ouch Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Jesus, it's never any different with the cheating scumbags from the South Coast. You seem to attract this kind of thing even when you're not knowingly being dodgy. Is there something in the water or is it, like I'm hoping just the scummy speedway club it effects in the area? Whilst British speedway fans know anything you've "won" over the last decade has been due to extremely questionable tactics your infamy is spreading outside speedway circles. I travel all over and mention speedway quite often. People reference Ivan Mauger, Belle Vue or Peter Collins but now if Poole come up their cheating is mentioned. If the Darcy's ban makes the papers people will say he's attached to the cheats at Poole. I know a few of you like Ford and can turn a blind eye to cheating in the quest for honours but the Pirates have been around for years and will hopefully carry on long after Ford has gone but you will be saddled with the "cheating scumbags" tag for a long time to come, which is a shame for you and speedway as a whole. Grim times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Â Ah so Darcy isn't banned for riding for Poole then as he did something when not racing for them? Â Otherwise I'm afraid your post is irrelevant. Â What is there to stir anyway? Its a direct ruling from the FIM. Its in black and white. What is in black and white as you put it makes no reference to any club - its a statement about Ward! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 What is in black and white as you put it makes no reference to any club - its a statement about Ward! Â You're on the ball today aren't you. Â Now you just have to figure out who Ward rode for during 17-27th August and you might be getting somewhere! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packerman Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 The only difference as I see it is that Kings Lynn would of rode at Poole first as neither teams wanted to face either Coventry or Swindon in the Semi Finals as both were depleted by injuries. Â Now if KL had really wanted a harder Semi would not of qualified for the Final anyway. OK neither would of Poole in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammag Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 It's all ifs buts and maybes. Poole could still of won but so could have Swindon kings Lynn or Coventry. They could never award it to someone else overall as there's so many different possibilities. They could however take it away from Poole but not re-award the over all winner. That really would make a mockery of British speedway.  However saying that kings Lynn had they finished top wanted to have Coventry at home in the first leg. I'm sure Lyons even says this to sky tv at the last meeting.  As a kings Lynn fan I am a firm believer that our race was already run when it came to the play offs. We would not have beaten 2 of the 3 other sides over 2 legs to win it.  You only have to look at what could have happened. Kerr may not have got injured in the first leg  Bjerre may not have been fit enough to ride 2 meetings. We were lucky the 2nd leg kept getting postponed to allow him more time to recover  Schlein may not have had 2 engine failures  Any other of our riders could have been badly injured and made our team weaker  We would of had different guests who could of done better or worse  There's just a few of the ifs and maybes that could of made us score more points or less. It's too complicated to even think of awarding it to anyone else.  What I feel is the main problem here is the lack of urgency the FIM have shown. It's still going on and teams are suffering and other riders too as I'm sure Poole are keeping someone waiting just in case. I'm sure that will be the same with his other clubs too. The FIM should have had this done and dusted within 14 days and issued a ban and/or fine to him. At least everyone would have known what is the case. Instead 6 months on and it's still not sorted. No wonder no one takes this sport seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) Â You're on the ball today aren't you. Â Now you just have to figure out who Ward rode for during 17-27th August and you might be getting somewhere! He rode for himself in the individual meeting(s). Edited February 27, 2015 by Skidder1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANSE Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 SCB try reading my post again i never said i didnt agree with the FIM what i cant understand is they banned him from 28/8 [do you agree]then 6 months latter they give him a 10 month ban ending 28/6 [ do you agree]sorry trying to keep it as simple as possible for you. also after the six months they changed the banned date to 17/8 date of original offence but the ban still ends 28/6.And you say Poole should have known this might happen ok give me another example after 6 months where dates have been changed for a ban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 What I feel is the main problem here is the lack of urgency the FIM have shown. It's still going on and teams are suffering and other riders too as I'm sure Poole are keeping someone waiting just in case. I'm sure that will be the same with his other clubs too. The FIM should have had this done and dusted within 14 days and issued a ban and/or fine to him. At least everyone would have known what is the case. Instead 6 months on and it's still not sorted. No wonder no one takes this sport seriously. One person caused themselves a problem which was dealt with by the governing body following their normal procedures. If indulgent acolytes hadn't decided to get involved then the problem would have affected nobody else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon Hammer Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Have King's Lynn chosen their opponents for the re-staging of the POSF yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 He rode for himself in the individual meeting(s). Â Ah, so he is only banned from individual meetings then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 (edited) What a pathetic argument this is! Why not start the 1980's again when certain riders were found guilty of cheating, fraud & bribery during the season, & that's only what we know about. Let's re-run all the league championships & include play-offs prior to the play-off days & then let's re run all the world finals pre GP days & deduct all the points scored by dishonest riders & management! And if you still don't agree then let's go back to 1929 because they didn't use the correct silencers in them days etc etc etc etc blah blah blah  It's not an argument.  