False dawn

It was a very strange experience at Stoke last evening. As a (temporary) Leicester fan I always want my side to do well and their win was well fought and I believe, deserved. But there was always that feeling that these were the last ever heats to be raced on this excellent raceway. And I almost wanted the home side to do well, particularly those riders with a long association with the club. A going concern, cut down, maybe not in it's prime but still operating at a sustainable level. You can only come away from such meetings with a sense of loss, not just for the club itself, but for the sport in general.

What'll happen in the final if Stoke wins the semi final? Can they hold the home leg at a neutral venue?

I accept your premise that we should all respect the rule of law. However, the sense of many posts on here suggest that the authorities can only rule by consent. It is beholding on any ruling body, be it the law courts or the SCB, to be transparent in their rulings. We have the right to hold up their pronouncements to scrutiny and seek some justification for their rulings. Otherwise the authorities leave themselves open to accusations of inconsistency, incompetence or bias. In the current case, the only exception to such transparency can only be out of respect for the medical condition of the rider concerned. However, that seems strange since the said rider continues to compete and is clearly, in the eyes of the authorities, well enough not to be danger to himself or others. Please listen, Mr or Mrs SCB. By taking this high handed attitude to your constituents, you invite guesswork. And we all know where that ends up. Tell us the truth.

No, that won't do. At Birmingham tonight, heat 3 was won in a time exactly 10% slower than the track record. Subsequent to that there were 4 heats even slower than that. So even the heat winners fail that test meaning those races would be declared 0-0. And there must have been many riders in other heats outside the 10% limit. See how difficult it is to be prescriptive?

I think we're violently agreeing (note the date people - anything is possible!). But I did look up the definition of "to race"..... To compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective. I guess the only race you can race on your own, is against the clock. It's interesting you say "at usual race speeds". The only time constraint in the rules is to finish the race within 3 minutes. You cannot define usual racing speeds. I would like, sometimes, to penalise riders who finish a race in last place at less than racing speeds but I cannot imagine how you would phrase such a rule. Thankfully the 0-0, riders not trying etc. is a very rare occurrence. Enough said.

All valid eventualities, sort of. But the example I was alluding to was a rider who found himself the last "survivor" in a "race". Rather than complete 4 laps in around 60 seconds, decided to entertain the crowd by pulling a few wheelies. His race time would have been a few seconds longer, certainly under 70 seconds. Despite all of that, the ref invoked the "not making a bona-fide" clause and excluded him. I don't find that logical, by definition, since one can race when there is no one to race against?

Nah. He's only good for 18 points

He;s making a real contribution at Leicester in the Championship and famously said on TV recently that it isn't worth him getting out of bed to ride at Belle Vue.

If that is the rule, I've never seen it in action. A rider is always excluded beyond the first bend.

I hate to be the harbinger of doom, but as a Bees fan, your words are eerily familiar.

Do you know, I'm not entirely sure. I think the GP reserves don't come from the Challenge as they have previously, but I thought the qualifiers did. I see R&R has quoted the relevant rule.

If any two of Matej Zagar, NKI or Martin Vaculik finish in the top 8, then Anders Thomsen qualifies from the Challenge. If all three get into the top 8, then Pontus Aspgren also gets in.

Tonight was the 4th time this year.... Martin Vaculik tonight Matej Zagar in Mallila Antonio Lindback in Wrovclaw Robert Lambert in Krsko But not once in the previous two seasons.

I was, of course, trying to invoke an opinion on how you viewed the current Challenge purpose. That is, it's intended purpose rather than what the rules allow. I guess I'm arguing that under it's current set up / timing, it is not fit for purpose. The GP series allows for the top 8 to progress to the following year with the addition of the wildcards. Along side that we have a process to encourage the best "other" three in the World into the series. My point is, that having a parachute, mid series, for riders that won't otherwise qualify, seems to be against the spirit and intention of the Challenge route.

This is not a personal vendetta. I have nothing against NKI and Matej Zagar. Their world ranking and if they are in the current top 15 in the world is not the issue. The GP Challenge is supposed to be about giving 3 riders, not currently in the series, a route into next years WC. Is that wrong? Current GP riders have 8 places to shoot at, and if through exceptional circumstances they miss out, a further chance of being given a wildcard. I refer you to where this discussion started.....

On 30/9/1995 at 7:15 PM, Craig Boyce said: Tomasz Gollob

I guess I'll do what most politicians are doing just now, I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want riders coasting through the back half of the GP season, already knowing that they have a guaranteed place in next year's series.

I think I agree. But doesn't that support the argument that the Challenge should be after the GP season? The more current GP riders that take part in the plan B route, the more devalued the Challenge becomes. I know we still get 3 qualifiers from the Challenge, come what may. But we might have to go well down the finishing order to see who that is. And worse still, we won't know who those 3 are, on the night or potentially for many weeks. Surely the Challenge route was set up to provide a focused route for the top three riders to get into the GP series? Not as a safety net for riders in the middle and lower order of the current series.

It's not Coventry! The Middlesbrough Middlesborough quip was a real story, I think (??). I'm sure I remember one of their last team managers (or at least a member of management) getting a set of body colours made with the wrong spelling. He left the club shortly after.

You spell it like that and you'll get the sack as the team manager!

Thanks Steve. The rule was quoted at the time and yes, by-the-book, the ref was correct. But it's odd isn't it? Watching one rider, riding for a 3-0 is not very entertaining is it? But seeing the same rider doing one handed wheelies and waving to the crowd makes everyone smile. Ho hum.

Thanks for that confirmation. I'm only usually wrong when I think I was wrong. Seriously, I started to convince myself that it was that other American Billy Janniro. And I agree with you. How can a ref exclude a rider for not racing when he's the only competitor left in the race?

This might be all wrong. It's an age thing...... Wasn't it Rick Miller that was the only rider to finish a race at Brandon only to find he'd been excluded for not trying. He spent most of the race performing wheelies for the crowd. That was a 0-0.

Get rid of those silly silencers and go back to wooden rattles (for the fans, not the bikes).

Given that the "easiest" target audience is the "I used to go" brigade, why don't you advertise the NSS as "You remember how good it was at Hyde Road, well this is better". I think it's open to debate, but who cares? As long they come. Then they'll stay.