The White Knight 9,039 Posted October 3, 2017 What sort of certificate, and issued by whom, should Jake have produced ? A Sick Note? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Star Lady 5,400 Posted October 3, 2017 A Sick Note? So basically if he had lied to a doctor and said he felt dizzy and got a certificate he would have been fine. He told the truth and was punished for it. Funny old world ! 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woofers 467 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) Well,I was hoping that someone could come up with what the BSPA / SCB / MC requirement was under the circumstances. A 'certificate' from a machine examiner to say the engines had blown ? As it stands it would appear he informed the authorities but they have chosen to either disbelieve him, or taken the rather draconian measure of "tough luck mate, turn up or we'll ban you". Should he have arrived at the meeting with duff equipment, was that really what the authorities would have preferred? Seriously, what should a rider do if something like this happens to them ? Edited October 4, 2017 by woofers 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ch958 2,395 Posted October 4, 2017 Well,I was hoping that someone could come up with what the BSPA / SCB / MC requirement was under the circumstances. A 'certificate' from a machine examiner to say the engines had blown ? As it stands it would appear he informed the authorities but they have chosen to either disbelieve him, or taken the rather draconian measure of "tough luck mate, turn up or we'll ban you". Should he have arrived at the meeting with duff equipment, was that really what the authorities would have preferred? Seriously, what should a rider do if something like this happens to them ? push round for a quarter of a lap with an engineless bike, then get excluded for being lapped four times 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IronScorpion 1,407 Posted October 5, 2017 Well,I was hoping that someone could come up with what the BSPA / SCB / MC requirement was under the circumstances. A 'certificate' from a machine examiner to say the engines had blown ? As it stands it would appear he informed the authorities but they have chosen to either disbelieve him, or taken the rather draconian measure of "tough luck mate, turn up or we'll ban you". Should he have arrived at the meeting with duff equipment, was that really what the authorities would have preferred? Seriously, what should a rider do if something like this happens to them ? Again, this looks like a bit of self interest as Mr Moorish, who is in charge of the NL, is also a promoter of a NL side, Birmingham. One thing that does puzzle me is why is there a rule stipulating you must turn up in the NL or face a ban & there is nothing in the higher leagues! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted October 5, 2017 Well,I was hoping that someone could come up with what the BSPA / SCB / MC requirement was under the circumstances. A 'certificate' from a machine examiner to say the engines had blown ? As it stands it would appear he informed the authorities but they have chosen to either disbelieve him, or taken the rather draconian measure of "tough luck mate, turn up or we'll ban you". Should he have arrived at the meeting with duff equipment, was that really what the authorities would have preferred? Seriously, what should a rider do if something like this happens to them ? The thing is your reference to the specific rule in the rulebook changes my view - to a degree at least - as it draws a distinction between ordinary league meetings and the NLRC. As such, on this case and within the letter of the law, the ban is correct. The only thing I am asking myself is whether it has been consistently applied over the years and somehow I doubt it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SCB 0 Posted October 5, 2017 Speedway fans are a funny bunch. Moan all year riders take the piss, the BSPA act and you all moan! The ban is correct, it's in the rules and the rule is right. What is wrong is hat the same rules don't apply to Premiership and Championship riders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brianbuck 928 Posted October 5, 2017 The big difference in this particular instance is that the NLRC is a BSPA meeting so clearly the BSPA want all of the riders booked to be there. The inconsistency lies in their apparent indifference to riders missing NL matches for pettifogging reasons, so although I agree with the action they have taken against Knight and think it is justified, my gripe is that this sort of action isn't universally applied. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waiheke1 4,295 Posted October 5, 2017 Speedway fans are a funny bunch. Moan all year riders take the piss, the BSPA act and you all moan! The ban is correct, it's in the rules and the rule is right. What is wrong is hat the same rules don't apply to Premiership and Championship riders. Remember all the whinging when baby bjerre pulled out of the 2nd leg of a double header because his equipment got damaged in the first leg? Have every sympathy for jake knight, and clearly he should have been advised that he would cop a ban, but at the same time the bspa have probably acted correct rly in following the rules, the issue is all the times they haven't. Yes you jack holder. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
00000 1,279 Posted October 5, 2017 The BSPA following the rule book --- what a joke. No wonder the sport is in an utter mess. If it's the law, apply it consistently, on all occasions, without fear or favour. This business of letting the MC have a say on whether the rule is applied or not just gets people's backs up. What we need is someone in charge who just applies the rules - no excuses; no back sliding. Everyone would know where they stood. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chris116 756 Posted October 5, 2017 So if Jake had turned up with two bikes that both had blown engines he would now be riding in the Play offs. I am all in favour of following rules but the rules have to be correctly written and what has happened proves that the rules are badly written. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scaramanga 902 Posted October 5, 2017 A Sick Note? maybe his mechanic could have wrote a note saying how sick his bikes were Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ruckerroo 792 Posted October 6, 2017 old saying Honesty is the best policy. Doesn't seem to ring too true on this occasion, the lad could have pulled a stroke and got no ban 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brianbuck 928 Posted October 6, 2017 Again, this looks like a bit of self interest as Mr Moorish, who is in charge of the NL, is also a promoter of a NL side, Birmingham. This is news to me!!!! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halifaxtiger 5,318 Posted October 8, 2017 Speedway fans are a funny bunch. Moan all year riders take the piss, the BSPA act and you all moan! The ban is correct, it's in the rules and the rule is right. I think you are dead right here but I have never heard of this ban being applied before. Unless it was a new rule introduced for this season, its difficult to imagine that someone hasn't broken it in the past so you have to question whether it is being applied consistently (as Richard says above). The thing is the NL has been so rife with crooked rulings this season its pretty reasonable that some will think that the application on this occasion is not because it is there but because someone will gain from it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
