Skidder1 7,637 Posted July 23, 2016 Very true - but you wouldn't name the SCB Chief Graham Reeve or the SCB referee Dave Robinson without being pretty clear on the facts!!!! NB. No comment from Jon Cook or Kelvin Tatum I notice........................ Probably just licking their wounds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted July 23, 2016 Very true - but you wouldn't name the SCB Chief Graham Reeve or the SCB referee Dave Robinson without being pretty clear on the facts!!!! NB. No comment from Jon Cook or Kelvin Tatum I notice........................ Probably just licking their wounds. They don't need to comment do they? Ford just making a fool of himself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E I Addio 15,845 Posted July 23, 2016 Very true - but you wouldn't name the SCB Chief Graham Reeve or the SCB referee Dave Robinson without being pretty clear on the facts!!!! NB. No comment from Jon Cook or Kelvin Tatum I notice........................ Probably just licking their wounds. Why would they be licking their wounds ? There apparent objection was upheld. As for being clear on the facts, it's really a matter of whether Fords little tirade in SS records ALL the facts and/or whether those facts recorded have Fords spin on them. Always the same problem with Speedwáy Star, they only ever record one side of the argument, not just in this matter but all the time. I have mentioned this on other occasions. We come back to the point that was mentioned earlier. According to Steve Shoveller Ford said in the programme he would have taken it further and would have won, but the question is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I can't think of any other promoter that would make all this fuss over a settled issue. If he had said he was going to make sure the rules get clarified at the next AGM we coukd respect him for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skidder1 7,637 Posted July 24, 2016 Why would they be licking their wounds ? There apparent objection was upheld. As for being clear on the facts, it's really a matter of whether Fords little tirade in SS records ALL the facts and/or whether those facts recorded have Fords spin on them. Always the same problem with Speedwáy Star, they only ever record one side of the argument, not just in this matter but all the time. I have mentioned this on other occasions. We come back to the point that was mentioned earlier. According to Steve Shoveller Ford said in the programme he would have taken it further and would have won, but the question is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I can't think of any other promoter that would make all this fuss over a settled issue. If he had said he was going to make sure the rules get clarified at the next AGM we coukd respect him for that. If he hasn't actually said that - I bet the rules are amended or added at the AGM as none of the SCB officials could name the rule in question. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starman2006 2,355 Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I never said that Matt had actualy got it wrong, clearly the ruling was misinterperated and clearly needs proper clarification.. Edited July 24, 2016 by Starman2006 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TonyE 822 Posted July 24, 2016 So much fuss about something that is done and dusted. Perhaps it is not so much about no rule being broken but more a case of no existing rule being applicable i.e. the circumstances where a 'facility' is available are detailed in the regulations and the situation regarding Adam's absence did not fit any of them. Hence, we have a situation where it is possible to state that 'no rule has been broken' on the one hand whereas, on the other, no circumstances where a facility is available appertain. The authorities, quite rightly in my opinion, went for the latter. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
