Grand Central Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 NO it's not. I wasn't the referee or the Jury President. I was really just the guy who stood by the pit gate indicating when the next four riders could enter the track. There was no real serious decision making involved. The same with the draw... the referee informs me of the picking order, I call the riders to the scoreboard, line them up in the right order and put the names on the board. When Ole missed two meetings other FIM officials including the referee and the Jury President stepped into the breach when necessary. I certainly wasn't running or refereeing the meetings in any shape or form. Yes, at KL, the FIM did appoint me and felt that on this one occasion no one else had as much experience of the role as I did and working alongside the Clerk of the Course, the referee and the Jury President we were more than capable of doing the job. Of course, if the appointed referee is unavailable a fully fledged replacement is on stand-by but deputising for the RD (who in the event of any official dispute does not have vote on the FIM Jury) is an entirely different matter. Any worries people had about Phil Morris being 'up to the job'. Have been put firmly to rest. A five year old could do it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 To be fair to Middlo and Ward the reports after the hearing were that they would be told within a week what the outcome was. Although again that has only been reported via the Ward camp, nothing from the FIM. All the "reports" come from Middlo and Ward though. Hardly fair and balanced reporting. Middlo and Ward put it out there they'll get a phone call in a week, so when they have not heard back in a week they can again bleat about how unfair they have been treated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Ok thanks You do that Puggy, in the dark under a big thumb, whilst reciting Norman Whiteside's greatest hits Was looking for NUFC greatest hits but the archives only go back to The Doomsday Book. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 An unpaid multi tasker? Mrs P was asking, do you take in washing and ironing? NO ironing ... All the "reports" come from Middlo and Ward though. Hardly fair and balanced reporting. Middlo and Ward put it out there they'll get a phone call in a week, so when they have not heard back in a week they can again bleat about how unfair they have been treated. BUT it is the FIM's decision to say nothing Any worries people had about Phil Morris being 'up to the job'. Have been put firmly to rest. A five year old could do it. Also a long time since someone called me a five-year-old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 BUT it is the FIM's decision to say nothing Which is the right thing to do. Darcy and his "crew" would be doing the same too if they had any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 To be fair to Middlo and Ward the reports after the hearing were that they would be told within a week what the outcome was. Although again that has only been reported via the Ward camp, nothing from the FIM. Thats because you never hear anything from the FIM... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) All the "reports" come from Middlo and Ward though. Hardly fair and balanced reporting. Middlo and Ward put it out there they'll get a phone call in a week, so when they have not heard back in a week they can again bleat about how unfair they have been treated. To be fair I did stress that the report only came from the Ward camp. The sub judice nature of the case has meant that all we have learned (or been told) since last August has come from the Ward side. Edit: Reply to Starry - rightly so. The FIM have maintained silence over the matter which is absolutely they way it should be until they have a decision to impart. Once lawyers are involved then it is the only way to be. Edited February 10, 2015 by salty 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 To be fair I did stress that the report only came from the Ward camp. The sub judice nature of the case has meant that all we have learned (or been told) since last August has come from the Ward side. Edit: Reply to Starry - rightly so. The FIM have maintained silence over the matter which is absolutely they way it should be until they have a decision to impart. Once lawyers are involved then it is the only way to be. But of course if the FIM did say the Ward camp will hear a decision in a week you would expect them to deliver, but no one on here seems to want to criticise them. I wonder what the loyalties and criticism would be, and to whom, if this sort of matter was at a lower level with say a similar decision having to be made by the BSPA for a riders indiscretion. Taking 5 months to reach a first meeting, and saying they would deliver a verdict within 7 days, despite the rules saying it could take 45 days, the same vocal extreme critics on here would then quite rightly have gone ballistic at the unfair nature and out of touch procedures of the BSPA. Different day, different blame. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 But of course if the FIM did say the Ward camp will hear a decision in a week you would expect them to deliver, but no one on here seems to want to criticise them. I wonder what the loyalties and criticism would be, and to whom, if this sort of matter was at a lower level with say a similar decision having to be made by the BSPA for a riders indiscretion. Taking 5 months to reach a first meeting, and saying they would deliver a verdict within 7 days, despite the rules saying it could take 45 days, the same vocal extreme critics on here would then quite rightly have gone ballistic at the unfair nature and out of touch procedures of the BSPA. Different day, different blame. Funny that, init... