BWitcher

Still good enough to beat Janowski You are wittering on that if Ward were out of the sport for 4 years (which he won't be unless by choice) it would be impossible for him to return. Sam Ermolenko was out for longer, and far far older. Yet still was able to rock up and beat Janowski. Merely pointing out you're talking rubbish.

What exactly would he be 'catching up on'. Do we still turn left? Yes.. job done. Sam Ermolenko can do it at age 50+.

Not really, I still fail to see why his 'career is on the line'. Hardly going to ban him for life are they!

Why? You're falling precisely into the trap they want.... Ward knows full well the FIM have up to 45 days. He knows full well his lackeys will fawn over everyone of his 'woe is me tweets'.

Why is his career on the line?

So? That would be his choice and would be yet another poor decision.

The amusing tweets just keep on coming ... "utterly unprofessional treatment. Hope it's sorted today and in a favourable way. this is a big joke now the boy need to no total conspiracy!!! All getting beyond a joke. How long does it take to make a decision?" Sadly, the FIM don't seem to be interested in any bricks

Thanks for highlighting the foolishness of your comments. So we now have, Woffinden wasn't breaking any rules.. he wasn't delaying the start, which you agree with.. So where's the problem? What exactly is there for the referee to 'nip in the bud' if no rules are being broken? How is Woffinden gaining an unfair advantage (as you claim) if he isn't breaking any rules?

I'd like it to move on, but if someone posts fabrications, I'll refute em

Nice selective quoting there, conveniently leaving out the parts that don't fit your argument... all the signs of someone who has no argument. Just to help you out, on the 8th he actually said... "As for your Surgeon - no problem their either - he/she is useful to this Country. My gripe is with those who aren't and there are plenty of them about if you open your eyes. Racist - possibly!!!* Truthful - YES!!! * Depending on how you read my Post. Since when was TRUTH Filth?" Quite clearly explaining his gripe is with those who offer nothing to the country. A very legitimate standpoint. So very quickly we knew what he meant, which renders every single one of your posts since including your doctored one here, irrelevant. Run along so the thread can continue.

I agree with that, but those are the regulations, so its acceptable to take 45 days until those are changed.. which perhaps (there maybe reasons we are unaware of) they should be.

Then you are talking rubbish again. The timescale in the Ward case is within 45 days. Therefore anything within that time frame is acceptable. As I said, whether the regulation itself giving 45 days is acceptable is another matter. That would be something to look at and be changed for future cases.

This post did make me chuckle. Many threads go off on a tangent, especially long running ones. It always comes back in the end. I love the school teacher threats though!

I think you are confusing the issue. The timescale IS acceptable as that is the timescale laid down by the rules. I'm afraid that's one of those facts that some seem to want to overlook. Now, whether the rules governing the timescale are reasonable is another matter.. but they are the rules as it stands now and are therefore the rules by which Ward must comply.

And you are doing precisely the same thing on the other side. The Romanian/Bulgarian (and some other eastern European countries) situation IS a problem. No, they are not all beggars, criminals etc, but there are many that are. It is just as wrong to turn a blind eye to that. How to solve the problem, given the rules of movement between EU countries is an entirely different matter altogether as there are many Eastern Europeans (and Western) who bring benefits to the country as well as you rightly point out.

It's not a point of view. It's simply being wrong. The simple reality is a verdict is given, in writing, within 45 days of the hearing. That is the be all and end all, it matters not one jot what Ward tweets on Twitter, what Middleditch spouts in the press. They aren't the governing body, they don't make the rules. Until the FIM say otherwise, the ruling is within 45 days. Simple.

