Ipswich V Edinburgh 25/7/13

[Super Blue]

 

think you will find they are dayglo GREEN. specsavers here YOU come.

 

 

Neither green or yellow are particularly popular colours in the Ipswich part of the world due to a different sporting connection !

[seanmuffe]

I think they could work in his favour in a tight finish.

They stand out and may mean he gets the decision.

depends on whether the ref has sunglasses on!

[george.m]

Personally I think his website looks pretty good, you just have to look at it through a younger persons eyes, like he is. All depends on how old you are i guess, I also think his bikes stand out which is good if you are a sponsor.

 

I was a bit surprised when I saw his website, pretty cool. You're right it will appeal to youngsters.

 

BTW my wife says I'm going through a mid life crisis.

[jenga]

Green or yellow - not two colours that are generally liked around Ipswich way!!

green or yellow , is that something to do with the alternative man u strip or is it the GB women,s sewing team.

[screm]

How I wish the actual match between Ipswich & Edinburgh on track could cause as much of a stir as the hoohar between Barker & Cook has.

[Super Blue]

green or yellow , is that something to do with the alternative man u strip or is it the GB women,s sewing team.

 

Ask Bagpuss , he used to have a picture of a woman wearing green and yellow as his avatar ( used to fall over rather a lot and get players sent off ) !!!

[Bagpuss]

And you'd better watch out, he's coming for you lot again this season

[Super Blue]

And you'd better watch out, he's coming for you lot again this season

 

And will no doubt get the warmest of welcomes ! ( huh hmm )

[Baldyman]

You lot talking football?

[Super Blue]

You lot talking football?

 

Maybe

[Ipswich Jules]

green or yellow , is that something to do with the alternative man u strip or is it the GB women,s sewing team.

 

I've no idea what you're (trying, badly) to say?

 

But I notice you still can't keep away from Ipswich threads? Come on, admit it, you're a true blue, dyed in the wool, Witches fan!

[msc1874]

The issue rumbles on in the star. Cook was clearly wrong to throw a punch. You do that in the street it's a breach of the peace. Can't condone it. To his credit cook has not defended his action, he apologised and accepted the punishment.

 

I find it astonishing that Ipswich are trying to play the card that Barker did nothing, said nothing; the heat no evil see no evil response. Would cook throw fists for no good reason? Lets weigh up the probability factor here and it doesn't make Barker look good either; notice on the monarchs webpage cooks actions were never condoned but they stated that severe provocation had taken place. If Barker thought this to be untrue then it would be a libalist statement.

 

Ipswich playing the victim here and putting cook on the naughty step; whilst portraying barker who has previous for this as a victim is pretty pathetic to be honest. Chris Louis, probably one of my favourite riders ever; your assertion that Barker did nothing; loses you credibility in my eyes.

 

Only way to resolve this have an independent tribunal let the truth come out. Speedway needs to deal with issues head on and not have people constantly coveting their own bums....

 

 

[IpswichDave]

I look forward to the views of Simmo and Louis in tonights programme..

 

Judging by last week comments I imagine the Monarchs fans will come floading back to this thread if they get hold of them......

[Nutz]

I look forward to the views of Simmo and Louis in tonights programme..

 

Judging by last week comments I imagine the Monarchs fans will come floading back to this thread if they get hold of them......

 

I think we all expect we know what Louis and Simmons will say in the programme... They're not going to say their rider was in the wrong or it was handbags that got out of hand or anything are they? Just as, I'd not expect our own to do it in the same situation to be honest...

[Badge]

The issue rumbles on in the star. Cook was clearly wrong to throw a punch. You do that in the street it's a breach of the peace. Can't condone it. To his credit cook has not defended his action, he apologised and accepted the punishment.

 

I find it astonishing that Ipswich are trying to play the card that Barker did nothing, said nothing; the heat no evil see no evil response. Would cook throw fists for no good reason? Lets weigh up the probability factor here and it doesn't make Barker look good either; notice on the monarchs webpage cooks actions were never condoned but they stated that severe provocation had taken place. If Barker thought this to be untrue then it would be a libalist statement.

