Leicester Lion

At least they finally got around to updating the website. Back in the very early days at BP, I remember saying it's easy for any club to manage good publicity, but it's how they handle difficult situations that will be the measure of their success with the media. Leicester have their own unique way of dealing with things. Why can't they be straight about the reasons for the departures of Hougaard and Ljung?

The Lions' official website doesn't mention the meeting at all (apart from in the fixture list).

Which club will Bjerre and Doyle be representing in the GP qualifier?

Not exactly a real Leicester team then The Elite League, setting the standards as always.

Surely his natural modesty would prevent him naming himself amongst those genuine sporting giants?

A variation on the 'you can't know unless you've done it yourself' argument, which does a disservice to supporters who genuinely care. It's no mystery, one doesn't need to be a rider or track preparation guru to see the dimensions of the track are inhibiting close racing. What 'efforts to improve the track' have been made? Shaving a tiny amount off the inside line on the entry and exits to the bends was declared a masterstroke by the 'experts' but has actually made no discernable difference. It's a crying shame that the 'genuine expertise' that is apparently such a prized commodity wasn't used in the first place before the track was built.

I reckon 10m would not be anywhere near the reduction needed to make the straights short enough, but any change couldn't make it worse! And if they moved the 3/4 bends the standing area could be made bigger and banked higher so spectators could have a better view. I see footage from continental tracks which have huge banked grassy areas on the corners and I lament the tight space our stadium has been crammed into. It's been designed like a cycle speedway arena, not a motorcycle speedway.

We're only hearing one side of the story. It would be interesting to hear the other, and, as often happens, the truth may well be somewhere in between.

I agree with the sentiment (but facts don't have question marks at the end). The medic is the responsible person and the only qualified judge of a rider's fitness to continue to race after sustaining an injury. The referee would be taking a huge risk to overrule a medical opinion. It smacks of sour grapes to bring the medic's integrity into it.

Remember Ward laying his bike down in heat 15 against Wolves last season to get a re-run? No justice, only when it suits you.

Puzzlingly, it did say 7:30am on the channel when I looked a few minutes ago, but it's reverted to 6am now. Strange, but seems in order now.

Not disputing what you say, but it is pretty desperate to try to make the racing at Leicester appear better by saying half a meeting somewhere else is worse.

It would be lovely to give riders as much time as they need, but can we afford to, especially if they don't improve and we start next season with new reserves who also need to be given some slack? The club needs quick success to keep the attendances up, as the racing won't! I'm not so sure it was the fans en masse who got on Sarjeant's back, maybe a few did, but it was the promotion who ditched him, like so many others.

I can't see anyone blaming the reserves. They will ride to the best of their ability; no-one is saying otherwise. The point is that their ability is stunted by their lack of experience. Throwing them in with established EL riders waters down the EL and has been done purely to cut costs. Dressing it up as an artificial "development opportunity" is disingenuous, both to the fans and to the riders themselves. If this "opportunity" had not arisen, a rider who otherwise would have sat in the NL for years perhaps ought to recognise that maybe he doesn't have what it takes to progress on ability alone. The reserves' points are as important as those scored by the rest of the team. Above all fans want their team to win and there is bound to be criticism of riders who unnecessarily drop points, whether they are novices or superstars. Fans and clubs can't afford to wait two or three years to see if their reserves develop. The "show me how you do it" argument is always ridiculous. Where? I only saw 4 wide in the run up to the first bend! Close racing doesn't mean there are passing opportunities.

Morris scored one point in his first ride, going off 15 metres after touching the tapes, and taking third place after Bjerre pulled up.

The riders may all think it's a brilliant track because it gives them an easy ride. Doesn't mean the racing will be close and exciting to watch. The riders and spectators have different needs.

Not inaccurate though.

At least there'll be some passing for a change.

I think it's a shame Peter Oakes, with all his tabloid experience, passed up the chance to quiz Hemsley about his omelette/eggs comment. Fans only ever seem to have had half-stories and rumours. It would have been an ideal opportunity for Hemsley to set the record straight.

Rugby speedway sounds like a strange hybrid sport!

What the riders regard as a good track isn't necessarily a track that produces exciting racing. The riders and the spectators have different needs.

You need to be more specific if you're trying to get people to meet your much higher standards.

Er, because you can't get 90% of a visa. It was a flippant remark in response to Weatherwatcher's assertion that Doyle has a 90% chance of getting one. You're confusing success rates with probability. They are not the same. Ninety percent of applicants may be successful (I don't know about the accuracy of that figure, but it's the one that has been quoted), but it doesn't mean any particular applicant has a 90% chance.

Oh dear. The lottery is purely random and each ball has a certain chance, or probability, of being drawn. The granting of a visa is nothing to do with probability. A visitor applies for a visa. If they satisify the conditions they are granted it. If they don't satisfy the conditions they are not granted it. The officials decide whether the conditions are met. If you seriously believe the officials apply some kind of random element when deciding to grant a visa there is little point in trying to explain this fundamental difference any further.

The chance of getting a visa is either 100% or nil. The results of other peoples' applications have no bearing on the outcome of Doyle's. He will either get a visa or he will not. You can't have 90% of a visa!