Craig Cook Ban Dropped

[BrizHeathen]

Its a laughable decision. Cook is guilty of starting the whole sequence of events which led to other bans. In essence his club as got off scott free....not fair at all. 

What is even more laughable is people saying 'leave him alone, he's got mental health issues'...well if that's the case he definitely should not be on a speedway track right now.

[Argos]

6 hours ago, iainb said:

To be fair the BSPA do need the money

All money from SCB/BSPA fines goes into the BEN FUND 

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, The Doctor... said:

Sadly i did say that they had something up their sleeve here.

Scb should be having words with those that have cocked up.

In my role I do quite a few appeals on disciplinary matters which involve dismissal, and spend quite a lot of my time reviewing the process followed before either over turning or up holding the decision made..

It does appear something quite obvious may have happened/been missed, for him to a) not get banned soon after the incident like the others and b) not get banned after the appeal hearing when all the facts had been reviewed..

What obviously appeared to be an 'open and shut case' in the 'trial by social media' looks like it wasn't quite what it seemed..

As you say, maybe someone should be now getting some 'feedback'...

[dog]

19 minutes ago, BrizHeathen said:

Its a laughable decision. Cook is guilty of starting the whole sequence of events which led to other bans. In essence his club as got off scott free....not fair at all. 

What is even more laughable is people saying 'leave him alone, he's got mental health issues'...well if that's the case he definitely should not be on a speedway track right now.

Lots of people have mental health issues, myself included. Sometimes people need to be cut some slack at times. However, if this incident was due to his health issues then, as you say, should he be on the shale in what can be a volatile environment? 

Feel very sorry for Vissing. 

[lucifer sam]

6 hours ago, Star Lady said:

Agree that SCB should give reasons but the other riders involved had the same chance as Cook to appeal, and didn't, so no sympathy from me.

Not true in Vissing's case - he was rejected an appeal:

http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.88.1

[The Doctor...]

Just now, lucifer sam said:

Not true in Vissing's case - he was rejected an appeal:

http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.88.1

I think the crux is that Cook's was a procedural appeal rather than saying i'm not guilty etc.

[lucifer sam]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor... said:

I think the crux is that Cook's was a procedural appeal rather than saying i'm not guilty etc.

Maybe.  It doesn't say that in the statement, though.

[IainB]

2 hours ago, Argos said:

All money from SCB/BSPA fines goes into the BEN FUND 

Still?

[R87]

Wow.  That "statement " tells you all you need to know about British Speedway.

 

"This is what's happening"

 

"Why?"

 

"Because we said so".

No explanation.  No reasoning.  Just contempt for the paying public.

[Byker Biker]

20 hours ago, iainb said:

To be fair the BSPA do need the money

The money still goes to the SRBF

Edited September 13, 2019 by Byker Biker

[IainB]

2 hours ago, Byker Biker said:

The money still goes to the SRBF

good, I'm glad to hear it... I was making a joke though 

[SharpenRake]

17 hours ago, BrizHeathen said:

Its a laughable decision. Cook is guilty of starting the whole sequence of events which led to other bans. In essence his club as got off scott free....not fair at all. 

What is even more laughable is people saying 'leave him alone, he's got mental health issues'...well if that's the case he definitely should not be on a speedway track right now.

I blame his great great great grandparents, if they hadn't got together none of this would have happened. 

[ragdoll64]

Dear God!........only four pages so far.........ridiculous........lol

[ruffdiamond]

Great news.

[Big Al]

20 hours ago, dog said:

Lots of people have mental health issues, myself included. Sometimes people need to be cut some slack at times. However, if this incident was due to his health issues then, as you say, should he be on the shale in what can be a volatile environment? 

Feel very sorry for Vissing. 

Some comments made by (I think) Dale Allitt in the SS last week were worth reading a few times. I came to the conclusion from his words that at Wolverhampton, Cook was taken out of the match by Paramedics because he was experiencing some kind of mental meltdown, which Allitt found distressing to witness. 

If that was actually what happened, then shouldn't Craig Cook have been automatically barred from riding for a set time period, both for his own well being, and the safety of other riders?

[waytogo28]

6 minutes ago, Big Al said:

Some comments made by (I think) Dale Allitt in the SS last week were worth reading a few times. I came to the conclusion from his words that at Wolverhampton, Cook was taken out of the match by Paramedics because he was experiencing some kind of mental meltdown, which Allitt found distressing to witness. 

