Sorenson's 1.408 under decision

bill dedman · 05-25-2009, 09:58 PM

Junior Barns said, "One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)"

A "fair trial" would be to prove his innocence.... on the contention that he was of legal weight.

When you give that up, the assumption becomes that you were "guilty".... LIGHT.

Your spin on this defies simple logic, Junior....

They're both "guilty" (assumed light in Fred's case; PROVEN light in Sorensen's.)

Same result should be imposed on both. No way to prove that Fred's car was of the correct weight. He could have been 100 # light...

Is it fair to others who run that combination for NHRA to ASSUME that his car was of legal weight? I don't think so... They share whatever penalty he accrues.

05-25-2009, 09:58 PM	#15
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 Junior Barns said, "One went across the scale and one did not! The one that did not give up his rights to a fair trial (so to speak)" A "fair trial" would be to prove his innocence.... on the contention that he was of legal weight. When you give that up, the assumption becomes that you were "guilty".... LIGHT. Your spin on this defies simple logic, Junior.... They're both "guilty" (assumed light in Fred's case; PROVEN light in Sorensen's.) Same result should be imposed on both. No way to prove that Fred's car was of the correct weight. He could have been 100 # light... Is it fair to others who run that combination for NHRA to ASSUME that his car was of legal weight? I don't think so... They share whatever penalty he accrues. __________________ Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 05-25-2009 at 10:44 PM.