Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2009 21:16:24 GMT
Oh yes he has! No penalty for Bobby. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Nov 14, 2009 21:19:11 GMT
Presumably because he's Polish and scores well for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2009 23:27:57 GMT
Presumably because he's Polish and scores well for them. TBH, knowing Robert, should he have been banned by the Polish authorities, I have no doubt that he would try and take out an ACU licence, he seems to be one of those rare Poles that rides here before his home land. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 15, 2009 11:33:55 GMT
More details are expected from KM Ostrow on Tuesday, but at the minute it seems that the club did not act outwith their authority in imposing such stiff sanctions on the riders.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2009 13:40:23 GMT
Source?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Nov 15, 2009 13:48:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2009 14:57:26 GMT
Which courtesy of Poltran, reads as follows;- Ostrow does not scant argumentation regarding imposing of punishment on sportsmen by management of club KM. They let's remember, that it impose joint punishment on them over 800 thousand zloty and on one hook-ups and two fly < lat > < summer > < year >. Voice has carried away regarding legal advisor GKS¯.Przypomnijmy, that management results for rejection of start in match KM ostrow KM ostrow has punished daniel disqualifications - start gniezno annual (years old) < year old > Nermarka, daniel Kinga, Patryka Pawlaszczyka and Nicolaia Klindta. It punish two-summer (two-years old) prohibition of start Adriana Gomólskiego, Chrisa Harrisa and carol Z¹bika. On sportsmen additional, they have declined which (who) have been impose with start on amount over 800 thousand zloty projection gniezno financial punishment also. Representatives of management failed to answer on question KM ostrow, that former base of taking of such legal decision. That strange they desire to maintain anonymity in this case - all speaking out. One of former executive member has said ostrow for KM SportoweFakty.pl, that punishments have been imposed according to obligatory regulations of instruction books of (order of) sports ¯u¿lowego. HERE we wrote about whole case. About it, if (or) ostrow could impose punishments ask on sportsmen KM advisor of legal commission of main sport ¯u¿lowego - £ukasza Szmita. I would like to check off (to note) on admission (preamble; enter) -, that it requires honest endorsing of this case for documentation of disciplinary procedure insight into, which (who) - as I have apprehended club have been carry by in accordance with sportsmen ostrowski and click of additional actual installation. I had access for no documents concerning it case, so, I will allow on loose statement only, somewhat which (who) can throw on discussed stuff enlightened < light >. However, I can say on hot so, that there is for voting regarding disciplinary accordingly article 303 organ proper (suitable) RS¯ 1. Relatively to clubs GKS¯, sportsmen and operators behind exception of case of (accidentally of) infringement of disciplinary regulation by reason of contests of (matches of) extraleagues - or by other lead SELENIUM, 2. Relatively to judges GKS¯ in each case (chance) -, 3. Relatively to clubs SELENIUM, sportsmen and operators in case of (accidentally of) infringement of disciplinary regulation by reason of contests of (matches of) extraleagues - and by other lead SELENIUM, 4. Clubs relatively to adepts, sportsmen and operators. Therefore, club can be disciplinary organ in certain case (accidentally) and entity (instance). So to say, it substitutes same GKS¯ or SELENIUM and cancellation (appealing) is as (serve) from its (his) judgement in accordance with personal sportsman for tribunal of relationship (association). Club is related disciplinary procedure in my opinion regulations of disciplinary sports leading ¿u¿lowego. Indeed I have faced each other with opposite view i.e., that it is not related club in this procedure regulations RS¯, but I can not agree with (from) it. Does not have bases according to I in (to) RS¯, in order to club as sole disciplinary organ subjected no regulations and in consequence in order to notorious was used " free - american ". It reconciled to law of (as of right of) sportsmen and it established standards of punishments for belorussia proper (suitable) rather, but for membership country of european union not it has said for - SportoweFakty.pl £ukasz Szmit. As therefore, it results from statement of legal advisor GKS¯, ostrow could impose punishments on sportsmen KM. Do height of punishment be with regulations consistent however,? - Since club – if I understand well < goods (right) > it punished sportsman be in disciplinary mode on base for offenses for 10.000,00 article 334 point 12 maximum punishment fine - – zloty < golden > RS¯ and punishment