 'refuses or is unable to take part'. Greg did 'take part' in the Melbourne GP, he has five points to prove it.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[BWitcher 12,453]

 

Shawn Moran was before the current GP system so the two cases aren't the same.

 

Agreed the rule is to stop riders picking and choosing which GPs to ride in. Whether or not it includes an individual ride in a GP is open to question. The rule states 'refuses or is unable to take part'. Greg did 'take part' in the Melbourne GP, he has five points to prove it.

 

The Shawn Moran issue is to demonstrate that 'points' accrued are irrelevant if you are deemed ineligible, void, disqualified etc.

 

Your second point is a good one and there could well be grounds to argue the case there. You've not invented something that isn't there.

 

We could argue the toss on this for hours on end but as we know, the FIM won't be doing anything.

 

My biggest concern over this is, what would have happened if let's say the rider leading the Championship was Nicki Pedersen... and the rider in 2nd was a Monster rider.. and Nicki walked out in protest... would the same decision have been reached? Hypothetical I know, but I suspect it would have had a different conclusion!

[AFCB Wildcat 1,362]

Tbf, if the intention was the rider be inelehible for the world championship the phrase "remainder of" becomes unnecessary.

There could be no debate if the rule said "inelegible for the world chsmpionship" or "disqualified from the world championship."

I know you think it is well and clearly worded,but if the interpretation you have is different to that which was intended (as indicated by fim decision) surely that indicates the rule is actually terribly worded?

But I suppose you could argue that "remainder of the season" is intended to mean that the ineligibility is only till the end of the current season and they would be eligible for the next season subject to qualification I.e. not a permanent ban from the series.

I agree with you're last paragraph. I think it's badly worded and I guess only the person that wrote it knows what they meant regardless of what it literally says.

[Grachan 7,362]

If you use the Shawn Moran case as a parallel, Tai would not be World Champion. There would be no World Champion.

[BWitcher 12,453]

If you use the Shawn Moran case as a parallel, Tai would not be World Champion. There would be no World Champion.

 

Quite possibly, I think HenryW mentioned this earlier in the thread. I suppose the only difference is the Moran case was sometime afterwards.

[Grand Central 2,654]

Quite possibly, I think HenryW mentioned this earlier in the thread. I suppose the only difference is the Moran case was sometime afterwards.

.

Of course Shawn was second; so just leaving that 'empty' and not upgrading Todd Wiltshire was quite reasonable at the time.

BUT had the run-off for the title gone the other way, meaning that he had to be stripped of first place, then I think things may have been handled differently.

In those circumstances the claims for Per Jonsson to be upgraded to Champion may have been quite persuasive.

.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Grand Central

[waiheke1 4,295]

If you use the Shawn Moran case as a parallel, Tai would not be World Champion. There would be no World Champion.

Not sure it works as a parallel. Moran is listed as "disqualified" which is unambiguous.

But I suppose you could argue that "remainder of the season" is intended to mean that the ineligibility is only till the end of the current season and they would be eligible for the next season subject to qualification I.e. not a permanent ban from the series.

 

Very true, and if that was the intent then bwitcher is correct that Hancock should not be world Champ.

[Vincent Blachshadow 2,937]

Very true, and if that was the intent then bwitcher is correct that Hancock should not be world Champ.

 

Why? He 'took part' in the Melbourne GP as the rule requires him to. There is no mention of a rider having to take all his rides.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Vincent Blackshadow

[Gavan 5,050]

Ineligible for the remainder of the season means exactly that , he can't ride for the rest if the season not ineligible from being world champ!! What he did was shocking but those on here saying he is ineligible to be world champ are in cloud cuckoo land