Jump to content

Oh Dear!


discobob
 Share

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Zapp said:

Has the disqualification been reversed then?

It would appear from the limited information available. that the answer to your question is, no !

Further disciplinary action or sanctions over the disqualification by the US governing bodies was appealed and his Face-ache post merely says "the appeals process has been resolved". If the governing body had overturned the disqualification and re-instated him on the leader board, it would warrrant a bit more of a jubilant post.  NSCA/NSSA  have made the speculation worse by not revealing how it was resolved. I am only reading between the lines from social media posts here & from the US, so others on here who know the individual concerned may know far more than me.

Edited by JJsDad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Falsely accused you say!:rolleyes:

I would say so. There has been a gentleman make accusations that have been removed and two statements by either party. I would say a amicable solution was reached that didn’t embarrass either parties and a gagging order placed over the entire thing. That’s a great legal team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a guy going around at the world championships falsely accusing people of cheating then surely people wouldn’t care about embarrassing the gentleman or getting him banned for life.  
 

Getting a shooter disqualified from a world championship on lie is worse than the alleged cheating unless there was some truth to the accusation. 
 

Not that it matters as nothing official will be said. Like I said before none of those involved come out of this well. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Krieghoffoverblaser said:

I would say so. There has been a gentleman make accusations that have been removed and two statements by either party. I would say a amicable solution was reached that didn’t embarrass either parties and a gagging order placed over the entire thing. That’s a great legal team. 

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I bet BH is watched like a hawk for quite a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I would say a amicable solution was reached that didn’t embarrass either parties 

Are you saying that the accused is happy to have been removed from the results? If you are, it begs the question - why? If he is not happy, why has he not challenged the decision? 

You might have to go back to your plentiful rumour mill to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Are you saying that the accused is happy to have been removed from the results? If you are, it begs the question - why? If he is not happy, why has he not challenged the decision? 

You might have to go back to your plentiful rumour mill to answer.

I think he is more saying, he was guilty but there was no solid proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he has cheated, I wish his supporters would be a bit more honest, instead of saying it is a rumour or it wouldn't have happened if it had been someone else. Either he has cheated or he has not.

If I had been improperly disqualified, I would need to clear my name, rather than seek damage limitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The underlying problem is the man has history. At the 2017 world's in the US, the organisers assigned a spare ref to travel round with his squad to prevent card tampering. Rumours or not, he simply isn't trusted and that makes it so easy to accuse him on the slightest of pretexts.

Tricky situation. Who's decision stands - is the organising club or the governing body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Westward said:

The underlying problem is the man has history. At the 2017 world's in the US, the organisers assigned a spare ref to travel round with his squad to prevent card tampering. Rumours or not, he simply isn't trusted and that makes it so easy to accuse him on the slightest of pretexts.

Tricky situation. Who's decision stands - is the organising club or the governing body?

And he has courted controversy by his attitude over the years.

Clay shootings naughty renegade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the person concerned does not appear to have challenged the original decision, I cannot see where it has suddenly become less clear.

As for "too bad to be released" - is that yet another rumour from an unknown source? There seems to be no shortage. 

If he is re-instated you will be entitled to say it "was / is it a awful mud slinging excercise", but your posts will convince absolutely no-one. The main problem with your crusade, is that it contains no real detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

As the person concerned does not appear to have challenged the original decision, I cannot see where it has suddenly become less clear.

As for "too bad to be released" - is that yet another rumour from an unknown source? There seems to be no shortage. 

If he is re-instated you will be entitled to say it "was / is it a awful mud slinging excercise", but your posts will convince absolutely no-one. The main problem with your crusade, is that it contains no real detail.

im not defending anyone here. Simply stating both sides. It maybe he was guilty but got let off on technicalities hence the zero information post. 

 

Edited by Krieghoffoverblaser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

so I have no substance same as all of us, you just don’t like my point because it’s the opposite of yours which also has no substance 

im not defending anyone here. Simply stating both sides

 

Logic isn't really your strong point. He appears to have been disqualified, unless you are disputing that, even though he isn't challenging that. That is the reality, rather than your increasingly bizarre posts. As for stating both sides - you have lost the plot. You are a one trick pony - merely casting doubt on the decision.

I don't assume guilt, but the club obviously did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Logic isn't really your strong point. He appears to have been disqualified, unless you are disputing that, even though he isn't challenging that. That is the reality, rather than your increasingly bizarre posts. As for stating both sides - you have lost the plot. You are a one trick pony - merely casting doubt on the decision.

I don't assume guilt, but the club obviously did.

Agreed but no one I repeat no one knows what for. Your once again assuming... we will never know is the point I’m trying to make. 
 

You get aggressive because I’m assuming he’s innocent yet you assume he’s guilty a bizarre occurrence 

Edited by Krieghoffoverblaser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely anyone in their right mind would wish to clear their name if they were innocent?

'to spend 20K to win 2K ' If it was me I would be suing for BIG damages as well as the prize money .

The NSCA have done themselves no good at all in their handling of this debacle .

Now I believe this will open the floodgates to serious mischief .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

You get aggressive because I’m assuming he’s innocent yet you assume he’s guilty a bizarre occurrence 

I find it hard to credit that you are serious. I have merely pointed out that the Club running the competition appear to have found him guilty. As he hasn't disputed that with the club, I assume they were right. 

You assume he is innocent because of no reason whatsoever that makes any sense.

Please give it up - you are making a fool of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...