Grand Central

It was not my intention to be just negative. I just cannot see anything actually radical. I see a fair bit of tinkering with the inner workings of the sport. Averages and altering points limits again! But every time we make changes to those areas it just give rise to more acrimony when certain promoters are able to make use of new and juicy loopholes that had not been thought of at the AGM by the less astute. And I see very little change to the actual product. I had been waiting for something to come out at the AGM about the various 'test meetings' from earlier in the year. Some truly 'radical' ideas were being mentioned about the product on the night. Have they been binned?

And THAT is deemed radical? It may be mindbogglingly fascinatingly for stattos. But nothing to be printed on billboards.

Are you really being serious?This has been tried in this form before and been utterly pointless. For gods sake Rye House and Somerset have just been promoted without a race bring run. What's the big deal?

Just which changes are actually radical here?

You would have thought they would get their press release right though, wouldn't you. With the potential for some people to get confused between Premiership and Championship. It''s p!ss poor that the BSPA themselves confuse the two in relation to Workington straight away.

Actually within the burburblings of Burbidge are two references to the correct make up of the FIM Jury in Melbourne. Not even HE could get that wrong. But in the spread across P2/3 with quotes from Hancock and the unattributed 'comment' piece entitled 'Jury Justice?' Morris is mentioned by name more than once. Plus is the Page 3 FIM column there are comments & quotes by him that are all about the Jury actions. At no point is it actually written "Race Director sits on the Jury but has no vote" as PR has done just here; which is so easy to do just for clarity. .

I understand the sentiment and reasoning. But have doubts about what even attempting to 'ban' him would actually achieve. Everything about him screams to me 'keep him away' and 'steer clear'. But that is quite irrelevant. The trouble is he seems well liked by many of those that matter. And there will be absolute zero understanding among them at what, to me, seems so obviously odious about the creature. You won't change the prevailing culture by calling for action against him that no one will even consider. We would just get 'Martyr Joe' rather than 'Monstrous Joe' After all, he IS the sponsors representative so, hideous though he seems, one has to hold one's nose and accept him. .

Errmolenko's behaviour on the first lap in Vojens 1996 was just as blatant as what we saw in Melbourne 20 years later. I can't remember if he claimed his 'clutch' was a problem on the 'straightaway'. But at least he recieved his just desserts.

RPNYC ... you are to be commended in your dogged belief in the geniune goodness in others. The total absense of any cynicism must be difficult to live with when faced with so many aspects of modern life. It must lead to so much disappointment when one finds that this faith in others is misplaced.

Oh yes. Spot on, Marky And quite ridiculous for anyone to suggest otherwise.

YES ... At least in the midst of all the other nonsense you've stumbled across something correct So why not tear a strip off the reporter who couldn't spot that and wouldn't report on it like that in his many thousands of words.

This reads like an audition to replace Roger Lloyd Pack as Trigger.

It is not uncommon for me to differ on matters of opinion with PR. And I know that I may have established myself as a Speedway Star 'basher' over the years. But I have tried to present my honest opinion. So, in some respects, it is almost pointless for me to add to the comments others have made here about this week's coverage. If will be dismissed contemptuously, I know, as jaundiced and irrelevant. But I do still feel compelled to register just how dreadful I do feel the five or six reports all written by the same hand were this week. All the articles were crafted so as to present the illusion of 'balanced' reporting but also with the thinly-veiled but consistent core purpose of reiterating the innocent of Hancock. The MO of the writer was clear and common to each. PB certainly did a fine job in that respect. He does deserve a 'Monster' thank you from his friends. But Norbold is so right in expressing his sadness at these words from PR in defence/justification. Really sad to read.

I feel there are other significant variations as well. Their whole outlook was different. I don't think Mauger and Nielsen spent one moment of their careers trying to be everyone best friend. Neither ever saw behaving like a pratish teenager to curry favour with the 'kool kids' as being desirable. And that 'Monstrous Joe' chap would not have been given house-room within their pit crew. How times have changed. .

In which case, he should be forced to hand back his Ferrero Rocher. .

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.

Yes, it is a little surprising that Ivan was so keen on the 15, That number has the last two rides in successive heats 16 and 17 which is is quite a thing if you are going for the championship and then have so little time between such crucial races. But I imagine it is a measure of his supreme confidence in his own ability that he felt that was better than the alternative. Number 13 has it's successive rides in heats 4 and 5 and I understand that Ivan was more concerned that any major changes he may need to make are much more likely to come after his first ride, and that is much more difficult to get done with so little time. Of course there us just the psycological thing as well. I bet it gives you quite a mental buzz to have the run off in the bag and then manipulate the result to your will. It may be less to with the draw and more to do with the feeling of superiority it can give over your rivals. Having said that, Ivan may have felt on cloud 9 for pulling it off in 1979, as evidenced by his face when interviewed for ITV. He was SO enjoying the moment. But I imagine Hans felt a lot less 'boosted' when he plan failed and he had to return to the pits rather sheepishly. .

I had to laugh that, according to what has been said here, the Speedway Star report of the incident may not be 100% reliable. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I think this will take you to a dropbox link https://www.dropbox.com/s/n71btw00t4xu4sh/ICF%201988.avi?dl=0

One has to admire Mr Burbidge though. For putting so many different viewpoints. Into so many different and varied articles. Prolific, doesn't do him justice. And so impartial. .

Spooky isn't it?

.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. .

As George W Bush might say we 'misunderestimate' Mr Hancock. His ability to 'retrofit' excuses to previous 'misspeaks' to suit his current needs is of a standard worthy of a Presidential Candidate. In the 'Land of the Free' trust is a 'monstrously' scare commodity at the moment.

Just watched the video of the 1988 icident. Yes Nielsen shuts off on the final bend to try and get second place; and with Gundersen doing likewise in second and Jonsson coming up quickly, all three go over the line almost together. BUT Nielsen still just goes over first. That is why the ref gave him the win!

For me this is your most persuasive argument. According to the reading of others who have a contrary view to BWitcher. If #45 had been 43 points ahead with two rounds to go; he could have stayed in Sweden after Stockholm on September 24 and not bothered with the the last two rounds at all. Despite being fit and healthy. He would still have have enough points so as to be unassailable. And there would be no sanction to prevent him. He could have avoided all the nonsense of travelling to Australia. And have side-stepped the prize giving ceremony completely at the Etihad. He could just have nipped along to the Berlin FIM Ceremony at the end of November, knowing that his prize was waiting for collection. Or would someone at the FIM have THEN invoked the rule BWitcher is quoting specifically to prevent such a travesty? YES they would. And BSI would have been clamouring behind the scenes to bring it about. It is to specifically preclude this scenario that could decimate the concluding GPs that this rule exists in this exact form. BWitcher's interpretation is correct JUST so that we avoid a situation where the World Champion-designate who is way ahead near the end cannot sh!t on us in this way and still claim the prize.