of hook-up for 1 year. However, it belongs to remember – though they are in this range of doubt, I have signaled which (who) highly, that club can use center (means) with (from) penal article 306 voting punishment additional RS¯, particularly,, as sportsman seem can oblige for payment of indemnification ( article 306 point 20 ) RS¯. Joint obligations of sportsmen can exceed from title of disciplinary issued judgement by club in (to) from there article 334 point 12 theoretically " " advisable wide³ki RS¯, but it is obliged to be indicated it in judgement distinctly and for it (him) substantiation. In order to therefore, decide it belong to acquaint (to familiarize) with judgement and substantiation . Surely it is curious summing up case, but one-valued (unequivocal) diagnosing requires its (her) with documents work and doing of detailed installation relatively for actual state (condition) it has added - £ukasz Szmit. As therefore, it display, disclosure is indispensable for proper (suitable) decision in this case by about imposing of punishment on sportsmen KM ostrow of judgement and determination of base of taken (undertaken) legal decision. They have not served representatives of management KM ostrow base of legal decision else. Coordinator of club for time of appearance in club of curator indicated < appointee > < appoint > it has foreshadowed (has presaged) in conversation from (with) - Pawe³ Stangret SportoweFakty.pl, that it is possible to expect detailed information in this case to tuesday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2009 15:04:15 GMT
Actually, if I think about it, I'm sure Danny was fined at the time, so is this a continuation, or did they not pay at the time  |
|
|
|
Post by zonkers on Nov 15, 2009 15:25:01 GMT
Which courtesy of Poltran, reads as follows;- Ostrow does not scant argumentation regarding imposing of punishment on sportsmen by management of club KM. They let's remember, that it impose joint punishment on them over 800 thousand zloty and on one hook-ups and two fly < lat > < summer > < year >. Voice has carried away regarding legal advisor GKS¯.Przypomnijmy, that management results for rejection of start in match KM ostrow KM ostrow has punished daniel disqualifications - start gniezno annual (years old) < year old > Nermarka, daniel Kinga, Patryka Pawlaszczyka and Nicolaia Klindta. It punish two-summer (two-years old) prohibition of start Adriana Gomólskiego, Chrisa Harrisa and carol Z¹bika. On sportsmen additional, they have declined which (who) have been impose with start on amount over 800 thousand zloty projection gniezno financial punishment also. Representatives of management failed to answer on question KM ostrow, that former base of taking of such legal decision. That strange they desire to maintain anonymity in this case - all speaking out. One of former executive member has said ostrow for KM SportoweFakty.pl, that punishments have been imposed according to obligatory regulations of instruction books of (order of) sports ¯u¿lowego. HERE we wrote about whole case. About it, if (or) ostrow could impose punishments ask on sportsmen KM advisor of legal commission of main sport ¯u¿lowego - £ukasza Szmita. I would like to check off (to note) on admission (preamble; enter) -, that it requires honest endorsing of this case for documentation of disciplinary procedure insight into, which (who) - as I have apprehended club have been carry by in accordance with sportsmen ostrowski and click of additional actual installation. I had access for no documents concerning it case, so, I will allow on loose statement only, somewhat which (who) can throw on discussed stuff enlightened < light >. However, I can say on hot so, that there is for voting regarding disciplinary accordingly article 303 organ proper (suitable) RS¯ 1. Relatively to clubs GKS¯, sportsmen and operators behind exception of case of (accidentally of) infringement of disciplinary regulation by reason of contests of (matches of) extraleagues - or by other lead SELENIUM, 2. Relatively to judges GKS¯ in each case (chance) -, 3. Relatively to clubs SELENIUM, sportsmen and operators in case of (accidentally of) infringement of disciplinary regulation by reason of contests of (matches of) extraleagues - and by other lead SELENIUM, 4. Clubs relatively to adepts, sportsmen and operators. Therefore, club can be disciplinary organ in certain case (accidentally) and entity (instance). So to say, it substitutes same GKS¯ or SELENIUM and cancellation (appealing) is as (serve) from its (his) judgement in accordance with personal sportsman for tribunal of relationship (association). Club is related disciplinary procedure in my opinion regulations of disciplinary sports leading ¿u¿lowego. Indeed I have faced each other with opposite view i.e., that it is not related club in this procedure regulations RS¯, but I can not agree with (from) it. Does not have bases according to I in (to) RS¯, in order to club as sole disciplinary