Vincent Blachshadow

Not exactly similar. The Champions League is a restructuring of the European Cup which always has been settled by a one-off match. How the teams get through the qualifying stages is what's been changed.

A calculated risk by Sky. If speedway isn't shown some new sport will most probably fill the void - there's not a lot of football every other June and July. If that sport's devotees take out Sky/add Sky Sports packages as I'm sure some speedway fans did 15 or so years ago, there won't be much difference to Sky's income.

Or a one legged final at a neutral track. Then we would be somewhere near most, if not all, of these other sports that have play-offs.

At the risk of 'prejudicing' this particular case, isn't it weird that folk were allowed to post on here that drug-taking should be legalised and that Lee should have been left in peace with his cannabis and amphetamines but god help anyone mentioning it here now.

Poole riders were at the BV track telling the world there was no problem, not accepting the situation and laying down. Slightly different to shrugging shoulders and going along with it.

They should have pointed out there is no facility within the rules to allow a cancellation for the reasons given and that they want the match ridden. Ford would more than likely have called the match off anyway but, with the opposition putting in an objection the MC would have had no alternative but to hold an inquiry, not sweep the whole thing under the carpet as Lakeside's capitulation allowed them to.

That's because they don't want to stop it. It even allows the situation where a previously injured rider, ready to come back into the team, is told to 'take another match off' to allow a track-specialist to be utilised at an away track in his place.

Why is the onus on the BSPA to address Lee's drug problem and finding out why he did it? There's plenty of channels he can go down to do that for himself - it's not as if he hasn't had the opportunity in the past. Oh, and it's no mistake. He deliberately smokes and, according to his brief, takes an amphetamine or two to counteract the pot so he can keep working on other riders' engines.

Swindon fans might not agree here!

Is that not already happening in speedway? Has it not happened before? Peterborough 45 Birmingham 45. Peterborough 1 point, Birmingham 2 points. Remember the bonus point? We got more at your place than you got at our's so we get the extra point. And that's not just a tie-break, it can decide play-off qualification or even the Championship. How about the old tac ride - Panthers' won the Championship utilising extra points never available to the opposition. At least both teams have the extra 30 minutes when extra-time is played.

Sorry mate, poor reply to a good post. Somebody has to progress in a cup-tie.

Pleased to see you included the few pints there. We all know that the effects of the beer will wear off quite shortly and, by the next evening the rider should be ok riding. Not so the weed, that stays in the system a considerable while longer - up to seven days, if I remember what a fellow forumite (working in the offender system on the drug side of things) told me. Maybe that's why the law is as it is, because of the length of time the stuff stays in your system and impairs reactions.

So does that make it ok for a rider to have his recreational got home after the match joint, followed by an amphetamine or two to keep him going so as he can see to his bike in readiness for the next evening's match?

According to his brief he was using speed to keep him going whilst tuning and building engines for sporting motorcycles. Not impacting on others? Being illegal DOES make it wrong. We can't pick and choose which laws each of us abides by.

So we know that something is going up now, but not necessarily what's included.

Are these builders appointed for the entire project or just for the speedway stadium part of it?

Yes, sorry, two seasons. Even so, I'd have thought that, given all the support there is in Poole for youngsters, that a second team would have proved a workable proposition, especially since the Wildcats closed down.

So much that the NL team lasted one whole (Championship-winning) season.

But it's not a 'news'paper giving information which will be old news tomorrow. It's a 'match magazine' giving current info (which, in most cases, will remain 'current' until after the next match) and a few general details on that day's visitors. As long as the magazine is reissued for the next match and the 'today's visitors' pages are updated with an insert I really can't see the problem. Maybe promoters should re-label them as match magazines, miss the opponents off of the front cover and give them a match number instead. These cost money to print and I'm surprised that speedway fans would prefer it if postponed match programmes are dumped rather than re-issued asap. I don't know programme printing costs but I'd imagine a year as bad as last year would have cost each promoter thousands. The sport can really afford that, can't it!

Whether or not it's a rip-off would depend on what's in the programme. Most are very home club orientated with their results, averages, a report from the last match or two, some blurb from promoters, team manager, a rider or two. Then some info on the opponents for that match. If it's from the previous match then the home team blurb is the same - nothing's altered, no changes in statistics, just a rain-off to report on - so if the insert provides the info on that day's opponents with the relevant race-card I can't see a problem. Again, whether or not that's acceptable is up to the individual but, not following a particular team, I don't go into one if the 'wrong' opponents feature on the front cover as long as I know why. Where I do see a problem is if it's the programme from the match originally postponed two months back re-issued with just a race-card for the new day and no other additions. Outdated statistics, missing results, missing info for the three riders signed by the opposition since the postponement. To me, that's a rip-off.

I didn't say it was acceptable, just common practice and, off hand, I would say I've had rain-off re-issues at half our tracks atm. The sport hasn't got money to throw away so I suppose I just accept it. One of the guys that accompanies me now and again always asks for his money back if such programmes are issued for the match and he's never had any problem - a lot of moaning sometimes, but not a problem. I carry several blank print-outs with me and he uses one of them instead. I believe the sport has far greater issues to sort out before the subject of programmes from rain-offs would come up for discussion.

Since this is common practise, why should 'the promotion' be ashamed in this instance?

They are listening though. Have a read of the various threads. The play-offs are great - they're in. There's no way around the guest system (especially for #1s) - you've got them. Two leagues, keep the total average low to give every team a chance - that's how it is. Spread the top riders around - sort of got it, if you forget the turbo twins. Keep artificial help-the-hammered schemes and the t/r is fairer than tac subs - bingo. Most of us are in favour of some of those but against others. There's no way everybody will agree to everything. At the end of the day the promoters are the ones risking their cash so, rightly, they should be the ones making the rules. What is needed is a way to make sure those rules apply equally to all teams, are stuck to and the same punishments handed out to transgressors, whoever they are.

I've got quite a few such programmes from a variety of tracks and they're not all recent ones. It's common practice. I suppose it depends on your point of view (and probably what you think of the promoter in question) but what's preferable, a re-issue from the previous match with an insert or the programme from the match between the same teams postponed two or three months previously? Course, the promoters could just dump the programmes from a postponed match and lump the loss but they're losing enough already.

They went before the end of the match. Maybe they found it boring or didn't take to it, maybe they felt their time would be better spent in their local pub, I don't know. What I do know is they didn't think much to that rule and told me so and left not long after. I never posted they left because of the rule but that, despite the fact the extra points gave the visiting team a chance of getting a point in heat 15 these folk weren't there to see it. Sorry if they didn't agree with some posters' opinions of that rule but there you go - not everybody does.