 

Ipswich playing the victim here and putting cook on the naughty step; whilst portraying barker who has previous for this as a victim is pretty pathetic to be honest. Chris Louis, probably one of my favourite riders ever; your assertion that Barker did nothing; loses you credibility in my eyes.

 

Only way to resolve this have an independent tribunal let the truth come out. Speedway needs to deal with issues head on and not have people constantly coveting their own bums....

I may be wrong here, but haven't seen anything that says CL says Ben does nothing. I'm sure CL said, that things are often said and that is part and parcel of the sport , and Ben did get fined as well as Cook so yes the ref obviously deemed he was at fault too for the pits altercation and that's fine. What happened after is all down to Mr Cook I think you will find.

 

So a bit of handbags which was fine, brightened up an already tasty looking meeting.

 

Something was going to happen, after the previous weeks tweeting!! (which mysteriously disappeared I'm sure) Nobody got hurt, thankfully, and justice was meted out to Cook for his OTT behaviour.

The losers in all this were his team mates and the fans of both teams.

[Ipswich Jules]

The issue rumbles on in the star. Cook was clearly wrong to throw a punch. You do that in the street it's a breach of the peace. Can't condone it. To his credit cook has not defended his action, he apologised and accepted the punishment.

 

I find it astonishing that Ipswich are trying to play the card that Barker did nothing, said nothing; the heat no evil see no evil response. Would cook throw fists for no good reason? Lets weigh up the probability factor here and it doesn't make Barker look good either; notice on the monarchs webpage cooks actions were never condoned but they stated that severe provocation had taken place. If Barker thought this to be untrue then it would be a libalist statement.

 

Ipswich playing the victim here and putting cook on the naughty step; whilst portraying barker who has previous for this as a victim is pretty pathetic to be honest. Chris Louis, probably one of my favourite riders ever; your assertion that Barker did nothing; loses you credibility in my eyes.

 

Only way to resolve this have an independent tribunal let the truth come out. Speedway needs to deal with issues head on and not have people constantly coveting their own bums....

 

Where has any Witches fan, rider or promoter said that Ben was innocent? Please, feel free to quote them.

Ben was fined along with Craig for the scuffle - everybody has acknowledged that (almost), that scuffle wasn't the reason Cook was kicked out of the meeting though.

You mention provocation, again, I think we all can say with certainty that Barker did say something to Cook - Cook was the one that took the bait though and as a result handed us the place in the final.

 

If it helps try and break it down into two sections:

Part 1) The fight, started when Ben allegedly said something to Craig, Craig responded by hitting Ben in the back of the head. The ref saw it all and punished both riders with the same fine.

Part 2) Cook didn't accept his fine, kept going on at the ref. The ref took BOTH riders and managers into a dressing room to try and defuse the situation so the meeting could continue as programmed, Cook didn't calm down, kept swearing at the ref in protest of the fine and eventually kicked a heater off the wall. This is what led Cook to be kicked out - and something he acknowledges was the correct thing to do as it may of boiled over on to the track.

 

So to summarize. Both riders are guilty of part 1 and were punished accordingly. Cook was the only one guilty of part 2 and his punishment was to be excluded from the meeting, in this part Barker was the innocent party.

 

[spt82]

 

 

Where has any Witches fan, rider or promoter said that Ben was innocent? Please, feel free to quote them.

Ben was fined along with Craig for the scuffle - everybody has acknowledged that (almost), that scuffle wasn't the reason Cook was kicked out of the meeting though.

You mention provocation, again, I think we all can say with certainty that Barker did say something to Cook - Cook was the one that took the bait though and as a result handed us the place in the final.

 

If it helps try and break it down into two sections:

Part 1) The fight, started when Ben allegedly said something to Craig, Craig responded by hitting Ben in the back of the head. The ref saw it all and punished both riders with the same fine.

Part 2) Cook didn't accept his fine, kept going on at the ref. The ref took BOTH riders and managers into a dressing room to try and defuse the situation so the meeting could continue as programmed, Cook didn't calm down, kept swearing at the ref in protest of the fine and eventually kicked a heater off the wall. This is what led Cook to be kicked out - and something he acknowledges was the correct thing to do as it may of boiled over on to the track.

