Eastbourne V Birmingham Ko Cup 2nd Leg Sun 30th Oct

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

Surely it's not down to the opposition to check if your team is legal, I thought the genius that is GD should do that .

 

It isn't, but they clearly knew all about it when the teams were in the pits because I am told they protested at that time.

 

Why wait so late ?

 

There's no doubt in my mind Eastbourne were desperate to win so pulled this stunt as late as they possibly could. Pretty pathetic and a cheap shot leading to a hollow victory if you ask me.

 

However, I agree that it is a pretty dreadful mistake by Drury and, indeed, the referee. Anyone from Birmingham blaming Eastbourne should certainly point fingers closer to home.

[00000 1,279]

 

It isn't, but they clearly knew all about it when the teams were in the pits because I am told they protested at that time.

 

Why wait so late ?

 

There's no doubt in my mind Eastbourne were desperate to win so pulled this stunt as late as they possibly could. Pretty pathetic and a cheap shot leading to a hollow victory if you ask me.

 

However, I agree that it is a pretty dreadful mistake by Drury and, indeed, the referee. Anyone from Birmingham blaming Eastbourne should certainly point fingers closer to home.

 

 

But Eastbourne did not protest. They have said so. You are repeating something you were told second-hand.

[Brummie Kev 519]

Graham Drury has had his say on the Brummies site:

 

Birmingham team manager Graham Drury said: “I have been told on more than one occasion this year that, due to the nature of rider availability in the National League nowadays, the so-called eight day rule no longer applies.

“Do you really think that I’d book the same guest rider on back-to-back Sundays if I thought that rule was still in use in our league?

“There have been a number of fixtures where this has evidently been the case and I can’t recall any problems with it prior to our meeting at Eastbourne.

“I thought the days had long gone whereby the public are deprived and robbed of seeing a team that has been advertised and publicised in the build-up to a meeting.

“Yes every now and again you will have riders who have last minute travel problems or illnesses and you’re forced to make late changes, but on the whole when there’s no problems at all, supporters should be able to turn up to a meeting and see all of the riders they are expecting to.

“There’s a procedure within the British Speedway Promoters’ Association and the Speedway Control Bureau where five days before a meeting, each club going head-to-head must exchange their team line-ups for that upcoming meeting.

“Those teams are then passed on to the SCB referee scheduled for that fixture who then has plenty of time to confirm the eligibility of all the riders down to participate in that particular event.

“Both the referee and the Eastbourne management have raised no objection or questioned the booking whatsoever in the build-up to the meeting and there has certainly not been any communication whatsoever regarding the ineligibility of James Shanes guesting for us in the Knockout Cup Final.

“So with that in mind, to then be approached just 30 minutes before the scheduled start time and told that James Shanes wouldn’t be allowed to ride in the meeting due to Eastbourne’s objection absolutely astonished me!

“Not only did it make our task even harder than it already was as we were already without Danyon Hume but it meant the supporters of speedway were once again the losers.

“It’s unfortunate that we’re ending the season on such a controversial matter and that we’re not talking about what a classic cup tie that should and would have been.

“It’s not for me to cast any aspersions on anybody why it was left so late to be brought up and objections raised, but it just seems very strange how standard regulations and procedures haven’t been followed in this instance.

“Eastbourne should have raised any problems or queries when I sent them our team earlier in the week and the referee certainly should have given us prior notice if he didn’t think James Shanes was an eligible guest.

“I’d like to apologise to our supporters who gave up their Sunday and spent money on petrol to make the long journey down to Eastbourne but unfortunately, this one was completely out of our hands.

[Brummiestormer 172]

Might like to read the statement on the Brummies website and the Eagles........maybe this was BSPA meddling again then because they sure don't like Birmingham or maybe Graham in particular i really don't know but looks like this one could run and run lol

[brianbuck 928]

Before people decide on who has to be blamed for this, let me quote some of the comments made by Connor Dugard on the Eastbourne website:

 

The rule book caught out Birmingham.

We were not aware of a problem - it is weird that it was not noticed.

Eastbourne knew nothing about this until an hour before the start - we did NOT object and would have been happy for things to have gone ahead (ie with Shanes riding.)

We agree with Graham Drury that the 8 day rule has been breached on five occasions this season.