Your post would have credence if you hadn't continued your tirade AFTER WK had explained his position and consistently reverted back to an original post. So essentially once WK had explained, which he did immediately, you didn't have a position. So no, I'm not too slow/blind/ignorant. I read his original post, felt it was all encompassing and therefore worded wrong (even though I knew what he meant). I then read WK clarify what he meant.. Had I been slow/ignorant/blind I would have ignored his clarification and continued the racist accusations. YOU did that. Correct he did and was quite rightly called up on it. However, when someone then clarifies what they mean and gives rationale behind it and ADMITS they made a sweeping statement then any rationale adult would accept that and move on. Continuing to harp back to it is the actions of a child.

Frankly your abuse is now becoming very tiring. WK has quite clearly explained his position, if you are too ignorant to take that on board and keep reverting back to an post that he has admitted he could have worded better it is YOU who has the problem. It is people like YOU that stagnate discussion of such issues and in the long term it is people like YOU that increase racism and any problems it brings tenfold. WK has stated many times he has no problem with folk coming to the UK who offer skills. It's a very simple belief and it is most certainly not racist.

Very fair points Rob, Nielsen was dominant in that period. ultra dominant. Sam was undone by re-breaking the leg in the penultimate match of the season. A very simple slide off too, but straight into a metal post behind the fence trying to round Tatum on the final bend. Cost Wolves the title that year and he was never quite the same rider again after that. Still good, but not the level he was in 93, his style had changed a lot. Having grown up in awe of Nielsen, then seeing Sams domination in 93, its why I never gave Tony Rickardsson the plaudits he perhaps deserved. To my mind he didn't live up to either Nielsen in the 80's or Sam in 1993. Regarding Sam, for him to have come back from the injuries he suffered in 89, and reach the levels he did is staggering. It's very rare for riders to do that.. there are countless cases of riders who after the 'big one' (or even less major injuries) aren't the same rider again.

Of course he had something to gain, and the deluded folk like yourself are showing exactly why. The moment Darcy made his tweet, several of us commented on here what would happen. The 7 days would elapse without a decision (obviously) and the Ward camp could once again play the sympathy card. It's only sycophants and quite frankly downright fools who fall for it. I'll let you decide which camp you fall into. Sympathy again. Which he is getting from his lackeys.

Nobody, anywhere has questioned any of that.

You are making claims Woffinden gained an unfair advantage. The facts are he didn't. The facts are also he didn't delay the meeting at all and was ready to race within the 2 mins. The facts are he wasn't the only rider who came out. The facts are the crowd found it amusing and he played to it. It doesn't grate me to be wrong, because I'm not. In other words, you are bleating about absolutely nothing. As for your comments about Hancock, you continue to misunderstand the point... however one can only draw the conclusion you would be perfectly happy to watch 15 heats of gate and go racing every week, with no incident, thrills or passes. That is perfectly fine, however many prefer to see more. Personally, I'm like you, I enjoy just seeing riders race, even on their own. That doesn't mean I can't understand how other fans would say they found that dull.

Depends what you mean by 'modern' era.. If its after the nominated heat was introduced then Sam Ermolenko was 11+ in 1993. That was the most impressive season I've ever seen from a rider since we had nominated heats. Not only did he average 11+ but his team riding was unbelievable, there were times he nursed Neil Evitts home in times 2-3 seconds slower than the norm... ahead of good quality riders. Prior to the nominated heats then without a doubt Hans Nielsen in 86. In the mid to late 80's, even into very early 90's, Hans Nielsen was the only rider I genuinely 'feared'. By feared I mean that before the race began I really didn't think our riders had a chance of beating him.

That makes much more sense

Nobody does. You link those who have suffered severe injuries and even lost their lives into letting Ward off? Do you fail to see the utter ignorance and stupidity of your comments? The sport is dangerous enough as it is as the names mentioned highlighted without letting riders get away with taking to track over the required alcohol limit. The only thing those names would suggest is a long term ban for Ward. And the time of the following days GP? Drinking the night before the GP isn't exactly wise.. however, if its an evening start, its going to be gone from your system. An afternoon, especially an early afternoon one is a different story and that's where Darcy's team should have advised him better.