I was thinking something similar myself regarding the Rowe situation. Is Anders definitely serving a 28 day ban now though or are we just assuming that’s the case because Leicester have been granted a facility?
Must admit I didn’t think/realise the whole “withholding services” rule was intended for circumstances like this where the rider has left the club permanently and seemingly by mutual agreement. I thought it was to prevent riders picking and choosing which meetings to attend or effectively going on strike to get their own way about something. Even then clubs occasionally do allow riders to be absent riding in un-sanctioned meetings where a facility isn’t granted and they have to use NL guests with no bans handed out. Plus we have riders not returning from meetings abroad when they’re meant to and only getting 14 day bans.
I’m not against a temporary facility being granted for Leicester, not their fault after all and they need time to find a solution. I’m just questioning whether a rider ban has to follow and whether it has to be for 28 days?
It does seem a very one sided rule if that is the case. I.e, if a club can replace a rider without notice and without consequence why can’t the rider leave the club on exactly the same terms?
Assuming Anders is banned and wants to continue riding elsewhere in the UK does anyone know if he can he sign (but not ride) for another club before the ban is up and before his average increases or does the ban include all forms of activity?