waiheke1 Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 So Poole knew they couldn't use Wright but booked him anyway. Maybe they should have been able to use Jake Allen, though they have made such a balls up of drafting most rules that it is quite possible the rules were intended to permit only a brit Pl 6 pointer, but didn't state this. Doesn't excuse the attempt to cheat by using Wright. If there was any possibility it was legit to use him, Poole would gave done so, as even if his pts were deducted he would have taken some points from lakeside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 So Poole knew they couldn't use Wright but booked him anyway. Maybe they should have been able to use Jake Allen, though they have made such a balls up of drafting most rules that it is quite possible the rules were intended to permit only a brit Pl 6 pointer, but didn't state this. Doesn't excuse the attempt to cheat by using Wright. If there was any possibility it was legit to use him, Poole would gave done so, as even if his pts were deducted he would have taken some points from lakeside. It has already been pointed out several times on here that it was not a reckonised meeting so we were not entitled to a facillity. We won and thats all that matters. Clearly you are as thick as the others on here, but im very sure you will keep banging on about it... DUH.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 It has already been pointed out several times on here that it was not a reckonised meeting so we were not entitled to a facillity. We won and thats all that matters. Clearly you are as thick as the others on here, but im very sure you will keep banging on about it... DUH.. Starman breaking ranks! Never thought he'd accuse Matt Ford of being thick. Sackable offence I would say! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 It has already been pointed out several times on here that it was not a reckonised meeting so we were not entitled to a facillity. We won and thats all that matters. Clearly you are as thick as the others on here, but im very sure you will keep banging on about it... DUH..See even you get it.So: 1. Why did Ford try to cheat 2. Why is he saying he would appeal? You'd be thick to do that if you knew there was no basis wouldn't you 3. Why are people mentioning that Poole only found at 2.41 that they couldn't use Wright? As you say, only thick people didn't know that already. Middlo and Ford - thicker than starman, in starmans own words. Will keep an eye out for u for vacancies at other tracks... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) See even you get it. So: 1. Why did Ford try to cheat 2. Why is he saying he would appeal? You'd be thick to do that if you knew there was no basis wouldn't you 3. Why are people mentioning that Poole only found at 2.41 that they couldn't use Wright? As you say, only thick people didn't know that already. Middlo and Ford - thicker than starman, in starmans own words. Will keep an eye out for u for vacancies at other tracks... It was admitted and is well known that it was a genuine mistake, but as per usual you and the other s on here will make a meal of it because thats what you do. But hey, lets not let that get in the way of your continued Poole bashing. Edited July 22, 2016 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 OK so if it was a genuine mistake, why is Ford mentioning that he would have appealed if you didn't win? As you said, you'd be pretty thick to appeal on the basis that you made a mistake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 22, 2016 Report Share Posted July 22, 2016 It was admitted and is well known that it was a genuine mistake, but as per usual you and the other s on here will make a meal of it because thats what you do. But hey, lets not let that get in the way of your continued Poole bashing. Better run along and tell your beloved promoter what a 'thicko' he is. It's only being discussed again because the 'thicko' brought it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Better run along and tell your beloved promoter what a 'thicko' he is. It's only being discussed again because the 'thicko' brought it up. You really do have a problem. I would strongly suggest you seek help for it. While your at it take Gavin along with you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daytripper Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Isn't it a bit strange that neither the SCB secretary, the SCB referee nor the duty member of the BSPA MC could quote the rule that Poole had supposedly broken. The article explains that Poole knew they had no facility so initially tried to book Jake Allen as cover for Ellis (PL 6 pointer). This was refused as it was claimed the replacement had to be a BRIT if it was replacing an EDR - but the rule states that should only apply if a facility HAD been granted. Hence Wright being booked as a qualifying Brit EDR replacement. Poole were not advised about Wright until 2.41 pm on the day - too late to get Jake Allen down - who should have been able to guest in the first place as there was nothing in the rules that contradicted that - as agreed by 3 officials, none of whom could show the rule that didn't allow it!! Just to be clear, the article gives Matt Fords version of events. Nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Very true - but you wouldn't name the SCB Chief Graham Reeve or the SCB referee Dave Robinson without being pretty clear on the facts!!!! NB. No comment from Jon Cook or Kelvin Tatum I notice........................ Probably just licking their wounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Very true - but you wouldn't name the SCB Chief Graham Reeve or the SCB referee Dave Robinson without being pretty clear on the facts!!!! NB. No comment from Jon Cook or Kelvin Tatum I notice........................ Probably just licking their wounds. They don't need to comment do they? Ford just making a fool of himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted July 23, 2016 Report Share Posted July 23, 2016 Very true - but you wouldn't name the SCB Chief Graham Reeve or the SCB referee Dave Robinson without being pretty clear on the facts!!!! NB. No comment from Jon Cook or Kelvin Tatum I notice........................ Probably just licking their wounds. Why would they be licking their wounds ? There apparent objection was upheld. As for being clear on the facts, it's really a matter of whether Fords little tirade in SS records ALL the facts and/or whether those facts recorded have Fords spin on them. Always the same problem with Speedwáy Star, they only ever record one side of the argument, not just in this matter but all the time. I have mentioned this on other occasions. We come back to the point that was mentioned earlier. According to Steve Shoveller Ford said in the programme he would have taken it further and would have won, but the question is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I can't think of any other promoter that would make all this fuss over a settled issue. If he had said he was going to make sure the rules get clarified at the next AGM we coukd respect him for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 Why would they be licking their wounds ? There apparent objection was upheld. As for being clear on the facts, it's really a matter of whether Fords little tirade in SS records ALL the facts and/or whether those facts recorded have Fords spin on them. Always the same problem with Speedwáy Star, they only ever record one side of the argument, not just in this matter but all the time. I have mentioned this on other occasions. We come back to the point that was mentioned earlier. According to Steve Shoveller Ford said in the programme he would have taken it further and would have won, but the question is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I can't think of any other promoter that would make all this fuss over a settled issue. If he had said he was going to make sure the rules get clarified at the next AGM we coukd respect him for that. If he hasn't actually said that - I bet the rules are amended or added at the AGM as none of the SCB officials could name the rule in question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) is where would had have taken it ? The meeting referee and the SCB had already over ruled him. There was no where else for him to go. What ever the rights or wrongs of the matter in issue, to say in the programme that he would have taken it further and would have won is utter bull, only to be believed by the blue tint faithful. Even Starman has now said earlier on this thread Ford got it wrong. I never said that Matt had actualy got it wrong, clearly the ruling was misinterperated and clearly needs proper clarification.. Edited July 24, 2016 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted July 24, 2016 Report Share Posted July 24, 2016 So much fuss about something that is done and dusted. Perhaps it is not so much about no rule being broken but more a case of no existing rule being applicable i.e. the circumstances where a 'facility' is available are detailed in the regulations and the situation regarding Adam's absence did not fit any of them. Hence, we have a situation where it is possible to state that 'no rule has been broken' on the one hand whereas, on the other, no circumstances where a facility is available appertain. The authorities, quite rightly in my opinion, went for the latter. 1 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.