sommelier Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Not logical. You are entitled to your opinion though. May i ask you how many GPs a year you go to ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 Not logical. You are entitled to your opinion though. The wildcard s by definition are for riders who did not qualify for the series via either of the other methods. I fail to see your logic in asserting that a rider who failed to take part in qualifiers should be ineligible.I presume u also feel that Emil, lagutas, Lambert etc. Should be ineligible? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 I don't get the anti ward comments about getting a wildcard, he got banned till a certain date which means he couldn't ride in the qualifiers so that's fair enough, however when it's time to name the wildcards he won't be banned so surely he's entitled to be picked. If the ban had included not being allowed to participate in the 2016gps then fair enough but it didn't. At this minute he's not banned so all rules should be the same for all riders. Im no fan of his behaviour and maybe the ban should have been till the end of this season but it isn't so he's done his time 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 The wildcard s by definition are for riders who did not qualify for the series via either of the other methods. I fail to see your logic in asserting that a rider who failed to take part in qualifiers should be ineligible. I presume u also feel that Emil, lagutas, Lambert etc. Should be ineligible? Because he was Banned from the Qualifiers. If you are Banned from the Qualifiers, ergo you cannot then logically be given a Free Pass in to the GPs, otherwise you make a complete mockery of the Ban. THAT is my Logic and it seems pretty sound to me. Presumably the FIM knew what they were doing when they Banned him for the period covering the Qualifiers. As regards the other Riders you have mentioned - the crucial thing is that they were not Banned from anything ergo they can have a Free Pass if they are chosen to have one. As you probably know by now - I am totally opposed to gifting people places, I believe it is wrong. However, in this we are where we are. I can't change that. I don't get the anti ward comments about getting a wildcard, he got banned till a certain date which means he couldn't ride in the qualifiers so that's fair enough, however when it's time to name the wildcards he won't be banned so surely he's entitled to be picked. If the ban had included not being allowed to participate in the 2016gps then fair enough but it didn't. At this minute he's not banned so all rules should be the same for all riders. Im no fan of his behaviour and maybe the ban should have been till the end of this season but it isn't so he's done his time I've tried to explain my reasons for him not getting a Free Pass above bruno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratton Posted July 25, 2015 Report Share Posted July 25, 2015 To get back to more important matters, I think the second division was strongest in 1950. The top ten in the averages that year were: 1 Jack Young Edinburgh 2 Arthur Forrest Halifax 3 Alan Hunt Cradley Heath 4 Ken Le Breton Ashfield 5 Phil Clarke Norwich 6 Derick Close Newcastle 7 Bob Oakley Southampton 8 Tommy Miller Glasgow 9 Pete Lansdale Plymouth 10 Bob Leverenz Norwich Those riders were already genuine superstars at that point – not just stars of the future. All the best Rob The strongest Sam was it not MEDIOCRE ? na only kidding Arthur Forrest was a rider i have done a bit of research on what a bloody good rider he was.My uncle who first took me to speedway said he see him ride a few times was really exciting to watch.He first rode in the MEDIOCRE National league ? div 3 as a 17 year old, he scored 19 maximums out of 50 full matches.He reached five World Finals in a strong era was number three in the world in 1956 and retired at the young age of 26 why did he retire was his ability waining did he set up business somewhere his record as a rider was impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryW Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Because he was Banned from the Qualifiers. If you are Banned from the Qualifiers, ergo you cannot then logically be given a Free Pass in to the GPs, otherwise you make a complete mockery of the Ban. THAT is my Logic and it seems pretty sound to me.The hole in that logic is the fact that several riders have been given wild cards without racing in the qualifiers in the past, including Mr Ward himself... Presumably the FIM knew what they were doing when they Banned him for the period covering the Qualifiers.I am sure the FIM knew what they were doing and that they knew that riders had been given wild cards without racing the qualifiers in the past, so their suspension term wasn't a blocker to him rejoining the series in 2016. If they had wanted him to be unavailable for selection to the 2016 SGP series they would have explicitly stated that in the judgement, just like they explicitly stated that all his points between the Latvian GP and his suspension date were to be removed...something that the British speedway authorities have completely ignored. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) Of course what BFD did was very wrong - I said that at the time, and I am not condoning his behaviour but, he served his sentence. BFD's sentence was a joke. He got off extremely lightly because his lawyer came up with some ridiculous sob story. The dealing in weed I don't care about, although he was obviously an industrial scale dealer if not actual producer of the stuff. Crystal meth is horrendous stuff that destroys lives though, and whilst he was living in a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, what about the those he was selling to?. We had some entertaining jousts on the BSF, but divine justice seems to have been fairer than temporal justice. Edited July 26, 2015 by Humphrey Appleby 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryW Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The dealing in weed I don't care about, although he was obviously an industrial scale dealer if not actual producer of the stuff. Crystal meth is horrendous stuff that destroys lives though, and whilst he was living in a nice house in a nice neighbourhood, what about the those he was selling to?I have to admit that I never really understood the argument about how awful someone was for offering a drug for sale...As far as I am aware BFD never forced anyone to take any drug, he just made them available. If you are dumb enough to choose to use crystal meth then surely there is a point where you need to take responsibility for your own choices rather than blame the person that made it available to buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Except that crystal meth is hideously addictive and soon "choice" doesn't come into play. I can't think of a more destructive drug.