BWitcher

Once again, wrong. I never say peoples opinions are wrong, but I will challenge the validity or strength of them, an entirely different concept. Especially when they are basing their opinion on incorrect facts.. or as in your case, they can't even make their mind up what their opinion is. There are many sensible posters on here whom good debates over opinions can be had... others, like yourself, when challenged resort to the petty personal comments. I challenged your opinion of Heat 10, suggesting it was biased.. Earlier in the year, this was your opinion.. And yet here we are, just because your team was winning, all of a sudden it was imperative that Heat 10 was run. So two totally opposite opinions, backing up what I said to start with... some folk will bleat regardless of the decision to abandon or not abandon.

Yes, I was there. I don't think there was anything intentional, just a racing incident.

I don't think David was hated or disliked by many Wolves fans at all, certainly not by myself. Issues were caused by a poster bigging him up nonstop and debates ensued from there. As the post above says he was an integral part of the 2002 title winning team and a loyal rider during his time at Wolves. An excellent second string/3rd heat leader who mastered the Monmore track. Again as the poster says above, the problems came when he was asked to become the 2nd heat leader in the team, a level he never quite reached... there is no shame in that at all! The fault for that lay with the management.. the division between Wolves fans came between fans who saw he was unfairly being asked to ride in that position and those who thought he'd be World Champion. I sincerely wish David all the best in his retirement and thank him for the entertainment provided over the years.

Spot on Sidney, in total agreement with you here. Magic is a rider that has really grown on me this year. Could be some exciting times ahead.

How many GP's did you attend live that year Sidney as I did two.. which I suspect is higher than you and renders your point irrelevant... although it's already about as irrelevant as it can get. As for Tai, I was quite happy with my 200/1 winnings.. although I can honestly say I didn't think he had much chance at the start of the season and the bet was only made in fun, I also backed Lindgren each year in the same manner.. Again though of course, what peoples thoughts were at the start of the year are irrelevant as you were discussing the situation when Emil got injured which is entirely different! Lastly, it matters not what you take 'seriously' again. I simply made a point, that by the time Emil got injured, Tai had already overhauled him in the World Championships. After Round 7 Emil led by 13.. two rounds later, Tai led by 3.. a 16pt gain in 2 rounds showed momentum was on his side. Had Emil stayed fit, who knows what would have happened, you're fully entitled to your opinion that Emil may have won.. but Tai was the deserving World Champion of that year.

Tai had already overhauled Emil and was on the up.. Emil was feeling the pressure and on the slide.

Never a more apt description of yourself. I am not forcing my opinion on you, simply calling you out on the BS you have given about not caring who was winning. YOU have complained previously about meetings being forced to Heat 10 and then abandoned and yet here you are complaining that a meeting wasn't forced to Heat 10 and then abandoned. Basically, regardless of the situation, you'll have a moan. Then, once you know your bluff has been called you come out with the utterly irrelevant "I've been to lots of matches".. "You've not been to matches". Arguments of a 5 year old. Stick to the topic, make your mind up and stick to it, then your opinion would be valid. Until then, its biased BS.

Why only 1 minute, you're preaching meetings have been run in 'far worse', so why only 1 more minute? There's 15 heats in a meeting. The biggest problem is this 'get to heat 10' mentality and you are showing it in abundance. Don't give me all that crap about not caring about who was winning either, as if Leicester were ahead you would be singing from an entirely different hymn sheet.

Spot on. I am often critical of Wolves promotion, but in both meetings I've attended there in the last two weeks there has been a threat of rain and the meeting has been raced through, importantly with NO interval.

Why do people think speedway is in some little bubble in this respect? Cinemas and the theatre are hardly fair comparisons. Try cricket, tennis and even golf given events at the recent British Open.

That is a farce surely. The ref is excluding a rider for 'delaying the start', so surely the start hasn't happened.. The ref is also saying he was the 'cause'. So how does Zagar get excluded? It's the equivalent of a rider wiping another out, being excluded for foul riding and then excluding the one who got knocked off for not clearing the track. Neil Vatcher is a tactical genius!

None of which is the fault of the referee. It seems Kings Lynn's fans are venting their anger in the wrong direction.

All completely irrelevant. Just Kings Lynn fans whinging because they didn't get the win. The time was 7 seconds slower in the previous heat and that was the winner, thats not speedway. It's quite clear that you just wanted 1 more race and then it to be called off, EVERYTHING that is wrong and has been wrong with the sport. The updater told us one of your riders was totally uninterested in Heat 9, I guess that is value for money. Would Kings Lynn still have wanted to continue after Heat 10? Damn right they wouldn't. As I have said previously, the scoreline at the time is irrelevant... if the track has severely detiorated the meeting should be halted.

Extra meeting as far as I am aware. Certainly was when I had a season ticket! Bargain!

Very true, and its great to have an extra meeting to go too

Leicester didn't call it off. The referee did. It was raining, it happens.

Why was there a 'parade' to begin with?

Why should he 'order' a race to go ahead. There is no guarantee Leicester wouldn't have got a point either. It seems conditions could actually have favored them.. Kerr had no interest and trailed in behind Greenwood. A wet track can turn the whole meeting into a lottery.. Or is it simply you just wanted 1 more race, knowing that you would win, regardless of the result in Heat 10? The time wasn't 6 seconds slowly as I innacurately said earlier, it was 7 slower than Porsings win a few heats earlier.. that is a hell of a lot and a hell of a deterioration. The rain was coming down and by the time Heat 10 would have started it would have been worse still.

It shows, whatever happens, some folk will moan. Had they run Heat 10 then called it off as they did in the Cov match, plus Swindon/Coventry.. folk moan that they just made sure they reached Heat 10. In this case, they take the decision to abandon it before Heat 10.. and folk moan again they didn't do what they moaned about them doing previously.

You honestly think Leicester will leave with anything whenever they visit? Seems the updater thinks differently... Comments: Kerr not liking the wet conditions! The slow time says it all.

Time in previous heat was 6 seconds slower than the norm.. that says it all surely?

I did mention this myself at the time to those stood with me. I was stood about a metre past the tapes and thought at the time he wasn't in contact with his bike.. he reared a fair bit before the tapes.

It's the usual Ouch/Drop a Cog nonsense. Similar to when Drop a Cog preaches about Belle Vue winning the league 5 years in a row.

Not at all, as at no time do I claim a team 'deserved to win' if I hadn't seen the meeting.

I'm not the one being aggressive. I pointed out why your 'opinion' was outdated and therefore irrelevant. You were unable to comprehend that and have since resorted to childish posts such as the above or personal insults. All of which further compound my initial statement of how irrelevant your 'opinion' is. It's clear you weren't even at the meeting, hence avoiding that question. As has already been stated several times, not just by me but by other posters, this debate isn't about the merits or lack thereof regarding the Tactical Ride. 46pts does not guarantee you winning a meeting. That is a bona fide fact, so using 46pts to decide whether you 'deserve' to win the meeting is delusional, as originally stated. Even more so when you the person claiming it wasn't even at the meeting.