Alan_Jones

Wally Loak. The only one I ever bought was the Mildenhall meeting where Mel Taylor stole the NL title from the Rockets.

She's probably got more common sense than Bates.

The law wouldn't come into it. There hasn't been a restriction on GP riders in the 2nd division since 2013. The only thing that would have had an effect was the "current CL average" restriction which has now been quashed.

They can.

No it wouldn't. We genuinely perfect people wouldn't have anything to be pretentious about.

I look forward to the days of total equality when everyone in a race gets 3 points and Jon Armstrong can see out his career in the junior championships.

Not sure if he does much oval racing these days but he got seriously into grasstrack last season which is mainly a Sunday sport.

Good plan, apart from the fact that Rye House meetings will be on Mondays & Wednesdays.

Sloppy posting on my part. I was talking about riders dropping down who, until last season's change, wouldn't have had a 2nd division average and therefore wouldn't have been allowed. As far as being the same rule goes, the wording has changed with nearly every issue in the last few years so little wonder that everyone struggles to keep up, although last year's free for all was the major cock up which caused the situation of the last few months.

No, it used be that no rider with a top league average over 6 could ride in the lower league at all.

There isn't, which is immaterial as the disputed part of the rule is the existence of a valid CL average, which they don't have.

It was easily sorted for 20-odd years. Over 6? No deal, no exceptions.

Whoever suggested that doesn't have a clue.

...and none of it in the 50s.

They are.

The same as has always happened until last season. He can't.

If that's the case then it's a bad decision which is at least consistent with the awful decisions that caused the situation.

They aren't.

Len Silver presented Anders Rowe with his Pocket Rocket race jacket, with the number 1/2, when he was about 9 or 10 and said several times that he'd sign him as soon as he was old enough.

It's not a new rule, it's the reintroduction of a long standing rule. The mistake was in removing it for last season which only added to the disasterous level of doubling up. According to the BSPA statement it was reintroduced to regain a measure of control, but if that was the case then it should have reverted to it's original intent of blocking all riders over 6, with or without a CL average.

Where have they stated that? Someone on the end of the phone saying it "seems like" a valid case isn't really a ringing endorsement is it? And to the Edinburgh fans, the fact that the regulations allow for the right of appeal doesn't mean that one is automatically successful.

Were they though? A telephone call which concludes that Becker's case "seemed to" meet the criteria bears as much weight as the infamous Rathbone-Godfrey conversation if no formal application was made. How? The extract from the Sponsored Migrants Policy below shows that Becker fails the 1st of the bullet pointed conditions. The BSPA will consider applications for discretionary endorsements for riders who do not meet the above requirements on an individual discretionary basis. Decisions will be made by the BSPA Management Committee who will consider written applications from the club and/or rider concerned. The Management Committee will give written reasons for their decision. Factors to be taken into account when making a discretionary decision will be: whether the riders record in Speedway has been at the highest level and they will contribute significantly to the development of the sport whether exceptional factors prevented the rider from meeting the aforementioned endorsement requirements