Halifaxtiger

Its not the whole story because the Colts have a very talented young team and that certainly shouldn't be overshadowed by any home track advantage they might have. After all, they did pretty well away, too. But I'd maintain that the Colts lads have motors that are set up for NSS and the others simply do not have means to produce the sort of power and speed necessary. With the greatest of respect to Andy Mellish, its hard to accept that he has more skills in riding fast than Ben Morley, Paul Hurry, Max Clegg or any of the other NL's top riders who have struggled at NSS this season. Very pleased about the dates because I should be able to make them all.

That is undeniably true. I think its more to do with the size and shape. Quite simply, NSS is substantially about speed and for that you need a powerful motor. Most of the top boys have them, which makes it such a brilliant track for Premiership racing. The NL lads (excepting the Colts) do not and consequently there is a significant advantage at that level for the home side. Having said that, I still didn't expect the Colts to win by such a margin. I am happy they did, though, because the thought of Lakeside's crooked team winning anything would have been hard to stomach and yet more damage to credibility of British Speedway in general and the NL in particular.

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.

Completely agree If it suits Wolves, suits their fans and suits Woffinden I see no reason why they should not have done so had the regulations been different. You could probably make a better case to an outsider that you were drafting in a Wolves rider to replace a Wolves rider than replacing a Wolves rider with a Rye House one.

Red and black coat, yes, but its not an Aces one. Aces cap.

Just one final point. I wonder where all those saying that rider replacement should be at No 2 are hiding ?

Hoggy told me there was no contact and Bacon simply lost it when Sarjeant passed him. To be fair to the referee, at the time I thought his decision was correct. Cracking meeting , with Cook's ride off 15 metres being the highlight. Big shout for Sarjeant. He was bloody awful the last time I saw him against Edinburgh and deserved the flak he got from home supporters. Even though he had a tapes offence last night, he still bust a gut in every race and that's what people want - a fact that was reflected in the reaction he got from the stand after he had fallen in heat 11.

That really is the point here. Despite numerous withdrawals over the years, I have never heard of anyone suffering similar punishment. Connor Dugard states on the Eastbourne website that other riders had 'certificates' that allowed them to be absent.

I could argue that Knight's excuse was too. My beef, though, isn't about riders getting pulled up for missing meetings without reasonable cause - where that's concerned, I agree with your view. However, until we have a consistent procedure that is applied across the board Knight's punishment is wrong and, given that he rides for a team who are in the play offs, was made quite possibly to deliberately weaken Eastbourne's chances. Given the record of crooked, incompetent and vicious decisions we have seen in the NL, can anyone actually say otherwise ?

The decision can be immediately criticised because two riders pulled out on the day but only one has been banned. Just how can that be the case ? Could the fact that Knight is involved in the play offs but Davey isn't have something to do with it ?

It is very wrong for a rider to miss a meeting for no reason at all. However, didn't Mildenhall go nuts last season when Luke Chessell pulled out of a meeting because he had no machinery and Cradley brought in Matt Williamson instead? The reasoning is the same but on one occasion you get a ban and on the other a guest ? . As others have said what about Davey ? He rode Saturday night, so why hasn't he been banned ? You can argue all you want about riders withdrawing but that still doesn't excuse in any way the crass standard of rulings we have seen in the NL this season. Harland Cook, Paul Hurry, Adam Roynon, Matt Marson and now Jake Knight. Every single one inconsistent, incompetent, biased or vicious (or all four). Its not beyond the realms of possibility that major honours in this seasons NL will go to clubs whose teams are either illegal within the rules of the sport or who have benefited from appalling and completely unjustifiable decisions. Nothing will damage the credibility of the sport in general and the NL in particular more than that. Been saying it for years and will repeat it now. Thing is, I don't think any of the above decisions are particularly difficult. Should Harland Cook have got an average reduction after years out of the sport ? Of course he should. Should Paul Hurry's average have been reduced by 3 points ? Of course not. We simply have to have someone who is not linked to any club, has a very sound grasp of the rules and can follow and make precedent. Chances of the BSPA allowing that to happen are absolutely zero, because they want the opportunity to cheat, manipulate and do things 'in the interests of the sport'.

Of the original line up, 10 were present. Smith & Mountain were injured. Ayres pulled out some time ago and the only ones to pull out on the day were Knight and Davey. From my (limited) experience of Leicester this season, its definitely better than at any time since it opened.

​That's just about spot on . I wonder how many of those declaring it a shambles were actually there .

Armstrong for Mountain. Quite agree about the field. Having 10 riders representing clubs and 6 wild card picks seems a reasonable idea but surely they should be the highest in average regardless of team ? Having said that, I still think it is an attractive line up.

On my one visit this season it was way, way better than in previous years.

I tend to find that the opinions of people who 'used to work for the club' can be ridiculously prejudiced and biased. I don't know its the case here, but many of such kind have a massive agenda and axe to grind.

Very different, I agree. But it is unquestionably still the case that one goal counts as two, so any suggestion that speedway is the only sport where points (or goals) double up is untrue.

