Sorenson's 1.408 under decision - Page 2

Billy Nees · 05-25-2009, 02:25 PM

Jack, not one itsy, bitsy bit ever? Ever?

bill dedman · 05-25-2009, 08:21 PM

So, let me get this straight:

Henson runs 1.40 under, avoids the scales, so nobody knows whether he was light, but gets HP ANYWAY, on Monday.

Sorensen runs 1.40 under, but comes up "light", and DOES NOT get HP.

Would somebody explain to me in what ways these two scenarios differ?

In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight.

One gets HP, and the other doesn't.

New language isn't going to fix this....

05-25-2009, 02:25 PM	#1
Billy Nees VIP Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: On a hilltop in Pa. Posts: 4,486 Likes: 3,587 Liked 7,683 Times in 1,731 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision Jack, not one itsy, bitsy bit ever? Ever? __________________ Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS I'm not spending 100K to win 2K

05-25-2009, 08:21 PM	#2
bill dedman VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Conway, AR Posts: 1,739 Likes: 0 Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Re: Sorenson's 1.408 under decision So, let me get this straight: Henson runs 1.40 under, avoids the scales, so nobody knows whether he was light, but gets HP ANYWAY, on Monday. Sorensen runs 1.40 under, but comes up "light", and DOES NOT get HP. Would somebody explain to me in what ways these two scenarios differ? In neither case could it be verified that these two cars were of legal weight. One gets HP, and the other doesn't. New language isn't going to fix this.... __________________ Bill

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode