AMCC

[Billy]

Ah yes. Good ol' KB strikes again.

I remember last year when there was a huge push on here to get a new MNZ president elected. Funny how when he's been in the job, the very same people have told me that they wished they hadn't voted for him!!

Funny how some on here have bagged Mr Meads, but won't answer my question as to how many people he's actually taken out. Now they're happy he's not racing - yet the same people want to grow our sport??

Funny how a thread gets started 1 hour before the news is broken that Bryce is suspended!

Ah yes, good ol' KB.

A yes,Good old KB alright,

I had a face too face discussion with Jim Tuckerman last night in AK and it transpires that had it not been posted on here about the Hampton Downs incident,Then MNZ would have been none the wiser and NO action would have been taken against Bryce.Did someone mention shitting in ones own nest ???

[Goblin]

Funny how some on here have bagged Mr Meads, but won't answer my question as to how many people he's actually taken out.

Ah yes, good ol' KB.

Have a look at Post #26. Billy happend to post at the same time as you so you may have missed it. That's 3 riders he's known to have taken out...how many does it take to be considered dangerous?

[fossil]

I don't know Mr Meads. But if I was advised that my riding or conduct wasn't up to scratch and that I was being put on probation and told that I would be suspended for any further incidents I would have done something pretty bloody quick to address the issues. I have too much invested in my sport to put it at risk.

[scrivy]

I had a face too face discussion with Jim Tuckerman last night in AK and it transpires that had it not been posted on here about the Hampton Downs incident,Then MNZ would have been none the wiser and NO action would have been taken against Bryce.Did someone mention shitting in ones own nest ???

So, let me understand it correctly, MNZ suspended a member solely due to an incident at Hampton Downs where it was alleged that Bryce was at fault? Without talking to Bryce, or following due process of a disputes committee, and they made their descision by the info that was obtained from KB???
This shows the total lack of communication from MNZ at present, and their decision certainly does not foster the sport of motorcycling in NZ.
I would strongly recommend that Bryce appeals their decision.

[Devil]

committee, and they made their descision by the info that was obtained from KB???
.

That is not correct. It just helped bring the incident to their attention.

[scrivy]

That is not correct. It just helped bring the incident to their attention.

So if enough people get on this website and bag 1 individual, MNZ will take heed of it?

As billy stated 'I had a face too face discussion with Jim Tuckerman last night in AK and it transpires that had it not been posted on here about the Hampton Downs incident,Then MNZ would have been none the wiser and NO action would have been taken'

So no action would have been taken otherwise? It was brought to their attention by KB, but did anyone else highlight it to MNZ?? Any other riders present that day? Again, you cannot make an unbiased ruling without speaking to the rider responsible.

[Devil]

PM Sent...

[Billy]

So, let me understand it correctly, MNZ suspended a member solely due to an incident at Hampton Downs where it was alleged that Bryce was at fault? Without talking to Bryce, or following due process of a disputes committee, and they made their descision by the info that was obtained from KB???
This shows the total lack of communication from MNZ at present, and their decision certainly does not foster the sport of motorcycling in NZ.
.

So whereabouts in my post does it say the decision was made SOLELY due to an incident at Hampton Downs??And how do you know they didnt follow due process??

Have you spoken too Jim?Have you spoken too anybody from the board ?Have you spoken too ANYBODY from the roadrace commission?If not,Where outside of KB do you get your information on this subject??

[Billy]

So if enough people get on this website and bag 1 individual, MNZ will take heed of it?
I GUESS AS IN THE CASE IF THE PERSON INVOLVED WAS ALREADY UNDER PROBATION IT MIGHT GIVE CAUSE FOR AN INVESTIGATION
As billy stated 'I had a face too face discussion with Jim Tuckerman last night in AK and it transpires that had it not been posted on here about the Hampton Downs incident,Then MNZ would have been none the wiser and NO action would have been taken'

So no action would have been taken otherwise? It was brought to their attention by KB, but did anyone else highlight it to MNZ?? Any other riders present that day? Again, you cannot make an unbiased ruling without speaking to the rider responsible.

KB was the first indication for MNZ,But there were a number of top line riders at the track who were less than impressed with what they saw,So whos too say they havent been in contact with MNZ as well??

How do you know MNZ havent spoken too Bryce??As I understand it there has been dialogue between his family and MNZ and also one of his sponsors and MNZ so I would assume the information had been passed on too the rider concerned.

[fossil]

So, let me understand it correctly, MNZ suspended a member solely due to an incident at Hampton Downs where it was alleged that Bryce was at fault? Without talking to Bryce, or following due process of a disputes committee, and they made their descision by the info that was obtained from KB???
This shows the total lack of communication from MNZ at present, and their decision certainly does not foster the sport of motorcycling in NZ.
I would strongly recommend that Bryce appeals their decision.

You make some damning assumptions here. I hope you have all the facts and background information to back them up.
You started this post with" So,let me understand it correctly". I don't think you have.

[scrivy]

Just had a conversation with Bryce Meads and he said the first he knew about all this was this morning...he hadn't talked to MNZ about this incident and more importantly they hadn't talked to him about it...just called him this morning and told him he wasn't racing tomorrow mainly due to his alleged dangerous riding that happened at the track day last Monday!?

So whereabouts in my post does it say the decision was made SOLELY due to an incident at Hampton Downs??
By your own post Billy. MNZ would have been none the wiser and 'as Jim said to you' NO action would have been taken against Bryce.

And how do you know they didnt follow due process??
By Biggles post above and the fact that Bryce wasn't spoken to for his version of events, nor had a disputes committee set up to hear his side.