If that was actually what happened, then shouldn't Craig Cook have been automatically barred from riding for a set time period, both for his own well being, and the safety of other riders?

Yes, he should have been automatically barred for a set period of time. For everyone's safety ( including his own ). Allitt's description was painful to read and we can only imagine how much more painful to witness. The BSPA and the SCB always claim that rider safety is their highest priority, but it does not seem so in this case.

[westhamboy66]

On 9/12/2019 at 11:27 AM, Star Lady said:

Agree that SCB should give reasons but the other riders involved had the same chance as Cook to appeal, and didn't, so no sympathy from me.

Nonsense, if you had been there you would understand One rider was the cause, one rider used violent conduct, one innocent member of staff was assaulted by that rider, given that a video emerged then the decision was a disgrace. The reason the other two riders chose not to appeal was if it had been seen as frivolous the ban could have been extended. It must be embarrassing having that rider connected to your club. I was there I assume you wasn't. I am not an Eastbourne supporter nor have I an axe to grind with the rider who caused this unsavoury incident and bought our once great sport into disrepute. 

Amazing decision given that Mr Vacher was there for the incident

Few have little respect for the BSPA now I have zero respect for the SCB

 

 

[Star Lady]

4 minutes ago, westhamboy66 said:

Nonsense, if you had been there you would understand

I wasn't there as I made clear on earlier postings on other threads

One rider was the cause, one rider used violent conduct, one innocent member of staff was assaulted by that rider, given that a video emerged then the decision was a disgrace.

That's your opinion and I respect it. However I have a different interpretation based on a video of the incident.

The reason the other two riders chose not to appeal was if it had been seen as frivolous the ban could have been extended.

As I've been told by other posters, Vissing did appeal, so I assume that also is your opinion, cos it's at odds with his actions.

It must be embarrassing having that rider connected to your club.

You clearly do not read King's Lynn threads, if you did you would know I'm not a King's Lynn Supporter anymore and haven't been for some time. I'm not a particular fan of Craig Cook either.

I was there I assume you wasn't. I am not an Eastbourne supporter nor have I an axe to grind with the rider who caused this unsavoury incident and bought our once great sport into disrepute. 

Amazing decision given that Mr Vacher was there for the incident

Few have little respect for the BSPA now I have zero respect for the SCB

Now on that we can agree.

However unless or until the SCB in it's infinite wisdom *cough cough* choose to elaborate on why they made the decision they did, we have to accept it. That's the civilised way the British have always done, we respect the decision of "courts" of law which is why I said they should give the reasons for their judgement. It's that or total anarchy.

 

 

 

[ruffdiamond]

1 hour ago, westhamboy66 said:

 One rider was the cause, one rider used violent conduct, one innocent member of staff was assaulted by that rider, given that a video emerged then the decision was a disgrace.

I don't think the video does any favours for the member of track staff, and if you seen it and still feel the same, am embarrassed for you.

The reason the other two riders chose not to appeal was if it had been seen as frivolous the ban could have been extended. 

The other two should not have got involved and, if they had of appealed, maybe their bans would have been greater.

 

 

[The Doctor...]

3 hours ago, westhamboy66 said:

Nonsense, if you had been there you would understand One rider was the cause, one rider used violent conduct, one innocent member of staff was assaulted by that rider, given that a video emerged then the decision was a disgrace. The reason the other two riders chose not to appeal was if it had been seen as frivolous the ban could have been extended. It must be embarrassing having that rider connected to your club. I was there I assume you wasn't. I am not an Eastbourne supporter nor have I an axe to grind with the rider who caused this unsavoury incident and bought our once great sport into disrepute. 

Amazing decision given that Mr Vacher was there for the incident

Few have little respect for the BSPA now I have zero respect for the SCB

 

 

If you were there, as i was btw, you would have seen a lot more than that.

Vissing appealed, and was rejected as others have already said.  Also, "frivolous" appeals don't get the same treatment (unless i've forgotten any instances or it's been written into the rulebook recently) as it does in football where bans can be increased. In football, the appeal automatically gets accepted, panels re-convene etc, hence they give extra bans as it's seen as having wasted time etc.  Speedway just rejects the appeal.