Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Halifaxtiger said:

Not sure that's true THJ.  There's a great deal of difference between the likes of Barry Bishop, Jittendra Duffil and Adrian Smith and certain other promoters that could be mentioned.

Need to read it again HT and I totally agree there is a great deal of difference between the guys you mention and others as I did say "like for like" changes on the management committee... does the mafia ever give up their control... the good guys; the guys who do the right thing dont get a look in unfortunately then they get disallusioned and leave the sport or take a back seat and their enthusiasm ideas and drive are lost to the sport...

Regards 

THJ 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can fully understand Jitendras decision, if it’s affecting his mental health and personal life he has to do what’s best for him.

He has been a fantastic “face” of Redcar Speedway over the last few years and the improvements to the club, both on and off the track, are a testament to all his hard work.

Good luck and thank you. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent response from Ben to the 'statement' in SS...

 

37 m  · 
 
Via the Speedway Star, a ‘spokesman’ for SCB has issued a response to my query as to why the recent Redcar V Birmingham KO Cup match was different to the Redcar V Glasgow (01.06.17) and Coventry V Rye House (11.09.15) matches. Both of those matches were abandoned and declared before heat 10, whereas the KO Cup match was not.
I have asked several times via email, why those matches were declared, contrary to the SCB’s own rule book (SCB reg 011.1.23). I was NOT given a reason - I was told that a meeting can only be declared before heat 10 if the result is already ‘mathematically certain’, with no other explanation.
I wouldn’t usually take to social media to do this, but feel I have no other option as I didn’t get the decency of a reply to my question by email - instead I had to read it in the Speedway Star this morning.
Reading the ‘spokesman’s’ response, he states that the 2 matches I have used as an example, were ‘beyond doubt mathematically’! It’s written for us all to read, but is completely untrue.
If you see the photos attached to this post, you will see that NEITHER of those results were mathematically beyond doubt. The opposition could have won by heat 15 in both examples (if they are using heat 10 for that analysis, then the KO Cup match result was beyond doubt too).
In fact, the score difference was exactly the same (8 points) at the time of the abandonment in the Redcar V Glasgow match in 2017. Both matches were abandoned after Heat 9 - other than the fact that one was a KO Cup match, there is no difference whatsoever. The rule book does not state that a KO Cup match is treated differently to a league match either! (see attached reg 011.1.23).
In this article, the SCB also state that the KO Cup match at Birmingham was not abandoned due to the condition of the track - the fact that the match was delayed for over an hour due to the remedial track work means that it WAS directly responsible. The match would never have reached curfew otherwise - the SCB have not acknowledged this in their statement.
It’s a shame this explanation wasn’t given to me personally by our governing body when I requested it, but then again, it’s a very weak and untrue explanation. The evidence is attached for all to see. These decisions ARE inconsistent, and our treatment in this situation is disrespectful and unfair.
Precedents were set I’m afraid and this explanation is not fooling me, or Redcar Speedway - we deserve better.
203133555_10165264421580082_964949236556
 
 
203434402_10165264421575082_527574488426
 
 
206480498_10165264421765082_836527542571
 
 
204742827_10165264421800082_639826690425
 
 
206788388_10165264511720082_667909663551
 
 
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Bear_Bottom said:

Excellent response from Ben to the 'statement' in SS...

 

37 m  · 
 
Via the Speedway Star, a ‘spokesman’ for SCB has issued a response to my query as to why the recent Redcar V Birmingham KO Cup match was different to the Redcar V Glasgow (01.06.17) and Coventry V Rye House (11.09.15) matches. Both of those matches were abandoned and declared before heat 10, whereas the KO Cup match was not.
I have asked several times via email, why those matches were declared, contrary to the SCB’s own rule book (SCB reg 011.1.23). I was NOT given a reason - I was told that a meeting can only be declared before heat 10 if the result is already ‘mathematically certain’, with no other explanation.
I wouldn’t usually take to social media to do this, but feel I have no other option as I didn’t get the decency of a reply to my question by email - instead I had to read it in the Speedway Star this morning.
Reading the ‘spokesman’s’ response, he states that the 2 matches I have used as an example, were ‘beyond doubt mathematically’! It’s written for us all to read, but is completely untrue.
If you see the photos attached to this post, you will see that NEITHER of those results were mathematically beyond doubt. The opposition could have won by heat 15 in both examples (if they are using heat 10 for that analysis, then the KO Cup match result was beyond doubt too).
In fact, the score difference was exactly the same (8 points) at the time of the abandonment in the Redcar V Glasgow match in 2017. Both matches were abandoned after Heat 9 - other than the fact that one was a KO Cup match, there is no difference whatsoever. The rule book does not state that a KO Cup match is treated differently to a league match either! (see attached reg 011.1.23).
In this article, the SCB also state that the KO Cup match at Birmingham was not abandoned due to the condition of the track - the fact that the match was delayed for over an hour due to the remedial track work means that it WAS directly responsible. The match would never have reached curfew otherwise - the SCB have not acknowledged this in their statement.
It’s a shame this explanation wasn’t given to me personally by our governing body when I requested it, but then again, it’s a very weak and untrue explanation. The evidence is attached for all to see. These decisions ARE inconsistent, and our treatment in this situation is disrespectful and unfair.
Precedents were set I’m afraid and this explanation is not fooling me, or Redcar Speedway - we deserve better.
203133555_10165264421580082_964949236556
 
 
203434402_10165264421575082_527574488426
 
 
206480498_10165264421765082_836527542571
 
 
204742827_10165264421800082_639826690425
 
 
206788388_10165264511720082_667909663551
 
 

Hope Ben Duffil  passes his response on to Speedway Star for publication in order to set the record straight and expose this Speedway Control Bureau chicanery.

Edited by cyclone
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to Redcar on being awarded the British Under-21 Final.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2021 at 11:45 PM, cyclone said:

Hope Ben Duffil  passes his response on to Speedway Star for publication in order to set the record straight and expose this Speedway Control Bureau chicanery.

The Star will not print anything controversial that criticises the BSPL or the SCB , they won’t bite the hand that feeds them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want to be challenging for the play offs. Serjeant needs to be replaced.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikebaker said:

If we want to be challenging for the play offs. Serjeant needs to be replaced.

Agree. The 'promising 28 year old' should never have been signed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2021 at 11:51 AM, Ringitsneck said:

The Star will not print anything controversial that criticises the BSPL or the SCB , they won’t bite the hand that feeds them.

Bring back the old Speedway Mail!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, mikebaker said:

If we want to be challenging for the play offs. Serjeant needs to be replaced.

Who out there is stronger though? No point dropping a rider if you can't strengthen up!

Edited by szkocjasid
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bellers101 said:

Agree. The 'promising 28 year old' should never have been signed!

Who would you have signed instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another blow to the Bears, Jordan Jenkins our for a while with a broken wrist.

Only able to replace with a 2* rising star and he’s been riding better than that.

Missing 3 of your starting 7 is not ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yearbyred said:

Another blow to the Bears, Jordan Jenkins our for a while with a broken wrist.

Only able to replace with a 2* rising star and he’s been riding better than that.

Missing 3 of your starting 7 is not ideal.

There is a bunch of rising stars riding better than 2* though so it's not the worst thing, although Jenkins will be missed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy