|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 23, 2024 13:59:43 GMT 12
McManaway certinaly has had some good ole fierce battles with the fisheries over the years. Think hes had a seizure on his boat a few times. Read the story again and note there was a fisheries inspector on the boat. Campbell made an error on some records and recorded the wrong thing on the wrong paperwork. You dont intentionally do illegal stuff in front of a fisheries observer. He paid the fine and moved on. Fisheries never warn you or say to you where you go wrong .. they just fine you. Anyone in the industry knows that! 99% of the time that Campbell has had issues, he hasnt even been on the boat. But its not the skipper that gets in trouble .. its the boat owner! But what you dont hear about is the cases that McManaway has won over the fisheries that never get published. Its that good ole saying, they only go for the big fish with the most money to justify there exsistence and keep themselves current. If you all only knew the whole story then you would certainly think twice. As for this engine stuff... No one is allowed to say anything because it will be appealed and lawyers on all sides have said they can't say a thing. I would think it was pretty obvious. My only comment online was i found it strange that when you a apart of an appeal process that you are named and shamed before the conclusion of that process. Effectively, you are guilty before you have proven yourself innocent. "not sure about Jason though, not his car is it?" What kind of stupid comment is that. He is a very good friend and I have just as much right to say something when something impacts a friend of mine. Thank you for the clarification as to the silence. 👍 Not 100% right Osbourne has already apealed and lost as per the report from snz So as long as its not abusive ect ect they can speak how they like Mcmanaway has not appealed yet |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 23, 2024 15:20:33 GMT 12
Thank you for the clarification as to the silence. 👍 Not 100% right Osbourne has already apealed and lost as per the report from snz So as long as its not abusive ect ect they can speak how they like Mcmanaway has not appealed yet True, so no reason really for the silence or the posts still up with their 2NZ , bit of a slap in the face to the other competitors. |
|
|
|
Post by keyboardracer on Jul 23, 2024 15:47:18 GMT 12
^ I think you need to get a grip mate, you sound like you've got a personal vendetta against them with your fresh signup and posts. You've not even been presented with 1/3 of the story. Clearly you have so much time on your hands, maybe you should pick up the phone and talk to them? - Not like any of them are hard to find.. Because its not nearly as one sided as you're making it sound.  Maybe you could enlighten us to the other 2/3rds? |
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 23, 2024 16:30:45 GMT 12
Understand the comments in relation to the lack of correspondence from the Osborne team. However, whilst they have exhausted the appeals process within SNZ, they may be advancing or considering further action. Speedway competitors can test their case in the public courts. Some of the older heads on here may recall Saloon competitor Tony Heuval doing so via the Sports Tribunal. You can read the case summary at www.sportstribunal.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/heuvel-decision.pdfConsider the Osborne team may well be under legal advice to not make any comment at this stage. |
|
|
|
Post by Jase2 on Jul 23, 2024 16:52:27 GMT 12
Thank you for the clarification as to the silence. 👍 Not 100% right Osbourne has already apealed and lost as per the report from snz So as long as its not abusive ect ect they can speak how they like Mcmanaway has not appealed yet It is 100% right ... SNZ isnt the final stop on decisions! |
|
|
|
Post by orapiuwharf on Jul 23, 2024 17:39:50 GMT 12
The good thing with the crate engine is you could make it claimable.( If your competitor goes faster and you want his engine you pay for a new crate engine regulation spec and you get his engine. Not negotiable)And so it goes on.
This could do wonders in the Stockcar, Saloon and Modified classes. Not necessarily the same engine or spec for all classes.
In my opinion Super stock, Super saloon should be open with limited restrictions.
|
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 23, 2024 17:55:55 GMT 12
Take it on the chin and move on instead of wasting the sport thousands of dollars taking them to court when you clearly know you have broken the rules and know the consequences of that…
Spending all that un returned prize money on lawyers nice one
Cheating and crying about getting caught cheating and then didnt get your own way when appealing so think taking the governing body to court because you cant handle that..
