All Activity

All clubs operate to different levels of agreement which should be between the rider and club, also today's riders are employed on a self employed basis, no one owns them anymore, surely it's up to the rider to have all the gear to do a job, you don't employ a plumber or builder and provide the tools for them to do a job 🤔

The story is about an exhibition in the village of Arlington which features the stadium. It is an historical thing - nothing about future of speedway at that site.

Anyway, Scunthorpe Promoter and BSPL Chair has now stated publicly on their website that he wants to 'move on' from the incident and bears no grudge against Poole. He looks forward to building a 1-7 to win the league next season........

They surely should, if they promised to or were contracted to?

Has there ever been a rider who generated so much hassle while possessing so little ability?

“Best interest of the sport” overrules everything in the rule book.😂👍

This all sounds very interesting. Tell all please. And is “a certain rider” Bowes. And if so, why not name him?

Typically poorly written SCB Regulations, open to interpretation. There have been announcements that the Regs were being reviewed - clearly nothing much has been done. Also, why do the Regs allow an appeal to be made, given that the Regs themselves don't provide options for the Referee's incorrect decision to be changed?! The SCB has a lot to answer for.

Let's get the facts right here. The promised transport was booked but unforeseen circumstances meant they couldn't do it anymore. Mr.Bain went out of his way to organise secondary transport but, at that point, the rider in question had spat his dummy out. It's the riders responsibility to get themselves to their desired location. Why should the promotion organise a transport for a charity/testimonial meeting or whatever you want to call it

Zischke is at Scunthorpe for 2027 so I’d rule him out of the team building plans. Heard Dan T and Rowe both agreed terms for 2027

Thought on Klindt’s socials he was in Bangkok at minute unless he’s due back in UK for Friday

....and he only walked out because the club reneged on the promised transport!!

It was doubling down that was the issue 😁

One thing to consider is that many of the U21s riding in the Ekstraliga in previous years would have come in on very high assessed averages for an inexperienced rider. - 24 of the 33 riders who raced any meetings as an U21 this season in Poland would get an average of 6.00 or higher - The likes of Paluch, Bednar and Parnitskyi would come on over 7.50 averages. Maybe U21 riders did want to come over but British promoters did not want them as their averages were way too high to justify it. With the new U21 system and no average to worry about it might change things.

That was about a certain rider who left the club in the lurch when he decided not to ride anymore, would you pay someone who walked out of your business

That link takes you to a private group, What's the crack

duplication

But people want to know who was at fault. Your options are: 1. It was Poole, it always is. 2. It was Zach. He deliberately rode a tight line/crossed the white line to gain an advantage. 3. It was the referee who, with the aid of the replays, came to the wrong decision. 4. It the rule as written by the SCB. 1. Don't be silly 2. I don't believe Zach took to the centre green on purpose. Nor did he gain an advantage. Picko let him by with a view to trying to slow down Richard Lawson and get MPT into 3rd place. 3. The referee interpreted an ambiguous rule and came to a decision on that basis. 4. The SCB in its own post meeting announcement said they declared a breach of the rule after they'd reviewed it. So it was ambiguous.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/645763461362349/permalink/1124181013520589/?

Mistakes have been made in many big Sporting Events.Lesson will be learned is the common answer.People do have to accept the result though ,how many BIG sporting events have you seen replayed.

I support your thinking for the most part. However, inherent in the SCB statement is the strong implication that they declared a breach of the rule only after they'd reviewed the rule in question. In other words, at the time of the breach it wasn't clear (maybe) that the rule was clear enough for the referee to come to same conclusion. Reading this one way means that the SCB has thrown the referee under the bus and used other rules to prevent a change to the announced result. As I've said elsewhere, the SCB could simply have said the rule contained some ambiguity and that the referee ruled on the basis of his interpretation at the time. I think there would have been a much greater acceptance of the result standing.

Wasn't there originally an maximum age stipulation for Doubling Up?? Maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember it was Scott Nicholls who challenged it... It used to be only a max two per team also wasn't it?.. And then, of course, promoters saw the benefits of sharing rider costs, whilst now employing a level of riders previously unaffordable, so the floodgates opened .😁

So if a rider has alcohol on his breathe and is tested after the meeting and fails - no action? A bike is tested and found to be over size after the meeting - no action? Sorry. I don't care who "moves on" and its not because its Poole, there is absolutely no justice in the way the rules are structured and how this has been handled.

So you are saying that on the line constitutes crossing the line? Other than by just writing out the regulations again can you evidence that that is the SCB's interpretation? Eg is it documented anywhere ? Is that the interpretation that referees are trained against and is communicated to clubs and riders? And let's not go to the point about which part of the wheel has crossed the line. I suspect we all take that as the part of the tyre in contact with the ground, but that isn't what it says. I understand that you may think I'm being pedantic, but regulations should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a pedant! Plus, I don't want such an occurrence to happen again. I'm going to Belle Vue on Friday. Given that the inner edge is of a completely different construction at the NSS, I hope the referee, clubs and riders have been fully briefed and are clear about what crossing the inner edge of the track actually means. The SCB could clarify this today and give certainty, and I'm pretty sure the regulations will be modified for next season.

100%... The "talent pool" is thin enough already, as is shown by the weakest team each season, therefore stretching it to seven teams currently can only dilute it further... And bringing in two compulsory U21's will already do that given the lack of U21 talent who are not riding in Poland and are not Scandinavian.. A six team league this season has one team clearly adrift before a wheel was turned, and a seven team league the year before had two... Wasn't the plan to make the top tier clearly stronger than the second? If so, sticking with six teams would be the more logical way of delivering this.. If Eastbourne do come back, starting on Fridays/Saturdays in the second tier would seem to be the best "first step" to see how that goes..