SteveLyric2

You can get that from the Crystal Maze can't you?!

I find that amazing as Kyle Newman has been having his worst spell for a while - still if that's what the administrators are saying.....!

Apart from his first ride on Wednesday - when to be fair he was partly baulked by Watty - Chris then rode a 3-ride paid max. Nothing wrong with his confidence or his machinery in those races. He just needs to turn it up a notch away from home. BV away on Monday 3rd will be his next chance to do just that.

Ah yes the old 'independent management' argument solves everything!!? Nobody has been able to name anyone (either individually or as a committee) that is truly independent ie without any allegiance past or present to any club!!

It was meant to be a bit of a joke and very tongue in cheek - a bit like whoever suggested Wolves might be in for Dudek!!!

Consider signing a rider who was banned for actually riding whilst drugged (as opposed to being stopped before he rode)??? Absolutely disgusting thinking! Whatever next? Why isn't there a 400 page thread on this issue?

I presume the FIM have offered no objection to his immediate return to league racing in 3 countries as its within the respective organisations rules and regs for him to do so. Same thing applies to BSI if they so wish!

I think they'd do better trying to get Woffy back in!!

Of course it discredits the sport - breaking the rules always runs the risk of discrediting a sport. The issue of whether the meeting should have started and whose responsibility that falls to for Sky meetings, is why I have support for Coventry's stance on that matter (see my post). Once both teams had agreed to start the meeting then other rules come into play, including a result standing once heat 10 is reached if conditions are deemed unsafe/waterlogged/ whatever. Mick Horton was clearly seen on Sky saying that if an inspection was going to be held after heat 9 then 'we might as well go on to heat 10'!! Chris Harris was clearly ready to go out for heat 10 but was instructed by the management not to - thereby breaking the rule for which the SCB hearing was held. Poole did absolutely nothing wrong in those circumstances - something that Havvy and Horton both stated subsequently. Its not Poole that have publicly prolonged this sorry episode - its the Coventry management. In fact when their appeal to the ACU fails, I wonder if there could be a further fine for bringing the sport into further disrepute?! Just to repeat myself again, I fully support Coventry's attempt to get clarification of where the responsibility lies in calling off a Sky meeting - assuming of course that they and all other clubs don't already know the answer - because I find it very difficult to accept that this situation would not have been discussed and procedures agreed when the Sky contract began or was renewed - but that's just my opinion?!

So breaking the rules and punishing the culprit is now a 'petty issue'?! As far as any attempt to overturn the decision and match result is concerned, I just think its foolish. As I've said before why would the ACU overturn a decision made by a panel including 2 ACU members? What I have every sympathy with Coventry for - as it will affect all clubs - is their attempt to have clarified and confirmed whose responsibility it is and when, if a Sky meeting is to be called off for bad weather?! I hope the answer to that is made fully public so that we all know once and for all!

Happy 50th Birthday today Rosco.

That set of figures looks as sad as the team looked on track last night. And I don't mean that as having a go at Wolves - its just sad.

Surely you wouldn't want to drop an English rider who has upped his average - albeit slightly - to bring in a foreigner?! So Howarth it is could be then?!

The 19th August Poole v Swindon will be televised by Sky!

Is that a bit of a woooooossh?!

He was punished for his one FIM transgression - nothing more or less. Move on.

....and will choose KL in the semis, before going on to meet Bees in the final!! (Havvy and Middlo have discussed and decided!)

Bikes and engines are similar - its just the set-ups for each different track that need to be sorted.

Not sure how Mr Pairman could have a conflict of interest? Poole did nothing wrong and were not otherwise represented at the hearing. Of the 4 other SCB panel members, 2 are from the ACU - the very same body that Coventry are now intending to appeal to!!! I just don't understand the logic in appealing against a rule that was clearly broken.

Actually a defeat in Speedway is a failure to win 3 or 4 points but only losing by a point is still going away with winning 1. Good teams are those that perform below par and still pick up a league point.

Oooh that'll make the meeting just that extra bit interesting. Sargeant v Poole Start Marshall Round 2. Is Sarjeant still under a 2-year suspended ban?

Have I missed it? Apologies I did look but couldn't find it. Update: - Looked again and didn't realise it was in the post-hearing statement. Maybe his presence counter-balanced that of the Chairman?!

Exactly - Nigel can't be in 2 places at once!

Good to see Darcy straight back in to the Piraterna side tonite!!

It wasn't possible for Ward to replace Holder due to the averages. It would have had to be Ward for Janowski, which very few fans could see any logic for!!!