I thought this was a bit of both: Sheffield were awesome and Glasgow were rubbish. Worrall & Summers were awful and that's the worst I have seen Bewley ride all season (potentially through bike problems). Only a battling effort from Lawson and one or two flashes from Sarjeant will give Glasgow any hope whatsoever. On the other hand, Bates was brilliant and Graversen's signing really was a master stroke. All the others contributed and when you win that well with Howarth having (for him) a slight off night it just shows how good Sheffield are. There simply isn't a weak link.

Yes, Friday and Scunthorpe are attractive especially as Holder and Harris are there.

I don't think anyone doubts your commitment to Workington Speedway. Indeed, I'd say you are precisely the right type of fan - someone who can be critical but remains loyal anyway. I'd reiterate though - Workington have a good team, a good track and good presentation. That's most of what people want from speedway. I also reiterate that I think the promotion deserve better than they are getting. I get taken up to Derwent Park but it still sets me back £50 a time, and I wouldn't do that if the speedway were rubbish. I don't think what Hoggy said did have a pop at anyone who wasn't there but was more about thanking those who were. As to where you spend your money I can't argue with that. But Laura made it absolutely clear that the attendances just aren't big enough and that she needs everyone to come to give her some sort of indication that she could run in 2018. At the very point she needed the help and support of Workington fans more than ever, some decided to go elsewhere. I'll let you decide how she felt about that.

I don't think its illogical to try to make an event more exciting and, as I have said, I doubt if there is a single speedway fan who hasn't seen one meeting that has been significantly improved in terms of almost everything - the racing, the atmosphere, the contest - by a tactical ride, and that's even with the new points system. I wonder if football would have something like it if Chelsea's pitch was three times the size of Arsenal's, its grass twice as long and its goals half the size ? Just possibly they would. As to other sports having 3 points count as 6, how about one goal counting as two ? Differing circumstances maybe, but football most certainly has it. The reasoning behind tactical changes is sound, and that's why it has been in existence in speedway for 50 years or more. As someone has already said, the tactical substitute rule was pretty much never questioned and there's probably a majority who would want to go back to that regardless of the fact that it would create huge additional costs and has the same effect on score lines anyway. Not a good example, but I have seen meetings turn on their head as a result of a tactical ride and improve significantly (from being dead as a door nail to game on) and I'll be surprised if anyone else hasn't. Far exceeds it. Something simply has to be done, because I know serious diehard fans who have had enough because of it.

I agree completely but where Workington is concerned that is simply not true. The Comets have a decent team, a fine racing track and a good promotion who have tried hard to bring success on and off track to the club. They deserve better and as far as I am concerned staying away because Sarjeant is part of the team is nothing more than a cheap excuse not to go.

I disagree to an extent. Both of the Riss brothers pulled off brilliant passing moves - Mark in particular when he got some terrific speed to shoot past Proctor round the final two corners. Funny thing was I thought that it was a battling performance from Campton, Proctor, Williamson & Ostergaard. If Workington had had a decent reserve this would have been much, much closer. Replacing Cook was almost impossible and would have been even if the Comets have tried weeks ago. Over half the league was riding anyway and most of the other top Championship riders were in the Premiership riders meeting. Comets had little choice but to use RR. As to Sarjeant, I'd have sacked him weeks ago and brought in virtually anyone else because they couldn't be that much worse. His ridiculous tendency to get excluded for starting offences is actually getting worse (if that's possible) and once off 15 metres he wasn't interested. Word I got was that he had to be persuaded to stay on after the second exclusion - although he has no-one to blame but himself - and was fined heavily by the referee for delaying the start. I felt desperately sorry for Laura Morgan because no-one can say she hasn't tried hard at Workington. A crowd of 350 or so with no real hope of improvement means just one outcome, because she simply can't continue losing that much per meeting. ​​I really hope I am wrong because a trip up to Cumbria with decent company, a couple of pints and some tea in the town and usually a pretty decent meeting is something I'll miss.

As I say, I haven't missed it in NL meetings at all. That's not true. The logic behind them is clear : they are there to try to make a meeting that would basically be dead in terms of a result more exciting. That's a very good reason to have them and I doubt if there is any regular attender who hasn't seen a meeting improved in terms of its actual quality after one has been used. Truth is, if you are going to have them tactical rides are better, partly - as Orion has pointed out - they affect results less and partly - but more importantly - they involve no additional cost, The question is more about whether there should be some sort of artificial method of changing results at all. My own view was undoubtedly that it should but, as I have mentioned, I really haven't missed them in the NL.

Of course not. But to even suggest that fans interests absolutely override those of everything else is nonsense. It doesn't take a lot of working out to know that the additional costs of tactical substitutes over tactical rides would be huge - its not unreasonable to suggest that just one race could cost £500 or more. Which of us would advocate that the sport take on tens of thousands of pounds worth of additional costs at a point that most speedway tracks are loss making and some are on the brink ? Quite a few, it seems, and to me they are out of touch with reality. On cost grounds alone, the replacement of tactical substitutes with tactical rides was both correct and necessary. Having said that, I really haven't missed tactical changes in NL meetings this season so maybe there is a case for scrapping them altogether.