We did NOT protest - this was something that came from the powers that be to Graham.

It was lucky for us on the night - but I have to say that Birmingham have been treated harshly.

 

Having read these comments, I would congratulate Eastbourne on their winning of the trophy. Well done Eagles.

[Brummie Kev 519]

I take back my criticism of Eastbourne, fair play to Dugard for them comments.

 

Drury can get the blame for not knowing the rules but for me the SCB ref Paul Carrington really should be investigated for clearly not doing his job properly. Quite clearly this error by Graham should have been spotted days beforehand, then we could have used another guest or rider replacement. Instead Birmingham fans travelled hundreds miles to learn we are facing Eastbourne with a depleted team, Eastbourne fans themselves wouldn't have been deprived of seeing them beating a weakened side and poor James Shanes wouldnt have had a wasted trip from Dorset.

 

Such a shame the final speedway meeting in britain for 2016 can end in such farcical situations and I look forward to the SCB investigation into their failure of following procedure regarding tonights meeting. However I reckon theres more chance of Turkeys voting for Christmas then that happening!

Edited October 30, 2016 by Brummie Kev

[david2905 230]

Who says it was an error by GD ?, I still haven't seem confirmation one way or the other whether the 8 day rule stands in the NL and either way, why is there more than one interpretation of it ?, if the rules are not crystal clear than the BSPA must be held to account for tonights utter farce, it's a rule should be legal or not, there should no be any doubt whatsoever and the fact there is shows the governing body has totally failed, cheating the paying public and the outcome of a cup final, heads MUST roll for this.

[cityrebel 2,960]

I was at the meeting tonight. The sad thing is, I was not suprised by the farce that greeted me. A few amateurs trying to run a professional sport and failing miserably. Yet another nail in speedway's over loaded coffin.

[Brummie Kev 519]

Who says it was an error by GD ?, I still haven't seem confirmation one way or the other whether the 8 day rule stands in the NL and either way, why is there more than one interpretation of it ?, if the rules are not crystal clear than the BSPA must be held to account for tonights utter farce, it's a rule should be legal or not, there should no be any doubt whatsoever and the fact there is shows the governing body has totally failed, cheating the paying public and the outcome of a cup final, heads MUST roll for this.

 

I dont reckon it does but because this is Graham Drury and Birmingham so a different rules apply to us compared to the other teams.Lets face it we have had this dished to us already this season with the Richard Hall farce. Clearly a case of screwing us over, given only weeks later Antonio Lindback who rode for Poole about 9 years previously gets a brand new average. It was 11 years for Richard Hall but he didnt get a new average like Lindback.

 

We are clearly not a club liked by people high up, or even by the man running the BSPA himself

Edited October 30, 2016 by Brummie Kev

[Ben91 1,743]

Rules are rules. Feel sorry for the fans. Robbed of a full meeting (three three rider races) and the Brummies lacking a number one made it a foregone conclusion. Disappointing for a cup final and the last meeting of the season in the UK.

 

What's done is done, hopefully it will lead to lessons being learnt. Not much point in pointing the finger at either promotion now, as I've already said I feel sorry for the fans, they're the ones that have lost out ultimately.

[Bagpuss 10,755]

Is there a worse run sport in the world?

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

 

 

But Eastbourne did not protest. They have said so. You are repeating something you were told second-hand.

 

Not at all. I got told that before the riders even went out on parade.

 

Clearly, Graham Drury doesn't know it either : 'So with that in mind, to then be approached just 30 minutes before the scheduled start time and told that James Shanes wouldn’t be allowed to ride in the meeting due to Eastbourne’s objection absolutely astonished me'.

 

​It would surprise me that someone would be so blatantly untruthful (because unless Drury didn't know it wasn't Eastbourne - which would be astonishing - either he or Connor Dugard most certainly is), but several Eastbourne supporters were most unhappy that Shanes could not ride and blamed their promotion. Furthermore, I am struggling to think of an occasion when an independent 'power that be' has intervened in a team line up so late, especially when a rule has apparently been broken several times during the season.

 

I'll await a statement from Drury in response to Dugard's remarks ( I doubt I'll get one, because that passes the blame to the person actually responsible).

