ruffdiamond Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Perhaps the dear old couple as you describe them was considered more important than replying to you. If the referee can't see a problem with Peterborough using R/R then they obviously haven't broken any rules and if you are not happy with that then you need to take it up with ACU , BSPA or SCB well if the referee can't see anything untoward, it must be correct. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Facebook and Twitter are used for fluffy bunny information, not for stuff as pointed as that. I'm surprised that you expected a reply to be honest. The club website gives an e-mail address. You could try that and be equally ignored I guess? I can't really see Plummer thumbing the rule book to get back to him can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealdstone Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) I have no idea what the rules say, however Peterborough must have got permission to use rider replacement , they certainly can't just to decide to do it because they thought they would. Very ill informed and disrespectful remarks regarding (old couple) and wedding anniversary. I suggest whoever made that remark researches who they are. I would suggest Chris Harris is the last person that could be accused of ducking meetings Edited September 11, 2017 by wealdstone 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Lady Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Chris Harris is totally innocent in this. He obviously did what he was told to do and had he not would probably have faced disciplinary action of some sort. However SCB is correct there is NOTHING in the rules that covers a facility for his absence. That is the issue. We get post after post saying people see speedway as a joke sport and this is why. If the BSPA/SCB/ACU want or require riders like Bomber to ride in grasstrack meetings they should ensure that the situation is covered by a rule. Anything else just takes fans for fools....but they have done that for decades Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcatdiary Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 I have no idea what the rules say, however Peterborough must have got permission to use rider replacement , they certainly can't just to decide to do it because they thought they would. Very ill informed and disrespectful remarks regarding (old couple) and wedding anniversary. I suggest whoever made that remark researches who they are. I would suggest Chris Harris is the last person that could be accused of ducking meetings Given the choice I think Chris wanted to do the speedway unfortunately the ACU/SCB decided otherwise. Chris Harris is totally innocent in this. He obviously did what he was told to do and had he not would probably have faced disciplinary action of some sort. However SCB is correct there is NOTHING in the rules that covers a facility for his absence. That is the issue. We get post after post saying people see speedway as a joke sport and this is why. If the BSPA/SCB/ACU want or require riders like Bomber to ride in grasstrack meetings they should ensure that the situation is covered by a rule. Anything else just takes fans for fools....but they have done that for decades The rulebook is a complete joke and unfortunately the ACU/SCB/BSPA either hasn't got the ability/ntetest to sort it out or couldn't care less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook? you forgot the Robert Lambert and rain off 'carry-on' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slyfox Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 And SCB is the last person who would have a dig at Harris. But in recent weeks we've had: Chris Holder banned as per the rulebook for refusing to race. Jack Holder and Peterborough strongly castigated for missing/allowing him to miss a meeting in contravention of rules. Threat of punishment (still pending)? Chris Harris permitted to miss a meeting, and facility granted, despite fact that this contravenes the rules. Consistency? What are rules being based on if not the rulebook? Punishment pending? I thought Ged had had his promoters licence suspended as punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) How can a punishment be imposed on Chris Harris for competing in the Grass Track Masters? It was an ACU sanctioned NATIONAL championship event - and aren't the ACU the recognised UK governing body for ALL motorcycle sport and as such recognised by the FIM? It's doubtful, if such is the case, that any suggested punishment against Harris will be legitimised. Edited September 11, 2017 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPanther Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 How can a punishment be imposed on Chris Harris for competing in the Grass Track Masters? It was an ACU sanctioned NATIONAL championship event - and aren't the ACU the recognised UK governing body for ALL motorcycle sport and as such recognised by the FIM? It's doubtful, if such is the case, that any suggested punishment against Harris will be legitimised. It's just the usual forum queens 'ranting off' with nothing better to do 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted September 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 How can a punishment be imposed on Chris Harris for competing in the Grass Track Masters? It was an ACU sanctioned NATIONAL championship event - and aren't the ACU the recognised UK governing body for ALL motorcycle sport and as such recognised by the FIM? It's doubtful, if such is the case, that any suggested punishment against Harris will be legitimised. For the same reason that last week Robert Lambert had to ride in Poland according to the rules. But in doing so his club (Newcastle) were not allowed a facility. Just because the rules say you have to ride in a certain place doesn't mean the club should get a facility. And if a club uses a facility they shouldn't use then the rider gets a ban according to the rules. As for the suggest this is bias or hatred, lol. Chris Harris is my favourite rider. I own more Chris Harris merchandise than all others combined. I have prints of Chris Harris hanging in my living room, hallway and bedroom. But none of that changes my opinion that based on the rule book he should be banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crump99 Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 I can't really see Plummer thumbing the rule book to get back to him can