Skidder1 7,651 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) You're on the ball today aren't you. Now you just have to figure out who Ward rode for during 17-27th August and you might be getting somewhere! He rode for himself in the individual meeting(s). Edited February 27, 2015 by Skidder1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MANSE 480 Posted February 27, 2015 SCB try reading my post again i never said i didnt agree with the FIM what i cant understand is they banned him from 28/8 [do you agree]then 6 months latter they give him a 10 month ban ending 28/6 [ do you agree]sorry trying to keep it as simple as possible for you. also after the six months they changed the banned date to 17/8 date of original offence but the ban still ends 28/6.And you say Poole should have known this might happen ok give me another example after 6 months where dates have been changed for a ban Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan_Jones 1,005 Posted February 27, 2015 What I feel is the main problem here is the lack of urgency the FIM have shown. It's still going on and teams are suffering and other riders too as I'm sure Poole are keeping someone waiting just in case. I'm sure that will be the same with his other clubs too. The FIM should have had this done and dusted within 14 days and issued a ban and/or fine to him. At least everyone would have known what is the case. Instead 6 months on and it's still not sorted. No wonder no one takes this sport seriously. One person caused themselves a problem which was dealt with by the governing body following their normal procedures. If indulgent acolytes hadn't decided to get involved then the problem would have affected nobody else. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falcon Hammer 576 Posted February 27, 2015 Have King's Lynn chosen their opponents for the re-staging of the POSF yet? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 27, 2015 He rode for himself in the individual meeting(s). Ah, so he is only banned from individual meetings then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NOBODY 538 Posted February 27, 2015 What a pathetic argument this is! Why not start the 1980's again when certain riders were found guilty of cheating, fraud & bribery during the season, & that's only what we know about. Let's re-run all the league championships & include play-offs prior to the play-off days & then let's re run all the world finals pre GP days & deduct all the points scored by dishonest riders & management! And if you still don't agree then let's go back to 1929 because they didn't use the correct silencers in them days etc etc etc etc blah blah blah 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) What a pathetic argument this is! Why not start the 1980's again when certain riders were found guilty of cheating, fraud & bribery during the season, & that's only what we know about. Let's re-run all the league championships & include play-offs prior to the play-off days & then let's re run all the world finals pre GP days & deduct all the points scored by dishonest riders & management! And if you still don't agree then let's go back to 1929 because they didn't use the correct silencers in them days etc etc etc etc blah blah blah It's not an argument. Kings Lynn finished top of the EL, that's all there is to it. No debate. Of course the play-offs won't be re-run and Poole will remain champions.. with an * next to them if its done correctly. Or perhaps your post is the pathetic argument you are talking about? Edited February 27, 2015 by BWitcher Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hrhbig 69 Posted February 28, 2015 It's not an argument. Kings Lynn finished top of the EL, that's all there is to it. No debate. Of course the play-offs won't be re-run and Poole will remain champions.. with an * next to them if its done correctly. Or perhaps your post is the pathetic argument you are talking about? One would image then that you expect the team top of the table this year to be considered champions, ie no play offs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 28, 2015 One would image then that you expect the team top of the table this year to be considered champions, ie no play offs Why would I expect that? If you read my post again it says Poole will remain champions. All I've stated is Kings Lynn finished top of the League. NOT that they are champions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 28, 2015 Why would I expect that? If you read my post again it says Poole will remain champions. All I've stated is Kings Lynn finished top of the League. NOT that they are champions. As I've said before - so what? I don't think anyone disagrees that they have now finished top - when you remove Darcy's points but we all know you win nothing for finishing top and the play offs are not invalidated as they were contested without Darcy. Why do you keep insisting that they would have an asterisk next to their name? They won it fair and square. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 28, 2015 As I've said before - so what? I don't think anyone disagrees that they have now finished top - when you remove Darcy's points but we all know you win nothing for finishing top and the play offs are not invalidated as they were contested without Darcy. Why do you keep insisting that they would have an asterisk next to their name? They won it fair and square. You crack me up at times. So you now agree Kings Lynn finished top... but then claim Poole won 'fair and square'. Remind me, who gets first choice of opponent in the play-offs? And who actually had first choice. Those answers will show you that it wasn't 'fair and square' at all. Yes, it is very likely that Poole would still have won, but we don't know that.. hence an asterisk. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 28, 2015 You crack me up at times. So you now agree Kings Lynn finished top... but then claim Poole won 'fair and square'. Remind me, who gets first choice of opponent in the play-offs? And who actually had first choice. Those answers will show you that it wasn't 'fair and square' at all. Yes, it is very likely that Poole would still have won, but we don't know that.. hence an asterisk. I didn't disagree that KL finished top - what I said is that it didn't matter! There were 4 teams in the play-offs and you need to beat the teams you are up against and POOLE did that - fair and square (apart from hole gate) - they were the best team in the play-offs. As I have also said - it is done and dusted! The records show that POOLE are champions (with absolutely no asterisk beside their name - no matter how much you want it) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted February 28, 2015 I didn't disagree that KL finished top - what I said is that it didn't matter! There were 4 teams in the play-offs and you need to beat the teams you are up against and POOLE did that - fair and square (apart from hole gate) - they were the best team in the play-offs. As I have also said - it is done and dusted! The records show that POOLE are champions (with absolutely no asterisk beside their name - no matter how much you want it) I know what you said and it is an incorrect statement. Poole should not have had first pick of opponent, so it was not 'fair and square' regardless of how many times you say it. It's really very simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve0 5,517 Posted February 28, 2015 I know what you said and it is an incorrect statement. Poole should not have had first pick of opponent, so it was not 'fair and square' regardless of how many times you say it. It's really very simple. What really is very simple is ... Poole ARE champions, no asterisk! Got it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ouch 1,197 Posted February 28, 2015 If you're going to start sticking asterisks against Poole whenever they don't win something "fair and square" then you'll need at lot, as the cheating scumbags haven't managed that since 2003! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
