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.