Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
LesR

Craig Cook Ban Dropped

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, westhamboy66 said:

 One rider was the cause, one rider used violent conduct, one innocent member of staff was assaulted by that rider, given that a video emerged then the decision was a disgrace.

I don't think the video does any favours for the member of track staff, and if you seen it and still feel the same, am embarrassed for you.

The reason the other two riders chose not to appeal was if it had been seen as frivolous the ban could have been extended. 

The other two should not have got involved and, if they had of appealed, maybe their bans would have been greater.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, westhamboy66 said:

Nonsense, if you had been there you would understand One rider was the cause, one rider used violent conduct, one innocent member of staff was assaulted by that rider, given that a video emerged then the decision was a disgrace. The reason the other two riders chose not to appeal was if it had been seen as frivolous the ban could have been extended. It must be embarrassing having that rider connected to your club. I was there I assume you wasn't. I am not an Eastbourne supporter nor have I an axe to grind with the rider who caused this unsavoury incident and bought our once great sport into disrepute. 

Amazing decision given that Mr Vacher was there for the incident

Few have little respect for the BSPA now I have zero respect for the SCB

 

 

If you were there, as i was btw, you would have seen a lot more than that.

Vissing appealed, and was rejected as others have already said.  Also, "frivolous" appeals don't get the same treatment (unless i've forgotten any instances or it's been written into the rulebook recently) as it does in football where bans can be increased. In football, the appeal automatically gets accepted, panels re-convene etc, hence they give extra bans as it's seen as having wasted time etc.  Speedway just rejects the appeal.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where was this appeal held,and who are the people behind SCB  who were on the panel.?My guess is the the appeal was held down the pub,with the fine for cook being just keep the beers coming until he got the lot pissed,and the statement was all the could muster up because they were so drunk!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, speedwaysliders said:

Where was this appeal held,and who are the people behind SCB  who were on the panel.?My guess is the the appeal was held down the pub,with the fine for cook being just keep the beers coming until he got the lot pissed,and the statement was all the could muster up because they were so drunk!!!

Exclusive photo of the appeal being heard.

 

See the source image
 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

justice in speedway . depends on who you know,  and more importantly who you are riding for at the time of any incident .

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, adonis said:

justice in speedway . depends on who you know,  and more importantly who you are riding for at the time of any incident .

Too bloody right it does!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 hours ago, Star Lady said:

However unless or until the SCB in it's infinite wisdom *cough cough* choose to elaborate on why they made the decision they did, we have to accept it. That's the civilised way the British have always done, we respect the decision of "courts" of law which is why I said they should give the reasons for their judgement. It's that or total anarchy.

I accept your premise that we should all respect the rule of law. However, the sense of many posts on here suggest that the authorities can only rule by consent. It is beholding on any ruling body, be it the law courts or the SCB, to be transparent in their rulings. We have the right to hold up their pronouncements to scrutiny and seek some justification for their rulings. Otherwise the authorities leave themselves open to accusations of inconsistency, incompetence or bias. 

In the current case, the only exception to such transparency can only be out of respect for the medical condition of the rider concerned. However, that seems strange since the said rider continues to compete and is clearly, in the eyes of the authorities, well enough not to be danger to himself or others.

Please listen, Mr or Mrs SCB. By taking this high handed attitude to your constituents, you invite guesswork. And we all know where that ends up. Tell us the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2019 at 5:15 PM, tyretrax said:

Vissing's appeal was rejected, Kennett didn't appeal.

Neither of them ride for a team owned by the chaiirman of the BSPA though, do they? That's the difference.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

I accept your premise that we should all respect the rule of law. However, the sense of many posts on here suggest that the authorities can only rule by consent. It is beholding on any ruling body, be it the law courts or the SCB, to be transparent in their rulings. We have the right to hold up their pronouncements to scrutiny and seek some justification for their rulings. Otherwise the authorities leave themselves open to accusations of inconsistency, incompetence or bias. 

In the current case, the only exception to such transparency can only be out of respect for the medical condition of the rider concerned. However, that seems strange since the said rider continues to compete and is clearly, in the eyes of the authorities, well enough not to be danger to himself or others.

Please listen, Mr or Mrs SCB. By taking this high handed attitude to your constituents, you invite guesswork. And we all know where that ends up. Tell us the truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, False dawn said:

 

I accept your premise that we should all respect the rule of law. However, the sense of many posts on here suggest that the authorities can only rule by consent. It is beholding on any ruling body, be it the law courts or the SCB, to be transparent in their rulings. We have the right to hold up their pronouncements to scrutiny and seek some justification for their rulings. Otherwise the authorities leave themselves open to accusations of inconsistency, incompetence or bias. 

 

Totally agree with all of that, especially the second sentence.

As it is various people are being accused of bias, undue influence and worse and the mental health of an individual is being the subject of distasteful discussion by people who don't know the facts of it. 

Totally unsatisfactory and simply not necessary.

Edited by Star Lady
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Star Lady said:

Totally agree with all of that, especially the second sentence.

As it is various people are being accused of bias, undue influence and worse and the mental health of an individual is being the subject of distasteful discussion by people who don't know the facts of it. 

Totally unsatisfactory and simply not necessary.

Any court, or body undertaking quasi-judicial functions, should be open and transparent; unless national security is at stake.

The SCB has made a lamentable decision with explanation.

The top organisation governing motor-cycle racing in the UK, the ACU, should take action.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ACU make even the BSPA seem like a modern, forward thinking and efficient organisation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vince said:

The ACU make even the BSPA seem like a modern, forward thinking and efficient organisation!

I think that is largely the same with all national governing bodies

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, adonis said:

I think that is largely the same with all national governing bodies

 

Hey, leave the Tory party out of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

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