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple.H. Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 But in GB, no doubt there's a ruling that a guest rider can be banned instead of the alleged guilty rider. Maybe that's why there's so many names on the asset lists 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 But of course if the FIM did say the Ward camp will hear a decision in a week you would expect them to deliver, but no one on here seems to want to criticise them. : IF! Who said the FIM did say that? As far as I know they never did say this. Unless you know better. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) But of course if the FIM did say the Ward camp will hear a decision in a week you would expect them to deliver, but no one on here seems to want to criticise them. I wonder what the loyalties and criticism would be, and to whom, if this sort of matter was at a lower level with say a similar decision having to be made by the BSPA for a riders indiscretion. Taking 5 months to reach a first meeting, and saying they would deliver a verdict within 7 days, despite the rules saying it could take 45 days, the same vocal extreme critics on here would then quite rightly have gone ballistic at the unfair nature and out of touch procedures of the BSPA. Different day, different blame. .Well, it would certainly give Speedway Star a problem or two. How could they print the weekly 'Darcy Ward Fan Club' newsletter; complete with quotes from illustrious sycophants. If it conflicted with the BSPA party line and 'The World According to befuddled Alex'. . Edited February 10, 2015 by Grand Central 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 But of course if the FIM did say the Ward camp will hear a decision in a week you would expect them to deliver, but no one on here seems to want to criticise them. I wonder what the loyalties and criticism would be, and to whom, if this sort of matter was at a lower level with say a similar decision having to be made by the BSPA for a riders indiscretion. Taking 5 months to reach a first meeting, and saying they would deliver a verdict within 7 days, despite the rules saying it could take 45 days, the same vocal extreme critics on here would then quite rightly have gone ballistic at the unfair nature and out of touch procedures of the BSPA. Different day, different blame. I certainly don't agree with the long time it has taken for the FIM to hold the hearing. However, as we have heard, that timespan when it comes to the FIM is not unprecedented and, as I have said before, that once lawyers (on both sides) are involved then the wheels of justice tend to grind pretty slowly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Just a thought. If Sky still had control of the GP series would they have put 'the squeeze' on The FIM to sort it quickly or even get it binned. They do have a lot of clout. Just thinking aloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Just a thought. If Sky still had control of the GP series would they have put 'the squeeze' on The FIM to sort it quickly or even get it binned. They do have a lot of clout. Just thinking aloud. Similar thoughts were mentioned back in August that Darcy's links with Monster would result in a lenient approach. At that time I think it was said that the FIM would be immune from such "favouritism". Obviously, if the result is a favourable one for Darcy then the conspiracy theorists will no doubt call it a "monstrous" decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uk_martin Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 im still stunned that we havent had an answer within the 7 days that Middlo, Darcy, starman, and anybody else that couldnt read expected. Did anyone other than Neil Diddleswitch (and/or his minions) mention the 7 day thing? Are we all blaming the FIM for not playing to Muddlo's timescale now? C'mon...you've all fallen for his trap...hook line and sinker. Can I pitch in for the post of UNOFFICIAL Referee at the GPs.. Yeah, Ackroyd will send you down to listen nicely to Nicki Pedersen calmly telling you why crashing into the air fence with another rider wasn't his fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Did anyone other than Neil Diddleswitch (and/or his minions) mention the 7 day thing? Are we all blaming the FIM for not playing to Muddlo's timescale now? C'mon...you've all fallen for his trap...hook line and sinker! I believe the expression used these days is whooooooosh. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILIPRISING Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Just a thought. If Sky still had control of the GP series would they have put 'the squeeze' on The FIM to sort it quickly or even get it binned. They do have a lot of clout. Just thinking aloud. Sky have never had 'control' of the SGP series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 Its yet more proof that its one big clique !!!! Its who you know that counts.... Is that 70%, 100% or 112% Proof? :shock: Not that it matters - it doesn't help with hydrating. :unsure: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 10, 2015 Report Share Posted February 10, 2015 IF! Who said the FIM did say that? As far as I know they never did say this. Unless you know better. Did I say I did. Try reading others posts. 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.