bringbackHalifax 238 Posted September 10, 2017 It should be a national league guest or 28 day ban. They are the only two options in the rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,298 Posted September 10, 2017 ....and it would be good if you get the facts correct before making accusations in future.Getting the facts straight by reading the Peterborough / ACU / SCB / BSPA website you mean? Oh, that didn't work. Or is the average fan supposed know the rules governing such cases? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
moomin man 76 171 Posted September 10, 2017 As it is the national championship, I believe that the British Masters is the only domestic grasstrack meeting, for which a facility is permitted for riders who would have domestic speedway fixtures on the same day. Chris Harris is not the first, nor I would imagine be the last rider to be absent for this reason. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New era Panthers 2,055 Posted September 10, 2017 Getting the facts straight by reading the Peterborough / ACU / SCB / BSPA website you mean? Oh, that didn't work. Or is the average fan supposed know the rules governing such cases? Lack of correct information can't be excused I have to admit but some people on here always see the sinister side of things and are too quick to make accusations especially when it's concerned with Peterborough who I might add did nothing wrong and followed the rules as did Chris Harris . 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted September 10, 2017 As it is the national championship, I believe that the British Masters is the only domestic grasstrack meeting, for which a facility is permitted for riders who would have domestic speedway fixtures on the same day. Chris Harris is not the first, nor I would imagine be the last rider to be absent for this reason. "You believe"? Based on what? Certainly not the rule book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,298 Posted September 10, 2017 Lack of correct information can't be excused I have to admit but some people on here always see the sinister side of things and are too quick to make accusations especially when it's concerned with Peterborough who I might add did nothing wrong and followed the rules as did Chris Harris .Sinister? Where no information is forthcoming, can you blame anyone for drawing their own conclusions? The Chris Harris situation is a little complex in that the Longtrack championship is involved. Not something the average speedway fan would relate to, especially when it comes to participation in a domestic grasstrack event. A three line explanation and the reason a rider replacement facility was granted before today's meeting would have defused any speculation. Given the other recent absence, I would have thought Peterborough would be quick to keep fans in the loop. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) Lack of correct information can't be excused I have to admit but some people on here always see the sinister side of things and are too quick to make accusations especially when it's concerned with Peterborough who I might add did nothing wrong and followed the rules as did Chris Harris .They have not followed the rules. The rules don't allow a facility for grasstracking. It didn't matter how many times people say it, it's not true. Notice, no mention of grasstracking. 16.5 FACILITIES 16.5.1 A Team may utilise a "Facility" to cover the absence of a Rider(s) who: a) is on FIM World Speedway Championship duty. is on FIM Europe U21 Championship duty c) is engaged elsewhere at a BSPA shared or purchased Meeting. d) is recalled by his own FMN in accordance with the FIM ISLB Regulations. e) has been injured whilst speedway racing, within 48 hours of the injury occurring , if no evidence is available, a Medical Certificate must be sent to the SCB; failure to do so will result in the mandatory suspension of the riders SCB Registration for the next home fixture. NB. The BSPA MC cannot overrule the suspension. f) is sick or carrying a non-speedway injury for which a Medical Certificate must be supplied to the SCB within 48 hours of the sickness / injury occurring in which case the Rider may only return within 7 days (including his Teams next home Meeting) with the express permission of the MC. However, failure to provide a Certificate will nevertheless result in the mandatory suspension of the riders SCB Registration for the next home fixture. NB. The BSPA MC cannot overrule the suspension. g) has been suspended by the FIM, ACU, SCB or riders FMN. h) is in dispute with his Club, provided that the circumstances have been accepted by the MC, who will determine the Facility and period of the riders inactivity. i) is on FIM Longtrack Championship duty (for the day of the Meeting only; no facility is permitted for practice day). j) being a Championship rider whose own FMN does not have a current Agreement with the BSPA and is competing in another National Development League or Open Meeting. This will result in the riders SCB Registration being suspended for 1 (one) season and the Team will be automatically granted a facility for a maximum period of 28 days, after which they must re-declare. k) is awaiting medical clearance from the riders FMN. l) is absent for any other reason (applicable to the NDL only) As for jumping to conclusions, I've tweeted Peterborough Speedway three times asking what rule they have used. I've not had a reply but in tat time they were able to tweet twice about some old couples wedding anniversary. Makes me think they have something to hide! Edited September 10, 2017 by SCB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
