Chris Hutcheson Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) 100% agree that rider safety is paramount. I'm not suggesting that the meetings should have went ahead without the appropriate medical provisions. I am just unconvinced on both occasions that the "promotion" did everything they could to provide what was required. There are reasons on both occasions why they would want the meetings off, not saying it's a certainty, but it is also not beyond the realms of possibility! Edited to add: It's just the fact that they have failed on two occasions on the same front, laughable almost. Edited July 29, 2014 by DaleDiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevePark Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 100% agree that rider safety is paramount. I'm not suggesting that the meetings should have went ahead without the appropriate medical provisions. I am just unconvinced on both occasions that the "promotion" did everything they could to provide what was required. There are reasons on both occasions why they would want the meetings off, not saying it's a certainty, but it is also not beyond the realms of possibility! Edited to add: It's just the fact that they have failed on two occasions on the same front, laughable almost. Other than being 'medical' related, they are both different: http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.25619 http://www.speedwaygb.co/news.php?extend.26315 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Hutcheson Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 The in's and out's may differ, but they failed to provide medical cover, twice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevePark Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 The in's and out's may differ, but they failed to provide medical cover, twice! If they had failed to provide medical cover twice, both meetings would not have started. The Edinburgh match started and, indeed, reached a conclusion. It was not entirely Workington's fault that the nearest ambulance to cover after Howarth's accident was over an hour away. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comet49 Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I know it depends on how things are said but I'm wondering if ther's a case for libel in suggeting these meeting were not held "deliberately" I guess Laura is absolutely gutted at what's happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevePark Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 I know it depends on how things are said but I'm wondering if ther's a case for libel in suggeting these meeting were not held "deliberately" I guess Laura is absolutely gutted at what's happened. I am sure Laura and the Promotion are absolutely "delighted" in having to pay Sheffield's expenses (twice, as they will have to pay the expenses for the re-arranged fixture), Rent of the stadium, Ref's fees etc., etc., and having no or little income for the next home match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Hutcheson Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 If they had failed to provide medical cover twice, both meetings would not have started. The Edinburgh match started and, indeed, reached a conclusion. It was not entirely Workington's fault that the nearest ambulance to cover after Howarth's accident was over an hour away. The situation just stunk to me. This isn't a discussion about the Edinburgh night, but surely both incidents have to be looked into. As for paying expenses etc. what about the fans who had made the trip? That's my original point, fans left paying the costs with two questionable (in my opinion) call off's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 The situation just stunk to me. This isn't a discussion about the Edinburgh night, but surely both incidents have to be looked into. As for paying expenses etc. what about the fans who had made the trip? That's my original point, fans left paying the costs with two questionable (in my opinion) call off's And that's all it is really. Your opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Hutcheson Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 And that's all it is really. Your opinion. Is that not the point of a forum? Expressing ones opinions? I'm also fairly certain there were a fair few doubters of the validity of the call off in our match thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Is that not the point of a forum? Expressing ones opinions? I'm also fairly certain there were a fair few doubters of the validity of the call off in our match thread! Of course it is, but you seem obsessed to imply that the two meetings are linked when the reasons are entirely different. Drop the bone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Hutcheson Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Obsessed? No. Entirely different? Again, no! Were both meetings stopped from going ahead/ending because the Workington "promotion" failed to provide medical cover? Yes! If that's entirely different then spank my bum and call me Fanny! Again, I'm not obsessed, I'm posting my views and responding on the thread regarding the cancelled meeting. Do you understand how this forum thing works? If I was trolling on other threads or was starting my own, then you could call me an obsessive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Obsessed? No. Entirely different? Again, no! Were both meetings stopped from going ahead/ending because the Workington "promotion" failed to provide medical cover? Yes! If that's entirely different then spank my bum and call me Fanny! Again, I'm not obsessed, I'm posting my views and responding on the thread regarding the cancelled meeting. Do you understand how this forum thing works? If I was trolling on other threads or was starting my own, then you could call me an obsessive! Fanny 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Fanny Erm.... when did you spank his bum then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacksmith Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Fanny Beaten to the punch line by Lord Lucan!!! lol Edited July 29, 2014 by Blacksmith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Beaten to the punch line by Lord Lucan!!! lol Couldn't resist, just left himself wide open!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenga Posted July 29, 2014 Report Share Posted July 29, 2014 Obsessed? No. Entirely different? Again, no! Were both meetings stopped from going ahead/ending because the Workington "promotion" failed to provide medical cover? Yes! If that's entirely different then spank my bum and call me Fanny! Again, I'm not obsessed, I'm posting my views and responding on the thread regarding the cancelled meeting. Do you understand how this forum thing works? If I was trolling on other threads or was starting my own, then you could call me an obsessive! hey, muff diver. give it a rest.you are becoming boreing.. like ** on a man.. hey, muff diver. give it a rest.you are becoming boreing.. like ** on a man.. quite funny that post, i got away with the word. muff. but didnt get the word that sounds like hits on. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.