oldace Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I haven't read so much rubbish for a long time. Common sense doesn't say revert to the final league table - that's your opinion. Why would the competition be void - Poole won fair and square - end of! Are you struggling to read ? The FIM have declared the points scored between offence and suspension void. These points are to be removed "with all resulting consequences" Darcy's points in this spell were the difference between Poole topping the table or Kings Lynn The "consequences" of this are that Pool now didn't top the league, Kings Lynn did and the semi final was drawn and raced incorrectly which in effect voids the competition. Whether you agree with the ruling or not that is where we are, it isn't rubbish, it is just what has been decided 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagpuss Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I'm not really interested in Lynn bring declared champions retrospectively but it's pretty clear that the Play Offs are null and void in the light of the FIM ruling. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) It is not only this competition that is a farce though is it, the gp circus is too, how can a gp meeting be called a result after 12 heats. I did think it was strange they allowed Darcy to race, Poole should have got a facility, without him at Leicester we may have won. Edited May 22, 2015 by foreverblue 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 It is not only this competition that is a farce though is it, the gp circus is too, how can a gp meeting be called a result after 12 heats. ?? It can be called a result after 12 heats as that is the rules. Just as a baseball game can be called after so many innings (6 I think).. or a cricket match can be called from a reduced number of overs, or indeed one team batting less overs than another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grachan Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Poole beat two of the three other play off contenders, the only team they didn't beat was Swindon so may them the winners if you like. I would agree. Glad we got that sorted. Honestly, though. The obvious thing for me is just to put King's Lynn top of the table, as that is what the ruling says. Makes no difference though. As we've now decided Swindon were champs. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 I would agree. Glad we got that sorted. Honestly, though. The obvious thing for me is just to put King's Lynn top of the table, as that is what the ruling says. Makes no difference though. As we've now decided Swindon were champs. Well it is obvious to all except the blinkered faithful on the south coast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 ?? It can be called a result after 12 heats as that is the rules. Just as a baseball game can be called after so many innings (6 I think).. or a cricket match can be called from a reduced number of overs, or indeed one team batting less overs than another. It should be abandoned and re-run, how would you feel seeing 12 heats and going home, having paid a small fortune to go. call a meeting off after 16 heats maybe but the meeting has hardly started, mind you the Finnish gp there was no racing so just as bad, you would still feel short changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 It should be abandoned and re-run, how would you feel seeing 12 heats and going home, having paid a small fortune to go. call a meeting off after 16 heats maybe but the meeting has hardly started, mind you the Finnish gp there was no racing so just as bad, you would still feel short changed. The rules state if 12 heats are completed, the result stands. Whether that rule should be changed is another argument, but applying the rules of the sport isn't a farce... Ignoring them is! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 The rules state if 12 heats are completed, the result stands. Whether that rule should be changed is another argument, but applying the rules of the sport isn't a farce... Ignoring them is! This is the issue we have see. Most of us don't like a rule we moan about it and try and get it changed but we abide by it. Down in Poole if they don't like a rule they make up their own and use that. It's worked well for Poole Speedway for years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 The only truly fair solution would be to adjust the table to put Poole second, redraw for the play offs and restage them again with the same teams we had then! Of course that is ridiculous, would do nothing for the sport and probably wouldn't change the result much either. Poole would have won the play offs regardless of the draw or position they had finished in. Adjust their finishing league position by all means, but the play offs certainly weren't "void" and would have played out exactly the same way anyway. Suggesting we strip a team (and all the paying fans who support them week in and week out) of it's championship entirely and award it to a team that did not earn it, simply because the FIM took their precious time suspending a rider who clearly should have been suspended immediately anyway, is ridiculous and doesn't benefit anybody. Ah yes, better not strip Lance Armstrong of his tour titles. Football had best not award games to the other team when the winning team has fielded an ineligible player. After all, it might upset someone. Most certainly Ben Johnson shouldn't be stripped of his Olympic Gold, those poor fans in the stadium! Shawn Moran, I was at Odsal in 1990 for the World Final, how ripped off I feel now because he's been stripped of his silver medal.. It's irrelevant what you think Poole would or wouldn't have done, the playoffs are void due to Poole having the first pick. You can't prove they would have won, another night another situation anything could have happened. This is the issue we have see. Most of us don't like a rule we moan about it and try and get it changed but we abide by it. Down in Poole if they don't like a rule they make up their own and use that. It's worked well for Poole Speedway for years! Not forgetting of course, the classic speedway fan situation of bleating and moaning about something when rules haven't been broken, then when they are, or are ignored as in this case, declare its ridiculous to complain about it! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Tbh the Shawn Moran one is different in that the authorities had known for months about the failed test, yet allowed him to compete in a subsequent qualification round and then the final. Still a mystifying decision. Edit. Actually not so different, the authorities knew for years about lance Armstrong but turned a blind eye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Tbh the Shawn Moran one is different in that the authorities had known for months about the failed test, yet allowed him to compete in a subsequent qualification round and then the final. Still a mystifying decision. Edit. Actually not so different, the authorities knew for years about lance Armstrong but turned a blind eye. Actually, Shawn Moran is the perfect example. The authorities knew of his indiscretion, still let him compete and then retrospectively removed his results. Thats what has happened here with Darcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Actually, Shawn Moran is the perfect example. The authorities knew of his indiscretion, still let him compete and then retrospectively removed his results. Thats what has happened here with Darcy. Did they remove his results for his clubs then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudflaps Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Boy do I love Mass Debates!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refereerick Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Boy do I love Mass Debates!! Bring your boat into Poole harbour and weigh anchor then! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 (edited) Actually, Shawn Moran is the perfect example. The authorities knew of his indiscretion, still let him compete and then retrospectively removed his results. Thats what has happened here with Darcy. Were any results/scores removed from his team? Edit. Sorry FB I hadn't got to your post - great minds eh?! Edited May 22, 2015 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Were any results/scores removed from his team? I asked that one, probably not is my guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 Were any results/scores removed from his team? Edit. Sorry FB I hadn't got to your post - great minds eh?! I asked that one, probably not is my guess. My guess would be that if it was stipulated that Shawns scores be removed they would have been, if it wasn't they wouldn't have been. So what is your point? We are discussing Darcy's case where it is known to be stipulated his points be removed, "with all resulting consequences" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 My guess would be that if it was stipulated that Shawns scores be removed they would have been, if it wasn't they wouldn't have been. So what is your point? We are discussing Darcy's case where it is known to be stipulated his points be removed, "with all resulting consequences" My guess is they were removed from individual competion not from club competions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted May 22, 2015 Report Share Posted May 22, 2015 My guess is they were removed from individual competion not from club competions. Possibly, but like I said, that isn't the case with Darcy, it applies to club competition as well. 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.