BWitcher Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Once again... argumentum ad hominem. Your problem BWitcher is that you attack the poster, not the content of their post. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If we all thought and said the same things there would be no such thing as an opinion. It is part and parcel of debate and naturally you will often disagree with anothers point of view, but insulting or ridiculing the author just because you do not like what they have to say just makes you look like a nasty person. We're not discussing opinions, we're discussing facts. On which she is incorrect. Very simple. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Panda Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 We're not discussing opinions, we're discussing facts. On which she is incorrect. Very simple. Yes very simple............the fact that I am correct is just that...................go search through this or the Darcy Ward thread on the GP page............ I expect an apology for being right.................. RP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 No you read into things what you want to not the facts.............. I am a Poole fan and have been for 39 years through good times and bad..............I will post what I like on this thread..............when you stop posting anti Poole and anti Ward diatribe people might just listen to you.............. Fortunately I am too ladylike to tell you what I really think of fans that constantly criticise other teams...............true fans support all teams and get behind riders when they have problems............. RP What have I posted? Let's see. That Ward received the full reasoned decision on April 7th. FACT. That it was reported that Ward and his team in Sweden had challenged the removal of the pts as decreed in the initial verdict given in February. FACT. That certain Poole fans had continued, well after the date that Ward had received the full reasoned decision, to attack the FIM over the delay in him receiving it. FACT That the NEW news is that the FIM say the matter is now closed and confirmed the removal of Wards points. FACT. Those are all FACTS. You don't want to accept them and accuse people of being anti-Poole, anti-Ward for simply quoting FACTS. You are perfectly entitled to an opinion, but when you are arguing against FACTS and accusing me of reading into them what I want to see, then I will correct you. Yes very simple............the fact that I am correct is just that...................go search through this or the Darcy Ward thread on the GP page............ I expect an apology for being right.................. RP See above. Read it. Process it. Understand it. It's very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Panda Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 What have I posted? Let's see. That Ward received the full reasoned decision on April 7th. FACT. That it was reported that Ward and his team in Sweden had challenged the removal of the pts as decreed in the initial verdict given in February. FACT. That certain Poole fans had continued, well after the date that Ward had received the full reasoned decision, to attack the FIM over the delay in him receiving it. FACT That the NEW news is that the FIM say the matter is now closed and confirmed the removal of Wards points. FACT. Those are all FACTS. You don't want to accept them and accuse people of being anti-Poole, anti-Ward for simply quoting FACTS. You are perfectly entitled to an opinion, but when you are arguing against FACTS and accusing me of reading into them what I want to see, then I will correct you. See above. Read it. Process it. Understand it. It's very simple. You are missing the point of what I have posted completely................ Giving up as its not worth arguing with someone who clearly reads what they want to not what is there............... RP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) You are missing the point of what I have posted completely................ Giving up as its not worth arguing with someone who clearly reads what they want to not what is there............... RP What is your point? As it seems to change from post to post? You claimed it was 'old news'. I've shown you that it isn't. What other point have you got? There you go again, 'reading what they want to and not what is there'.... You keep throwing this accusation out. What part of the statement have I read that is not there? Just to help you, as I doubt you have even read it... here is the FIM Statement in full. " On 25 February 2015, the FIM International Disciplinary Court (CDI) found that Mr Ward, who tested positive for alcohol at the round of the 2014 FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship held in Daugavpils, Latvia, had committed an anti-doping rule violation under the FIM Anti-Doping Code. Mr Ward has been sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of ten (10) months commencing on the date of the decision (25 February 2015). Taking into account the period of provisional suspension already served by Mr Ward, which is credited against the period of the sanction, the period of ineligibility imposed on Mr Ward will end on 27 June 2015 at midnight. The results obtained by Mr Ward in all the Competitions in which he participated subsequent to the positive test, from 17 August 2014 until 27 August 2014, are cancelled, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any points and prizes. The CDI notified its full reasoned decision to the parties on 7 April 2015. No appeal against the decision of the CDI was lodged by the parties before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne (Switzerland) within 21 days of the date of receipt of the full reasoned CDI decision pursuant to Article 13.6 of the 2014 FIM Anti-Doping Code. The decision is therefore final. " As you can quite clearly see it confirms my statement that the full reasoned decision was given on 7th April. Which confirms my statement that certain Poole fans were incorrect to still be attacking the FIM on 2nd May claiming Darcy hadn't received the decision. It confirms that no appeal has been lodged against the decision of the CDI within the 21 days and that the full decision is now FINAL. That is NEW news. Regardless of how you want to spin it. So again, what have I read that isn't there? Edited May 20, 2015 by BWitcher 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Tbh Darcy's average increasing to 9 might be good for all parties Poole can keep their current team, as 9pt average means multiple changes definitely needed Darcy would still be picked up on loan by some other side, giving him a "break' from the Poole environment Whichever side picks him up would surely get extra fans on the gate Darcy's average is likely to go down, which helps Poole next year Poole fans will realise that the anti darcy comments are NOT posted because people are " Poole haters" Its a win for everyone Oh and also for KL, when they get awarded the title 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Tbh Darcy's average increasing to 9 might be good for all parties Poole can keep their current team, as 9pt average means multiple changes definitely needed Darcy would still be picked up on loan by some other side, giving him a "break' from the Poole environment Whichever side picks him up would surely get extra fans on the gate Darcy's average is likely to go down, which helps Poole next year Poole fans will realise that the anti darcy comments are NOT posted because people are " Poole haters" Its a win for everyone Oh and also for KL, when they get awarded the title Why would KL be awarded the title? