arnieg Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 7 minutes ago, LisaColette said: Family emergency is a bit different to catching colds! But it does seem a logical inconsistency. Seven days out if you are ill, but no days out if a family member is ill. Are we heading for a rash of riders missing meetings because their mother-in-law is poorly? 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilTheAce Posted July 4 Report Share Posted July 4 1 hour ago, InTheDeepStuff said: Or a rider owed wages 🤷♂️ I think they guy left at home feels the same to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thbender Posted July 5 Author Report Share Posted July 5 16 hours ago, Gambo95 said: As long as he gets a ban for the meeting on Monday, I'll be happy. Craig Cook has been banned 2 times this season for missing meetings for a non speedway injury. Was disappointed last week's Glasgow v Scunthorpe meeting was cancelled as I wanted to see if Jake Allen was banned for missing Scunthorpe's meeting the previous Friday. You'd have to have a heart of stone to ban a guy for attending to the needs of a sick child. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cue Ball Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 No idea what the family emergency was, but if it was your child being taken to hospital, that is a very different scenario to having a cold. Without the facts, think we have to accept that it is what it is. Also, what’s the comments about people not being paid? Not something that has ever been a concern at Sheffield as far as I’m aware Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IainB Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, 4thbender said: You'd have to have a heart of stone to ban a guy for attending to the needs of a sick child. That's the trouble when many of your peers miss speedway meetings in dubious circumstances it reflects on the wider profession. Edited July 5 by IainB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo95 Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, 4thbender said: You'd have to have a heart of stone to ban a guy for attending to the needs of a sick child. Kyle Howarth said earlier in the season that he wasn't feeling the best but he didn't want a 7 day ban (missing for a non speedway injury) so he raced. If others don't get a ban he now has this reason as an excuse to miss said meeting (as arnieg has already stated). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 6 hours ago, 4thbender said: You'd have to have a heart of stone to ban a guy for attending to the needs of a sick child. I can certainly understand anyone putting their child first in an emergency situation The regs though do state it is a 7 day lay off for a non speedway illness issue so has to be applied for consistency I will also play devil's advocate here - the emergency serious enough to miss the UK meeting didn't prevent boarding a flight to the GP within what about 12 hours.... It is not unreasonable, given the frequent dubious scenarios seen, for doubters to sense the smell of bullsh!t to be in the air 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petecc Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 7 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: I can certainly understand anyone putting their child first in an emergency situation The regs though do state it is a 7 day lay off for a non speedway illness issue so has to be applied for consistency I will also play devil's advocate here - the emergency serious enough to miss the UK meeting didn't prevent boarding a flight to the GP within what about 12 hours.... It is not unreasonable, given the frequent dubious scenarios seen, for doubters to sense the smell of bullsh!t to be in the air Nice to see his son is much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted July 5 Report Share Posted July 5 5 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: I can certainly understand anyone putting their child first in an emergency situation The regs though do state it is a 7 day lay off for a non speedway illness issue so has to be applied for consistency I will also play devil's advocate here - the emergency serious enough to miss the UK meeting didn't prevent boarding a flight to the GP within what about 12 hours.... It is not unreasonable, given the frequent dubious scenarios seen, for doubters to sense the smell of bullsh!t to be in the air The lack of leadership of this sport in the UK doesn't stand it in too good a stead does it? If a clear "rule" or "regulation" is then not followed then at least an explanation should be made public as to why... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Sidney Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 15 hours ago, mikebv said: The lack of leadership of this sport in the UK doesn't stand it in too good a stead does it? If a clear "rule" or "regulation" is then not followed then at least an explanation should be made public as to why... Regulation 010.5 h refers to rider being sick or carrying a non speedway injury for which a 7 day suspension is mandated. However, regulation 010.5 p provides that a facility be granted where a rider 'has been approved in a teams declared 1-7 at the start of the season but due to extenuating circumstances is not available, a facility may be granted, up to a maximum of 28 days, at the SCB Co-Ordinators discretion. In the NDL and NDT this only applies if the rider was in that teams 1-7 at the close of the previous season'. I'd suggest that is what was used for Jack Holder, and is in accordance with the regs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 1 hour ago, Sir Sidney said: Regulation 010.5 h refers to rider being sick or carrying a non speedway injury for which a 7 day suspension is mandated. However, regulation 010.5 p provides that a facility be granted where a rider 'has been approved in a teams declared 1-7 at the start of the season but due to extenuating circumstances is not available, a facility may be granted, up to a maximum of 28 days, at the SCB Co-Ordinators discretion. In the NDL and NDT