organ subjected no regulations and in consequence in order to notorious was used " free - american ". It reconciled to law of (as of right of) sportsmen and it established standards of punishments for belorussia proper (suitable) rather, but for membership country of european union not it has said for - SportoweFakty.pl £ukasz Szmit. As therefore, it results from statement of legal advisor GKS¯, ostrow could impose punishments on sportsmen KM. Do height of punishment be with regulations consistent however,? - Since club – if I understand well < goods (right) > it punished sportsman be in disciplinary mode on base for offenses for 10.000,00 article 334 point 12 maximum punishment fine - – zloty < golden > RS¯ and punishment of hook-up for 1 year. However, it belongs to remember – though they are in this range of doubt, I have signaled which (who) highly, that club can use center (means) with (from) penal article 306 voting punishment additional RS¯, particularly,, as sportsman seem can oblige for payment of indemnification ( article 306 point 20 ) RS¯. Joint obligations of sportsmen can exceed from title of disciplinary issued judgement by club in (to) from there article 334 point 12 theoretically " " advisable wide³ki RS¯, but it is obliged to be indicated it in judgement distinctly and for it (him) substantiation. In order to therefore, decide it belong to acquaint (to familiarize) with judgement and substantiation . Surely it is curious summing up case, but one-valued (unequivocal) diagnosing requires its (her) with documents work and doing of detailed installation relatively for actual state (condition) it has added - £ukasz Szmit. As therefore, it display, disclosure is indispensable for proper (suitable) decision in this case by about imposing of punishment on sportsmen KM ostrow of judgement and determination of base of taken (undertaken) legal decision. They have not served representatives of management KM ostrow base of legal decision else. Coordinator of club for time of appearance in club of curator indicated < appointee > < appoint > it has foreshadowed (has presaged) in conversation from (with) - Pawe³ Stangret SportoweFakty.pl, that it is possible to expect detailed information in this case to tuesday.
Blimey......!! I gave up half way through that.....  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2009 15:27:16 GMT
Which courtesy of Poltran, reads as follows;- Jeez how anything meaningful could be construed from that? poltran certainly hasn't improved with age. Hoping for a better translation. |
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Nov 15, 2009 18:51:14 GMT
Actually, if I think about it, I'm sure Danny was fined at the time, so is this a continuation, or did they not pay at the time Yes, it's a continuation. |
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Nov 15, 2009 18:55:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Genghis on Nov 15, 2009 18:57:05 GMT
Which courtesy of Poltran, reads as follows;- Ostrow does not scant argumentation regarding imposing of punishment on sportsmen by management of club KM. They let's remember, that it impose joint punishment on them over 800 thousand zloty and on one hook-ups and two fly < lat > < summer > < year >. Voice has carried away regarding legal advisor GKS¯.Przypomnijmy, that management results for rejection of start in match KM ostrow KM ostrow has punished daniel disqualifications - start gniezno annual (years old) < year old > Nermarka, daniel Kinga, Patryka Pawlaszczyka and Nicolaia Klindta. It punish two-summer (two-years old) prohibition of start Adriana Gomólskiego, Chrisa Harrisa and carol Z¹bika. On sportsmen additional, they have declined which (who) have been impose with start on amount over 800 thousand zloty projection gniezno financial punishment also. Representatives of management failed to answer on question KM ostrow, that former base of taking of such legal decision. That strange they desire to maintain anonymity in this case - all speaking out. One of former executive member has said ostrow for KM SportoweFakty.pl, that punishments have been imposed according to obligatory regulations of instruction books of (order of) sports ¯u¿lowego. HERE we wrote about whole case. About it, if (or) ostrow could impose punishments ask on sportsmen KM advisor of legal commission of main sport ¯u¿lowego - £ukasza Szmita. I would like to check off (to note) on admission (preamble; enter) -, that it requires honest endorsing of this case for documentation of disciplinary procedure insight into, which (who) - as I have apprehended club have been carry by in accordance with sportsmen ostrowski and click of additional actual installation. I had access for no documents concerning it case, so, I will allow on loose statement only, somewhat which (who) can throw on discussed stuff enlightened < light >. However, I can say on hot so, that there is for voting regarding disciplinary accordingly article 303 organ proper (suitable) RS¯ 