Ipswich Jules

Because it doesn't matter what was said, he could of said his mum was a something something who likes to something with sailors, or he could of said he thought Cook's haircut looked rubbish - it really doesn't matter, or justify, the results.

Love it!

Why should Barker apologize? Who to? You say yourself Cook shouldn't apologize to Barker so by the same token Barker shouldn't apologize to Cook. Both were fined for the handbags - that's all both parties are guilty of, but Barkers involvement in that had no impact on the outcome of the meeting and the spectacle for the spectators - it was Cook's actions that followed that fine which took care of that and, as you said yourself, is what he has - rightly - apologized for. What was said is of no significance at all, Cook should of been professional enough to rise above it. However, he wasn't and he paid the price - except that price was also paid by the Edinburgh fans (that both traveled and stayed at home), fellow teammates, management and sponsors.

The same Dakota North that didn't want to ride PL as he didn't like the long trips north and rain offs?

I agree, but when was the last time Barker was thrown out of a meeting as a result? I'm not defending Barker or trying to imply he was entirely innocent in this event - I'm fairly sure he was the spark that ignited the fire, but Cook offers his apology and then tries to justify it a few words later - it's either an apology or not, it seems he's not sure himself.

Nobody has said in this thread that Ben is innocent, no doubt he did provoke Cook but words are words and fists are fists. Ben used words, Cook used fists and ultimately Cook took Barker's bait hook, line and sinker. He *should* of let his racing do the talking, scoring as much as he could to help his team knock us out of the final - instead he did the polar opposite and handed us the Cup Final place on a silver platter. Cook was outsmarted by Barker, it's as simple as that. Congratulating someone for making an apology after they have done wrong? It's the absolute minimum of an apology he should of given, if I commit a crime and go to court where I plead guilty - should I expect praise and thanks from the judge and jury? What a bizarre thing to say, also interesting that in his (much anticipated but ultimately underwhelming) "statement" he can't even use Ben's name, seems pretty childish. He goes on to state there was "significant" initial provocation, no, there wasn't - it was totally insignificant and should of just been ignored, as any decent professional would have done - from that statement and trying to use that as some form of justification, I'd suggest that Cook still hasn't really taken on board what happened or learned any lessons from it at all.

Even before the KL event he had regrets over picking EK, I tweeted Middleditch and asked him directly if he has any regrets over the team he picked - his reply was something like "It can't be changed now, we need to get behind them" - not exactly a shot of confidence from your manager! For Kings Lynn I'd of gone with Harris, King, Worrell and Cook. No Tai as he wouldn't of been needed, so would of given King a look with Worrell and Cook getting some exposure. We were never going to win that event or finish last, so we had a chance to try a few riders - was that chance taken? Well 1 out of 4 ain't bad, right? According to you it's bloody perfect as that's the option Middleditch took, to everybody else it should of been AT LEAST 2 out of 4 riders being looked at, Worrall has banged in some big scores round KL in the EL so would of handled himself I feel, Cook also deserved his place on merit. Why King was overlook totally - and especially when Kennett was included - is a mystery. So there you go, I look forward to your reply, from behind your keyboard using an anonymous name "Starman2006" (And before you say I am, I have my Twitter profile in my signature which includes my name).

Said from....behind a keyboard!

Whooooooosh!

He also said that Foxhall is his favourite track, doesn't make it the best available does it?

Whoops x2!! Personally I couldn't be happier for Ben and think he should do better than Kennett / Cook. Richie Worrall rides as a guest and should be good value, Klindt went VERY well round Foxhall last season and set a new track record so can't be ruled out. Should be a good close meeting.

If they did at least I'd have a chance to ask why I'm seemingly being moderated without being told so, so yes, please come and knock on my door by all means. Back to the matter at hand, great result for Ipswich and one I genuinely didn't expect given Tungate's absence and Barker possibly not being at 100% - I'd of taken a point before tapes up but I'm over the moon with all four and it's credit to the team and management that we got them. It's the 4TT tomorrow and Ipswich must be quietly confident, Somerset have been weakened by missing out on Doyle which will help all the other teams I'm sure as they must of been up there as favourites I'd of thought?

And my earlier - and valid - reply to this has been deleted....again. If I'm being moderated then tell me so and explain what I've done wrong.

Yep as Roland said, hurt his other knee in some after meeting practise which is why he wasn't able to show Dakota North the fastest way round Foxhall last night.

I did reply to you bruv but some Nazi admin decided to move it to the Plymouth v Ipswich thread for no obvious reason!

Rohan out of the Plymouth meet but a far from fit Ben and Cam will ride. Hopefully they're feeling more up to it on Sunday at the 4's EDIT: FAO the Nazi admin(s) - any reason why my above post was moved from the Ipswich 2013 thread to here? It's not specific to the Plymouth v Ipswich meeting so why move it (without explanation)? This place is becoming more of a joke than it already is!

Injuries mean we will struggle here, we'll do well to get anything out of this. Certainly Plymouth's to lose.

So it seems, No idea why as I was talking about the result of the first leg! Sorry Baldy So it would seem, Big Brother is a coward though.

I did reply to this post Baldy but it seems it's been deleted, without any explanation... *sigh*

I'd imagine it'd be a run off, can't see a two leg re-run being a good idea with fixture congestion always being a issue.

Doesn't wind me up tinytim. It does confuse me though why people choose to continue to do something they don't like - unless it is to provoke a reaction, in which case it's trolling....

Doesn't like Ipswich threads, Still reads Ipswich threads. Logic?

Barker has been x-rayed and there are no breaks or fractures, it's "just" ligament damage so hopefully he will make a speedy recovery. Pretty pleased with a 6 point gap, sets up the return leg brilliantly in what should be a nail biter. Man of the meeting for us is obviosuly Ellis and has kept us in the cup to be honest. Adam is a Lakeside asset so I don't see why Ipswich would be involved?

How cowardly are the "mods" on this site? They won't post from their own account, instead choosing to edit somebody elses posts to send out their messages? Where have the Ipswich fans - who obviously started and contributed the majority to the original Ipswich 2013 thread - said we don't want it back? You obviously feel the need to edit that thread, choose not to reveal your identity, not to explain why the thread was removed in the first place or answer any questions via PM about it and then decide to speak on behalf of many many forum contributors and now you've opted to take the easy way out and delete the entire thread on your own anonymous and cowardly whim. If there was "unacceptable personal abuse" in that thread then I assume those posts were reported - delete those posts and remove them from any quotes, yes it'll take time but that's what happens sometimes when you agree to become an admin. I know this as I admin other forums and know exactly what you're doing, the difference is that when I do it I always explain what I'm doing and why so it doesn't ruffle feathers or cause confusion - like has happened here. You seem to prefer to take the easy way out and not even reveal who you are. I thought it was mostly adults that used this site, shame that doesn't seem to extend to all the admins judging from this instance. I wonder if this post will be replied to? Deleted? Or if I'll get banned? Whatever, do as you please - you seem good at it. Over and out. Jules

I shouldn't hold your breath Bash, I did this a couple of days ago and as yet I've had no reply. Now it's just leading to fans of other clubs starting threads in our name just to get them locked which looks bad on our club, ho hum.