Search the Community

Yu Yang and Wang Xiaoli, the Chinese top seeds, and their South Korean rivals, Jung Kyung-eun and Kim Ha-na, were booed on Tuesday as the players repeatedly hit shots wide or served into the net. The referee, Thorsten Berg, warned the players over their conduct. The other match also involved a South Korean pair, Ha Jung-eun and Kim Min-jung, up against the Indonesians Meiliana Juahari and Greysia Polii. The Koreans eventually won by two sets to one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/0...lified-olympics SK lost 2 teams. China and Indo 1 team dq

What a shame to get disqualify in this manner. You are in a foreign country and yet you take your own sweet time and take things for granted. Let see whose head will roll this time! =========================================== S'pore swimmers disqualified 4x200m men's freestyle relay team miss their registration for the final By Jonathan Wong, At The Games Australia's (from left) Belinda Hocking, Emily Seebohm and Sophie Edington competing in the women's 100m backstroke yesterday. -- PHOTO: REUTERS NEW DELHI - THE Singapore men's 4x200m freestyle relay team suffered the embarrassment of being disqualified from their final yesterday without even hitting the pool - all because they had failed to submit their entry for the final on time. The team of Teo Zhen Ren, Jeremy Kevin Mathews, Arren Quek and Mattias Ng had clocked 7min 47.19sec in their heat in the morning to qualify for the final as the seventh-fastest team. However, the quartet's joy subsequently turned into anxiety and later disappointment when they missed the 3pm deadline for submitting their entry for the final. The bus ferrying the squad had arrived at the venue only at 3.45pm due to traffic delays. Team manager and head coach Ang Peng Siong [/color]said in a statement issued by Team Singapore: 'It usually takes us about 20 to 30 minutes to reach the Dr S.P. Mukherjee Swimming Complex. Today, it took us about an hour to reach the swimming complex.' The final was at 6pm, but the squad had left at 2.45pm so that 'the team would not have to wait at the venue for too long before their event', said Ang. He added: 'We lodged an appeal with the competitions manager, which was signed by all the head coaches of the other teams in the final, but we were not successful.'

ELECTRIC NEWS Firm helped pay car owner's monthly instalments for his vehicle Fined for renting out car illegally By Hedy Khoo February 23, 2009 CAN'T afford to pay the monthly instalments on your car loan? Renting out your car might seem an attractive option. But beware. QUIET: The office of Starzfocus Car Rental where Lawrence Yong rented out his car in return for it paying his monthly car instalments. An owner handed over his car to a car rental company in return for the company paying his monthly instalments. But what Lawrence Yong Shao Ping, 30, did not realise was that he did not have the required motor insurance for such a transaction. He had to cough up a fine of $500 and was disqualified from driving for a year for renting out his car illegally. He was caught when a hirer who took his car from the rental company was stopped at Ang Mo Kio in September 2007 by a Land Transport Authority officer. In 2005, Yong had handed over his car, which he bought in 2004, to Starzfocus 2 Rental Enterprise in return for the rental company paying $800 for his monthly instalment. Starzfocus then leased the car to one Mr Jeevan Shanmugam from September 2007. Professional According to court papers, Yong had been recommended to Starzfocus by a friend who told him that 'it was a reputable company'. He also noticed that the company was 'well furnished and appeared to be run in a professional and experienced manner', and 'there were many cars on the premises'. This gave him the 'confidence that he was dealing with professional, experienced and honest persons'. Yong was introduced to a director of the company, Alan Goh, and told that the company would pay $800 for the car's monthly instalments. In mitigation, Yong's counsel said his client thought the rental company was 'fully aware and conversant and in compliance with the laws, rules and regulations relating to the motor trade and motor rental business'. The car company also informed him that it had its own insurance policy to cover the rental of vehicles. He was shown the standard terms and conditions which a hirer would have to sign and told that the hirer could take out an insurance policy for the duration of the hire. He was further assured that he could make a third party claim in the event his vehicle was involved in an accident involving other drivers. His mitigation plea stated that Yong did not gain financially and continued to suffer a loss. He was only trying to reduce his losses by renting out his car, instead of selling it. Assured While his car was with Starzfocus, the company had settled numerous traffic fines and even settled insurance claims from two major accidents the car was involved in without using Yong's insurance coverage. This further convinced him that the company's assurances to him were true. Yong claimed that he had been misled and was unaware that the rental arrangement was illegal until informed by the LTA. District Judge Salina Ishak considered that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but said that companies which offer such services are 'very much prevalent and a growing phenomenon', such that they 'give credence that such practices are acceptable and legal'. She pointed out that the rationale for the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act is to ensure that pedestrians and the motoring public will be able to recover compensation from an offender if he injures or kills someone. As Yong's car was registered as a private vehicle, the insurance policy for the car would be for private use and not for reward or hire. She noted that generally, private car owners are not permitted to rent out their vehicles unless they do so under the Private Car Rental Scheme introduced by the LTA. )Under the scheme, private cars can be rented on weekends from Friday 7pm to the following Monday 7am. But owners have to ensure adequate insurance coverage for the period of rental. The judge pointed out that as a car owner, Yong should have checked that his car was properly insured. But he had chosen to 'turn a blind eye' and rely on the assurances made by the representatives of the rental company. So the judge said Yong was 'not without blame but in fact is wholly to blame for his misfortune'. He could have been fined up to $1,000 and jailed up to three months. My question here is why was he being disqualified from driving