Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
Hunters

Eastbourne v Glasgow Semi Final

Recommended Posts

Correct, it was a very cowardly punch on his team mate who wasn't even facing him at the time. Could have been a lot  lot worse and seen Dugard jailed for a long time. He got very lucky that day,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jenga said:

was it not a straight right to the face . i think it was  .. no heads involved . think . you are wrong .. mr Anderson hit his head on his own  toolbox on the way down as well .. 

another stirring it with fake facts  . and you wonder why this thread has gone mental . everybody putting their own spin on things and basically not many of the fake facts are true , true !

i remember seeing that meeting on sky .

Screw the nut mate, have you been on the beer??!!! :D

The essence of it is he assaulted the guy, decked him.  Tell you what mate, if a guy decks you with a right hook will that make it ok??!!

I can just see it now, says you: "I was assaulted by a guy, he decked me, if I could only remember how he did it....   hold on he didn't nut me he just walloped me with a slamming right hand and decked me, it was brill mate gimme some more o' that!!"  (....big long queue)  B)

"Fake facts" my backside!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BigBoaby said:

Screw the nut mate, have you been on the beer??!!! :D

The essence of it is he assaulted the guy, decked him.  Tell you what mate, if a guy decks you with a right hook will that make it ok??!!

I can just see it now, says you: "I was assaulted by a guy, he decked me, if I could only remember how he did it....   hold on he didn't nut me he just walloped me with a slamming right hand and decked me, it was brill mate gimme some more o' that!!"  (....big long queue)  B)

"Fake facts" my backside!!

 

i think you need to look at your own post and the quote in your reply to red flag  page 55 . .  i think it . was red flad that said it was a head butt on anderson . thats what i was replying to . 

somewhere along the thread someone has got mixed up !

Edited by jenga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, old bob at herne bay said:

Just read the Eastbourne "Club Statement" which it seems just  intends to rake over the ashes and fan the flames. As previously commented, 2 paragraphs would have been enough to close the matter down. They haven't .

What follows is a highly blinkered one sided view of everything that occurred. 

Lots is made of the Glasgow team waiting until the official referee arived before complaining about track conditions. That is the CORRECT PROCEDURE.  

Then plenty of "refuting"  of pretty much everything. The lady doth protest too much. 

They can "refute" all they like but the bottom line is that their selected highlights of the events contradicts much of what I saw on the  2 minute video (now conveniently removed). 

i.e.  Craig Cook chose to ignore all Red Flags and Lights, did not reduce his speed before riding in to and around the 1st / 2nd turn towards his teammates, the Eastbourne Team and Mascots and Track Officials at his point of departure.

What I saw  on the video  was  Craig Cook slowing up on entry to the first bend and then turning right towards the open pit gates on the 2nd bend where he collided with a marshall standing in the middle of the track with his right arm directing Craig  towards he inside of the track towards the exit of the 2nd bend.... and presumably towards where the parade and all the assembled folks were standing ? 

I will agree that the ban of Eddie (Ed or Edward ?) Kennett was disproportinate. He should have been banned for 24 days for his  premeditated sprint towards the second bend from the parade with only one intention ..... to fight with Craig Cook.     What is NOT mentioned by the Eastbourne club is the failure of the other Eastbourne rider sprinting from the parade with Ed Kennett in the fist throwing to receive any ban, nor any ban of Paul Dugard for the initial verbal abuse of Craig Cook. 

 

How can they even ban someone for verbal abuse ? The scb govern the people that they control not randoms that may or may not be working for the clubs. 

I used to think your posts here had some semblance of sanity but this saga has well and truly shown your true colours.  

I've got the 2 min video if you need it.  Or perhaps as a neutral who frankly hates both clubs, feel free to ask me as someone who was there and close. 

I hope Herne Bay is nice these day as you sound miserable as sin.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jenga said:

i think you need to look at your own post and the quote in your reply to red flag  page 55 . .  i think it . was red flad that said it was a head butt on anderson . thats what i was replying to . 

somewhere along the thread someone has got mixed up !

WHO CARES!!!!!   If you're ASSAULTED you are.....    ASSAULTED!!!    Jeeez.

Re your point about the thread's gone mental, yeah it might help if folk didn't keep splitting hairs.  You make daft claims about the assault being "fake news" cos you wanna split hairs about how it was achieved.  Listen mate I couldn't care less.  If somebody is ASSAULTED they are ASSAULTED.  That's it.

Re your point that I need to look at my own post and poster Red Flag.  No I don't mate, I did (already) note the nuance of difference in how the assault had been achieved but had also (already) figured that... it DIDN'T MATTER, i.e. an assault is...  an assault, regardless.

I know it was Red Flag that mentioned about the assault, at least he made sense!!  You then march on blabbering on about it being 'fake news'.  The essence of it was it was an assault.  If you wanna split hairs that's your problem mate.  Christ you'd fight with your shadow!!  Is your brain fake!!

 

 

 

Edited by BigBoaby
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BWitcher said:

Correct, it was a very cowardly punch on his team mate who wasn't even facing him at the time. Could have been a lot  lot worse and seen Dugard jailed for a long time. He got very lucky that day,

Unless they rode abroad together , they werent team mates at the time.

and secondly, Andersson clearly seen the punch coming at him. 

Assuming your talking about the Dugard/Andersson incident at Eastie in 1999.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Pinny said:

Unless they rode abroad together , they werent team mates at the time.

and secondly, Andersson clearly seen the punch coming at him. 

Assuming your talking about the Dugard/Andersson incident at Eastie in 1999.

You're right my apologies, Andersson was at Kings Lynn that year having spent 5 years at Eastie.

