waiheke1

So which of Lee woffy havvy or Williams were aces riders when they became world champs? I make them all amongst the last nine British born world champs

There are FOUR wildcards. I think those advocating one for ward would also agree that hampel and Emil deserve one - for me those are the three "certainties" assuming they want one, and there are not three Aussies/poles already qualified.In the unlikely event that there are 3 Aussies already I would guess ward misses out. Same for hampel in the more likely scenario that 3 poles are already in. Fwiw I'd give them wildcards even if it meant 4 from a nation

I don't think it was tbh. A ban to end of Jan would have been enough to rule him out of the qualifiers by missing the Aussie champs.While the ban he got has him back in time for a wildcard for thegp challenge - fim would surely have banned him til after that if they wanted to make sure he couldn't qualify.

Is that stat right? Lee Havelock woffy and Williams weren't aces? And out of the last four only j crump, so one in the last 37 years.

Not sure a good TAC move at all. Give away 2 points (assuming roynon woild have finished 3rd)to stop aces gaining a max three points. And of course as it turned out aces wouldn't have been able to use it as josh won the heat anyway

Highly recommend this book to any speedway fan. That price is a bargain

And he was actually used to REPLACE roynon, not even a case of the team manager just doing nothing. As you say it is common, and very odd.

Prob wont make any difference to the result but why was Morris used in heat nine?

Heat leaders can appear in "protected" heats as an RR, so I'm not convinced you are correct that they would not be allowed as TAC subs in such heats. Would be just like the old heat 8s. And of course even getting a 3-3 in heat 9 would be a four point swing, so a bigger gain than the 3 extra Freddie got.

Of course if the old TAC sub rules were in place wolves would probably have won by six points, by gaining an 8 pt swing in the preceding race rather than a 3 pt gain via the golden double

Porsing reported as possibly breaking a collarbone. Obviously very unfortunate for him, but may actually prove beneficial for kl in forcing them to get a (stronger) replacement for rest of season and play offs. Sounds like a lot of passing based on the updates. Edit: porsing back out so obviously he is ok

Hardly being rewarded for bad behaviour, he'd be being rewarded for being in the top couple of riders outside those who had filled the 11 qualifying spots.

Oh yes he can...

Can't see batch making top 8 phil

I think he will be in and have no problem with it. If he doesn't get a wild card he will effectively have had a 3 year ban from GPS. Yes his own fault. But a much heftier penalty than the likes of Moran,Correy and others had for failing alcohol tests, or the likes of Moran or Havelock for failing drugs tests. The only risk I see to ward getting a wildcard would be if holder finished 9th this season.

Simon wigg was apparently the same, couldn't help himself and had to tinker with the set ups even when things were going great. On a side note, what happened with Harris's engine in his final heat?

Surely he should know whether or not he agreed to it? Though regardless the rules still don't allow a fixture to be postponed like that.

Brilliant thanks - Mort at his best!

A co incidence maybe. Or could you explain how u think this is ironic?

Must have been a decent racing surface in 1980 for Mort to win the ic final there. Sadly doesn't seem to be any footage of one of his finest achievements.

Thanks Dave (and others) Sid - from what's on YouTube looked like sigalos' pass in the run off was one of very few in the meeting?

Fercious?

Hi Does anyone have the scorecard and/or heat results for this meeting? Thanks

I thought you said we were talking about the same thing. Now you say we are talking about something different. Which is it? I have to ask, can you read English or do we need to translate to something else?

I think everyone knows the reason Coventry wanted the meeting off at heat nine was that they were losing, and knew the meeting would be called at heat ten. If they were winning they wouldn't have been concerned about safety until after heat 10. But - with Coventry having said the track was unsafe at heat nine, it seems ridiculous that they can be heavily fined for not racing heat ten when at the end of four Laps by two riders the track was deemed unsafe. How that decision was made is the key issue imho. But I believe Coventry, by trying to get the meeting restaged, muddied the waters, as that was never going to happen, and it took attention away from a valid concern to make it look like they simply tried to get the meeting called off to avoid losing.