Holder Sacked

[foreverblue]

 

TBF Huckenbeck and Lambert both failed to turn up at the tapes for one Heat.

That was the heat before the remedial work when Middlo told our riders to go out, he was there encouraging then to go out at the pit gate because he knew they would get disqualified for missing the two minute warning, Our riders went to the tapes ready to race.

[Call me wolfie]

Poole can still sign him. He has 60 days to find employment. If he agrees terms with another club for next year that counts and will ensure the continuity of his visa. If he doesn't he has to sit out a year and re apply.

If Poole sign him for the start of the season I would imagine there will be no facility while completes his ban

[Fromafar]

If Poole sign him for the start of the season I would imagine there will be no facility while completes his ban

The way he is riding at the moment ther certainly won't be queue.!

[waiheke1]

The way he is riding at the moment ther certainly won't be queue.!

Tbf I'd happily have him at Bellevue as I imagine we'll need to shed a couple of points and bjerre to holder would likely work.

[STEVEHOLS54]

 

Hmm.. i will bow to those with a little more knowledge of the visa regs, but surely it can't be as simple as that.

 

For a start off, the application has to be endorsed by the sports governing body does it not ? I'd be astonished if the BSPA approved something like that bearing in the rules of competition technically aren't agreed on yet..

Don't get where there would/should be an issue.

 

If Poole can (or IF) they announce Woryna for 2018 then why can't they announce Holder ??. He is after all a Poole asset who was on loan to Kings Lynn for 2017.

 

If there was any potential blocking by the BSPA/SCB then to me it is obvious insider rigging from both parties to deliberately try and block him riding in UK.

 

To me this whole episode stinks anyway from Chapman as so called BSPA Chairman and his friends at the SCB. Fair enough to have given him the 28 day ban but to sack the guy on the very last day of the transfer window knowing he would not get another team for this year was just nasty. Then behold after the dust settles on that he gets a 9 month ban meaning he cannot guest for anyone or ride again until 3rd week April.

 

Of course Chapman had absolutely no input or internal discussions with any of his mates at the SCB to influence such decision.

 

Anyone who doesn't think he had his finger in the pie on that move is deluded in my opinion.

 

I don't agree with the way Chris handled the matter so don't defend the initial 28 day ban and maybe also the fine levied. But sacking on the last day of the transfer window after the 28 day ban and later a 9 month ban levied by the SCB.

 

For me Chapman is not the man to take this sport forward. His subsequent outburst on the Jack Holder and we are going to bring the full force upon Peterborough were those of a bitter man. So pleased that Peterborough still won it in front of their biggest ever crowd for the event. As for Holder Jr not riding in all Sunday meetings now for Peterborough ?? They are out of the race for the top 4 anyway and if Peterborough and Jack can earn from the arrangement financially and for experience for Jack then good on them. I don't care if he is an Aussie or a Brit.

[BWitcher]

 

 

To me this whole episode stinks anyway from Chapman as so called BSPA Chairman and his friends at the SCB. Fair enough to have given him the 28 day ban but to sack the guy on the very last day of the transfer window knowing he would not get another team for this year was just nasty.

 

Only speedway fans can come up with this sort of logic.

 

For Holder to 'get another team' a rider would have to have been 'sacked' to make way for him. Likely a totally innocent rider, 'sacked' with next to no chance of 'getting another team' to make way for a rider serving a ban..

[Woz01]

 

TBF Huckenbeck and Lambert both failed to turn up at the tapes for one Heat.

That was before the track work. Once that was done they continued to ride.

 

The problem is the rest didn't back up Holder, if they all did they the meeting would've been called off/abandoned. It sounds like Poole were keen to continue as they knew the feeling in the Kings Lynn ranks and several Kings Lynn riders were willing to carry on too. You cannot have one man leaving work while the rest carry on and not expect some sort of ban/charge.

[BurntFaceMan]

 

Hmm.. i will bow to those with a little more knowledge of the visa regs, but surely it can't be as simple as that.

 

For a start off, the application has to be endorsed by the sports governing body does it not ? I'd be astonished if the BSPA approved something like that bearing in the rules of competition technically aren't agreed on yet..

 

I'm guessing the visa approval process doesn't involve asking the BSPA if it's been approved. And besides, all they have to do is employ him, doesn't necessarily have to be as a rider.

