|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 16, 2015 19:53:39 GMT 12
I cannot respond any better than macgor has already, other than to say I never ridiculed any of the Tiger drivers, as drivers (and never would any teams racer, and I doubt that you could go through my 13,000 posts over 10 years and find where I've criticzed any driver in any class). It's the team body that makes them a team, not the number. My support was for the promoter and what he was attempting to do.
I thought this thread was dead, and I really thought everybody had put in their two cents worth by now. I know I'm done with it.
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 16, 2015 20:06:02 GMT 12
Have spoken to a few Tiger's and was told that the bodies were sponsored and sign written back before the season started, and before tiger's management was in negotiation's with PN promotions to allow teams to run team numbers. The driver's believe that they are racing as a team and not as a bunch of individuals, The tiger's have been running 81 to 86 for many many many years and it is a thrill for them to earn the right to run one of these numbers at teams champs, a lot of these young drivers have grown up watching their hero's race under these number's (it is a lot of history to just wipe out because ma and pa kettle get confused) I am disappointed that Barry Brown has taken it upon himself to ridicule the Tiger's who along with other's put their car's and bodies on the line to entertain all of us (I thought you were better than this Barry but I guess you are not). I am very close to some of the Tiger's and I can assure you that there was plenty of the 60 driver's racing in Palmy wished their teams were strong enough to stand upto PN promotions as they also believed they were there to race as a team NOT as individuals. So before you all shoot me to bit's and attack me maybe you should take the time to ask the correct people and then you will obtain the correct answers. No , what the Tigers showed is a complete lack of empathy for ma, pa and their extended family. They also totally ignored the requirement of the promoter who is trying to present the best possible show to his customers. Putting a drivers number on a Tigers team body should be the ultimate aim , not latching on to a number already there. Years after a Teams meeting people look at the teams with team numbers and there is nothing to identify who was driving any of the cars. You talk of history , what history when you can't identify anyone? Floss it up how you like , but it don't wash with me. It appears this issue doesn't wash with a number of people Macgor.....but on the other hand, there are a number of people who really don't care either way. At the end of the day, they're JUST numbers - a pretty small issue when you think about it, and hardly one that affects the quality of a teams racing event (and yes, that comment can be taken from both sides of the fence). Surely there are bigger things to argue about that have FAR more of an effect on the result - attacking from the grass, cutting the pole line, moving before the green, riding the wall, etc, etc. And yes, I'm sure you're wondering why I'm saying that when I've posted fairly bluntly and loudly throughout this thread. My issue has never been about the numbers as such, but rather the way the Tigers have been referred to for running 81-86 and the fact that no-one has got any official word on why they ran them or how they were allowed to run them, or whether teams were given a year's grace, or if there was a 'legal' way they ran them, or if there was a legitimate, open reason for them doing so. No-one seems to have asked...but plenty seem willing to bag them. |
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 16, 2015 20:10:14 GMT 12
I cannot respond any better than macgor has already, other than to say I never ridiculed any of the Tiger drivers, as drivers (and never would any teams racer). It's the team body that makes them a team, not the number. My support was for the promoter and what he was attempting to do. I thought this thread was dead, and I really thought everybody had put in their two cents worth by now. I know I'm done with it. Barry B And if Barry's done with it.... |
|
|
|
Post by goats01 on Feb 16, 2015 20:30:34 GMT 12
I say the team numbers should stay ,for those that have been going to teams for years you get to know who's who etc,if you don't then buy a program and read it ,just because the promoter has sole writes to this event and Auckland teams he picks and chooses what the number outcome should be ,numbers have always been 5 to 9 palmy ,81 to 86 tigers etc and look better as a team just my thoughts cheers goat
|
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 16, 2015 20:50:50 GMT 12
Penman, I WAS done with it but HAVE to respond to your post. You know very well that I DID check. I checked with the promoter, the man that runs the meeting and sent out the entry form with the conditions of entry on it. His response has already been posted in this thread. To say nobody checked is totally incorrect, and I'm not sure why you'd say that when I have checked directly with the person responsible for the rule, between the two nights of the race meeting.
There is some confusion now over what the "year's grace" actually meant (12 months time being in one year's time from the statement at drivers briefing in 2014, or 24 months time meaning don't worry about it in 2015 but be right in 2016) but it appears a definitive answer is impossible to come by. What we DO have however is what the 2015 entry form said, and what the promoter said just over one week ago.
