Kennett Suspended!

[Sprog1 79]

As I see it, Kennett won't have been the only one doing it, but one of them had to get caught eventually. Eddie will surely be the only one to get caught because nobody will be stupid enough to continue with it now, but I think it could have been any one of a number of riders playing Russian roulette.

 

The point is, if "a lot more " are doing it as Roscoe claims, and presumably knowingly doing it, it doesn't give much credibility to Ed's claim that he was the only one who knew nothing of what his mechanic did if all these other nasty riders were knowingly riding with illegal silencers.

 

Bit of an own goal by Roscoe I think. It would have been far more sensible for him to simply say that Coventry have made their formal statement, Ed has made his, and there is nothing to add until after the disciplinary hearing.

 

As you say, it will be madness for anyone else to be doing it from now on, so Roscoe is doing himself no credit with comments that can no longer be proven.

 

 

 

[Wendy 37]

Be interesting to see if any other riders have a dip in form now that they've had to stop tampering with their silencers. Holder had a stinker last night.

So are you saying that Holder's performance last night (a win, a third and two falls) was because he was having to use a legal silencer for a change? What evidence do you have to back up such a dangerous accusation?

 

Or if you didn't mean to implicate Holder in this whole sorry saga, why name him and only him. Maybe you have some inside knowledge that you would like to share with the rest of this forum? And the SCB of course

[home straight 290]

Jumping to conclusions again. Since you ask

 

How do you know that Ed Kennett does give a shiny shoe what fans think...?

His statement suggests he might, "I wish to state my deep regret and offer my sincere apologies to the fans", far more than he does not!

 

If only you had stuck to attacking the post rather than the poster. Since you couldn't fault my post you behave like a child.

 

Jumping to conclusions again? Nope, you said "Honesty would be a good start for you" - Assuming we're speaking the same language, someone who needs to start being honest, is by definition dishonest. Another word for someone who is dishonest is a liar.

 

I said nothing about shiny shoes.

 

I did say that I doubt Ed gives a shiny shoot what you think. The operative words there are "I doubt". I'm not claiming to "know" anything.

 

I didn't say that I doubt Ed cares what the fans (plural) think - I said i doubt he gives a shiny shoot what you (individual) think. The reason I said that is because you said that until Ed meets all the conditions that you impose on him that you will not accept his apololgy. A rather grand claim. On that basis I stand by my statement that I doubt Ed gives a shiny shoot what you think.

 

There was no need to for me to write an in depth discussion about your post, because frankly it was irrelevant. What makes you think that anyone should bow to your demands before you'll accept their apology particularly when you aren't acting in any kind of official capacity in the matter?

 

Do you honestly think my post was a personal attack on you? Really?

 

So, it boils down to this. I'm still waiting for you to either back up your claim about me being a liar, or to remove it from you post.

Edited August 9, 2011 by home straight

[SCB 0]

As you say, it will be madness for anyone else to be doing it from now on, so Roscoe is doing himself no credit with comments that can no longer be proven.

AWWWOOOOGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 

My Irony-o-metre has just exploded!

 

You still claiming Shamek is a cheat?

[bornagainlion 23]

Hes only said what a number of riders have said on twitter. Also, Rosco is unlikely to appeal every rider to make sure at a cost of £500 a silencer. If Rosco didn't know Eds silencer was illegal how can he know anyone else's is. It does beg the question though how he can be sure others are cheating.

 

If silencers are £500 a throw thats a grand on silencers for all the others who have allegedly "altered" theirs and who will now be scrambling the fit new ones!! The manufacturers will think it's Christmas again if it's a rife as some are making out plus the riders would have needed to get a fair few extra points just to break even

Edited August 9, 2011 by bornagainlion

[speedwayondisc 0]

I'm not sure. It's hard to pin on Rosco what he said at Peterborough, you'll get 500 versions of what he said. A rider on twitter, well it's in black and white.

 

I do think if riders, managers, promoters or frankly even fans have a reasonable enough suspision someone is cheating, they should inform the BSPA/SCB as soon as possible. It doesn't have to be silencers, it can be carbs, engine parts or any other technical rule.

 

 

Again, I agree.

 

It is always up to the general public (ie Supporters) to do whatever their own conscience dictates when faced with cheating, dishonesty or whatever.

 

But Track Officials and holders of Officials licences HAVE to do more. They have to live within the letter of the regulations as well. I'm not sure that ANY form of words similiar to what the version reported said is at all consitent with doing so, do you?

[SCB 0]

If silencers are £500 a throw thats a grand on silencers for all the others who have allegedly "altered" theirs and who will now be scrambling the fit new ones!! The manufacturers will think it's Christmas again if it's a rife as some are making out

No, it's £500 to appeal about the legitimacy of a silencer.

[bornagainlion 23]

No, it's £500 to appeal about the legitimacy of a silencer.