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why would KL be awarded the title? This is British Speedway, so of course they won't be. However, in any professionally run sport it would certainly be a possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refereerick Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Far be it from me to get involved in this argument but it was stated in a post the Ward was well under the drink drive limit. His tests were .52, .44, .37 and .34 g/l of breath. The drink drive limit in England and Wales is .35 g/l of breath. So on his last test he just sneaked under the drink drive limit, on his first test he was 1.5 x the drink drive limit. There maybe a misunderstanding with it being .80 g/l when tested with blood. As this test was a breath test the limit would have been .35 g/l (.1 g/l being the limit specified for speedway). 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) What is your point? As it seems to change from post to post? You claimed it was 'old news'. I've shown you that it isn't. What other point have you got? There you go again, 'reading what they want to and not what is there'.... You keep throwing this accusation out. What part of the statement have I read that is not there? Just to help you, as I doubt you have even read it... here is the FIM Statement in full. " On 25 February 2015, the FIM International Disciplinary Court (CDI) found that Mr Ward, who tested positive for alcohol at the round of the 2014 FIM Speedway Grand Prix World Championship held in Daugavpils, Latvia, had committed an anti-doping rule violation under the FIM Anti-Doping Code. Mr Ward has been sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of ten (10) months commencing on the date of the decision (25 February 2015). Taking into account the period of provisional suspension already served by Mr Ward, which is credited against the period of the sanction, the period of ineligibility imposed on Mr Ward will end on 27 June 2015 at midnight. The results obtained by Mr Ward in all the Competitions in which he participated subsequent to the positive test, from 17 August 2014 until 27 August 2014, are cancelled, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any points and prizes. The CDI notified its full reasoned decision to the parties on 7 April 2015. No appeal against the decision of the CDI was lodged by the parties before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne (Switzerland) within 21 days of the date of receipt of the full reasoned CDI decision pursuant to Article 13.6 of the 2014 FIM Anti-Doping Code. The decision is therefore final. " As you can quite clearly see it confirms my statement that the full reasoned decision was given on 7th April. Which confirms my statement that certain Poole fans were incorrect to still be attacking the FIM on 2nd May claiming Darcy hadn't received the decision. It confirms that no appeal has been lodged against the decision of the CDI within the 21 days and that the full decision is now FINAL. That is NEW news. Regardless of how you want to spin it. So again, what have I read that isn't there? You must be a very bord boring or a very sad person to dig things up in such depth. Clearly you have nothing else to do with your time except to moan about everything Poole. And it seems you are not alone. Im saddened and i dispair that some of you on here alledgedly, support other teams, some in the PL, yet you choose to spend all your time on either the poole thread or the Darcy thread. I suppose we should take it as some sort of compliment really that you and many others show so much interest in our club. Lets hope you are saying congratulations Poole in October when we make it 7 league titles and 3 on the trotski. Edited May 20, 2015 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 [quote name="Red Panda" post="2616541" timestamp="1432146961" Like I said before you are reading what you want to into the report............not what the report really says............ RP RP You certainly are reading what you want from the report. Shame you omit the facts. Yes very simple............the fact that I am correct is just that................. I expect an apology for being right.................. RP 1. You're not. 2. You would only deserve an apology if you were right, so you won't then. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trees Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Shouldn't you lot be repeating yourselves on the Darcy thread further down the forum lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) Old news says the guy who has been bleating about Ward not receiving the reasoned decisions. As evidenced above. Bleating about it almost a month after Ward has received it. So no, NOT old news. Just yet more lies from the Ward camp that you are either a party too or gullible enough to fall for. As for your 'clarification', that's just you making things up again. The FIM adjudication statement is about the offence committed by Ward in an individual meeting. As it seems only right to deal in facts rather than interpretation, nowhere in the adjudication does it mention or name any of the clubs or leagues that Ward rides in/for - it is about Ward and Ward alone, his scores and his average! Ward questioned the penalty re his average for 2015 as he knew that it would/could affect his contract to be included for a teamplace in both Poland and Sweden (as was reported in both those countries). Piraterna went ahead and included him in their squad and have now been 'caught out' by their own squad rules because Ward's adjusted average stops him from being included. Torun didn't offer him a contract and included the likes of Doyle instead as one of their 3 foreign riders - although they could still make changes and include him when his ban ends (unless he signs for Gorzow) - and a similar situation applies to Poole, who would have to make changes to the team or loan him out. Edited May 21, 2015 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Just to confirm then it doesn't effect any of his clubs but Piraterna got effected by it. Thanks for clearing that up. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Just to confirm then it doesn't effect any of his clubs but Piraterna got effected by it. Thanks for clearing that up. Comical isn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 Just to confirm then it doesn't effect any of his clubs but Piraterna got effected by it. Thanks for clearing that up. Also confuses me as to why he's not riding in the leagues now then. After all, the ban is for him. Not his clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 When Edward Kennett was banned, it didn't effect his club of course did it... oh wait. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) When Edward Kennett was banned, it didn't effect his club of course did it... oh wait. He was riding for his club when the offence occurred was discovered. Did Lakeside have any points deducted? Edited May 21, 2015 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game On Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 He was riding for his club when the offence occurred. Did Lakeside have any points deducted? Think they had points added. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted May 21, 2015 Report Share Posted May 21, 2015 (edited) He was riding for his club when the offence occurred. Did Lakeside have any points deducted? His points were removed for Coventry which meant Lakeside then had the win and made the play offs a head of Coventry. Edited May 21, 2015 by mdmc82 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.