Kent Vs Birmingham 7/9/25

[IainB]

On 9/9/2025 at 10:40 PM, old bob at herne bay said:

Always good for a laugh the "SCB" you could not make it up , they were incompetent when I attended speedway and haven't improved.   

Their grammatically incorrect statement  shows the completely amateur disorganised shower that are allegedly controlling the sport.  

"The SCB Referee at the Kent fixture had been informed that Mr Foord was unavailable for this fixture and having consulted the SCB had at that time had correctly allowed a facility, however on further investigation this should not have been authorised and the score of the guest for Cooper Rushen will be deleted from the meeting result." 

• So referee consulted the SCB and they had allowed the facility. (they repeated HAD twice for avoidance of doubt !) 
• "on further investigation" they changed their mind ! you cannot do that !!! amateur hour !!! 
• the score of the guest for Cooper Rushen  ???? what ???? I thought Cooper Rushen was THE guest rider ?? 

 

 

 

 

 

100% spot on, most people seem to have missed this, the SCB are basically admitting they messed up (not for the first time).

[Son of Shaleman]

4 hours ago, IainB said:

100% spot on, most people seem to have missed this, the SCB are basically admitting they messed up (not for the first time).

SCB should have revoked the guest facility for Foord the moment Workington’s match was off. However, SCB is not structured to work that way. Its modus operandi is after the event.

edit: wish I knew Latin for phrase after the event.

 

Edited yesterday at 03:57 PM by Son of Shaleman

[IainB]

1 hour ago, Son of Shaleman said:

SCB should have revoked the guest facility for Foord the moment Workington’s match was off. However, SCB is not structured to work that way. Its modus operandi is after the event.

SCB are basically saying we messed up, so we're going to punish Kent! Unbelievable!

[old bob at herne bay]

3 hours ago, Son of Shaleman said:

SCB should have revoked the guest facility for Foord the moment Workington’s match was off. However, SCB is not structured to work that way. Its modus operandi is after the event.

edit: wish I knew Latin for phrase after the event.

 

here we go  " should have" - yes I agree. But they didn't .... and allowed the guest facility to stand pre meeting. That "should" have been the end of it ...... not changing the decision post hoc . 

They are now open to challenge over the manner in which Rushen's points have just simply been been deducted. The simplistic  solution really doesnt stand scrutiny.  In cases in a meeting where a winning rider is excluded  "post hoc" for say losing a silencer , the following rider is awarded the 3 point win etc etc.

In the last heat where Rushen lapped a rider , the lapped rider should have his points reinstated.  All gets very messy. 

The actions of the scb bring the sport into disrepute. 

[IainB]

I'm not sure who the SCB are answerable to? The ACU? Some shocking decisions and non decisions have been made over the last few seasons. 

[SPEEDY69]

 If the points were adjusted for each race Rushen was in, it would change the score to a narrow Birmingham victory.   Simply deducting his points maintain the Kent win and this twangs my accuracy string.

[Son of Shaleman]

Thinking about this, surely Foord was withholding services which would mean Kent could have a guest.