False dawn 2,298 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) A three line explanation and the reason a rider replacement facility was granted before today's meeting would have defused any speculation. Makes me think they have something to hide!See what I mean? Edited September 10, 2017 by False dawn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crump99 4,474 Posted September 10, 2017 They have not followed the rules. The rules don't allow a facility for grasstracking. It didn't matter how many times people say it, it's not true. Notice, no mention of grasstracking. As for jumping to conclusions, I've tweeted Peterborough Speedway three times asking what rule they have used. I've not had a reply but in tat time they were able to tweet twice about some old couples wedding anniversary. Makes me think they have something to hide! Facebook and Twitter are used for fluffy bunny information, not for stuff as pointed as that. I'm surprised that you expected a reply to be honest. The club website gives an e-mail address. You could try that and be equally ignored I guess? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
New era Panthers 2,055 Posted September 10, 2017 They have not followed the rules. The rules don't allow a facility for grasstracking. It didn't matter how many times people say it, it's not true. Notice, no mention of grasstracking. As for jumping to conclusions, I've tweeted Peterborough Speedway three times asking what rule they have used. I've not had a reply but in tat time they were able to tweet twice about some old couples wedding anniversary. Makes me think they have something to hide! Perhaps the dear old couple as you describe them was considered more important than replying to you. If the referee can't see a problem with Peterborough using R/R then they obviously haven't broken any rules and if you are not happy with that then you need to take it up with ACU , BSPA or SCB 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruffdiamond 6,115 Posted September 11, 2017 Perhaps the dear old couple as you describe them was considered more important than replying to you. If the referee can't see a problem with Peterborough using R/R then they obviously haven't broken any rules and if you are not happy with that then you need to take it up with ACU , BSPA or SCB well if the referee can't see anything untoward, it must be correct. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Noodles 1,337 Posted September 11, 2017 Facebook and Twitter are used for fluffy bunny information, not for stuff as pointed as that. I'm surprised that you expected a reply to be honest. The club website gives an e-mail address. You could try that and be equally ignored I guess? I can't really see Plummer thumbing the rule book to get back to him can you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wealdstone 3,454 Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) I have no idea what the rules say, however Peterborough must have got permission to use rider replacement , they certainly can't just to decide to do it because they thought they would. Very ill informed and disrespectful remarks regarding (old couple) and wedding anniversary. I suggest whoever made that remark researches who they are. I would suggest Chris Harris is the last person that could be accused of ducking meetings Edited September 11, 2017 by wealdstone 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Star Lady 5,400 Posted September 11, 2017 Chris Harris is totally innocent in this. He obviously did what he was told to do and had he not would probably have faced disciplinary action of some sort. However SCB is correct there is NOTHING in the rules that covers a facility for his absence. That is the issue. We get post after post saying people see speedway as a joke sport and this is why. If the BSPA/SCB/ACU want or require riders like Bomber to ride in grasstrack meetings they should ensure that the situation is covered by a rule. Anything else just takes fans for fools....but they have done that for decades Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigcatdiary 3,165 Posted September 11, 2017 I have no idea what the rules say, however Peterborough must have got permission to use rider replacement , they certainly can't just to decide to do it because they thought they would. Very ill informed and disrespectful remarks regarding (old couple) and wedding anniversary. I suggest whoever made that remark researches who they are. I would suggest Chris Harris is the last person that could be accused of ducking meetings Given the choice I think Chris wanted to do the speedway unfortunately the ACU/SCB decided otherwise. Chris Harris is totally innocent in this. He obviously did what he was told to do and had he not would probably have faced disciplinary action of some sort. However SCB is correct there is NOTHING in the rules that covers a facility for his absence. That is the issue. We get post after post saying people see speedway as a joke sport and this is why. If the BSPA/SCB/ACU want or require riders like Bomber to ride in grasstrack meetings they should ensure that the situation is covered by a rule. Anything else just takes fans for fools....but they have done that for decades The rulebook is a complete joke and unfortunately the ACU/SCB/BSPA either hasn't got the ability/ntetest to sort it out or couldn't care less. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