Either way the point still stands, despicable display from Dugard and one in which he got very very lucky. Andersson could have suffered serious injuries from hitting his head on the way down.

Absolute BS Andersson saw the punch coming towards him, he was half turned away at the time and had zero time to react or defend himself at all. It was a despicable assault.

Nothing at all like Ice Hockey for example where players drop the gloves to signify a fight.

Edited by BWitcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pinny said:

Andersson clearly seen the punch coming at him. 

Ah well that makes it alright then!!  ;) 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BWitcher said:

You're right my apologies, Andersson was at Kings Lynn that year having spent 5 years at Eastie.

Either way the point still stands, despicable display from Dugard and one in which he got very very lucky. Andersson could have suffered serious injuries from hitting his head on the way down.

Absolute BS Andersson saw the punch coming towards him, he was half turned away at the time and had zero time to react or defend himself at all. It was a despicable assault.

Nothing at all like Ice Hockey for example where players drop the gloves to signify a fight.

Doesnt make it right no but he wasnt facing anyway from him when the punch was thrown. So he did see it coming . 

Also Dugard could of suffered serious injuries the way Andersson took him off :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Doctor... said:

 The scb govern the people that they control not randoms that may or may not be working for the clubs. 

 

That's as maybe but I'm pretty sure the SCB or BSPA do have input into what announcers/presenters can or cannot do. It's going back a few years but I remember well Mike Bennett saying so from the centre green at Lynn and his presenting style adapted somewhat from there on in:P.  I'm pretty sure  he said that announcers/presenters could be banned for inciting crowds etc

.

Edited by Star Lady
spacing to appease the grammer police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BigBoaby said:

WHO CARES!!!!!   If you're ASSAULTED you are.....    ASSAULTED!!!    Jeeez.

Re your point about the thread's gone mental, yeah it might help if folk didn't keep splitting hairs.  You make daft claims about the assault being "fake news" cos you wanna split hairs about how it was achieved.  Listen mate I couldn't care less.  If somebody is ASSAULTED they are ASSAULTED.  That's it.

Re your point that I need to look at my own post and poster Red Flag.  No I don't mate, I did (already) note the nuance of difference in how the assault had been achieved but had also (already) figured that... it DIDN'T MATTER, i.e. an assault is...  an assault, regardless.

I know it was Red Flag that mentioned about the assault, at least he made sense!!  You then march on blabbering on about it being 'fake news'.  The essence of it was it was an assault.  If you wanna split hairs that's your problem mate.  Christ you'd fight with your shadow!!  Is your brain fake!!

 

 

 

A think if people keep putting inaccurate information out, folk will split hairs. 

Do you think Cook ran a guy over then assaulted him, or looking at what's been shown on here, did the guy actually assault Cook by lunging towards him and try to push him off his bike ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

A think if people keep putting inaccurate information out, folk will split hairs. 

Do you think Cook ran a guy over then assaulted him, or looking at what's been shown on here, did the guy actually assault Cook by lunging towards him and try to push him off his bike ?

Nothing like that mate.  The trouble with these things is human beings take things out of content or misread or mishear and the old "send reinforcements we're going to advance" becomes "send three and fourpence we're going to a dance".

My original post only made a light hearted or conversational comment that I thought from memory that Dugard had walloped somebody.  Red Flag duly obliged that it was Andersson - that was the salient point for me, i.e. yes he had walloped somebody.  "End of" as far as I was concerned.  But of course somebody somewhere will grab a hold of one little thing and twist and regurgitate it to be the end of the world and all the rest of the crap that is spouted with that type of analysis to death treatment but which to be perfectly honest I simply didn't have a care about when I made lighthearted conversation.  I mean jeeeez!!!

Yeah some folk spend their life splitting hairs, I appreciate you aint one of them.  Life's too short mate!!

So the speculative thing about Cook that you've posed, I'm sure its a good point, but you will appreciate that all I was interested in mate was my original conversational piece of "does Dugard not have a bit of previous, did he not wallop somebody" - in essence yeah he did so I'm happy as Larry whoever he is.  :t:

 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigBoaby said:

Nothing like that mate.  The trouble with these things is human beings take things out of content or misread or mishear and the old "send reinforcements we're going to advance" becomes "send three and fourpence we're going to a dance".

My original post only made a light hearted or conversational comment that I thought from memory that Dugard had walloped somebody.  Red Flag duly obliged that it was Andersson - that was the salient point for me, i.e. yes he had walloped somebody.  "End of" as far as I was concerned.  But of course somebody somewhere will grab a hold of one little thing and twist and regurgitate it to be the end of the world and all the rest of the crap that is spouted with that type of analysis to death treatment but which to be perfectly honest I simply didn't have a care about when I made lighthearted conversation.  I mean jeeeez!!!

Yeah some folk spend their life splitting hairs, I appreciate you aint one of them.  Life's too short mate!!

So the speculative thing about Cook that you've posed, I'm sure its a good point, but you will appreciate that all I was interested in mate was my original conversational piece of "does Dugard not have a bit of previous, did he not wallop somebody" - in essence yeah he did so I'm happy as Larry whoever he is.  :t:

 

 

 

A suppose the whole thing has went over top, but maybe that's a social media for you. Its upto individuals to take part or not, with whatever views they have. It gets tedious in the end :t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

A suppose the whole thing has went over top, but maybe that's a social media for you. Its upto individuals to take part or not, with whatever views they have. It gets tedious in the end :t:

Indeed!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What possible grounds for an appeal could there be? The riders concerned seem to me to have all got off lightly for their parts in a display of thuggishness which disgraced both of their clubs.

If there is to be an appeal, it should surely be against the fact that no action seems to have been taken against others who interfered and involved themselves in fanning the flames.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy