|
|
Post by admin on Aug 9, 2007 14:15:03 GMT
I was thinking more about Reading's illegal use of a guest against Ipswich earlier in the season, young x. You remember the one where Schlein was used as a guest to cover Hancock? What action was taken over that fiasco? Nothing, as far as I'm aware.
However, as you correctly state, Berwick followed all procedures correctly, affirmed that they considered Rempala and Truminski were with-holding their services and should have been awarded facilities. This would've led to a 28-day ban for the Weirdity and Truminski, which Waite says he would support.
It would be different if Waite were hoping to have facilities to cover the Newport fixture and then Rempala and Truminski back for the remainder of the season.
Now, let us look at the Hancock scenario. Greg Hancock has been granted "compassionate leave" by the BSPA. Why? It doesn't appear that he had a contract to ride in the UK beyond the end of May. So why is there a facility? Why are the SCB not amending results? How could Greg Hancock be with-holding services which he never offered in the first place?
Clear double standards, I'm sure you'll agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2007 15:46:34 GMT
No action was taken over that "fiasco" as you term it, as BSI are no longer around to be brow beaten, and all parties agreed to the move. What do you want? The 62-31 defeat to be redeclared as 62-18?   (What a masterly piece of legislatative skill that would be...) The facility on the night was in the best interests of the sport - hardly set a precident as both sides agreed to waive the rule in the interests of providing a competitive meeting and Reading were duly hammered. Now, let us look at the Hancock scenario. Greg Hancock has been granted "compassionate leave" by the BSPA. Why? It doesn't appear that he had a contract to ride in the UK beyond the end of May. Trouble with that is he did ride beyond May - so where does the contractual issue stand there? Where did the relationship end and where does a new one get implied. As it happens Reading were afforded 6 whole guests and 1 dosage of RR. I always maintain that giving a facility for a period of calendar days is rediculous anyway. It should be for a number of meetings, and you could have seven meetings in a period of 2 weeks quite easilly - so our facility was hradly OTT. The actual time of the facility advanced may have been stretched a little to help Reading who were clearly trying every avenue possible - and they have opted for a young Pole when I gather they could have kept on with the facility - so good for them. So no - I don't agree. Everything was cleared with the relevant authorities from the start and a facility was granted - whether the "compassionate leave" thing was right or not is up to the BSPA. Unless you are totally blind and hopelessly thick you will realise that there were strong extenuating circumstances for Reading at this time - and without a facility the league may well have lost a second EL club. Sensible choice was made, no double standards at all. Now a contract - however well intentioned - will not allow Berwick to have a facility for a rider when another side would be deprived of one. I would strongly suggest the sacking of one Pole and Pijper's employment means that the BSPA are wrong in saying no facility appied, and they have jumped the gun on that decision. There are are no extenuating circumstances surrounding Berwick so crowbarring Reading into your comparison is fatuous. Should Oxford have requested a facility of Pepe had indeed failed to return when they were on the brink - I would have expected one to be advanced there. Different circumstances demand different applications of rules I feel. |
|
|
|
Post by donsking on Aug 9, 2007 16:13:37 GMT
Different circumstances demand different applications of rules I feel. Well if that's even half true, then it just shows how fucked speedway really is. As discussed elsewhere, the rules regarding R/R and guests are comprehensive and not open to interpretation, and seem to have been written and modified over the course of time to cover any situation. If you're advocating that the rule book should be ripped up under certain circumstances, then what's the point of having rules in the first place? If teams put themselves in a position where the only way out is a quiet word and a blind eye, then I would think you can expect the sport to have all but disappeared here by the end of the decade. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 9, 2007 17:32:23 GMT
Well if that's even half true, then it just shows how fucked speedway really is. Exactly. It now turns out that according to young x, Waite's sole mistake was not to claim that the very future of his club was at stake here. A club mismanaged on an epic scale by BSI should be helped to survive under new ownership, but a club well managed and apparently solvent should have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and not even get the benefit of the sport's own rules. What Waite did was entirely within the scope of the rules, but he gets fucked and hung out to dry, while Reading seem to be allowed to get away with any on the grounds that to do otherwise would drive the club to the wall. Well, frankly, it wouldn't bother me one iota if Reading went to the wall, nor would it trouble me if Berwick went to the wall, as long as the rules of the sport were upheld. But they aren't, so the whole fucking sport can go to the wall for all I care. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Aug 9, 2007 18:02:24 GMT
The 62-31 defeat to be redeclared as 62-18? (What a masterly piece of legislatative skill that would be...) If that's what the rules say (and I suspect they do), then yes. The facility on the night was in the best interests of the sport - hardly set a precident as both sides agreed to waive the rule in the interests of providing a competitive meeting and Reading were duly hammered. But it is the best interests of the sport for Berwick to go into a meeting against Newport minus their heatleaders? Oh, I forgot, Berwick aren't Reading, so as far as you're concerned, fuck them. It should be for a number of meetings, and you could have seven meetings in a period of 2 weeks quite easilly - so our facility was hradly OTT. Considering that Reading shouldn't have had a facility at all, yes, it was over the top. Unless you are totally blind and hopelessly thick you will realise that there were strong extenuating circumstances for Reading at this time - and without a facility the league may well have lost a second EL club. Sensible choice was made, no double standards at all. Only a sensible choice because it was your club Reading. What about if a Berwick supporter says a sensible choice was made on Sunday? In fact, Peter Waite makes a more reasonable case for the use of the facilities than Reading have done. There are are no extenuating circumstances surrounding Berwick so crowbarring Reading into your comparison is fatuous. Since you don't dispute that rules have been bent to assist Reading, the comparison isn't fatuous at all. Different circumstances demand different applications of rules I feel. Rules are rules and should be obeyed, or what's the fucking point of having them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2007 8:36:00 GMT
Quite clearly rules in all walks of life are applied with reference to circumstance.
It is quite obvious to me - seems not to anyone else around here so I guess I shall have to keep quiet or abuse will continue to come my way. ;D
(Better put a smilie in - as I seem to have trodden on Schumi's toes already! Sorry Schums....)
You seem to imply that I don't care what happens to Berwick - yet I have said they have been wronged in the withdrawl of a facility for Truminski - and still believe that.
To say I support different rules being appllied because just Reading are concerned is wrong.
Sorry.
I have supported many different rule applications - the rulebook says you don't get an average until you have ridden 6 home 6 away - Mads Korneliussen has ridden 5 home and 12 yet got an average this month. Sensible decision - not in the rulebook.
Last year Freddie Erikssen's average was slightly adjusted to allow him into a struggling Oxford side - good decision. Not in the rulebook.
Would I have supported such a move last year had Reading, Coventry or Peterborough asked for it?
Nope.
|
|