this only applies if the rider was in that teams 1-7 at the close of the previous season'. I'd suggest that is what was used for Jack Holder, and is in accordance with the regs. 100%... So then make an official statement.... Of any sport, Speedway is the one that, due to the way they run the sport, has so many "supp regs" or "ahhh but, ifs"... I personally think they don't as they will set precedents and provide public reference points should they do something different for a similar, but, (given so many "ahh but, ifs" they generate), not quite the same scenario the next time... So many self inflicted issues driven by the need for a myriad of "ahh but ifs" that they require due to not making clear and simple ones that allow zero wriggle room.. For me, a "seven day ban" sounds harsh for looking after your kid, however, a "seven day emergency leave" (with possible extention), to look after your kid would be fair, and, would paint the sport in a modern enlightened way.... And prevent zero conspiracy theories from your customer base who, due to decades of "dodgy" occurrences have become just a tad cynical... Which is never good for any business... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontforgetthefueltapsbruv Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 2 hours ago, mikebv said: For me, a "seven day ban" sounds harsh for looking after your kid, however, a "seven day emergency leave" (with possible extention), to look after your kid would be fair, and, would paint the sport in a modern enlightened way.... But he didn't need 7 days leave - more like 7 hours before all was well to fly out to the GP...... And if we go with your 'leave' suggestion I would say that it has to be taken in full and not cut short as it suits for ANY meeting ANYWHERE or it turns into a 28 day ban 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted July 6 Report Share Posted July 6 11 minutes ago, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: But he didn't need 7 days leave - more like 7 hours before all was well to fly out to the GP...... And if we go with your 'leave' suggestion I would say that it has to be taken in full and not cut short as it suits for ANY meeting ANYWHERE or it turns into a 28 day ban 100%.... No wriggle room... You need emergency support then you get it... But there are certain caveats to it to ensure complete transparency and integrity... Not difficult to administer, yet UK Speedway makes it look like it is... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGT Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 On 7/6/2025 at 11:04 AM, mikebv said: 100%... So then make an official statement.... Of any sport, Speedway is the one that, due to the way they run the sport, has so many "supp regs" or "ahhh but, ifs"... I personally think they don't as they will set precedents and provide public reference points should they do something different for a similar, but, (given so many "ahh but, ifs" they generate), not quite the same scenario the next time... So many self inflicted issues driven by the need for a myriad of "ahh but ifs" that they require due to not making clear and simple ones that allow zero wriggle room.. For me, a "seven day ban" sounds harsh for looking after your kid, however, a "seven day emergency leave" (with possible extention), to look after your kid would be fair, and, would paint the sport in a modern enlightened way.... And prevent zero conspiracy theories from your customer base who, due to decades of "dodgy" occurrences have become just a tad cynical... Which is never good for any business... We're still debating topics that were yanking fans' chains 10, 20, 30+ years, probably longer, nothing changes, does it? The best thing to do is ignore everything going on in the background and watch the action on track, because there are plenty of former speedway fans who've walked away because the rules and the implementing of them, are a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebv Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 40 minutes ago, OGT said: We're still debating topics that were yanking fans' chains 10, 20, 30+ years, probably longer, nothing changes, does it? The best thing to do is ignore everything going on in the background and watch the action on track, because there are plenty of former speedway fans who've walked away because the rules and the implementing of them, are a joke. I would suggest more have walked way due to the made up Mickey Mouse rules than actually currently attend... My own anecdotal evidence is five of us used to go regularly, now only one still does, yet we all often get together on a weekend to watch Poland and the GP's.. I wonder how many more have a similar story? Just by doing something to get those dissilusioned fans back onside would more than double attendance's at lots of tracks, as there at that many of them... Add that to a price point that gets "occasional fans" to visit more often, and provide big discounted tickets to away fans, and you may then start to build some atmosphere in the stadiums that befits a team sport... Thus reversing the vicious circle that has been allowed to pervade, unchallenged, for a couple of decades.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
szkocjasid Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 On 7/5/2025 at 11:35 AM, 4thbender said: You'd have to have a heart of stone to ban a guy for attending to the needs of a sick child. Could you not also say "you'd have to have a heart of stone to ban a guy for being unwell" because that's what they currently do! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperStarsFan91 Posted July 7 Report Share Posted July 7 On 7/6/2025 at 1:23 PM, dontforgetthefueltapsbruv said: But he didn't need 7 days leave - more like 7 hours before all was well to fly out to the GP...... And if we go with your 'leave' suggestion I would say that it has to be taken in full and not cut short as it suits for ANY meeting ANYWHERE or it turns into a 28 day ban and Chris went on holiday Saturday aswell 🤷🏻♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.