Roger Jacobs

It's on BSN ...

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=hellstrom-bangs+ban 😉

They will be able to replace Nicholls with Jeppesen ...

You are joking! As Jan Staechmann pointed out, there aren't any brakes. You can see Harrison trying to pull back/away, but he was accelerating out of the bend taking a natural line, while Rushen (who took one long look, and then a second glance), had moved across from the natural line. I doubt any rider would have expected him to be there. Harrison had no chance - neither did Scott - or do you think he should have navigated his way past?!

Difficult to make a judgement when you're not there to see it. On Live Updates, Squall, who is a very respected texter, certainly thought King was at fault, and I'm not going to question his view. PS: there's a big difference between a dangerous track and dangerous riding.

BSN said that the Ref didn't look at the replays. Jan Staechmann said he was astonished by the Ref's decision not to exclude Rushen, because it was clear he had turned left, and Harrison had little to no chance of avoiding him. I appreciate Rushen has got to learn, but in the first meeting at Foxhall I saw him take an odd line on the second bend and he was within the veritable whisker of wiping out Scott Nicholls. Rushen is very talented, no doubt, but needs to reign in the "enthusiasm". Harrison was very impressive when speaking, and his riding so far has been very measured. As for your comment "maybe not have patchy grip when the younger kids are out" - how on earth would you manage that?!

Yes. Last night was one of the rare occasions where a rider and their team was deprived of at least one point because the rider could not compete in the rerun through no fault of their own. I think there's a case for the Regs to enable the third rider and their team to have a point awarded, e.g. last night Scott would be given third place behind Thomson and Rushen, meaning a 4-2 to the Foxes. In the extreme example of two riders missing, then they and their team(s) could be awarded 1.5 points each.

These are the Regs I think are poorly written and contradictory: "010.2.1 Established MA's ... These MA’s will remain affective for team building, team positioning, facilities, until new MA’s become effective. The most recently established MA will be used. If a rider has an established MA in both the Premiership and Championship Leagues, established in the same season, that leagues MA will apply to that league. To be effective 7 days after the last qualifying meeting." "011.4.2 Guest Rider (G) Replaces an absent regular team member subject to the following: - c) the guest must be in a current team declaration and have an established MA. The MA must be the same or lower than that of the absent rider. If a rider has an established MA in both Premiership and Championship leagues the MA for the league for which the rider is guesting, will be used. If the rider does not have an established MA in that particular league then the conversion factor of 1.5 will apply." I assume the get-out is the bold wording in 010.2.1, while the italicised wording applies to double-uppers-downers who will have two MAs from June onwards. This is because the italicised wording in 011.4.2 is clear that if the rider has an Established MA in both leagues, then the appropriate league's MA will apply. Therefore, 011.4.2 needs to be written to agree directly with 010.2.1, rather than rely on cross-reference interpretation.

Scoring half a team's points across 16 heats is impressive enough without it being a full maximum, which is an amazingly rare occurrence.

Confirmed on the Witches website that Lawson didn’t pack his Kevlars or boots when moving his kit from his conked-out van to Fraser Bowes’ van. Ipswich rang round and found someone who had bought an old pair of Heeps’ Kevlars and was happy for Lawson to use them. It doesn’t say whether they needed to put a couple of tucks in them round the middle 😉

The Regulations around this are written poorly, I’m sure they can be interpreted whatever way is necessary.

Excellent effort!

Well said. Reform either don't bother with facts or just lie (some of the things they claim they can do at Council level simply are not true) - they've made no difference in Councils that they've taken over. In Kent, they've lost 10 of their elected councillors within a year, and it's an absolute mess there. Tories have faded away. Suffolk County Council is full of Tory old boys who look after their own interests. It needs a shake-up, but with people who have a genuine concept of what can actually be done at County level. No change for Ipswich, because 7 May is not a Borough/District election. Some people have no idea of the difference.

Sounds plausible, but the usual ambiguous get out. I can't see anything in the Regs which supports that approach.

https://fimspeedway.com/news/hellstrom-bangs-swedish-league-ban-halved I think at the time of this article, he was only lined-up for the Swedish League, but the ban extends to all speedway.