Edited August 17, 2017 by BurntFaceMan

[Daniel Smith]

There's a huge point being missed to Holder's argument.

The team stood together prior to the remedial work, no problem there.

If the track conditions were so bad after the remedial work why was he passing and repassing his brother in his race and completed all 4 laps?

If the track was so bad and wanted to make a point he should have pulled up in that heat sould he not?

The fact that he sulked off in his next heat while no riders had issues with the track after the remedial work just doesn't stack up to making any sort of point at all.

[STEVEHOLS54]

 

Only speedway fans can come up with this sort of logic.

 

For Holder to 'get another team' a rider would have to have been 'sacked' to make way for him. Likely a totally innocent rider, 'sacked' with next to no chance of 'getting another team' to make way for a rider serving a ban..

This whole matter will continue to divide opinion.

 

I just think the whole banning/sacking process has been somewhat devisive to me in the way the ban then the sacking then the 9 month ban all followed a set pattern despite comments that Chapman has no connection or influence on SCB decision. Yeah right !!!!!!!

 

A ban/fine/sacking if need be should have been done at the same time in my opinion. What the fine and ban should have been are open to debate but the whole process to me seems like a plan hatched by Chapman and the SCB agreed behind the scenes.

 

Will be interesting to see if any appeal sees a small reduction in ban period so he can at least start next year.

 

I am not going to defend Holder's actions on the night (or should I say the way he went about it). But the penalty does not to me fit the crime. There is still plenty that Chapman has to answer for in the preparing of the track - its condition and also his actions one week later in cancelling a meeting due to his sudden attack of feeling for the safety of the riders which one week earlier he didn't seem too concerned about.

 

There are no winners in this sad saga but Chapman in my opinion has hardly been a shining light in the way he has conducted himself not only on the track preparation but his subsequent actions and comments.

 

As for Holder the punishment is now in place and now its just a case of if there is any time reduction and or fine reduction on appeal.

[THE DEAN MACHINE]

Who dictates the bikes are the less forgiving bikes that they are today ? Tracks haven't changed

[Arthur54]

Only speedway fans can come up with this sort of logic.

 

For Holder to 'get another team' a rider would have to have been 'sacked' to make way for him. Likely a totally innocent rider, 'sacked' with next to no chance of 'getting another team' to make way for a rider serving a ban..[/quo

 

 

 

It happens all the time, who made way for kk at Rye House

[Chris]

This whole matter will continue to divide opinion.

 

I just think the whole banning/sacking process has been somewhat devisive to me in the way the ban then the sacking then the 9 month ban all followed a set pattern despite comments that Chapman has no connection or influence on SCB decision. Yeah right !!!!!!!

 

A ban/fine/sacking if need be should have been done at the same time in my opinion. What the fine and ban should have been are open to debate but the whole process to me seems like a plan hatched by Chapman and the SCB agreed behind the scenes.

 

Will be interesting to see if any appeal sees a small reduction in ban period so he can at least start next year.

 

I am not going to defend Holder's actions on the night (or should I say the way he went about it). But the penalty does not to me fit the crime. There is still plenty that Chapman has to answer for in the preparing of the track - its condition and also his actions one week later in cancelling a meeting due to his sudden attack of feeling for the safety of the riders which one week earlier he didn't seem too concerned about.

 

There are no winners in this sad saga but Chapman in my opinion has hardly been a shining light in the way he has conducted himself not only on the track preparation but his subsequent actions and comments.

 

As for Holder the punishment is now in place and now its just a case of if there is any time reduction and or fine reduction on appeal.

An appeal? He couldn't even be bothered to turn up for the first hearing & put his case across. Shows you the contempt he has for the sport in this country and people like you and silly Steve0.

 

Put your dummy back in & hope that they have both learned a lesson that they can't go on behaving like they are above the sport in this country.

 

Your logic above has showed your idiocy by crying for Holder & then wanting someone who's probably shown a lot more commitment to to the sport in this country to be sacked at the last minute.

[STEVEHOLS54]

An appeal? He couldn't even be bothered to turn up for the first hearing & put his case across. Shows you the contempt he has for the sport in this country and people like you and silly Steve0.

 

Put your dummy back in & hope that they have both learned a lesson that they can't go on behaving like they are above the sport in this country.

 

Your logic above has showed your idiocy by crying for Holder & then wanting someone who's probably shown a lot more commitment to to the sport in this country to be sacked at the last minute.

