Wee Eck

He wasn’t. He was a “long term injury” replacement to cover for Max Fricke’s “long term injury”. A dubious move in many people’s opinion which is why it’s been stopped for this year.

I was just writing Steve Shovlar’s piece to save him having to do it. I should have added “this hugely strengthens Glasgow against a weakened side still bedding in Joe Thompson”!

Have you seen his scores for Peterborough? Plymouth likely to be a challenge for sure but the smooth and fast Wimborne Road should be pretty easy for him…..

Not serious or not a wind up?

But it’s a good question! I’d have thought it should be 28 days but from when? Offence or conviction? And didn’t Poole use guests for Darcy Ward for the rest of the season after he was banned in 2014?

It’s nothing to do with geography. Whoever ends up top will pick the 6th team whether that’s Edinburgh or Birmingham as they look equally vulnerable home and away

I think you’ll find that he did provide a first sample. I think you might also want to wonder why there were two charges against, albeit one being dropped after he pled guilty to the first. But, as someone else has said, it’s all academic - Nick has been banned and fined and nothing will change that

Apologies for mixing up the two but, as I said, Nick did provide a non-negative test in a form that concerned the tester who then decided to retest Nick. It was the retest that Nick declined.

I’m not sure that’s correct - the result can be negative, non-negative or positive as per WADA: Put simply, a non-negative test is one that is not definitively negative. There are several reasons why this could occur. The sample could be adulterated, substituted, invalid or positive, but further testing needs to happen to make a final determination. The suggestion is that Nick’s first test was non-negative, so not clearly negative. He was asked for a second sample which he refused and, as a consequence, was charged under SR 08.2.1 - Failing to provide a specimen. It follows that he did not provide a positive sample but his refusal of the second test is deemed to be akin to testing positive.

My goodness that’s a very old movie!

Adam was only ever signed on a short term contract but he and Birmingham were told not to publicise that. Both he and Birmingham speedway knew that, as soon as Poland started, he wouldn’t be able to continue with the Brummies. Why the veil of silence is anyone’s guess but Adam took a lot of stick for no good reason. Indeed, he should have been applauded for helping a team in desperate need in the best way he could.

Have you a link?

What would it costs to be in the meeting and what are the pay rates?

I’m not sure he was. Masters, Nicholls Douglas and Harris were higher.- and still are

Being a demented subscriber with limited intelligence, I’m unable to understand your argument. Could you expand please, to help limit my dementia and increase my intelligence? TIA

Do I take it you disagree with my opinion?

The point that was being made was that the poster was objecting to the other riders being allowed to go back into the pits. I was simply trying to explain my view that doing so was fair and not allowing them to had the potential to give the faller an unfair advantage.

Ok. So Freddie gets to put a fresh tyre on and put new clutch plates in while the others have to use their existing ones? Why should the faller get an advantage?

Why should Freddie get the benefit of having his mechanics work on the bike when the other three don’t?

I doubt we’ll ever know which riders were asked unless you speak directly to them or they choose to go public

I share the huge disappointment about last night’s result - the (very) recent successes of the GB Team since the current management took over has increased expectations, all of which were shattered last night. The silly and spiteful comments about Neil Vatcher however are, in my view, misplaced. Who cares whether or not he’s ever ridden a speedway bike? Has Peter Adams? Stewart Dickson? How would having ridden a bike have helped last night? This was not our strongest team but that was down to availability and willingness to ride. Latvia is a long way if you’ve got to take yourself and your bikes there and many riders weren’t willing to make the trip. Hats off to those that did travel there. The riders and the management. Especially the management because, unlike the riders, they weren’t being paid.

Talk about entitled. Does he really think that the views of a top league second string and lower league third ranked heat leader will make the sports authorities change what has been for donkey’s years a one off event, albeit some years had qualifiers? And why leave it until four days before the event to make his grand gesture? The days of vast numbers turning out regularly for individual events are long gone so he must either be making too much money to be in need of an extra pay day or else has something else on and is trying to weasel out of this commitment in a way that masks the reality - he’s letting Leicester and Plymouth supporters down.

Perhaps Buster’s need to reduce rider costs has impacted on Artem’s performance?

You did. First you said “wouldn’t go to Poole if you paid my entrance……dump” then said “Obviously been there before, hated it”. Or are you now saying you didn’t mind the stadium but the track was a “dump”? (I’ve read tracks being called many things before but never a dump”.

There’s a bit of truth in both of these. First of all, it was Mike Golding and Matt Ford who bought Poole in the late 1990s (I think). It has been well supported over the years but that hasn’t stopped promotions going bust (ask Reg Fearman/Neil Middleditch) I have no knowledge of Mike Golding’s talent spotting but am happy to take your word, However, he stepped down as a promoter in 2007 or 2008 so the current “talent” spotting has to be down to Matt Ford. Would Poole have been as successful with any other promoters? Who knows.