Crump99 4,476 Posted November 17, 2017 Something very strange going on here, I’ve just seen the SCB Statement, then the Article in today’s SS by Peter Oakes, they completed contradict each other, I've seen that mentioned elsewhere. For those who don't get the SS, what is the gist? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenga 2,998 Posted November 17, 2017 S.S. is about as onformative and truthful as the beano . in fact it make the beano look like a lawyers court file . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wealdstone 3,454 Posted November 17, 2017 I've seen that mentioned elsewhere. For those who don't get the SS, what is the gist? Can't recall exactly but did say Godfrey also has had his license suspended which I don't think has been mentioned previously Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Johnson 285 Posted November 17, 2017 Not seen anything in the star about his suspension, i saw the bit abut getting this year wrong and a hearing in december Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blackadder 280 Posted November 17, 2017 Gedfreygate continues, with Ged and Rob up before the bench, but apparently no sanctions against Jack Holder, Poole or Torun. It can't be right that Torun can offer a bribe in this way, thereby bringing the sport in to disrepute. The FIM should get involved, as the SCB and ACU are powerless to do anything, and the Poles won't be interested in the slightest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New era Panthers 2,055 Posted November 17, 2017 Gedfreygate continues, with Ged and Rob up before the bench, but apparently no sanctions against Jack Holder, Poole or Torun. It can't be right that Torun can offer a bribe in this way, thereby bringing the sport in to disrepute. The FIM should get involved, as the SCB and ACU are powerless to do anything, and the Poles won't be interested in the slightest. Agree I was thinking along the same lines myself, surely there must be a question of ethics involved here. looks to me that Torun have bought there survival in the top Polish league by means of offering a bribe. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert 304 Posted November 17, 2017 (edited) Not seen anything in the star about his suspension, i saw the bit abut getting this year wrong and a hearing in december The line in the SS refers to the 'suspended' Peterborough boss Rathbone.... and the 'BSPA' vice-chairman Godfrey. Doesn't say Rob is suspended....at least not the way I've read it. Edited November 17, 2017 by Albert 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert 304 Posted November 17, 2017 The Speedway Star also revealed the amount of the bung as £28,000..... Stand up all those promoters that could be tempted... all those remained seated.. I suggest you're lying. Given the state of British Speedway...That's a big sum of money, its wrong on all counts...but you can understand the temptation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenga 2,998 Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) just like a bank robber , you can understand the temptation , you know its wrong. but they still do it . its like that old heaven 17 song= temptation . pity it all went Pete tong when you get caught out . so who is next for the temptation of the large bung . a lot of dirt under the carpet now ! Edited November 18, 2017 by jenga Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wealdstone 3,454 Posted November 18, 2017 Agree that Speedway Star article could be read both ways re Godfrey suspension and on reflection tend to think it refers only to Rathbone. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,476 Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) The line in the SS refers to the 'suspended' Peterborough boss Rathbone.... and the 'BSPA' vice-chairman Godfrey. Doesn't say Rob is suspended....at least not the way I've read it. That's correct. Although considering "The findings of this investigation was that both parties admitted that a discussion regards the level of fine had taken place" you could ask why not? Edited November 18, 2017 by Crump99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flappy 1,605 Posted November 18, 2017 RATHBONEOUT 😂😂😂 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv 10,706 Posted November 18, 2017 That's correct. Although considering "The findings of this investigation was that both parties admitted that a discussion regards the level of fine had taken place" you could ask why not? Going back to other analogies used.... If someone asked a copper "how many years will I get for armed robbery" and got the answer "actually it will only be 6 months" 1)Should that conversation be any kind of defence? 2)The copper is guilty of nothing more than stupidity at worst and certainly hasnt commited any offence Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,476 Posted November 18, 2017 Going back to other analogies used.... If someone asked a copper "how many years will I get for armed robbery" and got the answer "actually it will only be 6 months" 1)Should that conversation be any kind of defence? 2)The copper is guilty of nothing more than stupidity at worst and certainly hasnt commited any offence If It was the deputy police commissioner though he'd have resigned following the latest verdict or at very least been suspended until the further court hearing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites