Halifaxtiger

My problem hasn't been so much the jumping at the start (although I totally agree with you) as the inconsistency shown by referees. Lets call rolling at the start what it is : cheating.

In theory, yes. In practice

To double up between a PL & NL club at the start of the season its 4.00. If you start the season at NL only you can double up later in the season if you are below 5.00. In Ellis' case, he can't start the season doubling up but if he gains a PL place later in the season he can continue riding for Birmingham.

That is one intention behind the NL but for the majority of the clubs (if not all of them) it is not the only one, nor can it be. All of the stand alone clubs in the NL are there because their attendances and overall income are insufficient to be in the EL or PL and that's precisely why Tony Mole and Bob Dugard entered their teams in that league. If all of their circumstances were favourable enough to enable a move to a higher level I have little doubt that they would be there - Birmingham, Eastbourne, Stoke & Mildenhall have all tried and there has been much talk about Cradley & Kent moving up. Buxton are the sole exception. The NL is therefore just as much a business as the EL or PL and, in order to be viable, they have to attract fans in exactly the same way - by having a successful, winning team that serves up an entertaining product. It might be the NL, but if a team starts losing every week its supporters will still be out the door as fast as any at a PL club regardless of the development of young riders. I doubt that there are many (if any) who aim to be a serial NL rider when they start out. Whether they end up like that is very much another matter. Dean has, as usual, a point.

So can Ellis as his PL average is under 5.00. I am pretty sure that that is something that Birmingham considered. 19.9.2.1 A Rider with a PL MA of 6.00 or below if not declared in a PL 1–7 at the start of the season, although any such Rider who moves back into the PL will be ineligible if he has a PL MA of 5.00 or above. NB. A Rider with a PL MA of 5.00 or below joining a NL Team after losing a PL Team place may not remain in the NL Team if he subsequently gains a PL Team place,

I think you need to read the court case: The complainant said that her next memory was waking up in the hotel room at about 11.30am. She realised that she was alone. She was naked and had urinated in the bed. She had a headache and was confused. She reported the matter to the police. McDonald, who was also on trial, gave evidence that the complainant approached him in Queen Street. He asked her where she was going. She replied by asking where he was going. He said that he was going to his hotel and she said that she would go with him. He then sent the text message in case the applicant was worried about where he had gone. According to McDonald's evidence, in the hotel room sexual activity was initiated by the complainant. She gave every indication that she was enthusiastic and enjoying herself. He did not force her to do anything she did not wish. In grounds of appeal the first issue was the suggestion that the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent. Counsel for the applicant submitted that if the jury acquitted McDonald, there could be no sensible basis on which they could convict the applicant. (The Court of Appeal stated)‘’But however it is examined, and assuming that he was wrong about the basis on which the jury reached its conclusion, we find nothing illogical or inconsistent about the verdicts”. That was the point of a joint trial in which separate verdicts were to be returned. It was open to the jury to consider that even if the complainant did not, in fact, consent to sexual intercourse with either of the two men, that in the light of his part in what happened -- the meeting in the street and so on -- McDonald may reasonably have believed that the complainant had consented to sexual activity with him, and at the same time concluded that the applicant knew perfectly well that she had not consented to sexual activity with him (the applicant). The circumstances in which each of the two men came to be involved in the sexual activity was quite different; so indeed were the circumstances in which they left her. Those were matters entirely open to the jury; there was no inconsistency. The final ground of appeal was whether, looking at the facts overall, in the light of the concerns drawn to it’s attention, the court should consider whether this was a case in which to apply the "lurking doubt" principle identified in R v Cooper [1969] 1 QB 267, 53 Cr App R 82. (The court commented that this was not an appropriate time at which to examine why it is inappropriate to describe the Cooper principle as a "lurking doubt" principle). The court saw no possible basis which would justify their interference with the verdict of the jury which heard all the evidence and reflected on it following a careful summing up by the judge. Court cases that appear to be almost identical are often given different verdicts - and I'd certainly accept that that can be due to the inconsistent approach of judges and the quality of juries - on the basis that the precise circumstances are not the same. The devil, very frequently, is in the detail. Lying to get in and using the fire escape is not conclusive proof of rape. What it suggests, though, is that the person doing it did not want his actions to be discovered. It points towards wrong doing. According to the evidence presented at the trial, there was every reason to believe that she did not know what she was doing: CCTV footage, which was recovered, showed her outside the bar, inside and outside a kebab shop, and eventually her arrival at the hotel where the offence with which the court is concerned took place. The CCTV footage showed that while she was inside the kebab shop she was unsteady on her feet, at one point she fell over and landed on the floor. On the other hand, outside the kebab shop she could be seen eating pizza from a large box, although she was also seen to stumble, squat, lose her balance, and walk unsteadily. Indeed, she left her handbag in the shop. Based on this evidence, the prosecution case was that she was very drunk. The night porter described her as "extremely drunk". That reinforced the Crown's case based on the evidence of witnesses and the CCTV footage before she had arrived at the hotel. If that was the case, no consent was given and there was no reason to believe that consent had been given, the verdict was correct - or, at the very least, sound. Actually the court judgement - and the difference in the verdicts - was based upon the fact that the girl went to the hotel room willingly with McDonald and knew what was going to happen - or, more accurately, that he had every right to believe that she did even if she did not actually consent. There is certainly no evidence of force. I repeat (and quote) : 'What did she think they were going to do, play Scrabble ?'. She did not go to the room with Evans. He lied to gain entry and left by the fire escape. None of that applies to McDonald. The difference is clear : one had grounds to believe that whatever her state she had consented to sex with him. The other did not.