Good way to loose the respect from the fellow competior who would want to race with you
|
|
|
|
Post by percy on Jul 23, 2024 18:45:16 GMT 12
Take it on the chin and move on instead of wasting the sport thousands of dollars taking them to court when you clearly know you have broken the rules and know the consequences of that… Spending all that un returned prize money on lawyers nice one Cheating and crying about getting caught cheating and then didnt get your own way when appealing so think taking the governing body to court because you cant handle that.. Good way to loose the respect from the fellow competior who would want to race with you I don't think this is your finest post Competitors put their heart & soul into the sport, not to mention considerable expense. Despite the adverse finding of the appeals process, the competitor may still genuinely believe they are compliant with the rule book. The competitor now has to weigh up the decision and how they proceed from here and should be given some space to do so. I'm sure SNZ have a robust process in place but we need to keep an open mind (until such time the competitor admits non-compliance) that sporting bodies can get things wrong from time to time. A quick review of the Sports Tribunal case history will tell you that. Labelling someone a "cheater" when the process may yet to be concluded is presumptuous. |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 23, 2024 20:19:26 GMT 12
Take it on the chin and move on instead of wasting the sport thousands of dollars taking them to court when you clearly know you have broken the rules and know the consequences of that… Spending all that un returned prize money on lawyers nice one Cheating and crying about getting caught cheating and then didnt get your own way when appealing so think taking the governing body to court because you cant handle that.. Good way to loose the respect from the fellow competior who would want to race with you I don't think this is your finest post Competitors put their heart & soul into the sport, not to mention considerable expense. Despite the adverse finding of the appeals process, the competitor may still genuinely believe they are compliant with the rule book. The competitor now has to weigh up the decision and how they proceed from here and should be given some space to do so. I'm sure SNZ have a robust process in place but we need to keep an open mind (until such time the competitor admits non-compliance) that sporting bodies can get things wrong from time to time. A quick review of the Sports Tribunal case history will tell you that. Labelling someone a "cheater" when the process may yet to be concluded is presumptuous. Interesting to note on SNZ website: M7-10-10 (c) The decision of the appeal committee shall be final & binding So given Osborne's appeal was rejected & going by SNZ that's final why the silence? 🤔 M7-10-10 Result (a) The Appeal Committee shall give its decision in writing within 7 days of having heard the appeal. (b) The Appeal Committee may alter, cancel or substitute its own penalty or decision for that appealed from, or it may confirm the penalty or decision appealed from. (c) The decision of the Appeal Committee shall be final and binding. (d) The Appeal Committee has discretion on disposal of the appeal to determine the outcome of the appeal fee paid, and to award cost |
|
|
|
Post by brendanlucas on Jul 23, 2024 20:34:55 GMT 12
The good thing with the crate engine is you could make it claimable.( If your competitor goes faster and you want his engine you pay for a new crate engine regulation spec and you get his engine. Not negotiable)And so it goes on. This could do wonders in the Stockcar, Saloon and Modified classes. Not necessarily the same engine or spec for all classes. In my opinion Super stock, Super saloon should be open with limited restrictions. I tend to agree with what you have said, but would add to this a crate engine could be designed and built by NZ engine builder/s. You may get a better buy in from affected parties. Just saying. BL |
|
daleh
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by daleh on Jul 23, 2024 20:41:46 GMT 12
I don't think this is your finest post Competitors put their heart & soul into the sport, not to mention considerable expense. Despite the adverse finding of the appeals process, the competitor may still genuinely believe they are compliant with the rule book. The competitor now has to weigh up the decision and how they proceed from here and should be given some space to do so. I'm sure SNZ have a robust process in place but we need to keep an open mind (until such time the competitor admits non-compliance) that sporting bodies can get things wrong from time to time. A quick review of the Sports Tribunal case history will tell you that. Labelling someone a "cheater" when the process may yet to be concluded is presumptuous. Interesting to note on SNZ website: M7-10-10 (c) The decision of the appeal committee shall be final & binding So given Osborne's appeal was rejected & going by SNZ that's final why the silence? 🤔 M7-10-10 Result (a) The Appeal Committee shall give its decision in writing within 7 days of having heard the appeal. (b) The Appeal Committee may alter, cancel or substitute its own penalty or decision for that appealed from, or it may confirm the penalty or decision appealed from. (c) The decision of the Appeal Committee shall be final and binding. (d) The Appeal Committee has discretion on disposal of the appeal to determine the outcome of the appeal fee paid, and to award cost LOL. It doesn't work like that as much the board thinks it does. SNZ is not the bolsheviks in 1917 SNZ has made a mess out of it from what I've been told; when should have been a slam dunk. Tony Heviul again... Going to be some expensive fees this year! |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 23, 2024 21:28:31 GMT 12
Interesting to note on SNZ website: M7-10-10 (c) The decision of the appeal committee shall be final & binding So given Osborne's appeal was rejected & going by SNZ that's final why the silence? 🤔 M7-10-10 Result (a) The Appeal Committee shall give its decision in writing within 7 days of having heard the appeal. (b) The Appeal Committee may alter, cancel or substitute its own penalty or decision for that appealed from, or it may confirm the penalty or decision appealed from. (c) The decision of the Appeal Committee shall be final and binding. (d) The Appeal Committee has discretion on disposal of the appeal to determine the outcome of the appeal fee paid, and to award cost LOL. It doesn't work like that as much the board thinks it does. SNZ is not the bolsheviks in 1917 SNZ has made a mess out of it from what I've been told; when should have been a slam dunk. Tony Heviul again... Going to be some expensive fees this year! We sit & wait then...... |
