BWitcher

Another one who fails to understand the English language. Mediocre means average. The National League was the SECOND DIVISION. The best riders, i.e. the GOOD riders were in the British League, i.e. the FIRST DIVISION. Which left a few good riders to race in the NL, along with many average ones and even more BELOW average ones. So, you're actually right, mediocre is wrong, I should have said mediocre to less than mediocre for the overall standard of rider. That of course, has nothing to do with either the standard of racing or how good the overall product was from an entertainment point of view.

I totally agree.. in this case though only one rider was at fault. As I said earlier I wouldn't have batted an eyelid had it been all 4 back.. just that I can see why the referee made the decision he did.

Who needs opinion when there are rules? They clearly state the rider who caused the stoppage should be excluded. Gollob caused the stoppage. Not my fault so many don't know the rules.

Whooosh!

You didn't offer an opinion, you said something that was incorrect. i.e. that Gollob was 'left no room'. That was false. It doesn't matter what anyone said, by the rules of the sport Gollob was the cause of the stoppage and so was excluded. Normally the referees don't apply that particular rule when its 1st bend hence riders and fans alike assume it will be All 4 back each time. I assumed the same, but couldn't argue with the referees decision.

That's a good question Phil and one that has been debated in other incidents recently. Namely, should a rider have to fall off to be deemed a victim of foul riding. I note though you agree that it was Gollob's footrest that caused the crash and hence the subsequent stoppage. Given Gollob was the rider who changed line and rode into Pedersen that means he was the primary cause of the stoppage and as per the rules of the sport should be excluded. So a bit baffled as to why you objected against it? It wasn't an unsatisfactory start though, the start was fine, nobody rolled, nobody jumped the gate.

If you read Ghostwalker's posts, he agrees 100% with me, he was simply pulling me up for mixing up my lefts and rights. So wrong person to seek help from for your fabricated story. Those are your posts, a fabrication of what happened. Gollob had the same amount of room as he had from the starting gate, he chose not to use it.

Read the question again. To make it clearer for you, did any reserves from the old NL reach the World U-21 Final WHILE they were riding at reserve in the NL? I don't know the answer so am genuinely interested.

haha! Quite correct Edited

Correct, it was never a debate. Just you arguing against reality again.

Yes! Really struggling in life. I would say, you would get further in life by not peddling nonsense, making up things that plainly didn't happen and calling them an 'opinion'. Once again, as its clearly difficult for you to understand. What happened is factual, not an opinion. Gollob moved right and collided with Pedersen. 100% absolute fact. Not Opinion. The debate is whether or not Gollob should have been excluded or not and yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion on that! Edited

Keep telling yourself that Sidney if it makes you feel better. This post is again the ultimate sign you've got no argument as every time you come across something you can't argue against, you resort to the childish abuse. I haven't had to go round in any circles, in fact I haven't had to move. You've proved your own theory wrong all by yourself with the riders you've trotted out. To break it down very simply for you... If we take an average season.. 13 teams in the top flight.. 17 teams in the National League. That gives us 91 riders in the top flight, 119 in the National League. 210 riders in total. The top 25% riders would be above average, the middle 50% average, the bottom 25% below average. You've already confirmed yourself the top league was much tougher.. which by your own words suggest the majority, if not all the top 25% are in the top league. Which only leaves us with average and below average left. Debate is over Sidney. Anyway, back on thread, good performance from Darcy last night on his comeback.

Correct. Absolutely 100% Correct. Why do you think they start in that league? Why do you think riders dropped to that league later in their career? Because it was easier than the top league. Once again, Lee, Collins, Havelock and Loram are destroying your argument, not promoting it. They started in it when they were learning, as soon as they improved, they stopped riding in it.. In the case of Havelock, when he got older and wasn't so good anymore he went back to it.. as it was EASIER.

Whilst agreeing with some of what you say, Tai is well above Emil at the moment. Emil isn't being 'denied' anything either.

What it tells me Sidney is what we already know. You haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. Run along and learn the meaning of the word mediocre, then we can continue the discussion. You are the one adding extra's in such as 'second rate' mediocre and 'crap' medicore. None of these things said by me.. just you in your paranoia. Mediocre = "of only average quality; not very good." Now, if riders were 'very good' they would be in the top flight of racing for the most part. Not even the top flight was full of riders that were 'very good', but we'll ignore that for now. Riders in the old National League, i.e. the SECOND division weren't as good as the top riders in the British League... i.e. the very good riders. By definition that makes them 'not very good'. Which of course makes them of average quality or mediocre. Once again Sidney, its a FACT. This does not mean they were bad riders, that's your own fabrication. Continue to argue all you like, but you are wrong. You've even argued against yourself (again). The reason promoters loaned riders out to the lower league first was because it was easier! i.e. not mega tough like the British League was. Who has said it was a crap product? You've created this fiction yourself Sidney. It wasn't a crap product, it was an excellent product. Serious question for you now Sidders.. Did any reserves from the old NL ever reach the World U-21 Final?

It's not an opinion, you're just making stuff up. It makes as much sense as me saying it was Emils fault because he knocked them off. It didn't happen. Nicki didn't turn left AT ALL. If Nicki had done what Gollob did, every rider would be in agreement

That's not an opinion, its made up rubbish. The evidence conclusively showed Nicki didn't move from his line, which was heading straight. The evidence conclusively showed Gollob veered to the right and into Nicki. Nobody is arguing that except for you. The argument is whether it should have been All 4 back or not. There isn't a scenario except in your head that Nicki could have been excluded.

I'm still waiting for you to name all the second string/reserves that populated the NL that made it a 'mega tough' league in your words and were above average standard. Now bear in mind, riders such as Danny King/Simon Stead/Graham Jones to give 3 examples are deemed to be average standard.. lets hear all the NL second strings/reserves who match up.

What planet are you on? Ermolenko planet? Nicki hadn't even started to turn into the corner!!

Then you have a problem. Your main one being a lack of understanding of the English language. Mediocre = average rider. Riders in the second division are mainly just that, average riders. Some of them will progress to become good riders and move up a league, some of them will progress further to become great riders... some will regress back.. That's the reality, no matter how much you stamp your feet. When Peter Collins rode in the National League he wasn't a great rider. He was a promising rider with potential who in later years would become a great one. What he did later is totally irrelevant to the conversation regarding the strength of the National League.

So on your brilliant dissection of the situation, Nicki shouldn't have been excluded for 95% of his incidents, and most certainly was blameless in the infamous Hancock incident.. after all.. by your definition.. he was in front.

Yes, because it's utterly irrelevant! Because we are discussing the strength of the National League. So what someone did in totally different seasons in another league is irrelevant. It's like saying the Portuguese league was the toughest league in Europe in 1992 because Porto won the Champions League in 1994. Meanwhile once again you're unable to argue the point and are resorting to your rants. I know one rider who rode in both leagues to a pretty decent standard, you know how he describes himself? An average rider. How dare he abuse himself like that!

He could not get into Nicki's wheel?

If the roles were reversed and Nicki was on gate 1 you can guarantee the folk bleating would be saying it was a correct call.

There is no argument over who caused it.