Roger Jacobs

They're not trying to be too smart for their own good - they're not trying at all. They write Regs without any thought, and without any testing/wargaming. PS: "Proven long term injury" isn't simple or clear. If they were to have such a Regulation again, it should state a minimum time. To paraphrase the well known quote: A week is a long time in British speedway.

There's no complaints about guests per se, it's just the promise of transparency is so often ignored. Read the Regs and then explain why Lambert can guest ... the BSPL has decided what the Regs don't say, and what the Green Sheets don't say, allows Lambert to guest. How many professional sports do that? Where's the transparency, let alone the scrutiny? Accepting what we're being fed is not the answer, that's why so many people have walked away from the sport over the years, while the Happy Clappers are taken for cash cow mugs.

A rolling average is not an official average, the published Green Sheets are the official averages - except when they're not ...

For what it's worth, I can't see anything in the Green Sheets that says his previous MA is not applicable? Even so, it does say his average is assessed. However, as I stated earlier, the BSPL has decided that Lambert does have an Established MA - the one he achieved in 2019. Anyway, the BSPA argument is that although 012.4.2 Guest Rider says "c) the guest must be in a current team declaration and have an established MA” it does not say he can't have an assessed average. Again, as I stated earlier, I haven't checked if anyone else with a * next to their name has been used as a guest.

I was also informed, regarding the *: "Next season that box will be changed as it is obviously misleading ..." I haven't checked, but apparently riders with a * might well have taken a guest booking this season?

No, it's because Lambert is a guest, not a signing ... I've seen that quoted several times on Facebook.

Is it possible to see the official team sheets on the SCB site?

The BSPA Office has confirmed that the Regulation does not state that a rider with an assessed average cannot guest, only a rider who does not have an Established MA. Robert Lambert has an Established MA from 2019. So you can make it up

I will never disagree with any of the interpretation and general hot air surrounding what happened, but the point is that the Regulation existed, so it was used (and not just by BV). There have been other examples of stupid Regulations in Play-Off history which have resulted in either removal of said Regulations, or re-writing/re-interpretation, e.g. Tactical Joker, and eventually T/S, and of course the use of one guest - which is still sufficiently vague to cause dispute. They never learn.

No one knew what the effect of the Lambert signing would have on the play-offs. BV hoped he would be a good replacement, but they couldn't guarantee that. Sheffield hoped Jack Holder would ride like a #1, but he failed miserably at BV. Sheffield fans quickly forgot about that when whinging about Fricke's performance at Ipswich

Except the "intention" of the Regs is nothing to do with what they actually say, and that was proved by Belle Vue. Thanks for the support re: the Joe Thompson decision. The BSPL has quoted the 8 day rule - it seems they think it is open to interpretation. Unfortunately, it seems that Chris Louis has rolled over and accepted the ruling "in the best interests of the sport", when what he should be doing is standing firm, as Belle Vue did, and challenge the interpretation of the Regs absolutely in the best interests of the sport.

In that case, I'll go to the library and check the BSPL minutes ... along with all the other stuff that's readily available in this splendidly transparent sport.

Splendid, which allows the SCB and BSPL to continue to make judgments based on poor, untested wording. What a load of balderdash.

Clear and dry all morning a little way east of Foxhall, with the sun currently breaking through about 8/10 fluffy white clouds. The only black cloud at the moment is the pathetic decision to stop Ipswich from using Joe Thompson as a guest at RS! In stead of rolling over, the Witches should ride under protest.

I did not quote selective parts, you did. The "No more than 2 changes, except for cases of long term injury" was specific to the Premiership, so overrode (if you'll pardon the pun) anything else. No doubt you'll be delighted to see that the Witches have now been shafted by the Regulations regarding their use of Joe Thompson as a Guest in the Rising Star position. I can't see anything at all in the Regs to prevent them form using him.

So BSPL media releases carry the same weight as Hansard

They set their own precedent with 6 weeks. What is said behind closed doors we will never know, but I'm sure BV would have been able to show that Fricke was injured sufficiently to prevent him riding for 6 weeks - even if it was the end of the season, there's nothing in the Regs about timing. As it was, none of the moaners had any grounds on which to prevent BV from using Lambert. They succeeded in having the wording removed (rather than properly worded, and tested) - as a result, we've got debates about who can guest, and when, and how many times. Clearly, Sheffield should have read every page of Hansard to find something about long term injuries, or even speedway, and then taken that to the High Court

There is a difference??? The wording was: "This permits changes to the team on 2 occasions, except for proven long term injury." There is no ambiguity. As I have stated several times before, both Sheffield and Ipswich used this Regulation to their advantage, and in both cases the proven long term injury was just 6 weeks! In Sheffield's case the injured rider never returned to their 1-7, even though he was fit enough to ride in the Championship, because they realised they were stronger with the change they made. If the intention was for something different, the BSPA/SCB should have written the Regulation to reflect that. You can't say: "that's not what we meant", it wouldn't stand up in Primary School, let alone a court.

Except, they were the Regulations - no thought required.

It doesn’t matter what you believe - there’s nothing in the Regs to say that a rider can guest for only one team in the play-offs. Maybe there’s a gentleman’s agreement that it would lend *some* credibility to allow play-off guests to ride for only one team.

I think the fact that there is so much else to do has had the biggest influence on the crowds.

The point I was making is that BV used the "long term injury" regulation. The timing is irrelevant. Each time I've brought up the fact that both Sheffield and Ipswich used (and abused) that Reg, people just ignore it, as if BV were the only "guilty" party. I don't think you *have* to use the same guest for both legs - the Reg says: "A rider may only guest for one team in any 2 legged tie (home and away)." The wording was introduced to prevent the stupid situation of the same rider appearing once for each team in a two-legged tie.

BV didn't replace their #1 "just for the play-offs", they replaced him when they had to because of injury. They used the same regulation that Sheffield and Ipswich had used to make an additional line-up change - and both the Tigers and the Witches abused that Reg when the "long term injury" rider came back to race in the Championship, but not for the Prem team. In Sheffield's case the replacement improved their team and the injured rider never came back. For the Witches, they brought the injured rider back for one league match, which meant he would be eligible for their 2023 line-up.

Why? If Blödorn isn't fit the Aces can use a guest. Including Hodder is primarily a gesture to enable him to experience the pits and atmosphere during an Elite meeting. If, unfortunately, the Aces are short of riders during the meeting, he might get an R/R ride.

Except, the pit gate is nowhere near the track ... There was car racing on Saturday night, so maybe there's damage to the track - bangers with tyres missing can cause grooves.