NeilWatson 1,988 Posted September 12, 2017 TBF, you suggested that Workington had no issue. You made the accusation, not me I'm pretty sure its ineptitude rather than any cheating or colluding tbh. Theres only a handful of promoters/managers who are clever enough to cheat. I made no accusation, I merely pointed out that the Workington management didn't have an issue with the situation. Your obsession with this issue is leading to immoderate language that isn't your usual style - stand back and accept that the facility was quite legitimate and all parties on Sunday acted correctly. Why the facility was granted is a different issue. 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,736 Posted September 12, 2017 I made no accusation, I merely pointed out that the Workington management didn't have an issue with the situation. Your obsession with this issue is leading to immoderate language that isn't your usual style - stand back and accept that the facility was quite legitimate and all parties on Sunday acted correctly. Why the facility was granted is a different issue. Surely "the Facility was quite legitimate" and " why the Facility was granted" must bring into question the legitimacy of the facility ?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeilWatson 1,988 Posted September 12, 2017 (edited) Surely "the Facility was quite legitimate" and " why the Facility was granted" must bring into question the legitimacy of the facility ?? Not at all. The facility was valid, but SCB is anxious to know why. Substitute 'on what basis was the facility granted' for 'why was the facility granted' if that assists. Edited September 12, 2017 by NeilWatson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,736 Posted September 12, 2017 Not at all. The facility was valid, but SCB is anxious to know why. Substitute 'on what basis was the facility granted' for 'why was the facility granted' if that assists. Why have a rule in the rule book about longtrack( and some longtrack are infact grasstracks) and then not adhere to this rule ?? is on FIM Longtrack Championship duty (for the day of the Meeting only; no facility is permitted for practice day). If it included longtrack qualifying, longtrack team,longtrack open meetings- then it would say so. it doesn`t say a rider can`t be absent because he`s taking part in one of these- it`s just that the team have to take the consequences of no facility. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted September 12, 2017 I made no accusation, I merely pointed out that the Workington management didn't have an issue with the situation. Your obsession with this issue is leading to immoderate language that isn't your usual style - stand back and accept that the facility was quite legitimate and all parties on Sunday acted correctly. Why the facility was granted is a different issue. Sorry, it was meant to be a jokey comment. I thought you knew by now to take a lot of my comments are me being sarcy/facetious Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted September 12, 2017 I made no accusation, I merely pointed out that the Workington management didn't have an issue with the situation. Your obsession with this issue is leading to immoderate language that isn't your usual style - stand back and accept that the facility was quite legitimate and all parties on Sunday acted correctly. Why the facility was granted is a different issue. The facility was NOT legitimate. If it was, provide the rule that allows it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,736 Posted September 12, 2017 The facility was NOT legitimate. If it was, provide the rule that allows it. Pretty sure they used 16.5.1 D- i posted it on the Chris Harris ban thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alan_Jones 1,005 Posted September 12, 2017 Pretty sure they used 16.5.1 D- i posted it on the Chris Harris ban thread. The ISLB, as it's name suggests, deals only with speedway meetings so that rule has no relevance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flappy 1,605 Posted September 12, 2017 There appears to be a Panthers witch hunt since the Holder situation Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,298 Posted September 12, 2017 There appears to be a Panthers witch hunt since the Holder situation No. Don't feel hard done by. For my part, I just want clarity. If something is done that is clearly going to cause controversy, is it not simpler to communicate that it is happening, why it is happening and what rules are in place to cover the situation? Either that, or you have to accept the conspiracy theories, speculation and general anger from the paying public (of which I was one). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,736 Posted September 12, 2017 The ISLB, as it's name suggests, deals only with speedway meetings so that rule has no relevance. For many years i have been flagging up these longtrack incorrect facilities so i very much agree with you- however i think that is the rule they have used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted September 12, 2017 For many years i have been flagging up these longtrack incorrect facilities so i very much agree with you- however i think that is the rule they have used. How can you use a rule that isn't relevant? The simple answer is, they haven't used a rule. It's not allowed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gregory peck 308 Posted September 12, 2017 I made no accusation, I merely pointed out that the Workington management didn't have an issue with the situation. Your obsession with this issue is leading to immoderate language that isn't your usual style - stand back and accept that the facility was quite legitimate and all parties on Sunday acted correctly. Why the facility was granted is a different issue.worky never have an issue with anything,we're the go with the flow club,if you'd booked wofinden as cover for Harris they wouldn't have objected 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenga 2,998 Posted September 12, 2017 harris is a far better rider than the british aussie . more down to earth and a happy chap ALL the time .scruffy wuffy still has not grown up yet and the sooner he move back to stralia , the better for us all . harris wins hands down all the time for me . riding for or against us , he is still entertainment .. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topsoil 2,498 Posted September 13, 2017 harris is a far better rider than the british aussie . more down to earth and a happy chap ALL the time .scruffy wuffy still has not grown up yet and the sooner he move back to stralia , the better for us all . harris wins hands down all the time for me . riding for or against us , he is still entertainment .. Two world titles compared to never even close to one suggests Chris Harris is not a better rider. Harris is entertainment, yes, I really like watching him racing. But as good as Woffinden? Not even close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
