Tweet
I have always heard that boat racing was like family......Good job guys....screw your family. It is my understanding that not only RFTK's did not get the 125 back but their is some question that the 175 is not the proper engine (perhaps an old one). In addition scags on the lower units were broken and one prop was missing. Just remember the old axiom that "them that has the gold makes the rules". I certainly hope that the USTS bans the Anderson boys forever!
-
-
Bill:
I don't believe names have ever been mentioned, at least on this thread on HR and BRF, and not by me. It is on the court record. I am not familiar with the other folks you mentioned and if a disclaimer needs to be made regards them, you might put it up (their names) so interested parties would know at least it was not them.
Added after reading post #16 that Bill Kurps posted:
I completely missed the name of the guilty party on this post. That being said I do not know the names of the driver/drivers being referred to that are NOT the guilty parties to this situation.. If he would post those names (with their permission of course) we would know and be able to place blame on this situation correctly. I also would like to see a ban on them, not only by USTS but ALL racing organizations that they could compete in.Last edited by bill van steenwyk; 03-28-2017, 04:38 PM.
-
Race for the Kids Foundation board of directors has decided to wait for a visual inspection at Lake Alfred of the boat and equipment that has been returned to make a judgement on how RFTK should proceed. We are considering our options and hope that anyone having information on any 125 that was purchased after 2014 will contact RFTK directors at glevin12@aol.com, or rwdf22@aol.com.RWDComment
-
I have read thru this whole mess and have a few thing to ask: Bill were you present in the court room during the trial. If yes then you can speak from first hand knowlege of what you saw and maybe heard your hearing is as bad as mine. If you were not present then did you read the court transcript or the court ruling? The link provided only shows filing dates and who was involved no details of outcome and what was decided as to who got what. So where did you get your info from? Second hand, third hand? Things get completely twisted as it flows the the gossip channels. The only ones that know what the original conversation was the man that made a verbal offer to the driver. Nothing in writing just a handshake, ( I assume the handshake). If it had been put into writing all of this would have never happened and a good racing family name would have never been drug the the mud. A third party entered the mix and things changed. So far 3,000 + people have read this thread only knowing some facts, & a lot of fiction and miss information. This thread should have never been posted on a world wide forum.
Carl Larvenz former V8Comment
-
Keep in mind it's 3,000 views, not 3,000 different people looking at this thread. It you clicked on this thread 6 times to look at it, the counter will go up by 6. Most likely no more than 120 different people have clicked on it.I doubt it if HR has much more than 3,000 total members. It wasn't like they posted about it during the case being active...
Maybe Mrs BSR can enlighten me if that's acceptable, on how many membesr HR has, and how many Individuals have clicked on the thread, just curious.Last edited by ricochet112; 03-29-2017, 10:10 AM.
-
-
Carl Larvenz:
Regards your questions in post #18:
1. No, I was not present in the court during trial, although that does not prohibit me from posting the truth regards it, BUT I am privy to what went on by being told first hand by one of the plaintiffs in the case who was there for the entire case.
2. No, I have not read the entire transcript of the trial, if you mean by that every word that was spoken by the Judge, plaintiff, and defendant, BUT I have read the judges final finding/ruling which I quoted in my post #6 in this thread. The Judge is very clear about the ruling and the reasons for it.
3. The link posted was not posted by me, but is appreciated and provided the name of the defendant. I am not responsible and cannot be for the lack of info on the link. It (the final ruling) is a copy of a copy and it not legible when copied or scanned again as it comes out too light to be read.. When and if the court clerk Z( I assume) sees fit to post it on the Circuit Courts website I have no idea, so you will just have to trust me that it was quoted correctly. Since the Defendant in the case has not seen fit to challenge the results or my quoting of same, I think you can assume it is accurate. I am not in the habit of lying about matters such as this, or any others for that matter.
4. I can guarantee that if this type offer to loan (emphasis on the word loan) a boat and motor by RFTK for this or any other racing endevour by an authorized officer of the organization, there WILL be a signed agreement regards it. To this point has not been necessary as both parties to the agreement have been up front with what belonged to who, but that was changed in this case by the defendants actions.
5. The only persons responsible for their name "being dragged through the mud" as you put it, are the individuals of the Family themselves. If the equipment had been returned when asked two years ago, none of this would have been necessary including the court case which did result in the boat and 175CC motor being returned minus the 125 CC motor and the "wrap" being removed from the boat. Why would that be done you might ask. I will let you make you own judgement regards that., but difficulty in identification certainly springs to mind.
Someone much smarter than I once made the comment to me, "if you play in the mud, you are going to get dirty". I and many others both on the site and others who have sent PM's and made phone calls to further discuss the matter.have agreed. You are the only one to date to blame the injured party in your post.
6. I don't know what you mean by a "third party" If you are referring to me, I have only reported the factual truth.
7. Please point out the "fictional misinformation" you think is in any of my posts on this subject. If you can prove your comments and I am proven to be the guilty party, I will be happy to remove it.
8. I believe, and again many agree, this is exactly the type forum this type information belongs on and needs to be posted on for the following reason. Hopefully it will keep something like this incident and resulting court case and expense from happening again to a charitable organization, or any other type club or group, who wants to promote the sport of Boat Racing from running into the same type persons or individuals who perpetrated this travesty.Comment
-
Carl......I see nothing wrong with what Bill Van has posted. The offending party was wrong in what they did and actually, I am surprised the perp's name hasn't been plastered all over this thread. There is a history of getting screwed by him (including me), and Bill has not posted anything that he can't verify as true. The old saying that "Karma is a b**ch" will hold true here. Just get a lawn chair, grab a cold one, and watch the proceedings. It will be interesting........Comment
-
No reason to post names we all knew who it was. I do agree that the should not be aloud to race any longer. There been a few people ban from motor sportsLast edited by racerv24; 03-31-2017, 03:14 AM.Comment
-
I despise doing laundry on this site. It really is non of our business as a matter of fact its between the two parties and the courts. Just like politics most have their mind made up before the vote. The results of any court proceedings are just that and it should end their..Right or wrong the courts made a decision and should be left at that. Always two sides to every story Yes this went to far so leave it alone no good can come out of keeping it going.Comment
Comment