dontforgetthefueltapsbruv

seems a bit of a red herring - wouldve thought they were only interested in tge end of season average. Going with it though if it is considered so important to include 20 meetings where possible that should apply to all (consistency again) Looking ay Stefan Nielsens average for example that doesnt include 2013 meetings despite only having 11 rides in 2014!!

So we appear to be on supplementary regulation 3.0 already after not much more than a month of the season! Together with the figures being hidden again and the new rules not even being put in the public domain its a poor show. Inconsistency and a lack of transparency yet again! So we appear to be on supplementary regulation 3.0 already after not much more than a month of the season! Together with the figures being hidden again and the new rules not even being put in the public domain its a poor show. Inconsistency and a lack of transparency yet again!

Appears they may well have made up another set of rules! Talk on other threads of new supplementary regs for those who didnt ride in 2013. The winter is the time for these decisions not a month into the season. So again little consistency and even less transparency. In general a poor show.

thats worked well then! The winter was the time for any of this - not a month into the season.

but he hasnt got any 2014 matches to add to his 2015 efforts - no different to Lunna. No 2013 matches are to be included unless they are making up another set of rules again!!

Surely it would be bladed right down and started from scratch. Now there should be no more rain you would expect it to be as straightforward as it can be. The only question mark could be man power/hours.

I dont think I need to add anything!! wink

One thing we all know wont be lacking from Ritchie is effort and a desire to put it right.

confirmed at the 11th hour!

Have had a quick check of the Boro stats page and it looks like it should be 6.6 so just another BSPA error which they are likely to correct as they now have with the Davies figure.

Which means he retains his original 7.38 until then

any explaination as to how??

Aw well I sippose ignorance is at least a different response to silence!

Why has Davies been awarded a revised average but not Luna??

so thats implying a non like for like redclaration without the revised figures being used then! wink

I have posted sililar on a number of threads. The only response has been a wall of silence!

After losing by only 7 away with half a team it would be a big shock for anything less than a 20+ win for the Witches which will paper over the cracks nicely!

So Davies is definitely at reserve? Is anyone able to explain why he is the ONLY rider who started on an assessed/converted/old average who has been revised despite not completing 4 home 4 away?

I will let go when all the pussycats all have new established averages which wont be too long anyway!May only bark if there is a non like for like redclaration prior and the revised figures are not put in place for it.

So near and yet so far - sums up last night and previous seasons. Are we again going to be a good looking team that always comes up just short when it matters??

I will pass on the bone thanks but if you insist on the dog treat analogy I will have a pigs ear instead - far more apt for the situation.

Frustrating to again seem to throw away the chance of points. Very early days but its looking a bit like deja vu with a very good looking team just falling a little short of whats really needed to pull off a trophy win. Well done to the Tigers - Cook proving his worth as a top guest.

perfectly illustrated by a rider 'progressing' from the EL with an average of 5.2 to the PL on an average if 4.92. wink/woof!!

So an untried National League youngster is considered better than MPT - interesting!

No 2013 matches are to be included in the 2015 averages so Davies has a new average despite not riding 4 home 4 away which is contrary to EVERY OTHER RIDER also expecting to attain a new initial rolling average.At best this is incompetence, somewhere in the middle its is simple inconsistency and at worst it is corrupt application (or non application) of the rules Which is not for me to guess which it actually is....