you? He doesn't run those does he? Would explain a lot though if so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 For the same reason that last week Robert Lambert had to ride in Poland according to the rules. But in doing so his club (Newcastle) were not allowed a facility. Just because the rules say you have to ride in a certain place doesn't mean the club should get a facility. And if a club uses a facility they shouldn't use then the rider gets a ban according to the rules. As for the suggest this is bias or hatred, lol. Chris Harris is my favourite rider. I own more Chris Harris merchandise than all others combined. I have prints of Chris Harris hanging in my living room, hallway and bedroom. But none of that changes my opinion that based on the rule book he should be banned. Oh dear now your saying he should be banned and yet on the P/boro v W/ton thread you are saying he shouldn't make your mind up and send your protest to the governing body which ever one you choose, that's where the problem is , remember the referee allowed this to happen because he must have scrutinised the line ups prior to the match starting and didn't see anything wrong . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted September 11, 2017 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Oh dear now your saying he should be banned and yet on the P/boro v W/ton thread you are saying he shouldn't make your mind up and send your protest to the governing body which ever one you choose, that's where the problem is , remember the referee allowed this to happen because he must have scrutinised the line ups prior to the match starting and didn't see anything wrong . I've maintained all along he should be banned The ban is automatic because Peterborough used a facility that the rules don't allow. Thats how it works. Still, by all means show where I've said he shouldn't get a ban. But as you've not been able to quote a rule that shows a facility was allowed I won't be holding my breathe while you prove my double standards either. Christ, I started a thread about Chris Harris getting a 28 day ban, I'm hardly likely to start posting elsewhere he shouldn't get one am I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruffdiamond Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 referee's are never wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Oh dear now your saying he should be banned and yet on the P/boro v W/ton thread you are saying he shouldn't make your mind up and send your protest to the governing body which ever one you choose, that's where the problem is , remember the referee allowed this to happen because he must have scrutinised the line ups prior to the match starting and didn't see anything wrong .Well I've read that thread, and if you think can find anything SCB has said that even faintly implies that Harris should not get a ban, then I'd suggest you need remedial English lessons. And then you can make your apology for being wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Well I've read that thread, and if you think can find anything SCB has said that even faintly implies that Harris should not get a ban, then I'd suggest you need remedial English lessons. And then you can make your apology for being wrong. He didn't say that he shouldn't be banned I will hold my hand up to that but he does agree that Chris Harris had no choice about where he was riding which to me would be a bit hard to ban him for 28 days as he was not at fault as I have already stated the fault is the making of whoever sanctioned the facility not the rider or Peterborough who have not broken any rule here as the facility was obviously sanctioned rightly or wrongly . Agreed there are a lot of things that are not going correctly by the rules , as an example the Redcar v Glasgow A fixture result , where in the rules does it suggest a meeting can be called of after 9 races and the result stands or awarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulco Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 He didn't say that he shouldn't be banned I will hold my hand up to that but he does agree that Chris Harris had no choice about where he was riding which to me would be a bit hard to ban him for 28 days as he was not at fault as I have already stated the fault is the making of whoever sanctioned the facility not the rider or Peterborough who have not broken any rule here as the facility was obviously sanctioned rightly or wrongly . Agreed there are a lot of things that are not going correctly by the rules , as an example the Redcar v Glasgow A fixture result , where in the rules does it suggest a meeting can be called of after 9 races and the result stands or awarded. A certain degree of common sense has been applied to the rule book . The Redcar v Glasgow meeting was beaten by the curfew with Glasgow about to get a 5-0 in heat 10 . And Sunday's meeting didn't have anything riding on it , therefore why deny the paying public a competitive meeting when Harris had been instructed to go elsewhere . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screm Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 Chris Harris is totally innocent in this. He obviously did what he was told to do and had he not would probably have faced disciplinary action of some sort. However SCB is correct there is NOTHING in the rules that covers a facility for his absence. That is the issue. We get post after post saying people see speedway as a joke sport and this is why. If the BSPA/SCB/ACU want or require riders like Bomber to ride in grasstrack meetings they should ensure that the situation is covered by a rule. Anything else just takes fans for fools....but they have done that for decades I agree with you, you can bet after the Holder debacle Peterborough will have checked just exactly what was going to happen and what Harris had to do, maybe we could find out who gave the advice to the Panthers promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New era Panthers Posted September 11, 2017 Report Share Posted September 11, 2017 I agree with you, you can bet after the Holder debacle Peterborough will have checked just exactly what was going to happen and what Harris had to do, maybe we could find out who gave the advice to the Panthers promotion. You will struggle with that i'm afraid , it's like dealing with a secret society at governing body level , no names and nobody to take the blame. 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.