Kings Lynn finished top of the EL, that's all there is to it. No debate.  Of course the play-offs won't be re-run and Poole will remain champions.. with an * next to them if its done correctly.  Or perhaps your post is the pathetic argument you are talking about? Edited February 27, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrhbig Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Â It's not an argument. Â Kings Lynn finished top of the EL, that's all there is to it. No debate. Â Of course the play-offs won't be re-run and Poole will remain champions.. with an * next to them if its done correctly. Â Or perhaps your post is the pathetic argument you are talking about? One would image then that you expect the team top of the table this year to be considered champions, ie no play offs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 One would image then that you expect the team top of the table this year to be considered champions, ie no play offs  Why would I expect that?  If you read my post again it says Poole will remain champions. All I've stated is Kings Lynn finished top of the League. NOT that they are champions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Why would I expect that? Â If you read my post again it says Poole will remain champions. All I've stated is Kings Lynn finished top of the League. NOT that they are champions. As I've said before - so what? I don't think anyone disagrees that they have now finished top - when you remove Darcy's points but we all know you win nothing for finishing top and the play offs are not invalidated as they were contested without Darcy. Why do you keep insisting that they would have an asterisk next to their name? They won it fair and square. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 As I've said before - so what? I don't think anyone disagrees that they have now finished top - when you remove Darcy's points but we all know you win nothing for finishing top and the play offs are not invalidated as they were contested without Darcy. Why do you keep insisting that they would have an asterisk next to their name? They won it fair and square. Â You crack me up at times. Â So you now agree Kings Lynn finished top... but then claim Poole won 'fair and square'. Â Remind me, who gets first choice of opponent in the play-offs? Â And who actually had first choice. Â Those answers will show you that it wasn't 'fair and square' at all. Â Yes, it is very likely that Poole would still have won, but we don't know that.. hence an asterisk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 You crack me up at times. Â So you now agree Kings Lynn finished top... but then claim Poole won 'fair and square'. Â Remind me, who gets first choice of opponent in the play-offs? Â And who actually had first choice. Â Those answers will show you that it wasn't 'fair and square' at all. Â Yes, it is very likely that Poole would still have won, but we don't know that.. hence an asterisk. I didn't disagree that KL finished top - what I said is that it didn't matter! There were 4 teams in the play-offs and you need to beat the teams you are up against and POOLE did that - fair and square (apart from hole gate) - they were the best team in the play-offs. Â As I have also said - it is done and dusted! The records show that POOLE are champions (with absolutely no asterisk beside their name - no matter how much you want it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I didn't disagree that KL finished top - what I said is that it didn't matter! There were 4 teams in the play-offs and you need to beat the teams you are up against and POOLE did that - fair and square (apart from hole gate) - they were the best team in the play-offs. Â As I have also said - it is done and dusted! The records show that POOLE are champions (with absolutely no asterisk beside their name - no matter how much you want it) Â I know what you said and it is an incorrect statement. Â Poole should not have had first pick of opponent, so it was not 'fair and square' regardless of how many times you say it. Â It's really very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve0 Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I know what you said and it is an incorrect statement. Â Poole should not have had first pick of opponent, so it was not 'fair and square' regardless of how many times you say it. Â It's really very simple. What really is very simple is ... Â Poole ARE champions, no asterisk! Â Got it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 If you're going to start sticking asterisks against Poole whenever they don't win something "fair and square" then you'll need at lot, as the cheating scumbags haven't managed that since 2003! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverblue Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Â I know what you said and it is an incorrect statement. Â Poole should not have had first pick of opponent, so it was not 'fair and square' regardless of how many times you say it. Â It's really very simple. It's very simple, there are four teams that made the play offs, those teams would be the same whoever won the league, Poole were the best team in the play offs. 2 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.