szkocjasid

I was expecting to read a Batchelor comment after that lol!

Because he is "refusing to ride / withholding his services" whether he's suffering from mental health or not the outcome is the same - he refused to ride, Edinburgh can't force him to (nor would they want to) & can't use a guest without a facility. Now if Cook didn't feel he could ride because of mental health issues, all he'd need to do is visit a doctor & get signed off (I sincerely hope he would visit a doctor, forget about his team - for his own well being, if he needed to) however this would have allowed Edinburgh a facility & they wouldn't have had to report him for "withholding his services"

I'd have to disagree, surely the aim of anyone suffering from mental health, is to either get better or learn to cope (perhaps with medication) with it and get back to normality, doing what you love. So I really hope this isn't the last we've seen of Cook.

I personally don't understand the point of this guest restriction in the play-offs. For example; 1) in the BSN series Jason Edwards can guest for group rivals & risk knocking his own side out - deemed acceptable by the rule makers! 2) Josh Pickering can guest for one of his clubs rivals for 6th spot & risk his own side dropping down to 7th - deemed acceptable by the rule makers! 3) yet a rider from group A, guesting in group B, which means it can't affect his own team whatsoever - not allowed by the rule makers!

But that doesn't explain why Redcar have organised a testimonial before the KOC S/F date?

If true, that would have been an idiotic move by Oxford imo. Risking reaching the grand final by picking the best team in the league rather than choosing Edinburgh!

I think they are not allowed to chance the riding order, buy can't see why they can't move the r/r around?

Assuming Sam McGurk pulled out after a fall in the first match, Workington should have moved r/r to cover him, would have meant Harrison eligible for an extra ride (providing they get to heat 14).

I assume you would do the same with every other safety check, if a rider says the track is unsafe - it can be inspected. If the air fence doesn't look safe - it can be inspected, so I'd assume the same must be the same for tyres? Otherwise your comment that the ref "had to continue with the meeting to find out and was proven right and no other issues were raised" could be used whenever a match is called off, how can they decide a track is unsafe without starting the match?

Think you're being a bit harsh on Glasgow's reserves, not as strong as some teams, but they both have 3.5(ish) averages, it's not like they have sub 2.00 aves.

Poole didn't win the league, they topped the qualifying table. I think that should mean they are league champions, but they are not (yet?) I don't think the jumped the gun announcing a match on Wednesday, for example Redcar & Scunthorpe may have both agreed to go to Poole or Oxford on Wednesday, depending who picked them. You'd think Poole would choose Edinburgh, but I really can't decide between Redcar & Scunthorpe, who is the better option to race against?

Can Redcar use their track twice in a week? Since the KOC S/F (& possibly final) plus play-offs need to be arranged, I'm surprised this date was allowed. Hopefully for Robbo's sake it isn't cancelled again

But surely you don't want to carry on with the meeting & wait till a rider gets seriously injured before realising something is wrong with the tyres?

I don't really know the goings on at Plymouth, but surely if any rider spoke to the referee about their concerns over tyre safety, it's his duty to inspect them or ask machine examiner to before starting any more races?

Possible Leicester teams: 1. Chris Harris 9.30 2. Vadim Tarasenko 5.00 3. Jake Allen 6.91 4. Drew Kemp 5.11 5. Justin Sedgmen 7.22 6. Henry Atkins 4.40 7. Ashton Boughen 2.00 1. Lewis Kerr 8.36 2. Drew Kemp 5.12 3. Justin Sedgmen 7.22 4. Jake Allen 6.91 5. Kyle Howarth 8.08 6. Ashton Boughen 2.00 7. Max Perry 2.00

I had thought that, but reading what Worrall said made me think they can give 2 samples?

That was my thought too, if he gave a sample the next day, he's proved he was clean on Wednesday, but not Tuesday? Although his comments about them not allowing him to give a second sample must be his best argument, if they've not followed the correct testing protocol, how can they suspend him?

Do you mean Jordan Palin? I thought he was taking a year out due to a head injury?

I find it very hard to imagine Poole & Oxford picking each other, thought they are bound to want to save that for the final?

I wasn't blaming Poole tbh, of course they want to be strong. More saying two equally weak teams can produce a close match, thus being more entertaining than seeing a stronger team.

Joe was certainly unlucky to be dropped by Scunthorpe, but both of them were not scoring well at Birmingham, so can't complain about that. I know Brummies replacements haven't done great, but that doesn't deflect from the fact if Joe & James had ridden like this, they wouldn't have been dropped by the Brummies. Well done to both lads for finding their form now!

Does it matter who thought it up, gotta be voted in by the majority right?

I thought exactly the same thing, expecting more random testing before the season is over

1) he's innocent until test is proven positive (not non-negative) 2) if guilty, can they prove when a banned substance was taken?

That's the thing, it's still a draw though. If they really don't want draws, just make it 2 for a winning superheat, 0 for a losing superheat. Personally I see nothing wrong with draws & think the super heat is unnecessary