(though clearly more widely used drugs like alcohol result in more overall impact to society). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orion Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 I have to admit that I never really understood the argument about how awful someone was for offering a drug for sale...As far as I am aware BFD never forced anyone to take any drug, he just made them available. If you are dumb enough to choose to use crystal meth then surely there is a point where you need to take responsibility for your own choices rather than blame the person that made it available to buy. ? if Crystal myth was not available then they would not be able to have that choice .He knew the damage it could cause and never gave a monkeys . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 ? if Crystal myth was not available then they would not be able to have that choice .He knew the damage it could cause and never gave a monkeys . You can get that from the Crystal Maze can't you?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) I have to admit that I never really understood the argument about how awful someone was for offering a drug for sale...As far as I am aware BFD never forced anyone to take any drug, he just made them available. If you are dumb enough to choose to use crystal meth then surely there is a point where you need to take responsibility for your own choices rather than blame the person that made it available to buy. You could extend that to just about anything. Dodgy financial schemes, misadvertising, going to speedway, etc... A lot of people though, are stupid and/or weak and need protecting from themselves, which is why there are varying degrees of controls on drugs (legal and illegal). gambling and alcohol. I think there's a fair argument about whether cannabis should be legalised or not, but you don't hear many argue in favour of crystal meth. It's an insidious life destroying drug with no positive utility whatsoever, and whilst it's fortunately not hugely popular in the UK, it's a big problem in Australia. BFD was publicly unrepentent about what he did, despite the sob story at his trial, and previous laments about how Amy Winehouse had fallen to the scourge of crystal meth. Neither was he doing it for a 'few mates' or a 'few bucks to make ends meet' - piles of cash were found in his house. I never met the bloke and he might have been a personable chap for all I know. I won't deny I enjoyed bantering with on here, but that doesn't change what was behind the mask. Edited July 26, 2015 by Humphrey Appleby 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The hole in that logic is the fact that several riders have been given wild cards without racing in the qualifiers in the past, including Mr Ward himself... I am sure the FIM knew what they were doing and that they knew that riders had been given wild cards without racing the qualifiers in the past, so their suspension term wasn't a blocker to him rejoining the series in 2016. If they had wanted him to be unavailable for selection to the 2016 SGP series they would have explicitly stated that in the judgement, just like they explicitly stated that all his points between the Latvian GP and his suspension date were to be removed...something that the British speedway authorities have completely ignored. None of those "several Riders" were Banned from the Qualifiers at the time - and I include Ward himself in that. Ergo - no hole in my Logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The logic is that racing or not racing in the qualifiers has no impact on a riders eligibility for a wildcard. As Henry says, if fims intent was to ban him from the 16 series they would have explicitly stated this. When s Moran was banned for failing an alcohol test he received a ban from fim events only for a defined period of time, so fim could have chosen to take a similar approach with ward if that was the intent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommelier Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 The logic is that racing or not racing in the qualifiers has no impact on a riders eligibility for a wildcard. As Henry says, if fims intent was to ban him from the 16 series they would have explicitly stated this. When s Moran was banned for failing an alcohol test he received a ban from fim events only for a defined period of time, so fim could have chosen to take a similar approach with ward if that was the intent. I would give up mate, TWK just can't grasp it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 I'm going to defend TWK here. There are no rules or guidelines for wildcards, thus we'll all pick based on our own criteria. None of which are really wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 I would give up mate, TWK just can't grasp it! I can grasp it very well thank you. I have explained my reasoning behind my arguments - have you? I'm going to defend TWK here. There are no rules or guidelines for wildcards, thus we'll all pick based on our own criteria. None of which are really wrong. Apart from the fact that it would be very wrong to give a Free Pass to someone who was Banned from the Qualifiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 I can grasp it very well thank you. I have explained my reasoning behind my arguments - have you? Apart from the fact that it would be very wrong to give a Free Pass to someone who was Banned from the Qualifiers. Agreed, but it would be perfectly acceptable to give a Free Pass to someone who was unfortunately suspended from riding during which time the qualifiers were staged. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Agreed, but it would be perfectly acceptable to give a Free Pass to someone who was unfortunately suspended from riding during which time the qualifiers were staged. Thus putting someone else out of the GPs who had behaved themselves - and not been prepared to endanger others by Riding whilst over the Alcohol Limit. There was nothing unfortunate about it. He knew what he was doing. Ward admitted to drinking too much - nothing unfortunate about that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) The 4 nominations are generally given to 1) riders who have just missed out in GP series (finishing 9th or 10th) 2) riders who have missed out due to injury, 3) riders who have good seasons - with good appearances as wild cards or in the World Cup 4) riders who benefit for commercial reasons because of their nationality. Ward can't fit the first two categories and it would appear he may only have a wildcard slot at Melbourne to push his claims for category 3. So his best hope is category 4. Whilst his Monster sponsorship and his undoubted talent would make you feel that he will get a slot, he might be sweating on the make-up of the other 11 riders who qualify automatically - for example a lack of Poles and/or Swedes or too many Aussies Edited July 26, 2015 by salty 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.