BWitcher

I didn't 'deflect' your opinion. You've staggeringly questioned why other riders you claim 'cheated' didn't become 'ineligible'. Well that's quite simply because cheating, throwing a race doesn't make you ineligible. The discussion is regarding Hancock withdrawing from the meeting, as such your post was entirely irrelevant. In an attempt to humor you I asked you to name me these other riders who you seem keen to bracket alongside Hancock i.e. excluded for cheating. Unable to name a single one you have come back with some childish petulance.

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.

I can accept Trick and Crump... not Gollob. Gollob is a 1 time World Champion who was in the series for a very long time and had multiple opportunities, often with several rounds in his home country. Hancock is way above him on the world stage.

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.

No wonder he's always grinning then!

It did happen in Sweden did it not?

Tell me which other riders were excluded for cheating. When you can, you have an argument. You don't seem to grasp that the debate is regarding a rider who was excluded and subsequently walked out of the meeting. Not who may or may not have done something.

They have done something, they've covered their backs by saying Hancock was given permission to withdraw due to him being 'upset'. Quite ridiculous of course, but it covers them on the rule rendering Hancock ineligible for the title.

You appear to be missing something pretty basic here. The others weren't excluded from a race for cheating and didn't then withdraw from the FIM Grand Prix Speedway World Championship, so why on earth would they become ineligible? Try and debate the point sensibly instead of inserting phrases such as 'golden child'. What you 'think' is irrelevant. What past riders may or may not have done is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rule, which you are unable to argue with. The discussion is moot anyway as the FIM, fully aware of what the rule says and means have given the cover story of him being given permission to withdraw due to being upset. I think it's pretty clear they haven't interpreted the rule differently. That is why it's been stated (after the event of course and after questions were being asked) that the FIM gave permission for him to withdraw.

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.

No it doesn't at all. Harris has ridden on a Friday night then in the GP on a Saturday. The section you keep referring to are simply the parameters for the suspension. If a rider had raced on the Friday night it would be applied retrospectively, as SHOULD have happened with the Darcy Ward case.

The rule doesn't mention not taking part in meetings. It's a figment of your imagination. It states the World Championship, of which every single ride is a part of. As for you saying the part I have highlighted is 'just the name of the competition'... of course it's the name of the competition, that's why it's there! It's that competition which the rule says you cannot refuse to take part in.

"A rider who has entered the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship and refuses or is unable to take part, is deemed to be suspended competing internationally for a period of 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meetings concerned." As can be seen, it's quite clear that the event that riders refusing to take part in are punished for is the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship, NOT a grand prix meeting, or it would say so. The Grand Prix meeting concerned is referring to when the offence of refusing to take part took place and setting the dates for the suspension. In Melbourne Greg Hancock refused to take part in his fourth and fifth rides of the Australian GP in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. As such his suspension is for 1 day before and up to 3 days after the Grand Prix meeting concerned, which of course in this case is the Australian GP in Melbourne. It's not complicated. The FIM have covered themselves from applying this and the more severe element of the rule where he is rendered ineligible by saying they 'allowed' him to withdraw. Which again, they simply wouldn't need to do if the rule is how you keep claiming it to be. To add, your false claims regarding the rule would mean a rider could race one heat in a GP, refuse to race in the rest of a meeting and face zero punishment. Of course that wouldn't be the case.

So the rides are not part of the World Championship, that is now your claim? You're getting sillier with every post.

It is the name of the series, it is also the name of the Championship, and it is the name of the event that if you withdraw from it you become ineligible. So again, what did Hancock withdraw from? You won't answer that question because it totally invalidates your argument. I know it, Nicki Pedersen knows it and most importantly the FIM know it hence the cover story. There would be absolutely no need for them to say they'd given permission otherwise.

The word meetings is in reference to the time period he is suspended for. What part of "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" don't you understand? I'll ask you the simple question again. were Hancocks final two rides part of the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship"? It's a simple question.. yes or no?

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?

Again, making things up. The rule says nothing about a meeting. It states if you refuse to take part in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship". Are you claiming his final two rides were not in the "FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship" ?

Yes, but not in relation to the refusing to take part. That is specifically, refusing to take part in the FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship. The Grand Prix meeting is simply to define when the 'suspension' from racing takes place from. If what you were claiming was correct, they wouldn't need the cover story would they?

Hmm... I originally thought you were onto something Vincent, but nope. Hancock did refuse to take part. Whether he took part beforehand is again irrelevant. The moment he withdrew from the meeting he was in essence refusing to take part. Again, you are having to invent something that isn't there to fit your argument. It doesn't state in a 'meeting'. It simply says, refuses or unable to take part. Hancock did that. As I have said before, that is why the cover story was needed that the FIM 'agreed' to him withdrawing due to him being so upset.

It doesn't mention riding. You've made it up. It simply says he is ineligible for the FIM World Speedway Championship. That is it. It's staggering how people continue to make stuff up that isn't there. If you are ineligible for the World Speedway Championship, you cannot win it. That is why they've concocted the cover story of the FIM giving him permission to withdraw from the meeting as he was so upset. Agreed, that is the only get out there is. Not all the nonsense other folk are making up. The fact that they have come up with a cover story and that he was 'given permission' to withdraw suggests the FIM are covering the bases though.

Making things up again.

Fully agree, one of the best temporary track GP's there have been.

Oh ****.. I knew there was something I was forgetting

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