Mildenhall V Dudley - Ko Cup Final 1st Leg - Sunday 7th October

[fentigers lad 4]

If Bates' points are removed, I have a feeling the promotion won't be too happy. Could be interesting when it comes to sorting play off dates assuming both teams make it.

 

Would be a shame if Bates excellent performance is penalised due to paperwork but as 21stCH says rules are rules. I wonder what the response would have been if Bates scored 1 or 2?

[greyhoundp 990]

I dont want to see our supporters involved in this, The protest has to be registered before The meeting starts, so its irelevent how many Bates scored, to my mind Mildenhall won, end of.

[rami 14]

What u say might be true , however as Dudley are about to put roynon back in the team isn't this the same ? - a rider coming back from injury !! So there must be a rule in place to legislate for this

 

Are you sure about that?

[21st century heathen 220]

If Bates' points are removed, I have a feeling the promotion won't be too happy. Could be interesting when it comes to sorting play off dates assuming both teams make it.

 

Would be a shame if Bates excellent performance is penalised due to paperwork but as 21stCH says rules are rules. I wonder what the response would have been if Bates scored 1 or 2?

 

Friday the 19th is reserved according to the Mildenhall website so I'm assuming that's the date for the PO Final home leg. To be honest even with his points taken off it's still a mammoth task and I would not expect to overhaul the difference.

 

I don't think a technicality would overshadow his performance in the eyes of the fans. Super return and good luck to the lad.

 

As below - my understanding is that the protest should have been made before the meeting.

 

The protest has to be registered before The meeting starts, so its irelevent how many Bates scored, to my mind Mildenhall won, end of.

[21st century heathen 220]

Well, a full statement by the Heathens management regarding the Bates issue makes interesting reading.

 

http://www.dudleyheathens.co/news.php?extend.672

 

The main point I would take from this is that if, and I can't stress that enough at the moment, it's true that the Mildenhall management have ignored a BSPA ruling for the second time this season then surely some sort of action must be taken. That simply cannot go unpunished.

 

As I've said before, I would not be in favour of a fine. The sport is not in a comfortable position financially speaking. It would open the BSPA up to accusations of making rulings to make money too, which in itself would bring the sport into disrepute. My personal opinion is that a points deduction for the following season would be suitable. I know some people don't like the comparison but points deductions work in football so I see no reason why it couldn't in speedway.

 

I would just like to reiterate that whatever happens it will not take the gloss off Bates' performance on track. Cracking score by him on his return.

[John Leslie 3,213]

What u say might be true , however as Dudley are about to put roynon back in the team isn't this the same ? - a rider coming back from injury !! So there must be a rule in place to legislate for this

17.6.4 No Team changes will be allowed after 12th September with the effective date being 15th September, except for Riders returning to the Team after injury.

[Super Blue 616]

 

17.6.4 No Team changes will be allowed after 12th September with the effective date being 15th September, except for Riders returning to the Team after injury.

 

 

So with myself not being a rule boffin in any way shape or form does this mean it was fully in the rules to bring Josh back or not ?

[norwichkev 66]

Well, a full statement by the Heathens management regarding the Bates issue makes interesting reading.

 

http://www.dudleyhea....php?extend.672

 

The main point I would take from this is that if, and I can't stress that enough at the moment, it's true that the Mildenhall management have ignored a BSPA ruling for the second time this season then surely some sort of action must be taken. That simply cannot go unpunished.

 

As I've said before, I would not be in favour of a fine. The sport is not in a comfortable position financially speaking. It would open the BSPA up to accusations of making rulings to make money too, which in itself would bring the sport into disrepute. My personal opinion is that a points deduction for the following season would be suitable. I know some people don't like the comparison but points deductions work in football so I see no reason why it couldn't in speedway.

 

I would just like to reiterate that whatever happens it will not take the gloss off Bates' performance on track. Cracking score by him on his return.

I agree with some of what you say. Let's just take your if - two points: 1) Points deductions would be difficult, what would happen if a side either did not ride or rode in another league? 2) Did I not read somewhere that Kevin Jolly was quite categorical that Josh had been sanctioned by Peter Morrish & I believe the BSPA - if so then surely that is either another twist or the end of the matter.

 

Separately, as for the part of the Dudley statement: “It is quite clear we could have objected on the day to the use of Josh but that would not have been fair on the Mildenhall and Dudley fans who had paid to watch the meeting. Indeed, had we done that, than we could accept an accusation of dirty tricks

 

Weasel words indeed, and I am surprised that you hang your hat on them. Let me explain why.

 

As the team had been on here since Thursday 4/10 & would have been with Dudley at least 24 hours prior to the meeting why not raise then? Isherwood could have ridden then and we would not have this conversation, both sets of supporters would have seen the requisite number of riders - lets be clear on this if it was not fair to fans before the meeting, nothing has changed - except that Josh Bates scored more points than perhaps was expected.

 

Your team managers post meeting words was most gracious in defeat - reading through the statement he would surely have been aware of the Bates situation at that time, what then changed?. Sorry none of this seems to add up.

 

Also: “It has been brought to our attention that Mildenhall were informed, in writing, by the British Speedway Promoters’ Association that Josh Bates could not be brought back into the side Would be interested to hear where that came from. In addition as has been explained on here from one of your fellow supporters before the rules seem to state that protests should be made befor the meeting? Why would Dudley be prepared to break this rule, until it no longer suited them?