|
|
|
Post by grindingdisc on Jul 23, 2024 21:57:11 GMT 12
Whats the point of having rules in a rule book and punishments if it can be taken to court and have the punish ment over turned because of the way joe bloggs from the board makes a few mistakes filling out and the paper work despite the fact that the rule book states “ cant be modified” its a joke
|
|
|
|
Post by Jase2 on Jul 24, 2024 6:13:11 GMT 12
Take it on the chin and move on instead of wasting the sport thousands of dollars taking them to court when you clearly know you have broken the rules and know the consequences of that… Spending all that un returned prize money on lawyers nice one Cheating and crying about getting caught cheating and then didnt get your own way when appealing so think taking the governing body to court because you cant handle that.. Good way to loose the respect from the fellow competitor who would want to race with you There is a process first before spending thousands of dollars. The first step is a mediation, if nothing comes out of that then it goes to a sports tribunal. The sports tribunal are a seperate entity that looks at all the evidence before them and then makes an unbiased decision and recommendations are made from there. It would be a very brave person that wouldn’t take the advice of this tribunal. I would stab a guess and say that things will be more clearer once this weekend’s conference is over. |
|
|
|
Post by mod46c on Jul 24, 2024 6:57:11 GMT 12
The good thing with the crate engine is you could make it claimable.( If your competitor goes faster and you want his engine you pay for a new crate engine regulation spec and you get his engine. Not negotiable)And so it goes on. This could do wonders in the Stockcar, Saloon and Modified classes. Not necessarily the same engine or spec for all classes. In my opinion Super stock, Super saloon should be open with limited restrictions. I tend to agree with what you have said, but would add to this a crate engine could be designed and built by NZ engine builder/s. You may get a better buy in from affected parties. Just saying. BL There is simply not a big enough market in NZ for a NZ sourced crate engine to be viable IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by bikeboy on Jul 24, 2024 8:55:17 GMT 12
can someone explain to me why getting caught with roller rockers and then trying to use an obscure model to claim its standard is not blatant cheating?
or is it if you are well liked and been around a while is it just a little issue that the cool kids will sweep aside for you as a interpretation issue?
its been well established since the beginning of the saloon class that v8 are to use stamped rockers to limit engine performance in a very easy to check method, and it works well,
|
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 24, 2024 9:09:13 GMT 12
can someone explain to me why getting caught with roller rockers and then trying to use an obscure model to claim its standard is not blatant cheating? or is it if you are well liked and been around a while is it just a little issue that the cool kids will sweep aside for you as a interpretation issue? its been well established since the beginning of the saloon class that v8 are to use stamped rockers to limit engine performance in a very easy to check method, and it works well, It is blatant cheating, whatever way the cool kid tries to justify it. |
|
daleh
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by daleh on Jul 24, 2024 13:33:24 GMT 12
Whats the point of having rules in a rule book and punishments if it can be taken to court and have the punish ment over turned because of the way joe bloggs from the board makes a few mistakes filling out and the paper work despite the fact that the rule book states “ cant be modified” its a joke The problem the board takes the role of prosecutor and judge. I've seen comment alluded to on Facebook and it's probably true. What 95% of population probably doesn't well handle is formal technical writing. Doesn't matter on your feelings or opinion. Deal with patents, technical standards and government regulations. A lot of SNZ points raised are very weak when you consider the rule book formally. That then opens doors, and external "judge" will likely take a dim view when acting as judge and prosecutor. |
|
|
|
Post by tractionavant on Jul 24, 2024 14:56:00 GMT 12
its been well established since the beginning of the saloon class that v8 are to use stamped rockers to limit engine performance in a very easy to check method, and it works well, Except that's not what the current Saloon rules say. "T 11-2-36 (f) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212ccc (257 ci)." No mention of that rule not applying to V8 engines. "T 11-2-39 (c) Rollers Rockers not permitted" Which is a complete contradiction of the previous rule. The problem is that the SNZ Saloon rules (specifications) are incredibly badly written with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. I think this has come about because over the years changes to one section of the rules have been made without considering how they affect other sections even if they conflict or make little sense when the full rules are read. This I think contributes to the varying interpretations as to what is permissible in this grade. |
|
|
|
Post by stylebender on Jul 24, 2024 15:41:50 GMT 12
its been well established since the beginning of the saloon class that v8 are to use stamped rockers to limit engine performance in a very easy to check method, and it works well, Except that's not what the current Saloon rules say. "T 11-2-36 (f) Engine originally fitted with OE needle or roller and/or roller tip rockers that retains that retains the OE needle/roller set up: maximum 4212ccc (257 ci)." No mention of that rule not applying to V8 engines. "T 11-2-39 (c) Rollers Rockers not permitted" Which is a complete contradiction of the previous rule. The problem is that the SNZ Saloon rules (specifications) are incredibly badly written with a lot of inconsistencies and contradictions. I think this has come about because over the years changes to one section of the rules have been made without considering how they affect other sections even if they conflict or make little sense when the full rules are read. This I think contributes to the varying interpretations as to what is permissible in this grade. So going by that rule if these engines are using roller tip rockers and claiming it's because they are factory, then both these engines should be under 257 cubic inch as per the rule. Both those engines under 257 cubic inch they way they perform on the track.... yeah right, no way are they under 257 cubic inch So which is it, can't have roller tip rockers and be over 257 cubic inches, if so it's illegal and that's cheating. |
|