 

Thought that sounded a bit steep

[Authorised 60]

So, it boils down to this. I'm still waiting for you to either back up your claim about me being a liar, or to remove it from you post.

 

Haha. Once you remove the post attacking me. Unlikely. Why didn't you contribute to the debate rather than go for me? I wonder.......

 

I can have an opinion about Kennett, although you appear to not want me to express it. Still, interesting that you go for me.....not anyone else. So no, nothing is removed. You behaved like a child attacking a poster rather than a post. Again.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Authorised

[bigcatdiary 3,165]

So exactly what point was Roscoe trying to make ? Did he mean :-

 

A. He thinks there's lots more out there riding round completely unaware that their mechanics have tampered with their silencers.

-OR-

B . He thinks there are are a lot more that have knowingly tampered with their silencers but it was only poor old naive Ed who was the only rider whose mechanic never told him the silencer had been fiddled with.

-OR-

C. The fact that other people do it somehow justifies Ed doing it (ie a hamfisted attempt at damage limitation by Roscoe)

-OR-

D He is aware that a lot do it but it never crossed his mind for a moment that someone in his team might be doing it because he .....er ....warned them not to (!) , and is always on the look-out for such things (as a good TM should).

 

As always, we can rely on speedways own version of Max Clifford to make an embarrasing situation worse.

 

 

To be fair Custer Rosco came across very well

[Sprog1 79]

AWWWOOOOGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

 

My Irony-o-metre has just exploded!

 

You still claiming Shamek is a cheat?

 

 

I don't know what post you read but for the avoidance of doubt Shamek is not mentioned directly or implicitly and does not feature in any way shape or form in that post.

The point being made is the wisdom (or lack of it) in Roscoe commenting publicly on the matter when formal statements have been put out by both rider and club, and in doing so Roscoe has possibly discredited Ed's position. I don't think its a difficult concept to grasp. Shamek is not mentioned either directly or indirectly. Neither Shamek nor anyone else apart from Roscoe and Ed are mentioned. I can't put it more succinctly than that. Impartial One said it would be stupid for anyone to continue with an illegal silencer now and I agreed with him. Its quite simple.

Honestly, those reading lessons will be a good idea.

 

 

[Sprog1 79]

To be fair Custer Rosco came across very well

Can you elaborate any more on what he said ?

 

 

 

[SCB 0]

I don't know what post you read but for the avoidance of doubt Shamek is not mentioned directly or implicitly and does not feature in any way shape or form in that post.

The point being made is the wisdom (or lack of it) in Roscoe commenting publicly on the matter when formal statements have been put out by both rider and club, and in doing so Roscoe has possibly discredited Ed's position. I don't think its a difficult concept to grasp. Shamek is not mentioned either directly or indirectly. Neither Shamek nor anyone else apart from Roscoe and Ed are mentioned. I can't put it more succinctly than that. Impartial One said it would be stupid for anyone to continue with an illegal silencer now and I agreed with him. Its quite simple.

Honestly, those reading lessons will be a good idea.

You posted that Shameks silencer was illegal. Twice.

Shameks silencer was found to be legal.

You posted saying there was more to come.

 

You then had a go at Rosco for stating facts without any proof.

 

 

You have proof but are still claiming facts that conflict it. Thats why I commented on irony.

 

You have called Shamek (and Ryan Fisher) a cheat, the posts are still there, I have copies of them too. They've both been found innocent, you have no apologised.

[home straight 290]

To be fair Custer Rosco came across very well

 

 

Can you elaborate any more on what he said ?

 

 

I should imagine for that to be true, he probably stayed silent!

[Pollyanna 1]

Can I just clarify, perhaps with other people who were at Peterborough.

 

Is this truly what he said?

 

Did Mr Rossiter, a current holder of an SCB Track Official's Licence, really say publicly that he was genuine belief that other Speedway Riders are, or have been, using illegal silencers?

 

It is my understanding that as a Team Manager he has to sign the Meeting Certificate prior to the start of each match and confirm that all his riders' equipment conforms to the SCB regulations and that he undertakes to inform the Clerk of the Course if this changes during the meeting.

 

The meeting Certificate is a legal document that would be produced at say a coronor's inquest to show that all matters relating to the conduct of a meeting have been done in a proper manner.

 

It is difficult to see how anyone could sign such a certificate if he had not taken some reasonable steps to make himself pretty sure that his riders were conforming, isn't it?

 

And it is surely incredible, is it not, that a reasonable man would have some knowledge of the opponent team's trangression but not have protested to the referee or at least spoken to the opposing Team Manager to make him aware, just so that HE did not sign the meeting certificate with a false declaration.

 

I just find it extraordinary that he has felt able to make the public statement reported; and not have landed himself in a very tricky legal position.

 

Are you surprised? I'm not! Rossiter opens his mouth before he engages his brain!