 

An interesting point that is not clear is when in the referee's report did the point about Bates be mentioned e.g. after the meeting?

 

Kev

[PhilK 150]

Well, a full statement by the Heathens management regarding the Bates issue makes interesting reading.

 

http://www.dudleyhea....php?extend.672

 

The main point I would take from this is that if, and I can't stress that enough at the moment, it's true that the Mildenhall management have ignored a BSPA ruling for the second time this season then surely some sort of action must be taken. That simply cannot go unpunished.

 

As I've said before, I would not be in favour of a fine. The sport is not in a comfortable position financially speaking. It would open the BSPA up to accusations of making rulings to make money too, which in itself would bring the sport into disrepute. My personal opinion is that a points deduction for the following season would be suitable. I know some people don't like the comparison but points deductions work in football so I see no reason why it couldn't in speedway.

 

I would just like to reiterate that whatever happens it will not take the gloss off Bates' performance on track. Cracking score by him on his return.

A points deduction from next year is totally unneccessary and a daft suggestion! It really is quite simple, if Bates was not in the declared line up then his points should be deducted and the score becomes 51-33 to Mildenhall.I would be more dissapointed if Bates is stopped from returning to the Mildenhall line up for the rest of the season as even the most biased fan cannot say that would be good for speedway, denying an exciting young 16 year old the chance to return after injury?

[Midland Robin 27]

This is the last circulated team declaration.

http://www.speedwaygb.co/issues12/nl12_dec_25.pdf

[montie 1,273]

[quote name='norwichkev' timestamp='1349875697' post='2193

 

 

 

 

 

Also: “It has been brought to our attention that Mildenhall were informed, in writing, by the British Speedway Promoters’ Association that Josh Bates could not be brought back into the side

 

If it is the case,and somehow i doubt,that the BSPA have informed Mildenhall that Josh Bates,a 16 year old british rider,returning from a nasty injury,cant ride then someone at the BSPA needs hanging up by there balls as im sure that is what the NL is about

[neil3065 21]

I dont want to see our supporters involved in this, The protest has to be registered before The meeting starts, so its irelevent how many Bates scored, to my mind Mildenhall won, end of.

 

The process, as far as I knew, always was that, as you say, a protest had to be registered (and a fee lodged) before a match started. But I'm sure the BSPA can take retrospective action if an ineligible rider has been used.

 

Once again, there is a very different version of events from each club.Mildenhall suggesting that Bates' return was OK'd by the league co-ordinator and BSPA. But if that was the case, why was the team declaration not published with Bates in the side?! I thought I'd seen one issued since the start of October with Bates in, but apparently not.

 

I cant see why he wouldnt be allowed to return. He was in the Mildenhall side until injured, As others have said, he's a 16 year old Brit who has made decent progress in his first year in the sport and is now fit again to resume his career.

 

Dudley stating that Mildenhall have had written notfication Bates was not eligible.

 

If the latter is true (or if Bates' eligibility was not confirmed by the appropriate authorities), then I cannot understand why Mildenhall put Bates in the team on Sunday.

 

Dudley obviously want Bates' points removed if he wasnt eligible - therefore, I fail to see why they didnt lodge a protest prior to the meeting. Neither do I understand their suggestion that doing so would have been unfair to the fans in some way.

Edited October 10, 2012 by neil3065

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

 

Separately, as for the part of the Dudley statement: “It is quite clear we could have objected on the day to the use of Josh but that would not have been fair on the Mildenhall and Dudley fans who had paid to watch the meeting. Indeed, had we done that, than we could accept an accusation of dirty tricks

 

 

As the team had been on here since Thursday 4/10 & would have been with Dudley at least 24 hours prior to the meeting why not raise then? Isherwood could have ridden then and we would not have this conversation, both sets of supporters would have seen the requisite number of riders - lets be clear on this if it was not fair to fans before the meeting, nothing has changed - except that Josh Bates scored more points than perhaps was expected.

 

o: “It has been brought to our attention that Mildenhall were informed, in writing, by the British Speedway Promoters’ Association that Josh Bates could not be brought back into the side AlsWould be interested to hear where that came from.

 

Kev

 

So its 'dirty tricks' to object to a rider just before the meeting, but not to do so after he has ridden and scored a bucket full of points ? Laughable.

 

Second point, spot on. If Dudley knew that Bates was ineligible well in advance (and I really can't see how that was not the case) then they are guilty of dirty tricks because they said nothing until after the meeting had been run and that can only be to take advantage of the situation.

 

Perhaps the question is not who said Bates couldn't ride but why that was the case. Its clear that both Baseby and Isherwood were replacements for him and he was returning from injury. Per the above rule stated by JL above, he most certainly could and that suggests that the Mildenhall view of the situation holds a lot more water than the Dudley one.

 

As to punishment, the worst Mildenhall have been guilty of is sloppy practice by not updating their declared line up. Phil K is usually right and he is here; no more action than deducting Bates points is necessary.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Halifaxtiger

[Damon 49]

Let them have the points back and go and beat them anyway, I suppose that will do !

[Super Blue 616]

Surely if the rules state that no more changes to lineups can be made after said date unless rider is returning from injury this whole debate is irrelevant ?

After all , Josh was just coming back into the team as he is entitled to do !