Best speedway news I have heard all winter .

Both McDonald & Evans were accused of rape. The girl went willingly to McDonalds hotel room with him through the front door. That was deemed to be consensual even though she said it was not, and I can see why. As someone said, 'What did she think they were going to do there, play Scrabble ?'. She did not go to that room with Evans. He was phoned, turned up later, sneaked in and then sneaked out. The difference to me is absolutely clear.

Seen Barker do some stunning team rides at SBA, to the extent of pointing to where he wanted his partner to ride. Sadly, he seemed to forget all about that last season. The best I ever saw was at Scunthorpe a few years ago, and it was Richie Dennis (aged 17) protecting Grant Hayes (aged 16). The speed that Dennis went into the corners had to be seen to be believed, to the extent that it drew an angry reaction from an opposition rider at the end of the race.

You're right that nothing in the law should stop him resuming a former career. But as is evident, public opinion can and that is of relevance in a profession where the business relies almost completely on public support. While I see the argument that someone has served their time, I can very much appreciate why people object to a convicted rapist being in a high profile occupation. If it is accepted that Evans slate is now wiped clean and he can return to his former profession, I fail to see why, if Jimmy Savile had lived and served his time, he could not return to mainstream television. The possibility is both appalling and unthinkable, as is the suggestion that those who would seek to prevent it were acting through 'mob rule'. Rape is often (and was in this case) a pre-meditated, deliberate act in which the perpertrator is fully aware that the consequences for the victim can, at least potentially, be absolutely devastating yet they still do it. It is the very nature of how heinous this crime is that has led to the reaction that has been expressed and, to me, that is entirely understandable.

Having sex with someone isn't a crime. Rape is, and he was found guilty of it. I don't think the description 'scumbag' in such circumstances is an unreasonable one, and I suspect that many would probably use something a lot stronger. I think E I Addio is spot on. Its fair point that he's served his time so he should be able to start again, but I can very much understand why people deeply object to having a convicted rapist in such a high profile profession.

I think the problem is not that Somerset (and Berwick) didn't listen but that they were told two different things (although I'd probably accept that they chose to believe what suited them). Had they been told correctly in the first place, had SCB Regulations been changed and had the change to regulations been made public (instead of the usual ridiculous secrecy)this almost certainly wouldn't have happened. That's not down to Somerset. From what I heard last season, you're dead right. Tends to make you wonder just how clear instruction was given regarding riders averages, doesn't it ?

Barrow, Belle Vue (Hyde Road), Birmingham (Wheels),Bradford, Boston, Canterbury,Cradley,Crayford, Ellesmere Port, Exeter, Hackney,Hull(NCP), Isle of Wight,Milton Keynes (Groveway), Long Eaton, Newport (QM),Oxford, Reading, Sittingbourne, Weymouth (Wessex), White City,Wimbledon.