How is it decided he was out of line? He's denying he was out of line in this case....who's right and who's wrong? He says one thing and Scott said another thing....both opinions are valid I think and a process should be followed if this is the only reason he has been suspended...oh and its not just for this event either...he's not racing for 6 months! I have heard other witnesses to this event say a different story to those that have been on here and they said it wasn't Bryces fault (Not his Father either). This is my point. no hearing or investigation seems to have been done before this decision was made...surely they should have contacted Bryce earlier this week to at the very least hear his version of events!?!

How does MNZ have enough information to make a call on this in such a 'sledgehammer blow' without even seeking the opposing persons view? Like I said, it appears on the face of it to be a harsh approach that is being 'made up on the fly,' and not following any set out protocol.

The above and below posts are exactly the reason why committees are set up for greivances.

KB was the first indication for MNZ,But there were a number of top line riders at the track who were less than impressed with what they saw,So whos too say they havent been in contact with MNZ as well??

How do you know MNZ havent spoken too Bryce??As I understand it there has been dialogue between his family and MNZ and also one of his sponsors and MNZ so I would assume the information had been passed on too the rider concerned.

MNZ have made a huge call with this. When was the last time a rider was suspended? I hope for their sake they have done it right.

[scrivy]

How do you know MNZ havent spoken too Bryce??As I understand it there has been dialogue between his family and MNZ and also one of his sponsors and MNZ so I would assume the information had been passed on too the rider concerned.

Having known the Meads family for about 20 years, after getting off the phone to them, I can tell you, there was NO dialogue with them before ringing them to say Bryces licence was suspended!
That will not stand up in court.
Also, their sponsor Kawasaki was informed about it before Bryce was. That is about as dispicable as you can get. Not to mention a breach of Bryce's confidentiality.

You make some damning assumptions here. I hope you have all the facts and background information to back them up.
You started this post with" So,let me understand it correctly". I don't think you have.

Sorry fossil, but I got off my ass and made the phonecalls myself. This is nothing more than a witch hunt as stated before. As I also stated - the politics of KB is what's destroying our sport, as MNZ currently listen to too many so called experts on here rather than communicating with the affected members.

[Billy]

The above and below posts are exactly the reason why committees are set up for greivances.


MNZ have made a huge call with this. When was the last time a rider was suspended? I hope for their sake they have done it right.

So therefore,As I suspected,All your information has come from KB??

What Jim was implying is:Had nobody posted on KB about the said incident,Then they would have had no reason too investigate the matter further.The decision to suspend him was not taken lightly and included members of the roadrace commission and the MNZ board as I understand it and took into consideration the events mentioned earlier involving Sam Love and Nick Odermat.NOT ON THE BASIS OF A POST ON KIWIBIKER as you are trying your hardest too imply.

[scrivy]

So therefore,As I suspected,All your information has come from KB??
Wrong!! Read my post above. I got off my ass and rang the Meads myself! From the horses mouth so to speak.

What Jim was implying is:Had nobody posted on KB about the said incident,Then they would have had no reason too investigate the matter further.The decision to suspend him was not taken lightly and included members of the roadrace commission and the MNZ board as I understand it and took into consideration the events mentioned earlier involving Sam Love and Nick Odermat.NOT ON THE BASIS OF A POST ON KIWIBIKER as you are trying your hardest too imply.

What Jim was implying is:Had nobody posted on KB about the said incident,Then they would have had no reason too investigate the matter further.
So its OK to critisise me with your assumption of me getting my info from KB, but when Jim gets his info from KB, that's ok?? WTF???

I can also tell you that the Meads's were told by JT himself that they cannot appeal MNZ's decision. Can MNZ please tell me in which part of their own constitution it says that no appeals are possible?

JT has no more rights under his own constitution as either you or I do.

Oh, hang on, will I lose my licence for speaking up on these matters too?

[scrivy]

Im sorry, but if I were Bryce, I'd be appealing this and turning up at HD anyway.

Whether or not he was on probation, due process must still be followed. This appears to be an illegal suspension.

7.2.1 The disciplinary powers of the Steward are exercisable in the case of any Member or
person for whom the Member is responsible:
a. Contravening any competition rule, supplementary regulation or any
instruction of the Steward at any meeting;
b. Conduct on or off the track or course during the course of a meeting that, in
the Steward’s opinion, brings discredit or disrepute to MNZ.

7.2.9 a. The Board must give the Member not less than 10 working days notice of
the hearing of any complaint or complaints against the Member.
b. A Member may answer the complaint:
i. by letter to the Board; or
ii. by appearance before the Board.

7.2.10 The Board, having heard the Member and any other party entitled to be heard, and
the evidence adduced, will determine the proceeding. It may find any breach alleged
proved or dismiss the charge or make such other order as it thinks fit.

7.4 APPEALS
7.4.1 Any person or body affected by a decision of the Steward and/or Protest Committee
may appeal the decision to the Appeal Committee. Any person or body affected by a
decision of the Board or who is dissatisfied with the outcome of an appeal to the
Appeal Committee may appeal the decision of the Board or of the Appeal Committee
to the Sports Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand.


4.10.13 Where the entry of any competitor is refused by a club for a New Zealand, North or
South Island title event, or any event counting towards any of these titles, always
providing that the entry is on the correct form and received by the club within the
stipulated time, the competitor shall have the right to appeal to the Board of MNZ.
4.10.13.1 An appeal under this section shall be lodged at the MNZ Office within seven (7) days
of the competitor being notified by the promoter or organising club that the entry
has been refused.
4.10.13.2 The competitor shall be permitted to compete in the particular event or events
concerned until such time as the appeal has been finalised.