Beeone 0 Posted December 21, 2010 I never said it was broken, but it was bent. And it was manipulation of gargantuan proportions which led directly to Coventry winning the playoffs. Why should they double dip and benefit twice on a rider who has proved he should be on an average over two points higher? I can understand fans of that particular club wanting him back on a 4 because it gives an instant massive advantage over every other club. But if Poole had done this with Madsen for example, left him out of his twelth meeting with some PL 6 pointer taking his place so he could ride at reserve in the playoffs, and were bringing him back on a 4 in 2011 at reserve when he averaged 6.20, would you still say its fine? You won't believe me, but yes, because it was not against the rules as they stood at the time, I might not like it, in fact I'm sure I would have had a good moan, but in the end the letter of the rule was obeyed, so I would have accepted it. I would argue that the rule was faulty and must be changed so that it cannot happen in future, but as no rules were broken at the time then on this occasion it was completely legal. A rule change should be made so that in future there must be a bona fida reason for a rider being replaced, but it should surely only apply from this coming season onward. Regards, Martin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eastern wolf 0 Posted December 21, 2010 You should see some of the women at Monmore. More than a few that go down well there. And that's a bad thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 21, 2010 I never said it was broken, but it was bent. And it was manipulation of gargantuan proportions which led directly to Coventry winning the playoffs. No, you lose me there. Coventry won the play-offs because Poole chose wrongly when it came to semi-final opponents and because the Poole team performed awfully in the final itself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dogstar 3 Posted December 21, 2010 And that's a bad thing? Ha..Ha.. I just deleted it cos I thought some grumpy mod might take offence. In answer to your question. No.... it aint such a bad thing! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Shovlar 10,439 Posted December 21, 2010 No, you lose me there. Coventry won the play-offs because Poole chose wrongly when it came to semi-final opponents and because the Poole team performed awfully in the final itself. But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eastern wolf 0 Posted December 21, 2010 Ha..Ha.. I just deleted it cos I thought some grumpy mod might take offence. In answer to your question. No.... it aint such a bad thing! No wonder everybody likes coming to Monmore. You take advantage of our women, learn English as it should be spoke AND get great racing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 21, 2010 Why should they double dip and benefit twice on a rider who has proved he should be on an average over two points higher? I can understand fans of that particular club wanting him back on a 4 because it gives an instant massive advantage over every other club. Why do you insist on babbling on about this "double dip"? Is it because you view a "single dip" as being acceptable? I'd have wanted Pawlicki's average reviewed regardless of the outcome of the EL Final, would you? Or would a Poole victory last October have left you (and Matt Ford) ambivalent towards Pawlicki's average? To be honest, the points limit doesn't bother me and nor does the EL-PL conversion rate; the only rule that interests me is Pawlicki's average and it's not because of some anti-Coventry or anti-Sandhu agenda I have, it's because to me it lacks integrity. It lacked integrity when wolbert missed an Edinburgh meeting the season before last and should have been addressed at the 2009 AGM. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
javw 21 Posted December 21, 2010 (edited) But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Poor riding by Poole allowed Pawlicki to score 20 odd points. Poole No. 1 scored, what, 8 points from both legs...c'mon ! The following week Ludvig Lindgren beat Shamek at Coventry. No disrespect to Wolves, but you'd expect a GP rider (Holder) to do a better job against a supposed 6 pointer. Oh... and Wolves were winning the match on a very wet track too... Edited December 21, 2010 by The Mad Monk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Shovlar 10,439 Posted December 21, 2010 Why do you insist on babbling on about this "double dip"? Is it because you view a "single dip" as being acceptable? I'd have wanted Pawlicki's average reviewed regardless of the outcome of the EL Final, would you? Or would a Poole victory last October have left you (and Matt Ford) ambivalent towards Pawlicki's average? To be honest, the points limit doesn't bother me and nor does the EL-PL conversion rate; the only rule that interests me is Pawlicki's average and it's not because of some anti-Coventry or anti-Sandhu agenda I have, it's because to me it lacks integrity. It lacked integrity when wolbert missed an Edinburgh meeting the season before last and should have been addressed at the 2009 AGM. By Double dipping I mean by having him two years on the trot on his 4 point starting average. Agree completely with the rest of your post, though not having an interest in what goes on at PL level I had no idea that Edinburgh had done the same rule bending with Wolbert as Coventry did this time around with Pawlicki. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 21, 2010 But Palicki at reserve won it for them. Sure we rode poorly but when you have a rider score 20 odd points at reserve it was no suprise. Pawlicki scored so many because Poole's riders rode so abjectly. Pawlicki's position in the team should've made no difference. That Poole team should've rolled Coventry over easily enough. They let themselves and Poole down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,827 Posted December 21, 2010 But you can't make a rule that would punish only one team! Rules were made to suit ALL teams at the AGM. To expect rules to change to suit YOUR clubs means you get it on your own terms. Not fair either! It surely should be so Sandie, I'll bet that would go down well over Monmore way Regards, Martin Doesnt bother me Martin. If we didnt qualify for the competition then we shouldnt be in it! thinks its only fair the 2 most hated clubs lock horns! See you at the Green next year mate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YerRopes 3,009 Posted December 21, 2010 Is it not possible to make an argument without abuse? I dislike your biased opinions intensely but never resort to abuse. I have not been abusive to you in any way, shape or form.. I have already asked you in a previous post to back up your scurrilous statements which you have failed to do.. Back it up or apologize...(or most likely run away).... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eastern wolf 0 Posted December 21, 2010 I have not been abusive to you in any way, shape or form.. I have already asked you in a previous post to back up your scurrilous statements which you have failed to do.. Back it up or apologize...(or most likely run away).... You obviously haven't read my response to your previous post yet. And with my back I ain't running anywhere Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,356 Posted December 21, 2010 Deary deary me, ive never Laughed or read such drivel in my life. Eastern Wolf and Steve Shovlar make some good points, and they get shot down in flames!! Oh, and by the way, if 140k is lose change to Mr Frost could he lend, no, give me 30k, i know just the Horse!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ladyluck 1 Posted December 21, 2010 But you can't make a rule that would affect only one team! Why not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
