Wee Eck

I see the inevitable has happened with Craig Cook

Winning the play offs or topping the league? Maybe to the first, no to the second! I can’t see Oxford picking Poole or Poole picking Oxford as they look to be the strongest teams and would each have bumper crowds for the final. As it looks like a mini league, then top will pick Edinburgh/Birmingham plus Scunthorpe or Redcar. Probably Redcar as you know that should be an easier track to score well on.

Perhaps “lack of visa” issue more accurate?

It was a rule, maybe still is, but one of the infamous “special dispensations” was invoked for Stoney which suggests it was a BSPA rather than an SCB rule

Corrected for accuracy

And r/r far stronger that Vissing. Poole will be lucky to get a draw let alone the win and bonus point. (Now, where’s the tongue in cheek emoji?!)

Why would they be allowed a guest for Vissing?

Is it still the case that a club can sign a rider to be on their retained list without him needing to ride for them? I think that’s what Belle Vue did with James Pearson

He wasn’t. He was a “long term injury” replacement to cover for Max Fricke’s “long term injury”. A dubious move in many people’s opinion which is why it’s been stopped for this year.

I was just writing Steve Shovlar’s piece to save him having to do it. I should have added “this hugely strengthens Glasgow against a weakened side still bedding in Joe Thompson”!

Have you seen his scores for Peterborough? Plymouth likely to be a challenge for sure but the smooth and fast Wimborne Road should be pretty easy for him…..

Not serious or not a wind up?

But it’s a good question! I’d have thought it should be 28 days but from when? Offence or conviction? And didn’t Poole use guests for Darcy Ward for the rest of the season after he was banned in 2014?

It’s nothing to do with geography. Whoever ends up top will pick the 6th team whether that’s Edinburgh or Birmingham as they look equally vulnerable home and away

I think you’ll find that he did provide a first sample. I think you might also want to wonder why there were two charges against, albeit one being dropped after he pled guilty to the first. But, as someone else has said, it’s all academic - Nick has been banned and fined and nothing will change that

Apologies for mixing up the two but, as I said, Nick did provide a non-negative test in a form that concerned the tester who then decided to retest Nick. It was the retest that Nick declined.

I’m not sure that’s correct - the result can be negative, non-negative or positive as per WADA: Put simply, a non-negative test is one that is not definitively negative. There are several reasons why this could occur. The sample could be adulterated, substituted, invalid or positive, but further testing needs to happen to make a final determination. The suggestion is that Nick’s first test was non-negative, so not clearly negative. He was asked for a second sample which he refused and, as a consequence, was charged under SR 08.2.1 - Failing to provide a specimen. It follows that he did not provide a positive sample but his refusal of the second test is deemed to be akin to testing positive.

My goodness that’s a very old movie!

Adam was only ever signed on a short term contract but he and Birmingham were told not to publicise that. Both he and Birmingham speedway knew that, as soon as Poland started, he wouldn’t be able to continue with the Brummies. Why the veil of silence is anyone’s guess but Adam took a lot of stick for no good reason. Indeed, he should have been applauded for helping a team in desperate need in the best way he could.

Have you a link?

What would it costs to be in the meeting and what are the pay rates?

I’m not sure he was. Masters, Nicholls Douglas and Harris were higher.- and still are

Being a demented subscriber with limited intelligence, I’m unable to understand your argument. Could you expand please, to help limit my dementia and increase my intelligence? TIA

Do I take it you disagree with my opinion?

The point that was being made was that the poster was objecting to the other riders being allowed to go back into the pits. I was simply trying to explain my view that doing so was fair and not allowing them to had the potential to give the faller an unfair advantage.