Roger Jacobs

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.

Belle Vue were always going to choose the Monday, because that has been their regular race night throughout the season. There has been heavy rain around Foxhall, although it is clear at 19:30. The track could have been quite interesting ...

I reckon the vast majority just support a team and enjoy watching the riders and racing, without bothering or questioning all the shizzle ... unless or until their team is affected. This forum tends to attract fans who have a real interest, whereas, for example Speedway Friends on Facebook proves that there are plenty of people out there who are barely computer literate or even capable of conscious thought.

Lambert has not ridden sufficient matches to attain a new MA - has to be a minimum 3 home and 3 away.

And it looks like Richie Worrall is assessed, which lends weight to your argument ...

Wojdylo clearly has "ass", which I'm assuming is not a disparaging comment!

There is a set of SCB Regulations, and there are no clauses. If Fricke hasn't already agreed to ride for Sheffield, they could offer him a good deal ... or Łaguta

No it isn't. You need to read the Regs again.

What one thinks and what the Regulations state can often be different. Lambert has not achieved a new CMA, so his current average is classed as assessed as per the Regs, and as shown on the Green Sheets.

They haven't allowed T/S in two-legged cup matches and play-offs for a long time - originally when they finally realised the Joker was a farce.

Although he needs to show he would be a better choice than Bailey ....

An excellent post. The above bit is the only bit I would partly disagree with. Hume definitely busted a gut, but that really means he was over-riding - he wasn't able to cope with pushing that hard and a fall was inevitable (which he has done numerous times before). Overall though, the Witches attacked the track and benefitted. A very good victory, and it showed how important the "engine room" has to be - the hard work was done at Owlerton, and the equivalent Tigers riders couldn't respond at Foxhall.