Rob VDS

So you think then that Dak was in on this fairytale as well then? That he was happy to be replaced in one of the biggest meetings of the season with his dad's accident used as an excuse. Cos if it was a fairytale he would definitely have to be on board with it. Doesn't sound likely to me. Maybe you should hold back on the insults and look closely at what you're saying.

Fair post until you got to the last paragraph. Not even going to humour the growing up around poole bit. What I will say that if he's aware that he'd have the disadvantage of going off 15m by missing the 2 minutes surely he would have been aware that he would potentially get excluded for riding without them, surely a worse penalty than going off a handicap? Can't have it both ways.

Well yes I would say that it is the referee's job to stop him. Look whatever happens happens whether it's nothing or BV being crowned champions and everything inbetween. Whichever way one side is going to be treated harshly due to the referee and SCBs incompetence.

No the best case scenario and what should have happened is that the referee spots Kyle wasn't ready to race at 2 minutes and excluded him. The race then rerun with all 4 back and Kyle off 15m. Somebody not wearing goggles is easier to spot that other issues with the bike especially as he held up the start for 60 seconds trying to fix them! I never thought of referring to wacky races silly me. I think the relevant word when it comes to cheating is intent. Did kyle intend to cheat when he made the decision to proceed with the race without the goggles? Obviously open to debate but for me he made a snap decision based on the circumstances, and it was definitely not something planned.

So basically in this case it is in BVs best interest to appeal after the meeting rather than it being identified at the time? Had the ref spotted it we'd have had a race with 4 riders. But by appealing after the event then the Poole rider is deemed not to have been in the race? Not saying you're wrong but doesn't seem very fair to me.

They didn't take place in an EL final? Lol I don't know mate. Just trying to ascertain what would be a realistic outcome to all this sh*t

And as I said earlier is that actually cheating? By definition cheating means getting an advantage through foul means. Breaking the rules is different as this can more often than not be unintentional and done without realising.

Except one instance is cheating to get a clear advantage and the other isn't! Going round in circles now so let's see what happens 👍

The difference being of course is that had the officials been aware of Kennett and Lamberts illegal equipment I assume they would have been barred from riding and therefore have no chance of earning points. In addition you could claim that these two cases they were clearly getting an advantage through their illegal set up. Had the officials been aware of the lack of goggles they would have sent kyle back to the pits and he would have missed the 2 mins and been off 15m therefore still having the chance to win points. You can't compare those situations.

Can anyone come up with a fair retrospective penalty for this situation? Taking into account that all 4 riders would have been involved albeit one off 15 metres? What can the SCB do? My own view is that a fine for Newman and a change to the rulebook is pretty much all they can do.

I would agree with all of that 100%

The problem is that had the ref spotted it kyle would have gone off 15m and therefore still in with a shout of getting points. As I said earlier had any exclusion meant poole were down to 1 rider then clearly you can see that leaving the 5-1 in place would be unfair. With all 4 riders in the heat any result is technically possible so how can the SCB make a judgement on what the result would have been? I agree that BV will see that as unfair but the ref messed this up as did the SCB by not dealing with it before the 2nd leg

I guess you'd have to ask yourself in that case whether it was actually a cheat.

I agree but the can only change a result where they can be sure what the result should have been. For example if the exclusion had led to poole having 1 rider then clearly a poole 5-1 wouldn't have been possible. However as all 4 riders would still have been in the race had the correct process been followed I don't see how they can predict the result as all scores were technically possible

Wow. Hope you feel better after getting that rubbish off your chest. Just out of interest what action would you like the SCB to take?

I'm pretty sure that if there's no perceived advantage then it cannot be cheating. In fact I've just looked it up and to have cheated you must have been intending to get an advantage.

Well in that case it's hardly a precedent then. Not wearing goggles can hardly be compared to using performance enhancing equipment.

Horton must go to Mdmc for his info I reckon 😆

I agree totally the SCB have cocked this up by not doing anything before the 2nd leg. My only query is that can they really deduct 2 points if, had the correct procedure been followed, kyle would have been in the rerun, albeit with a handicap. It's a difficult one, but I really can't see a deduction. Maybe a fine for Kyle and a change to the rulebook?

Bonus points. Riders get them for coming behind their teammate in a scoring position. So for example where a rider wins a race and his teammate comes second, the guy coming 2nd gets a bonus point therefore 2+1. I should point out its only where teammates cone 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd. No bonus points for 1st and 3rd.

Lol maybe. But still?

Hardly illegal kit, more like illegal set up to race. Forgive my ignorance but was Kennetts offence with the silencer performance enhancing? Would it make him faster?

As I said earlier I can't see how a points deduction is appropriate in this instance. If the correct decision had been made the race would still have had 4 riders and Kyle would have had a decent chance of catching the BV riders on that night. The rulebook is typically vague also. If any punishment is handed out I can only see a fine for kyle or a telling off for the ref

Hang on surely the point of any penalty award is to put the position back as if the error had not been made (note error and not poole cheating). In this case the correct decision would have been to exclude kyle under the 2 minute ruling and the heat re-run with him off 15m. Therefore you still have a race with all 4 riders and all scorelines possible. Had it been a scenario where poole only had 1 rider then yes, it's perfectly reasonable to alter the heat score although how you decide on 3 all, 5-1 or 4-2 is beyond me.

Fair enough but wouldn't kyle have gone off 15m? The way he was riding who's to say he couldn't have chased the BV riders down? BV deserve huge credit for contributing to a fabulous final and can count themselves unlucky.