Leicester V Lakeside 12 Apr

[flagrag 705]

I am not sure how Ellis and Lakeside can not say that he was not examined by the medic. He was down a good 5mins on the track and had his helmet, neck brace and kevlars undone so was examined on the track. The medic may not have taken him into the ambulance but had already determined that he had any injury.

[E I Addio 15,853]

I am not sure how Ellis and Lakeside can not say that he was not examined by the medic. He was down a good 5mins on the track and had his helmet, neck brace and kevlars undone so was examined on the track. The medic may not have taken him into the ambulance but had already determined that he had any injury.

The requirement is for an injured rider report form to be completed by the medic and sent immediately to the referee. It is the responsibility of the Clerk of the Course to see that this is done. If a. Contemporaneous Injured Rider Form is produced it seems that Lakeside have nowhere to go on this but if there is no form(which implies the Clerk of the Course didn't know what he was doing) then serious questions have to be asked of the medic, the CoC and the ref .

 

I doubt whether anything will come of it but Injured Rider Forms are there for a reason, not least because it may mean the rider needs another medical before he can ride in his next meeting, and if there was no form (and therefore no evidence of injury) then the CoC needs to be removed from his job, the ref needs to re-sit the refs exam and hopefully nobody in speedway will employ the medic again.

[The Voice Of Reason 2,124]

Just one point.

 

Having sat, and passed, the CoC exam at Rugby, I do not remember any questions whatsoever relating to medical certification.

 

That doesn't obviously exclude a CoC from knowing the Regulations - but it does perhaps highlight shortfalls within the SCB's examination process?

[speedwaysliders 177]

Does anyone know the outcome of this appeal? Surely in the best interests of the sport there should have been a decision by now,as the result might effect the play off standings.

[E I Addio 15,853]

Does anyone know the outcome of this appeal? Surely in the best interests of the sport there should have been a decision by now,as the result might effect the play off standings.

Not sure if it was an appeal as such, more in the nature of a complaint. I read something about it recently, I think it was in the Lakeside programme but I can't remember exactly. Basically I think the situation is that the result can't be changed because it can't be proved beyond doubt that Adam would have scored anything if he went out in his last ride, on form that night he probably would have but in theory could have had an e,f, or anything so we'll never know for sure. But from my understanding is that Lakeside want the situation reviewed because we can't have medics who don't understand the proper procedure and we we can't have clubs with a clerk of the course who doesn't ensure the correct forms are completed. In addition to this we had the situation with Redcar recently where the medic couldn't do his job because he was allegedly taken ill but according to the riders he wasn't ill he was drunk. These medical teams get well paid for their work and we are entitled to have a proper standard of service.

 

I think the SCB will probably look into this as soon as they have come to a decision on what to do about the Poole-v-Lakeside meeting that Matt Ford cancelled last year and which the SCB were supposed to be discussing last July.

[The Voice Of Reason 2,124]

El Addio is correct with the explanation of the outcome.

 

I personally find it somewhat strange that the SCB did not see fit to issue a statement of their findings. Maybe, they were simply embarrassed - as their conclusion took nearly twice as long as their own regulations stipulate? We only found out because it was hidden away in Jon Cook's programme notes - with the incident not being deemed worthy to have it's own place on our club's website.

 

Their argument was that there was no evidence to prove they Ellis would have gained a point in the re-run. Well, as there were only 3 riders, it is somewhat difficult to see how he wouldn't. Moreover, based upon that assumption, where is the evidence to suggest that either of the two opposing Leicester riders would not have similarly failed to finish; either through a fall or bike failure? It's a completely illogical, flawed counter-argument.

 

There was no mention, so a I am led to believe, of the failure of the Chief Medical Officer in attendance that night; nor of Leicester's Clerk of the Course - who was clearly clueless of the correct procedure.

 

However, the main culprit was the Referee himself, Mr Peter Clarke. He excluded the wrong guy from the initial running of the heat - Ben Morley. Ben had clearly laid his bike down to avoid Adam after he fell, and was excluded. Had this not happened, then Ben Morley would (and should) have been in the re-run; and therefore have been in a point scoring position - remember, we only needed a third place from that heat to have taken an away point. Mr. Clarke also clearly failed to perform his duty correctly, as per Speedway Regulations, when the protest was put forward by Adam Ellis and The Lakeside Management on the night.

 

The SCB's final positioning is actually an utter farce. The decision that they reached clearly demonstrates a scant disregard for their own Regulations. Processes and procedures were clearly not followed as outlined; a fact I assume that they actually accepted as during the time when the official complaint was being heard, they decided to email out (as a reminder) the aide-memoirs for CoC's and Medical Officers. A mere coincidence? I would suggest not.

 

Quite why our management did not pursue this matter via the ACU, given the SCB's dire decision, is beyond me if I'm honest. It's not just the case of it simply being an away point lost, it's also a matter of principle. And that odd league point may not have sounded a great deal a few weeks back, but with the sad, potential demise of Birmingham, that solitary point may very well affect our play-off position once our 7 points are deducted; albeit by either our top 4 qualification, or indeed our pecking order within it.

 

It's yet another example of why I consider the SCB to be an utter joke. Here we have a body that looks at a key incident, and despite it's very own set of regulations not being followed correctly, concludes that there was no reason to allocate Lakeside a point it deserved. Utterly incredulous.

 

And I say this as a past SCB Licence holder as a Machine Examiner and a Clerk of the Course.

 

And don't even get me started on the three-yearly exam process at SCB HQ inRugby guys. You truly wouldn't believe what goes on for accreditation to be given; suffice to say that for some, it's possibly not the hardest examination they've ever had to sit. I had more controlled spelling tests in primary school.

[Skidder1 7,658]

Not sure if it was an appeal as such, more in the nature of a complaint. I read something about it recently, I think it was in the Lakeside programme but I can't remember exactly. Basically I think the situation is that the result can't be changed because it can't be proved beyond doubt that Adam would have scored anything if he went out in his last ride, on form that night he probably would have but in theory could have had an e,f, or anything so we'll never know for sure. But from my understanding is that Lakeside want the situation reviewed because we can't have medics who don't understand the proper procedure and we we can't have clubs with a clerk of the course who doesn't ensure the correct forms are completed. In addition to this we had the situation with Redcar recently where the medic couldn't do his job because he was allegedly taken ill but according to the riders he wasn't ill he was drunk. These medical teams get well paid for their work and we are entitled to have a proper standard of service.

 

I think the SCB will probably look into this as soon as they have come to a decision on what to do about the Poole-v-Lakeside meeting that Matt Ford cancelled last year and which the SCB were supposed to be discussing last July.

....and found no case to answer as every club is entitled to protect their own business!!

 

Move on now!