ouch Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 35 minutes ago, hammer1969 said: I do wish people would word things correctly, Doyle did not miss his flight, he was sitting on the plane waiting for it to take off when all the passengers had to disembark due to a technical fault. With the Jason ruling no rider needs suffer penalty if they are to miss a meeting anymore. Jason‘s mode of transport suffered a technical fault so he couldn’t complete his onward journey. All riders need to do now is say that their mode of transport, a van suffered a technical fault so they couldn’t complete their onward journey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbackHalifax Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 Not quite. If it is your van then you are responsible and in control so not out of your control would not count. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer1969 Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, iainb said: It doesn't really matter that he missed his flight tbh, he missed the meeting which is what the rule says He did not miss his flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer1969 Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 8 minutes ago, bringbackHalifax said: Not quite. If it is your van then you are responsible and in control so not out of your control would not count. Exactly, he could hardly get his toolbox out and help them fix the planes mechanical fault. Commonsense prevailed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BackInTheDHSS Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 (edited) 33 minutes ago, bringbackHalifax said: Not quite. If it is your van then you are responsible and in control so not out of your control would not count. I very much doubt many riders own the van outright. Most likely on a business lease (if they've got any financial sense) and therefore they are not the owners of the van. Said van would most likely be driven by somebody else as well. The rider is merely a passenger travelling with their luggage. A big can of worms has been opened. Edited June 17 by BackInTheDHSS 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouch Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, bringbackHalifax said: Not quite. If it is your van then you are responsible and in control so not out of your control would not count. Using the word if indicates that if it isn’t your van then you are not responsible and in control. Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzAssStar Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 Just to "throw the cat amongst the pigeons"................ maybe it was Doyles fault for running a schedule that leaves no margin for such eventualities??? (and just because "everyone else does it" doesn't make it right)! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, hammer1969 said: He did not miss his flight. He missed the meeting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer1969 Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, DizzAssStar said: Just to "throw the cat amongst the pigeons"................ maybe it was Doyles fault for running a schedule that leaves no margin for such eventualities??? (and just because "everyone else does it" doesn't make it right)! To throw another cat in ...... maybe it was the Airlines fault in not making sure they always have a spare plane available to cover unexpected technical faults!! (ha ha) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil The Ace Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 17 minutes ago, hammer1969 said: To throw another cat in ...... maybe it was the Airlines fault in not making sure they always have a spare plane available to cover unexpected technical faults!! (ha ha) To throw another cat in lidsey in the same polish meeting managed to get to the Uk in time and participate in the meeting 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil The Ace Posted June 17 Author Report Share Posted June 17 Anyway. There no point us debating if Brady will ride. He raced Saturday and was rather untroubled with a faultless 12 point max so I expect him to race Thursday. if he doesn’t then that doesn’t sit well with me unless of course he doesn’t ride for Rybnik next weekend also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Irving Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 3 hours ago, DizzAssStar said: Just to "throw the cat amongst the pigeons"................ maybe it was Doyles fault for running a schedule that leaves no margin for such eventualities??? (and just because "everyone else does it" doesn't make it right)! 1 hour ago, Phil The Ace said: To throw another cat in lidsey in the same polish meeting managed to get to the Uk in time and participate in the meeting This is absolutely bonkers. Doyle would also have made it back in time for his UK meeting if he wasn’t told to get off the plane he was sitting on!! Lidsey’s plane took off, Doyle’s didn’t. They both fly back to different airports also. As for “Doyle’s fault for running a schedule that leaves no margin for such eventualities” have a day off ffs. He has his schedule and his timetable set up that perfectly suits him to get everywhere he needs to be bang on time. You don’t inconvenience yourself by planning to land in Manchester and then spend hours travelling down the motorway to his base in Norfolk on the remote 0.0001% chance there’s a technical issue with your scheduled flight and told to get off the plane!! The facts here, are that the SCB investigated both Doyle and Tungate, and were happy with their findings on one rider, and less so on the other and issued a ban. That’s the top and bottom of it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Steve Irving said: The facts here, are that the SCB investigated both Doyle and Tungate, and were happy with their findings on one rider, and less so on the other and issued a ban. That’s the top and bottom of it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules don't mention missed flights, broken down planes, traffic jams etc. It just says the SCB have to be notified when and why a rider is missing. It then seems to be up to the SCB if and what any sanction will be. Why Tungate gets a ban and Doyle doesn't has never been explained. There's far too many 7 and 28 day bans being handed out for my liking. Edited June 17 by iainb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple.H. Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 3 hours ago, hammer1969 said: To throw another cat in ...... maybe it was the Airlines fault in not making sure they always have a spare plane available to cover unexpected technical faults!! (ha ha) Would that be Ryanair Replacement 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERACE Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 46 minutes ago, iainb said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rules don't mention missed flights, broken down planes, traffic jams etc. It just says the SCB have to be notified when and why a rider is missing. It then seems to be up to the SCB if and what any sanction will be. Why Tungate gets a ban and Doyle doesn't has never been explained. There's far too many 7 and 28 day bans being handed out for my liking. I do agree on the explanation bit, but the rules should be flexible and a ban should be down to the decision of the SCB based on the reasoning for missing a meeting. A don't believe there was any punishment needed for Doyle, he'd already lost a meetings pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted June 17 Report Share Posted June 17 46 minutes ago, SUPERACE said: I do agree on the explanation bit, but the rules should be flexible and a ban should be down to the decision of the SCB based on the reasoning for missing a meeting. A don't believe there was any punishment needed for Doyle, he'd already lost a meetings pay. Normally in legal documents/rules there's a force majeure clause, I would have thought both Doyle and Tungate should have been covered by this, why a flight delay in a foreign country trumps a traffic delay in a foreign country I'm not quite sure. Neither should have been banned imo... or both (definitely neither) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil The Ace Posted June 18 Author Report Share Posted June 18 What did musieliak get?? A 28 day ban?? expect Brady will get the same from Thursday. Im very disappointed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tellboy Posted June 18 Report Share Posted June 18 42 minutes ago, Phil The Ace said: What did musieliak get?? A 28 day ban?? expect Brady will get the same from Thursday. Im very disappointed His 28 day ban started yesterday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceBelle Posted June 18 Report Share Posted June 18 1 hour ago, tellboy said: His 28 day ban started yesterday. Aces could sign Lambert for 28 day contract ? we have Sheffield away Thursday but in all honesty we will get nothing out of that meeting so use R/R then we have Leicester & Ipswich home meetings then Ipswich & oxford away in the 28 day period Lambert would have 2 home meetings before SON which can only help him so it's a option without committing himself fully and he has the set up here already so let's see if Brady gets the ban and what Lemmo's solution is ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted June 18 Report Share Posted June 18 9 minutes ago, AceBelle said: Aces could sign Lambert for 28 day contract ? we have Sheffield away Thursday but in all honesty we will get nothing out of that meeting so use R/R then we have Leicester & Ipswich home meetings then Ipswich & oxford away in the 28 day period Lambert would have 2 home meetings before SON which can only help him so it's a option without committing himself fully and he has the set up here already so let's see if Brady gets the ban and what Lemmo's solution is ? Forget that... what about his legendary protective boot? When you do get it I think you should seriously consider donating it to the Speedway museum, at Paradise Park, where it could become a major exhibit. 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.