I think so too, particularly last season. Changing Leicester for Peterborough was a good start. The usual suspects - Scunthorpe, Sheffield, Plymouth, Somerset, Workington - maintained their standard of racing while others - Redcar and Glasgow - upped theirs.

I am sure that a few others - probably with bigger bank accounts - went after Extance so its good to see that loyalty still exists.

From what I was told all hell broke loose with the UKBA last season precisely because one club replaced an English rider with a foreign one.

http://www.iowislanders.co/2014%20News/News%2009-Dec.html

That's a not an unreasonable point but to my knowledge the UKBA (or whatever they are called) knew precisely what was going on so an announcement would have made no difference. I certainly know that all hell broke last year. It wasn't Somerset. You'd have to look a little closer to the BSPA management committee for that. That's the way I see it. I think you're right about the Somerset promotion which makes their action here all the more surprising.

My suspicion is that is precisely what Somerset did initially and were told Holder was a 5.00. The problem is that the BSPA (because we never, ever, get a statement as to who precisely has made decisions, its always a collective) can't and won't admit they made a mistake. It won't be the first time they have tried to maintain the ridiculous illusion that they are infallible and it won't be the last. Whichever way you look at it, this changes the whole position here. Who on earth announces publicly a team in the full knowledge that that team is illegal and will have to be changed before the season starts ? I'd maintain the BSPA is to blame for the initial problem but to take the above action isn't just ludicrous, its positively bizarre and I don't think it needs the benefit of hindsight to know that that is a mistake. The question that has to be answered is how a sponsor would feel if he went along, was delighted with the line up only to find out the next day that that couldn't be the team and the promotion knew that all along. Not strange, ridiculous. The question is though who is really at fault ?

My understanding is Somerset were told that Holder was a 5.00 and then told otherwise. Berwick were the same. If it was so clear to everyone, why wasn't the change in averages indicated in the AGM statement ? Not one single speedway fan knew that was the case until Steve Whitehead made comments on the Workington forum. That's where the problem lies, because if it had been made public this debate would not even be taking place. As if a 'girl in the office' is going to answer a question about averages from a promotion or team manager. That would come from someone much higher up and if it didn't, shame on the BSPA for letting a junior member of staff be responsible for responding to such an important point. To me, the blame lies fairly and squarely with the BSPA and their behind close doors, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours procedures where they never make a mistake and no-one is ever named as having made a decision so no-one is ever responsible.

I don't dispute that. The question is whether Sheffield knew that when they signed him, because they certainly didn't mention it. Word I got was that another club went after him but abandoned the plan because they thought he'd be a 7.00. It must be a possibility (which is why I qualified the original post)that Sheffield weren't aware of his dual nationality and signed him thinking he'd be a 5.00 anyway.

Based upon last years rules, no. 19.9.2.2 A current PL Rider under 25 years-old with a PL MA of 4.00 or below at the start of the Season.

I think there is some question over whether Simota will improve but there's no doubt that he was the most popular rider (apparently with everyone) at SBA last season, as is evidenced by the fact that he won a clutch of awards at the end of season presentation. There's definitely a case for keeping riders who are very popular with the crowd and its a brave promotion that dumps one of them. A lot depends on who the final two riders are - that will make or break the prospects for the season. Polish lad who does a few laps after most meetings as SBA.

Berwick & Somerset apparently didn't and its just possible that Sheffield didn't either. One or two seem to be suggesting that Somerset brought Holder in because they had BSPA authorisation that he would be a 5.00 and the latter now don't have the honesty to admit they got it wrong. To me, that's entirely believable. Its certainly their fault that no public statement regarding averages was made following (or before) the AGM which would have killed any argument stone dead. I think this is a matter of confusion rather than a deliberate attempt to break the rules - after all, who puts a rider in on a 5.00 knowing full well he's a 7.00 - and that's not down to Somerset.

Very impressed with Manzares at the back end of 2014. No reason why he can't go forward next season. Quite clearly you didn't see him at Sheffield. I thought the same thing last August and was proved totally wrong. To be fair, he's definitely better than that average and worth signing. The question will be whether he has decent machinery or not. If he has, then he could easily be a heat leader. If not, he won't improve that much.