Grand Central

For anyone interested the line in question is on page 221. I would hate for anyone to attempt to read the turgid tome from the start and lose the will to live before you got to it.

That guy looks like he could be World Champion, this year. Oh, but ....

At first I thought that Sidney was displaying his age again. But then a second look at his post and I realise he may be ahead of the game. He gets his milk in ibottles ! Steve Jobs' legacy is safe. .

Amusing to hear Sam struggling to find the right word to describe Emil's manager Tomasz Suskiewicz. Ended up settling on 'coordinator'. I think the word 'puppet-master' may be beyond Sam, but I think we know what he was trying to say.

Word from Sweden is that he is watching it from behind the Sofa. The kids are making hand gestures at him, they learnt from Nicki.

I'd score Nicki a 9.90 there. Tom Daley has a lot to do to improve on it with his next dive.

You were saying ?

Pleased to hear Sam Ermolenko reach to to the far limits of his intellect and vocabulary to pass his unbiased comments on Greg Hancock 's actions this evening. As illuminating as a 5W low energy lamp, as always.

Absolutely. Unfortunately I cannot make it that night. Bizarrely the 4th of July has been 'annexed' my US friends, of all things. Let's hope this threads a good indicator of the 'buzz' created.

.PR actually just used it as a cheap debating point with me to try and score a hit. Perhaps, I goaded him a little. We really do know what fencing means. It is ugly and an attempt to downgrade it into meaning something else to get out of a 'miss-speak' is a bit daft. And a tad transparent. In the olden days Ivan Mauger and Ivor Brown had a feud. Mauger hated Brown with a passion and he later admitted it was the only time he deliberately tried to 'fence' someone He meant hurt him intentionally. As we all know, really deep down, if we are honest I think we should leave this particular point alone now and move on, for safety's sake. .

Yes, if 'fencing' no longer means 'fencing' for the wordsmiths among us. What does 'backtracking' get defined as nowadays?

I am always amused about how people see things from their own perspective. To me this thread and the Darcy Ward thread (in fact all threads here) just tend to show that on every issue, about every rider, there is a massive spread of opinion. Wide and diverse but all strongly held. I suppose that is the point of forums existing. Greg and Nicki here, and Darcy elsewhere, have those that love them extolling their virtues and denying their misdemeanours in strident fashion just as those that that disagree stick to their guns in opposition. What is most funny is those that place themselves in one extreme camp who then complain about anyone even having a contrary opinion. We agree on some things and disagree on others. That is all. No reason for bleating (even though it is funny).

I think someone may have had a 'whiff of the barmaids apron'. And then stumbled into the wrong room

. Thankfully we will never know. If they move at their usual speed - think Darcy's case and the Warsaw 'enquiry'. Then old man Greg will be long retired before any action was taken. I should think it is totally outside their jurisdiction anyway. But honestly, what idiocy it would be to consider banning the man. Come US Independence Day - July 4 - HIs appearance at Cardiff will be the most eagerly awaited by a Yank in this country since Penhall retired. No one should spoil that ! .

Just none of it covering Sweden. And concerning two riders who do not race in the UK. You win the perpetual 'Starman Award' for daftest post in the thread. Well done.

I do love this .. We are now debating the actual nature of the violent act Greg's red-mist-moment produced. As if it mattered. I could understand debating the nature of NP's move in the race; whether it was worthy of exclusion or not. But to debate the type of assault Greg carried out, seems madness. Let us agree on one thing. Greg Hancock has finally ridden a race worth public comment tinged with real high emotion.. That's just bloody marvellous.

Loss of face when laughed at for being a wuss?

I quite agree. It's all the 'fun of the fair'. It has been the long winded 'justifications', on both sides, 'that have amused me so much. If I had put a bet on that you could start a thread about Greg Hancock and get 27 pages in a couple days; the odds would have been 1000/1. Let's keep up the PR push before Cardiff. Just a pity I can't make it this year !

So ... I'm unsure. If this information is to help the debate. Does it mean we should be applauding Greg, or not. Even having got it off his chest; is it still OK for him to thump Nicki at Cardiff, If his 'memories' get the better of him? Or can the others have a 'pop' if they happen to fall off within 'blame distance' of Nicki?

Let's see if I can get this right, for my own understanding. Quite a few people who think that 'Greg was in the right' to land one on Nicki; seem to be saying ... It is a totally natural response for a 'victim' to lash out at the 'assailant' in the heat of the moment, without much thought. Yet the same people, it would seem, are simultaneously saying ... Nicki had this coming to him, lots of riders who been knocked off by him had been chatting about doing worse for ages, and that Greg had some 'premeditated justification' for attacking him as the 'representative of the collective'. A proxy thump from them all as soon as the opportunity arose. So one has it heat of moment, the other premeditated. Very different concepts. Morally, and in law. I know Greg seems to struggle with this paradox in his own statement. Can we help him. Which is it? .

I am getting more and more disturbed by this attitude. As you were happy to define the terms of on-track revenge you have had the terrible misfortune to witness. Sick to the stomach, I understand. I wonder what level of off-track revenge that riders should take out on each other that you advocate as appropriate. And what dystopian world you wish to create.

Goodness. You surprise me. Such a vocal advocate for vigilante justice. Charles Bronson; Eat your heart out !

And why not have the tactical option of putting your 'best' as reserve if that suits. I just don't see what detriment that woukd create, that we want to stop. The tactics involved would at least give Tatum and Pearson something to talk about.

Do not put words into my mouth. You used the word retribution. And you stated that you felt it should happen off track. I still find that both startling and dusturbing.

.A most startling and disturbing point of view. .