Grand Central

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.

The really obvious, almost cliched response to that would be to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies ... But dealing with that response more 'head on'. I think it would be pretty damned obvious that I DO read Speedway Star very often. A Speedway Supporter of fifty years standing will always be a regular reader of the only Speedway weekly. One would have to be pretty stupid to think for one moment that I would not. Having done so, religiously. I have formed the 'opinion' of it's coverage that I have just expressed. One may think it better for the Managing Editor to take a little head of contrary views, rather than be so knee-jerk in his rejection of any opinion other than his own.

There has never been anything written in the Star over the years that would give any reason to believe that it would carry ANY overt criticism of the sainted-one. Quite the reverse. I imagine they will give a 'factual summary of both sides of the debate', as they will see it. Make reference to 'social media' comments, in the usual condescending way of the 'print media'. Give maximum exposure to Hancock's pathetic ramblings and pass them off as being 'plausable'. And then return to unadulterated hagiography, as always.

Jury found him guilty. He does not appeal. He rightly remains guilty. All the rest is for the birds.

YES Clearly, as the competent legal entity of the FIM Jury has 'convicted' him. And he has not appealed. So definitively guilty, beyond doubt, of breaking the FIM Sporting Code, .

I was of the understanding that when the FIM jury passes an adjudication then we must take that as final word. It then ceases to be just what 'you and others believe' any more. In the absense of any appeal the jury have established that he did act against the FIM Sporting code. That is the definitive word, He is as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo. And, accordingly, should have his 'nose rubbed in it'.

As with so many parts of life. I preferred 1993.

Is there some sort of International Law that insists that Sports authority bodies are populated by total numbskulls? In this case they actually made something up like Jokers that had not existed in our sport for its first seventy years. And then they blame the riders and team managers for using the rules that they created. If you write it into the rules. How the hell can you complain when it produces entirely predictable outcomes. If it doesn't work properly, then put right the error in the rules. And even now, their best attempt is to threaten people for doing this 'blatantly'. Of course as it is so difficult to police, so they will always allow those who can do it so well that it is less obvious. How very sporting of them. THEY create the rules that determine how their competitions work. No one else So noone else to blame, is there?

Bewitched has very well explained the reasoning behind the move. Which are no doubt correct It only remains to point out what cynical, scumbags with no care for the speedway public some riders actually are. When you strip down their motives to the bone. You can spend your whole career developing a wholsome, fan friendly persona in the media and on the terraces. But then the mask slips. 'So long as we know'

Any ideas on how the brown-nosing commentary duo will cover Hancock skiving off.? They treat the old codger with such Demi-God status that I imagine they will find some way of spinning it. Pearson will probably end up making it sound as if such selfless action by The Toothless One is actually to our benefit.