 

So to summarize. Both riders are guilty of part 1 and were punished accordingly. Cook was the only one guilty of part 2 and his punishment was to be excluded from the meeting, in this part Barker was the innocent party.

 

It does however say in the speedway star that Holt confirmed that he banned Cook from the meeting purely on what he had seen as the riders entered the pits.

[msc1874]

 

 

Where has any Witches fan, rider or promoter said that Ben was innocent? Please, feel free to quote them.

Ben was fined along with Craig for the scuffle - everybody has acknowledged that (almost), that scuffle wasn't the reason Cook was kicked out of the meeting though.

You mention provocation, again, I think we all can say with certainty that Barker did say something to Cook - Cook was the one that took the bait though and as a result handed us the place in the final.

 

If it helps try and break it down into two sections:

Part 1) The fight, started when Ben allegedly said something to Craig, Craig responded by hitting Ben in the back of the head. The ref saw it all and punished both riders with the same fine.

Part 2) Cook didn't accept his fine, kept going on at the ref. The ref took BOTH riders and managers into a dressing room to try and defuse the situation so the meeting could continue as programmed, Cook didn't calm down, kept swearing at the ref in protest of the fine and eventually kicked a heater off the wall. This is what led Cook to be kicked out - and something he acknowledges was the correct thing to do as it may of boiled over on to the track.

 

So to summarize. Both riders are guilty of part 1 and were punished accordingly. Cook was the only one guilty of part 2 and his punishment was to be excluded from the meeting, in this part Barker was the innocent party.

 

Planet sized opinion there Jules...

 

If you read the star and the Ipswich remarks it all leads towards them saying that they can't understand cooks actions or why he did what he did..

 

Cook himself says that Ipswich claim that nothing was said to him. As Craig says if you choose to believe that then well you are deluded..I summarised cooks statement.

 

 

Listen mate carry on living in your bubble with your tainted victory. As Derek Sneddon said, the monarchs were all for packing up the bikes. Barker should have been out too. To be honest, I'm bored of this topic and your deluded opinions are of an irrelevance to me to be honest mate. Maybe if you get Worrall and Robson thrown out in the final you can win the cup.. Good luck

[Bash]

Where in the rule book does it state you can be thrown out of a meeting for verbals between riders, punches yes. If you're that bored don't post.

 

Ipswich could only beat the team put out on the track, if one of your riders spits out his dummy and gets himself thrown out of the meeting that down to him. The whole team pulling out of the meeting would've looked good on the the bspa chairman. I wonder what sanctions would've been taken.

[SCOTLAND1314]

Where has any Witches fan, rider or promoter said that Ben was innocent? Please, feel free to quote them.

Ben was fined along with Craig for the scuffle - everybody has acknowledged that (almost), that scuffle wasn't the reason Cook was kicked out of the meeting though.

You mention provocation, again, I think we all can say with certainty that Barker did say something to Cook - Cook was the one that took the bait though and as a result handed us the place in the final.

 

If it helps try and break it down into two sections:

Part 1) The fight, started when Ben allegedly said something to Craig, Craig responded by hitting Ben in the back of the head. The ref saw it all and punished both riders with the same fine.

Part 2) Cook didn't accept his fine, kept going on at the ref. The ref took BOTH riders and managers into a dressing room to try and defuse the situation so the meeting could continue as programmed, Cook didn't calm down, kept swearing at the ref in protest of the fine and eventually kicked a heater off the wall. This is what led Cook to be kicked out - and something he acknowledges was the correct thing to do as it may of boiled over on to the track.

 

So to summarize. Both riders are guilty of part 1 and were punished accordingly. Cook was the only one guilty of part 2 and his punishment was to be excluded from the meeting, in this part Barker was the innocent party.

 

And by the sound of things it is alleged that Barker provoked the initial situation and if he hadn't done so Cook's part in 1 and 2 wouldn't have occurred.