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 17, 2015 10:47:07 GMT 12
Penman, I WAS done with it but HAVE to respond to your post. You know very well that I DID check. I checked with the promoter, the man that runs the meeting and sent out the entry form with the conditions of entry on it. His response has already been posted in this thread. To say nobody checked is totally incorrect, and I'm not sure why you'd say that when I have checked directly with the person responsible for the rule, between the two nights of the race meeting. There is some confusion now over what the "year's grace" actually meant (12 months time being in one year's time from the statement at drivers briefing in 2014, or 24 months time meaning don't worry about it in 2015 but be right in 2016) but it appears a definitive answer is impossible to come by. What we DO have however is what the 2015 entry form said, and what the promoter said just over one week ago. Barry B Sorry Barry, Much as I’d like to leave it at that and not indulge in “he said/B said”, as in any good debate, I would like to exercise my right of reply in this instance. Firstly, I’d like to highlight a comment you sent me some time ago in this thread (and others)regarding ‘twisted, defensive, nelson-supporter type “logic”’ and “pushing a barrow”. In this case, I’d like to suggest the same is happening. You’re not reading what I am saying, but you are ‘pushing a barrow’, both of which you have suggested I am guilty of. Yes, you checked with Bruce and he told you what the ‘ruling’ was from his interpretation (which is what you have also indicated in the past). However, when it comes to checking why the Tigers ran illegal numbers (again, something YOU said originally, which kicked off my series of posts here), no-one has asked them why or how, etc….and surely, if you want to know whay they had numbers 82-86 on their cars, aren’t they the obvious ones to answer the question? This entire issue for me was brought about by you asking why the Tigers ran “illegal” numbers. I took issue with the term ‘illegal numbers’ when there could be a legitimate reason or obvious explanation and, if the promoter gave everyone 12 months grace, but only the Tigers used that option, why does that make them illegal? Yes, you have considerable experience in the speedway field. Yes, you have the rights as a moderator on this board. Yes, you have contacts within the sport that most of us don’t have. Yes, like all of us, you have strong opinions about issues that happen in the sport. However, in this instance, I feel there is a strong desire for you to argue points that you have yourself instigated through comments made here and have expanded them to suggest – in this case – there is a biased, weighted, illogical argument towards the Tigers and their running of sequential team numbers. As I have said prior, I don’t care WHAT the Nelson drivers have on their cars (as long as they only have an N after the numbers) – there’s obviously no massive benefit in doing so. So that would raise the obvious questions as to why they did – but no-one (at least in my understanding) has asked them. The issues I have raised since getting involved in this thread are: A. If Nelson’s numbers don’t meet with YOUR understanding of the rule, or the promoter’s currently understanding of the rule, or a numbers of others understanding of the rule, that does not make them ‘illegal’ – especially if a season’s grace was offered, or there was a loophole in the wording which allowed them to do so. It may have upset quite a few and not been the best thing Mr and Mrs Average Speedway Viewer in working out who’s who, but that’s never been the issue I have argued. B. The lack of communication with the Tigers as to why they ran the sequential numbers. If you’re going to highlight this as such a huge problem deserving of a seven-page thread here, then surely they are the best people to ask. Basic journalism suggests asking basic questions of people involved….and “why?” is an obvious one. In cases of crimes far, far worse than numbers 82-86, journalists all over the world clamber over each other to ask that question of the instigators of said crimes…except for here apparently. If the answer comes back as “because we wanted to” or “because we disagreed with the promoter’s ruling” or “because we were under the impression that we didn’t have to do so until next year” or “no comment”, then that will generate a whole new series of related comments….but that (apparently) has not been done. C. The suggestion of illegality in this case seems pointed and targeted. In fact, to go back to another thread here, you’ve pointed out that the 8p car moving BEFORE the green was legal because he moved AFTER the red went out – and I’d suggest that potentially had a far greater effect on a race result (and I do highlight ‘potentially’) than five cars with sequential numbers. Yet both sit in remarkably grey areas of the rules it seems, much the same as hitting another car from below the pole line if you’re out of control or forced below the pole-line by someone else. D. Finally, attitude of people “posting their way out of self-induced holes” or “justifying their arguments with flawed logic”, etc in this case is not just disrespectful – it’s plain wrong. If you read back as to what I’ve said, you’ll see I’m not trying to justify anything – all I’m doing is suggesting someone ask the Tigers and that the original suggestion of ‘illegal’ numbers may well be off base, depending on what the situation is. Phew! And there are no vegetables starting with E as far as I can work out. |
|
|
|
Post by BarryB on Feb 17, 2015 11:11:49 GMT 12
A; I changed the wording from "illegal" (poor choice of words perhaps, IF, like you, you interpret "illegal" as "cheat") to "non-compliant" days ago. Keep up.