Am not crying for Holder.

 

I do not disagree he deserves some form of punishment for his actions and already advised as such. I think the ban/sacking/punishment/fine should have been done much closer to the incident. If the decision was to ban him for the rest of the season then in my opinion it should have been done there and then not hot foot on the back of the last transfer day sacking. Just feel it would have been more professional if the 28 day ban/sacking and SCB ban had been done same time. End result is similar but just think it would have looked better for the sport as for me it looks like Chapman was in cahoots to maximise the damage.

 

Also as for night in question. If I was Poole team manager who knew that the 2 top KL riders were coming out then after the defeat to the same team at home the night before I can hardly blame the guys for taking on a severely weakened KL team for the rest of the meeting to get 3 or 4 points. it could prove decisive in a play off situation if only for the semis gate revenue and possible TV money.

 

What I question more is whether Chapman and the SCB were in cahoots in dishing out the punishment and in the manner it was dealt/handled.

 

To conclude. Yes both deserved some form of punishment (certainly Holder did). That I don't pretend to defend.

[Steve0]

An appeal? He couldn't even be bothered to turn up for the first hearing & put his case across. Shows you the contempt he has for the sport in this country and people like you and silly Steve0.

 

Put your dummy back in & hope that they have both learned a lesson that they can't go on behaving like they are above the sport in this country.

 

Your logic above has showed your idiocy by crying for Holder & then wanting someone who's probably shown a lot more commitment to to the sport in this country to be sacked at the last minute.

Don't call me silly! Just because my opinion differs from yours does not make me silly !!

[Starman2006]

Am not crying for Holder.

 

I do not disagree he deserves some form of punishment for his actions and already advised as such. I think the ban/sacking/punishment/fine should have been done much closer to the incident. If the decision was to ban him for the rest of the season then in my opinion it should have been done there and then not hot foot on the back of the last transfer day sacking. Just feel it would have been more professional if the 28 day ban/sacking and SCB ban had been done same time. End result is similar but just think it would have looked better for the sport as for me it looks like Chapman was in cahoots to maximise the damage.

 

Very true

Don't call me silly! Just because my opinion differs from yours does not make me silly !!

Because you are. Now whats your next question, mr happy.

[SCB]

TBF Huckenbeck and Lambert both failed to turn up at the tapes for one Heat.

And the relevance here is?!

[Steve0]

Because you are. Now whats your next question, mr happy.

You really are a nasty piece of work. As I have said to you several times before - if you have nothing nice to say best not say anything!

[SCB]

This whole matter will continue to divide opinion.

 

I just think the whole banning/sacking process has been somewhat devisive to me in the way the ban then the sacking then the 9 month ban all followed a set pattern despite comments that Chapman has no connection or influence on SCB decision. Yeah right !!!!!!!

 

A ban/fine/sacking if need be should have been done at the same time in my opinion. What the fine and ban should have been are open to debate but the whole process to me seems like a plan hatched by Chapman and the SCB agreed behind the scenes.

 

Will be interesting to see if any appeal sees a small reduction in ban period so he can at least start next year.

 

I am not going to defend Holder's actions on the night (or should I say the way he went about it). But the penalty does not to me fit the crime. There is still plenty that Chapman has to answer for in the preparing of the track - its condition and also his actions one week later in cancelling a meeting due to his sudden attack of feeling for the safety of the riders which one week earlier he didn't seem too concerned about.

 

There are no winners in this sad saga but Chapman in my opinion has hardly been a shining light in the way he has conducted himself not only on the track preparation but his subsequent actions and comments.

 

As for Holder the punishment is now in place and now its just a case of if there is any time reduction and or fine reduction on appeal.

Why is this so hard to grasp?!

 

Thy suspended him pending and investigation. They investigated and decided to fine and ban him.

 

Go in to work tomorrow and walk out before lunch saying you'll be back tomorrow. He same will happen to you, you'll be suspended pending a disiplinary hearing where you could potentially be sacked.

 

The SCB followed guidelines here and acted in the correct and professional manner. It just happens to have been the case that in the middle of it, Kings Lynn sacked him.

[ouch]

FX 1

EX2 4

R 9

Total 14

Plus 1 Withdrawn by medics

 

I've not looked at other meetings at KL but that looks to me that not just Holder had an issue with the circuit.

 

A whistle blowing policy needs adding in to the rule book IMO.