Vincent Blachshadow

Thanks for the race cards DW. Everything on one page. Clear and very easy to follow.

I thought Peterborough's last staging of a WTC round was an excellent effort with great racing. Didn't matter when future rounds were handed out in GB.

Exactly. If it was any team but GB that pulled that stroke this thread would have reached ten pages by now.

Too true. But if the Aussies had pulled that move - replacing their worst rider with their best in the 'qualified for' heats - they and the rule allowing it would have been well pilloried on here.

There's two different things here. The Russians had 63 points available to them (as did the Americans) but the Poles and Danes only had 60. Taking off their three extra points, two teams scored more than the Russians so how can the Russians have been the 'best team'? But yes, they deserved their win in as much as it was within the rules. Personally, I'd like to see a team 8 points down before being allowed to play a Joker. I agree re Heat 20. What an excellent advert for the sport.

Maybe they should have checked back and seen how he had ridden that track earlier that season as I did. KK has always been a hit-and-miss rider. In my peripatetic travels I've seen him many times, sometimes good, sometimes not so. Try looking at his performances at Peterborough for instance (before the silencer changes). He's been positively brilliant at times, poor at others.

But not a Lynn - King's Lynn Stars = 56 1. Kenneth Bjerre 2 X 3 3 =8 2. Tomas Topinka 1' 2 3 2' =8+2 3. Olly Allen 3 1 3 1' =8+1 4. Mads Korneliussen 2' 3 1 3 0 =9+1 5. Niels-Kristian Iversen 3 2 2 2' 2 =11+1 6. Lasse Bjerre 2' 1' 1' R =4+3 7. Filip Sitera 3 1 2' 2 =8+1 Birmingham = 38 1. Krzysztof Kasprzak 3 2^ 3 1 3 =12 2. Ales Dryml 0 0 1 0 =1 3. Ben Barker 0 R 1 3 =4 4. Daniel King 1 3 0 4^ 1 =9 5. Danial Nermark 2 3 0 0 =5 6. Theo Pijper 0 1 2 0 =3 7. James Wright 1 0 0 1' =2+ Read more: http://speedwayupdates.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=Kings&action=display&thread=7838#ixzz1Ur8XRisM In March. In that match he was only beaten by Lynn's Danish contingent. In the SWC match he only had (not the top) Russians Czechs and Brits (with one possibly using a dodgy silencer) to beat. Your comments are as bad as Shovlar's.

What, a post or two on here? Or have I missed something official?

Are there still such things as council houses around? I thought they'd been taken over by housing associations by now.

You obviously mean 'provable cheats should not prosper'. Any cheating is cheating. Whether provable or not, the cheat knows he's cheating and that's the important thing. Kennett's transgression is 'provable' because he's a rider. Average manipulation, guests/RR for riders missing because it helps a team's prospects in given matches is down to promoters and that isn't 'provable' - most do it so they prefer to overlook it (or find it 'not proven' when they sit in judgement on one of their own).

My point was the inference that all the Poles could have been using dodgy silencers at the WTC (because one has subsequently been found carrying two) but no inference that all the Brits could also have been using dodgy silencers at the same event (because one has subsequently been found using one).

Are we talking Kennett or Kasprzak - both were at KL? Did they compare notes and both pass the info on to their team-mates, even before the KL leg? Why are you dragging the Poles into this en-bloc but not the rest of the Brits? Only one rider has been caught actually using a messed-about-with silencer and that's not the Pole!

Aren't machine examiners employed by the home track? The machine examination cases I mentioned earlier were away riders too. When's the last time a home rider was either accused of cheating in the way Jesper was at Poole or found to have an illegal machine?

Now this is the bit I don't get. When JBJ was accused of cheating his bike was pulled before a heat he was due out in, ripped apart and he had to go out for that heat with a messed-about-with machine. On another occasion - at Glasgow if I remember correctly, a rider was pulled off of the start line immediately before his next heat and had his machine examined then had to go back out on a tampered with bike. Yet Kennett went out several more times on that machine after the 'issue was raised' but before anything was done (and the outcome of the match reversed, it has to be said). Why was he allowed further rides before his machine was examined?

Slight error on this one, I think. (Wishful thinking?)

Is that because we improved or because the Poles eased off since they had built up a sizable lead and we'd blown our Joker?

At least we'll be spared the 'Norwegian riding on a Polish licence' moan.

So was Leigh Adams riding PL in 2007 (Somerset) and Chris Harris in 2009 (Berwick and Redcar)? I also note Hans Andersen as the track record holder at Foxhall.

The track record at Mildenhall is actually 49.81. This was set by Kenneth Bjerre on Oct 31st 2007 in heat 5 of a four team tournament which included a Panthers' quartet of Niels-Kristian Iversen, Bjerre, Danny King and Claus Vissing. The track record was equalled in heat 1 (50.19 Iversen), lowered in heat 2 (50.17 Bjerre), lowered again in heat 4 (50.04 King) before finally being set in heat 5.

Pleased for all Coventry and Peterborough fans who, I'm sure, will now put the Winter shenanigans behind them. And that's two Elite tracks for me to take in on this year's speedway-watching travels.

Seems clear to me that the remedy is the right to compete in the EL next year.

Russell used the precise terms 'wanted' when talking about 45 points and 'vote went for' when mentioning 40. To me, that indicates two separate procedures. Could have been hours or even days apart. We know two teams left at some stage.

Do you know that it's compensation they're after then? Might it not just be fair play they're going for?

As I posted, where's the evidence that Peterborough voted? Absolutely none, just that Peterborough, along with a couple of other clubs, 'wanted' 45 - completely different. What 'evidence', apparent or otherwise do you expect to see to support the contrary view? The BSPA aren't going to say they gave permission for a vote in the pre-agm but rescinded it at the actual agm even if that happened. And Peterborough won't say anything because of the impending legal action.

Where's this 'evidence' then because as I posted it certainly isn't on Swindon's web-site where it was stated as being.