salty

Of course they only printed one side of the story. The FIM quite correctly kept quiet considering the legally sensitive nature of the case. You can't really blame the SS for that.One can understand people getting irritated by the weekly (or so it seemed) ramblings from Middlo, as it was clear he didn't really have a clue, but it is up to the reader to make that decision.

They could have replaced him in the 1-7? The offence (we don't have to use the word alledged anymore!)took place before the deadline for team changes.

The Berwick one was when he had Rymel, Makovsky and Franc all in on 9.00 assessed averages and wanted to bring Bentley in once their averages had gone down. As Bentley was in their previous years final 1-7 this rule was used to stop him coming in. Totally different circs with Ward, but will be interesting to see what happens. If their rumoured introduction of Gomolski on a low average comes to pass, one would imagine him having boosted it by the end of June which may cause difficulties for Poole.

Knew there used to be a rule (vaguely remember it was something to do with Berwick???) - wasn't sure if it still was in the book, but since my first mention had checked. So to sum up Ward can only be re-introduced if the MC approve.

Surely what you meant was - yes there is (such a rule) but they can be re-introduced subject to the MC's approval. Surely all team changes require this ageement? Therefore, I'm a bit surprised it is still in the regulations.

Where does this leave Darcy regards getting a team spot (and visa) when the ban is served? Didn't there used to be a rule that a rider who was part of a 1-7 at the end of a season could not be re-introduced into that 1-7 during the following season?

It it ain't broke, don't fix it. Tony seems comfortable with their current markets. Both current magazines complement each other well and though I only subscribe to Backtrack (since Issue 1) I have no problem with the focus on the 70's and 80's and I wouldn't find more recent times so interesting. Naturally there are plenty of riders whose careers have covered the 80's and 90's and I don't think anyone would begrudge their whole careers being discussed. Obviously, most of the major riders have now been covered and it is hard to continue to find fresh angles, but I find the stories from "lesser lights" just as interesting (if not more so) as those from the household names and I hope Tony and the team continue to unearth more and more tales from such riders .

Wow, that really is surprising. I always got the impression that the Sky twins weren't that fussed with Ward, I mean they hardly ever mention him or interview him.

Personal choice - Bernie Persson (1969 -72 vintage) Rider I never saw - Peter Craven For the good of the sport - Peter Collins (mid-70's version) or Bruce Penhall

Thanks for the reply, figured it was another editorial blunder!! Will look forward to the interview when it is finally published. I find the ex-administrators/promoters can be a wee bit more candid and have more interesting stories to tell than many of the ex-riders.

Quality stuff. Love the new pic Arson, not as pretty as the Sid James one though.

Actually I don't think they did use the separate finish for FIM meetings. I was there for a WTC qualifier in the early 80's and pretty sure they just raced over the 4 laps. Edit: Just checked the programme and the times in a few races were within the track record so that suggests the "second" finishing post wasn't used. Track record wasn't altered in future programmes.

Great issue as always - loved the Ashby, Foote, Olsson, Coupland and Lohmann features - and I always enjoy reading about the sport north of the border. Not really a fan of the 50 Memorable moments and the ICF recap (apologies to Rob P). One question. Cyril Crane's name is on the front cover, but nothing in the magazine?

Either of those 2 options may have ramifications for his chances of being a GP rider in 2016. A ban until August or beyond and he is relying on being parachuted into the GP challenge or getting a nomination. Both options would be difficult to justify and I'm sure there will be plenty who would disagree if Ward is shown any favourable treatment. Edit: this post is replying to Gavan and TWK suggestions of bans until August and March 2016 respectively.

The were some cracking comments on the Echo website on Wednesday. Calls for Poole to just declare him in their side anyway and other well thought out strategies.

I actually think the 4 to 5 days theory could be a winner here.

You say Darcy would know the rules regarding the 45 day period, but Middlo, who as we know is very close to Darcy, didn't seem to be aware about it judging by his tweets on the day of the hearing. It was clear he expected a judgement on the day. You sound like Starry with his (unsubstantiated) talk of hanging, but all I have read is people asking for a ban. The majority of those asking for a ban are asking for a ban less than the maximum, so hardly "blood thirsty". As for your example about the BSPA, it's a wee bit like apples and oranges, once we are in the auspices of the FIM the rules change somewhat and, as I keep saying, once the lawyers get involved then time becomes a slow moving concept. Obviously if it was the BSPA then the wheels would have been greased (maybe even palms), lessons would have been learnt, wrists would have been proferred and gentle slaps administered. And Poole wouldn't have needed a guest for the play-offs.

Similar thoughts were mentioned back in August that Darcy's links with Monster would result in a lenient approach. At that time I think it was said that the FIM would be immune from such "favouritism". Obviously, if the result is a favourable one for Darcy then the conspiracy theorists will no doubt call it a "monstrous" decision.

I certainly don't agree with the long time it has taken for the FIM to hold the hearing. However, as we have heard, that timespan when it comes to the FIM is not unprecedented and, as I have said before, that once lawyers (on both sides) are involved then the wheels of justice tend to grind pretty slowly.

To be fair I did stress that the report only came from the Ward camp. The sub judice nature of the case has meant that all we have learned (or been told) since last August has come from the Ward side. Edit: Reply to Starry - rightly so. The FIM have maintained silence over the matter which is absolutely they way it should be until they have a decision to impart. Once lawyers are involved then it is the only way to be.

To be fair to Middlo and Ward the reports after the hearing were that they would be told within a week what the outcome was. Although again that has only been reported via the Ward camp, nothing from the FIM. Quote from Middlo in last weeks Star "They did say they would give a decision this week" However, Middlo also says they "could take two months if they want - it's up to them" which suggests numeracy might not be his strongest subject.

I can't believe we allow someone in an "UNOFFICIAL" capacity to put those names on the board after the draws for the semi-finals and final. No wonder the sport is such a shambles...

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting Ward was falling down drunk, we are just illustrating that nobody truly knows the extent with which he was over the limit. The fact remains that he apparently was over the limit and that is the crucial fact. All comments following the test have come from the Ward camp. Totally agree with you that his legal team are probably raging that Darcy did his interview - my understanding is that rule 1 from any lawyer is "say nothing!!!" Since then your magazine has given Neil Middleditch plenty of opportunities to air his views on the matter, yet obviously we have heard nothing from the FIM. A lot of the 245 pages on this thread has been a reaction to Middleditch's (and Ford's) comments.

Fair play to you Starry. A true Speedway fan putting the sport before their individual club.

So you agree a 2 year ban for Ward then? Surely as you are so keen to root out these type of misdemeanours you can agree that an example needs to be made?