B; It's a discussion board, not a magazine - basic journalism rules dont apply here, do they? We're in big trouble if they do, ha! And since I asked the question in the first instance, surely it's not up to me to answer it as well haha.......
C; I didn't point out 8p moving before the green was legal. It wasn't IMO. I merely stated that 8p didn't move under the reds, which is what people were alleging.
D; I have already withdrawn anything said IF the "year's grace" meant 2016. Keep up. It's not what the 2015 entry form however. Maybe you can be the journalist and ask them yourself then......
E; Endive
Endive is a member of the lettuce family. It is shaped like a bulb and has leaves that overlap each other - try peeling them off one by one to see how many there are. The leaves are a bit bitter on their own but they are delicious in a salad mixed with sweet tomatoes and slices of orange.
Endive leaves have a bright yellow tip. You could use some to add even more colour to our 'Rainbow salad' recipe. Dunno if that's really a vegetable, or not........
Barry B
|
|
|
|
Post by mordecai on Feb 17, 2015 11:24:37 GMT 12
hi is it true some drivers were caught wearing ear pieces in 2014
|
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 17, 2015 11:29:52 GMT 12
A; I changed the wording from "illegal" (poor choice of words perhaps, IF, like you, you interpret "illegal" as "cheat") to "non-compliant" days ago. Keep up. B; It's a discussion board, not a magazine - basic journalism rules dont apply here, do they? We're in big trouble if they do, ha! And since I asked the question in the first instance, surely it's not up to me to answer it as well haha....... C; I didn't point out 8p moving before the green was legal. It wasn't IMO. I merely stated that 8p didn't move under the reds, which is what people were alleging. D; I have already withdrawn anything said IF the "year's grace" meant 2016. Keep up. It's not what the 2015 entry form however. Maybe you can be the journalist and ask them yourself then...... E; Endive Endive is a member of the lettuce family. It is shaped like a bulb and has leaves that overlap each other - try peeling them off one by one to see how many there are. The leaves are a bit bitter on their own but they are delicious in a salad mixed with sweet tomatoes and slices of orange. Endive leaves have a bright yellow tip. You could use some to add even more colour to our 'Rainbow salad' recipe. Dunno if that's really a vegetable, or not........ Barry B A. I kept up some time ago. However, you DID use "illegal" in your first post about it. Changing after the fact is only relevant if you don't continue to suggest they were operating outside the rules (rather than the 'intention' of the rules). B. Perhaps basic journalism rules don't....but basic rules of common sense do (or should). If YOU are going to highlight something outside your perception of the rules without asking the alleged 'guilty' party, then surely you need some basis to back it up, right? C. Still, I grey area, would you not agree? D. I'm not quite sure what you mean here - a couple of sentence structure issues have clouded it, but I assume you mean you know what the 2015 entry form stated and that you have no idea what was meant about the 'grace' period. BTW, I am...but I'm not the one who asked the question originally (see point B). E. Sounds delicious. Please note: I have refrained from using "keep up" or "ha" or any further comments that could be deemed as playground stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by penman on Feb 17, 2015 11:36:01 GMT 12
And Elephant Garlic.
I saw an elephant once - he must have been a male elephant, because he had two big cloves of garlic! Not sure I was keen to harvest them though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2015 11:37:24 GMT 12
hi is it true some drivers were caught wearing ear pieces in 2014 Not at the Superstock teams to my knowledge but the Stockcar teams did have a problem of that sort I believe. Off topic in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 17, 2015 11:39:52 GMT 12
This thread really has done it's dash I reckon and my intention is to lock this board tonight. Time to let it rest in peace.
|
|
