SCB

Britain is going to get a wildcard at the GP challenge at Poole this season, if that rider fails to qualify but finishes 4th or 5th they may be able to justify a place. Bomber like Poole, so you never know

Also find it funny that Scott Nicholls, who would have been GP wildcard suing the old British final rule is already out of the GP qualifiers having failed to finish i the top 10 in a pretty weak field!

The tattoo is just wrong IMO. Tattos in the right place can work but I dont think Tais works. I like the ears though, if I wasnt just a girl Id love to have ti done myself.

I am, because it's a sport. What would you have said if Emil had got the the first bend and fell off? "Don't exclude him I want to see 4 riders"? The rules are you stay on your bike, don't know anyone else off and don't touch the tapes. Do any of them things and you're booted out. Winning a GP is more than being able to ride a bike very fast for 4 laps, I'm willing to bet theres many riders could do that but doing it knowing it the pressure of a GP final, making s start, not jumping the start and not riding the rider rather than the race is what make a speedway rider a GP winner and not just a very good rider.

I can only begin to imagine the feet stamping, moaning and claims the PL fans would make if this was an EL meeting. A rider missing on each team? Ascot people saying it makes the sport look a shambles on Sky, why? They're not going to mention tbe reasons why and go into detail so the casual fan will never know anyway. Looking forward to a bit of egg and chips later.

Ward is the certainty IMO. After that, not sure yet

That. I prefer the tac sub. I don't like TRs but TRs are not more unfair than TSs.

That makes no sense what so ever. Firstly you say a 3-3 becomes an 8-1, how? Let's assume you win the race it's a 6-3. Are you really suggesting that if Sheffield give Jake Knight a TR he'll win the race but without a TR he'll come last? All the TR does us double one riders points, if he's scores 6 he would have scored 3 anyway. Difference of 3, it can ONLY be a maximum of 3 points gained. As for a tac sub going from 3-3 to 5-1. You're right, it could if you were already going to win tbe race, let's accept that true and you replace 1 rider, you go from scoring 3 to scoring 5 do gain 2 points but your opposition go from scoring 3 to scoring 1 so lose 2. You gain 2, they lose 2, that's 4 points. But you could use 2 TSs in a race do going from 1-5 to 5-1 is 4 more for you and 4 less for them, a swing of 8. No, under the old rules Peterborough would have had to take 5 points off Reading (Readings 94-5 is 89). Do you think Hans and Sullivan would not have been able to win a couple of tac sub rides. Ostergaard would not have been in heat 12 for a start, there's 2 points gained.

If you're 10 down, an 8-1 makes you 3 down. But you'd have got a 5-1 anyway and only been 6 down. Swing of 3 points. You're 6 down, you use two TSs and get a 5-1 so you're now 2 down but without the TSs you get 5-1d and you're then 10 down. A swing of 8. TRs make a difference of 3, with old TS makes a difference of 8. Now which is better?

I do think it's a good idea but it's a big change and its been missed out of the rulebook, what else has been missed out and only a handful of people know of it?

Flipping heck, it looks like someone is trying something different and going about it the right way. As yet i cant find anything to moan about! I hope it's a great success.

But bikers can't go out and buy a Jawa or a GM like they see on the race track so it means very little to them. Speedway is an odd motorsport i that the bikes are not the attraction.

What rules is that? The only rule they have ultimate power is for team declarations.

So tonight we have the scenrio where Jason Doyle will be riding for his EL club and not his PL. Apparently because his EL booking was made first, which you might think is ok but the rules don't mention this happening, PL always comes first. You might say, "thats fine, it's fair" but you then have the issue of the rule book not allow a facility for a rider who is riding for his EL club, so should Somerset not have to use a 3 point junior at number 1 now? Then you have the opposition who have Olly Allen guesting for Simon Stead, you might think thats fine but Olly cannot guest for Simon in the EL as one of his EL or PL averages in higher than Simons (EL average for the record), so why if Simon is missing in the EL do Kings Lynn have to have a guest with a lower EL and PL average but if Simon is missing in the PL then his PL team only have to use PL averages?

He's more talented?

Would that be Ed Kennett who averaged a point lower than Jason Doyle in last years EL, with and without bonus points.

Just what rule is being used that means 1) Doyle should ride EL and 2) That Somerset can have a guest?

Ive also gone with Miskowiak to outscore Alden. Alden is due a poor meeting. Fancy a Poole win too but wasnt confident enough to put money on it.

One GP, so 5, 6 or 7 rides is not going to turn someone from good to excellent. If he wants to improve why not ride in Sweden and/or Poland? Just throwing someone in a one off GP will not make them a GP worthy rider.

Exactly, it would be "old rider", "past it", "never has been", "had his chance", "relied on charity". He is no different to Bomber but it had to be one of them two, Bomber probably steals it because of his GP win - yes before anyone says it, he is still dining on that but until another British rider can beat him, that GP win will always tip him over the edge when it comes down to being a close run thing as it currently is between Scott and Bomber. the likes of Kennett, King and Cook are not even in it atm IMO.

Well Done Bomber on scoring the 2nd most number of points and being British number 2, oh, wait! Nicholls = 8 seasons in the GPs and 3 wildcardsHarris = 6 seasons in the GPs and 1 wildcard (technically, a late injury call up/reserve) Harris qualified once, Scott twice. Looks to me they're about the same level, Bomber once finished 4th (5th on a technicality) while Scott managed 7th. But Harris has not had "far more changed to impress than Nicholls". I don't see how any one can argue for one and not the other (or against one and not the other). They're equally as deserving/undeserving. But one of them has won a British GP and that will always help sell it to the media rather than the guy who once made a final and plowed through the tapes. Chris has been lucky he riding in an era where he is the only Brit even remotely capable of being a GP rider so got it by virtue of being the best of a bad bunch but thats hardly his fault. Scott was similar before him and was then unlucky that Bomber come along and won a GP.

I believe Tyson Barber is his real name. Interesting that hew couldn't get a work permit as Tyson Barber and he then wanted to be known as Nelson (not even his real surname) so why all the secrecy? As for riders riding under fake names, Sam Ermolenko is actually Guy Allen Ermolenko and Mark Burrows is actually Dermot Burrows.

Riders do NOT score points in the semi-final. Head-to-head is simple who beats who in the overall standings and finishing 3rd in the semi on 8 points is better than 4th in the semi with 12 points.

You don't get points in the semi and final. It then comes down to a straight who beats who, just like better on who is going to win the final so how is it any different? Surely better on who is going to win the meeting is stupid as you dont know which 4 riders are going to be in the final using your logic.

They are, who is not going to get 5 rides?