1. Relatively to clubs GKS¯, sportsmen and operators behind exception of case of (accidentally of) infringement of disciplinary regulation by reason of contests of (matches of) extraleagues - or by other lead SELENIUM, 2. Relatively to judges GKS¯ in each case (chance) -, 3. Relatively to clubs SELENIUM, sportsmen and operators in case of (accidentally of) infringement of disciplinary regulation by reason of contests of (matches of) extraleagues - and by other lead SELENIUM, 4. Clubs relatively to adepts, sportsmen and operators. Therefore, club can be disciplinary organ in certain case (accidentally) and entity (instance). So to say, it substitutes same GKS¯ or SELENIUM and cancellation (appealing) is as (serve) from its (his) judgement in accordance with personal sportsman for tribunal of relationship (association). Club is related disciplinary procedure in my opinion regulations of disciplinary sports leading ¿u¿lowego. Indeed I have faced each other with opposite view i.e., that it is not related club in this procedure regulations RS¯, but I can not agree with (from) it. Does not have bases according to I in (to) RS¯, in order to club as sole disciplinary organ subjected no regulations and in consequence in order to notorious was used " free - american ". It reconciled to law of (as of right of) sportsmen and it established standards of punishments for belorussia proper (suitable) rather, but for membership country of european union not it has said for - SportoweFakty.pl £ukasz Szmit. As therefore, it results from statement of legal advisor GKS¯, ostrow could impose punishments on sportsmen KM. Do height of punishment be with regulations consistent however,? - Since club – if I understand well < goods (right) > it punished sportsman be in disciplinary mode on base for offenses for 10.000,00 article 334 point 12 maximum punishment fine - – zloty < golden > RS¯ and punishment of hook-up for 1 year. However, it belongs to remember – though they are in this range of doubt, I have signaled which (who) highly, that club can use center (means) with (from) penal article 306 voting punishment additional RS¯, particularly,, as sportsman seem can oblige for payment of indemnification ( article 306 point 20 ) RS¯. Joint obligations of sportsmen can exceed from title of disciplinary issued judgement by club in (to) from there article 334 point 12 theoretically " " advisable wide³ki RS¯, but it is obliged to be indicated it in judgement distinctly and for it (him) substantiation. In order to therefore, decide it belong to acquaint (to familiarize) with judgement and substantiation . Surely it is curious summing up case, but one-valued (unequivocal) diagnosing requires its (her) with documents work and doing of detailed installation relatively for actual state (condition) it has added - £ukasz Szmit. As therefore, it display, disclosure is indispensable for proper (suitable) decision in this case by about imposing of punishment on sportsmen KM ostrow of judgement and determination of base of taken (undertaken) legal decision. They have not served representatives of management KM ostrow base of legal decision else. Coordinator of club for time of appearance in club of curator indicated < appointee > < appoint > it has foreshadowed (has presaged) in conversation from (with) - Pawe³ Stangret SportoweFakty.pl, that it is possible to expect detailed information in this case to tuesday.
The amazing thing is that the above actually makes more sense than one of Kev's normal posts.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2009 19:10:10 GMT
The amazing thing is that the above actually makes more sense than one of Kev's normal posts. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by schumi on Nov 17, 2009 15:08:25 GMT
This case has become a whole lot more complicated. Let's try and start at the start.
The meeting in question is a Polish 1st league meeting between Ostrow and Gniezno, on July 19th 2009. Due to track conditions, the riders decided amongst themselves (led by Karol Zabik and Adrian Gomolski, reportedly) that it was unsafe to ride, and the meeting was declared a double walkover.
The club are saying they have acted within the rules in imposing such a penalty to the riders, because:
1..The loss of points from that meeting is what caused their ultimate relegation from the league
2..The only reason riders are allowed to pull out of a meeting is with a medical certificate, and
3..That their finances and reputation have both been damaged by the meeting's cancellation.
So it seems the club is allowed to penalise the riders in question - fines totalling 800,000 zl, one year bans for King, Nermark, Pawlaszczyk and Klindt, and two year bans for Harris, Zabik and Gomolski.
There is, however, a suggestion that the sanctions have been imposed as a way of avoiding paying outstanding debts due to the riders, although this is unsubstantiated.
Why this isn't bigger news I'm not sure, but it looks like this story is set to run.
|
|
