waiheke1 4,295 Posted September 11, 2017 And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook? 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruffdiamond 6,115 Posted September 11, 2017 And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook? you forgot the Robert Lambert and rain off 'carry-on' 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slyfox 97 Posted September 11, 2017 And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook? Punishment pending? I thought Ged had had his promoters licence suspended as punishment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) How can a punishment be imposed on Chris Harris for competing in the Grass Track Masters? It was an ACU sanctioned NATIONAL championship event - and aren't the ACU the recognised UK governing body for ALL motorcycle sport and as such recognised by the FIM? It's doubtful, if such is the case, that any suggested punishment against Harris will be legitimised. Edited September 11, 2017 by Guest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BluTiger 21,695 Posted September 11, 2017 How can a punishment be imposed on Chris Harris for competing in the Grass Track Masters? It was an ACU sanctioned NATIONAL championship event - and aren't the ACU the recognised UK governing body for ALL motorcycle sport and as such recognised by the FIM? It's doubtful, if such is the case, that any suggested punishment against Harris will be legitimised. It's just the usual forum queens 'ranting off' with nothing better to do 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted September 11, 2017 How can a punishment be imposed on Chris Harris for competing in the Grass Track Masters? It was an ACU sanctioned NATIONAL championship event - and aren't the ACU the recognised UK governing body for ALL motorcycle sport and as such recognised by the FIM? It's doubtful, if such is the case, that any suggested punishment against Harris will be legitimised. For the same reason that last week Robert Lambert had to ride in Poland according to the rules. But in doing so his club (Newcastle) were not allowed a facility. Just because the rules say you have to ride in a certain place doesn't mean the club should get a facility. And if a club uses a facility they shouldn't use then the rider gets a ban according to the rules. As for the suggest this is bias or hatred, lol. Chris Harris is my favourite rider. I own more Chris Harris merchandise than all others combined. I have prints of Chris Harris hanging in my living room, hallway and bedroom. But none of that changes my opinion that based on the rule book he should be banned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,476 Posted September 11, 2017 I can't really see Plummer thumbing the rule book to get back to him can you? He doesn't run those does he? Would explain a lot though if so! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New era Panthers 2,055 Posted September 11, 2017 For the same reason that last week Robert Lambert had to ride in Poland according to the rules. But in doing so his club (Newcastle) were not allowed a facility. Just because the rules say you have to ride in a certain place doesn't mean the club should get a facility. And if a club uses a facility they shouldn't use then the rider gets a ban according to the rules. As for the suggest this is bias or hatred, lol. Chris Harris is my favourite rider. I own more Chris Harris merchandise than all others combined. I have prints of Chris Harris hanging in my living room, hallway and bedroom. But none of that changes my opinion that based on the rule book he should be banned. Oh dear now your saying he should be banned and yet on the P/boro v W/ton thread you are saying he shouldn't make your mind up and send your protest to the governing body which ever one you choose, that's where the problem is , remember the referee allowed this to happen because he must have scrutinised the line ups prior to the match starting and didn't see anything wrong . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted September 11, 2017 Oh dear now your saying he should be banned and yet on the P/boro v W/ton thread you are saying he shouldn't make your mind up and send your protest to the governing body which ever one you choose, that's where the problem is , remember the referee allowed this to happen because he must have scrutinised the line ups prior to the match starting and didn't see anything wrong . I've maintained all along he should be banned The ban is automatic because Peterborough used a facility that the rules don't allow. Thats how it works. Still, by all means show where I've said he shouldn't get a ban. But as you've not been able to quote a rule that shows a facility was allowed I won't be holding my breathe while you prove my double standards either. Christ, I started a thread about Chris Harris getting a 28 day ban, I'm hardly likely to start posting elsewhere he shouldn't get one am I? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruffdiamond 6,115 Posted September 11, 2017 referee's are never wrong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted September 11, 2017 Oh dear now your saying he should be banned and yet on the P/boro v W/ton thread you are saying he shouldn't make your mind up and send your protest to the governing body which ever one you choose, that's where the problem is , remember the referee allowed this to happen because he must have scrutinised the line ups prior to the match starting and didn't see anything wrong .Well I've read that thread, and if you think can find anything SCB has said that even faintly implies that Harris should not get a ban, then I'd suggest you need remedial English lessons. And then you can make your apology for being wrong. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New era Panthers 2,055 Posted September 11, 2017 Well I've read that thread, and if you think can find anything SCB has said that even faintly implies that Harris should not get a ban, then I'd suggest you need remedial English lessons. And then you can make your apology for being wrong. He didn't say that he shouldn't be banned I will hold my hand up to that but he does agree that Chris Harris had no choice about where he was riding which to me would be a bit hard to ban him for 28 days as he was not at fault as I have already stated the fault is the making of whoever sanctioned the facility not the rider or Peterborough who have not broken any rule here as the facility was obviously sanctioned rightly or wrongly . Agreed there are a lot of things that are not going correctly by the rules , as an example the Redcar v Glasgow A fixture result , where in the rules does it suggest a meeting can be called of after 9 races and the result stands or awarded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulco 7,075 Posted September 11, 2017 He didn't say that he shouldn't be banned I will hold my hand up to that but he does agree that Chris Harris had no choice about where he was riding which to me would be a bit hard to ban him for 28 days as he was not at fault as I have already stated the fault is the making of whoever sanctioned the facility not the rider or Peterborough who have not broken any rule here as the facility was obviously sanctioned rightly or wrongly . Agreed there are a lot of things that are not going correctly by the rules , as an example the Redcar v Glasgow A fixture result , where in the rules does it suggest a meeting can be called of after 9 races and the result stands or awarded. A certain degree of common sense has been applied to the rule book . The Redcar v Glasgow meeting was beaten by the curfew with Glasgow about to get a 5-0 in heat 10 . And Sunday's meeting didn't have anything riding on it , therefore why deny the paying public a competitive meeting when Harris had been instructed to go elsewhere . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
screm 8,057 Posted September 11, 2017 Chris Harris is totally innocent in this. He obviously did what he was told to do and had he not would probably have faced disciplinary action of some sort. However SCB is correct there is NOTHING in the rules that covers a facility for his absence. That is the issue. We get post after post saying people see speedway as a joke sport and this is why. If the BSPA/SCB/ACU want or require riders like Bomber to ride in grasstrack meetings they should ensure that the situation is covered by a rule. Anything else just takes fans for fools....but they have done that for decades I agree with you, you can bet after the Holder debacle Peterborough will have checked just exactly what was going to happen and what Harris had to do, maybe we could find out who gave the advice to the Panthers promotion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New era Panthers 2,055 Posted September 11, 2017 I agree with you, you can bet after the Holder debacle Peterborough will have checked just exactly what was going to happen and what Harris had to do, maybe we could find out who gave the advice to the Panthers promotion. You will struggle with that i'm afraid , it's like dealing with a secret society at governing body level , no names and nobody to take the blame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