Who says it was an error by GD ?, I still haven't seem confirmation one way or the other whether the 8 day rule stands in the NL and either way, why is there more than one interpretation of it ?, if the rules are not crystal clear than the BSPA must be held to account for tonights utter farce, it's a rule should be legal or not, there should no be any doubt whatsoever and the fact there is shows the governing body has totally failed, cheating the paying public and the outcome of a cup final, heads MUST roll for this.

 

Its in the rulebook and is crystal clear : 19.13.3 A rider may ride as a Guest (in an Official Meeting) at a Track only once in an 8-day period

unless he is either replacing the Home Teams #1.

 

Shanes could not ride.

 

Rules are rules. Feel sorry for the fans. Robbed of a full meeting (three three rider races) and the Brummies lacking a number one made it a foregone conclusion. Disappointing for a cup final and the last meeting of the season in the UK.

 

What's done is done, hopefully it will lead to lessons being learnt. Not much point in pointing the finger at either promotion now, as I've already said I feel sorry for the fans, they're the ones that have lost out ultimately.

 

The problem is they never are because no-one is ever found to be responsible. In this case its 'powers that be' apparently, whoever they maybe.

 

I think there is case for finger pointing for the sake of those who attended and the good name of the sport. Until we do so, farces like this, bent decisions and rule breaking will continue.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Halifaxtiger

[uk_martin 1,606]

There's going to be endless "oh no he didn't" vs "oh yes he did" over who protested, and there's the arguement over whether 6 "wrongs" make a "right".

 

At the end of the day, there's a written rule in the book. It doesn't say in the book that it applies only to the EL and PL, it doesn't say that it applies to "same competition" bookings only, and it doesn't say that it doesn't apply on Sundays. I'm sure that when Mr Drury returns to his duties as a Magistrate, he'll be applying the letter of the law, according to the book, and not what he heard from some heresay what the law was thought to be.

 

Imagine if Matt Ford had been caught out booking the same guest twice in that 8 day period. What would we be saying then?

 

One thing I'll agree with from Graham Drury's statement...it was the fans who were the losers. Again.

[arnieg 3,618]

It has been stated earlier on this thread that the rule no longer appears to be operative and has been ignored several times this season. Can anyone actually provide the specific instances when this has occured?

[guitar_art 247]

 

Not at all. I got told that before the riders even went out on parade.

 

Clearly, Graham Drury doesn't know it either : 'So with that in mind, to then be approached just 30 minutes before the scheduled start time and told that James Shanes wouldn’t be allowed to ride in the meeting due to Eastbourne’s objection absolutely astonished me'.

 

​It would surprise me that someone would be so blatantly untruthful (because unless Drury didn't know it wasn't Eastbourne - which would be astonishing - either he or Connor Dugard most certainly is), but several Eastbourne supporters were most unhappy that Shanes could not ride and blamed their promotion. Furthermore, I am struggling to think of an occasion when an independent 'power that be' has intervened in a team line up so late, especially when a rule has apparently been broken several times during the season.

 

I'll await a statement from Drury in response to Dugard's remarks ( I doubt I'll get one, because that passes the blame to the person actually responsible).

 

Its in the rulebook and is crystal clear : 19.13.3 A rider may ride as a Guest (in an Official Meeting) at a Track only once in an 8-day period

unless he is either replacing the Home Teams #1.

 

Shanes could not ride.

 

 

The problem is they never are because no-one is ever found to be responsible. In this case its 'powers that be' apparently, whoever they maybe.

 

I think there is case for finger pointing for the sake of those who attended and the good name of the sport. Until we do so, farces like this, bent decisions and rule breaking will continue.

The rulebook is crystal clear? You do know we are talking about the 'speedway' rule book dont you?

And even if, as you say, it is crystal clear, there is such a thing as precedent. There have been, as the Eastbourne promotion agree, no less than five times this year that this has been waived in the NL. If it wasnt to be waived this time then Birmingham should have been given time to find a replacement. No this was timed to cause maximum damage to Birminghams hopes of getting the treble. Eastbourne say it wasnt them (and I have no reason to not believe them) so this must have come from on high.

 

Have to say well done to Eastbourne. I dont think the inclusion of James Shanes would have changed the result but it would surely have made it closer.