1 valve

He has been suspended for refusing to take a test (or failing to provide a complete test) the 30 day suspension is an automatic punishment for doing so. Further punishment may or may not be forthcoming based on the findings of any subsequent hearing(s)

A number of suggestions for best team manager are for managers of yesteryear whereas the question posed at the introduction ask for “who are the best” not “were” or “have been” So current managers only?

On a general point re testing to WADA standards & the presumption that Nick was asked to provide a urine test. Under such situations the person is asked to provide one sample whist being supervised. He/she is then asked to divide the specimen into two containers labelled A&B. he/she then closes and secures the containers before giving them to the supervising person and completes the appropriate paperwork. There is no "second" sample requested. The samples are then sent away to a laboratory - no testing is carried out on site. To speculate. If a person has drank a lot of water the urine can become "too dilute" to be regarded as acceptable (this bit is true). The supervisor may recognise this fact (speculation) and request a second test, but I am not certain if this then supersedes the first test (I myself have only had to provide first test samples) I am not even sure if it is possible for the supervisor to actually recognise too diluted urine hence the speculation. Alternatively, NM may have not produced enough urine (us blokes know what its like when somebody is looking over your shoulder) and was asked to provide more to reach the required volume - it is quite a bit. So what remains to be established is why was NM asked to provide a second sample - The people who do the collecting know what they are doing so it would be difficult to understand why such a request was made unless there was legitimate grounds for doing so.

Or Morris gets a recall - if he's available?

Absolutely no need to speak with SCB as the Lions already know it’s a 30 day ban and they can only use RR facility during that period unless they drop Morris from the team & replace him with another rider. Passing any opinion on the situation is not advisable and comments best kept to actions made in response to the current circumstance i.e they will run RR for the next meeting or they have signed another rider to replace Morris short term or permanently.

Scott contracted to his commentary work so not available for any fixtures that clash with the tv work

What would you expect them to say? The issue occurred when Morris was riding for another promotion & the SCB statement covers all of the salient points including that the next step will be Morris attending a SCB hearing. Until the outcome of that hearing is known the only comments the Lions could make would be either judgmental or prejudicial to the case in question.

Your point is absolutely spot on. It is inconsistent where a team cant operate RR at the meeting where the offense occurred but can do so at their next match. Maybe somebody can offer an explanation as to why this is the case?

Lions will not be allowed a guest - must use RR. So definitely no benefit to the team.

If there’s nothing to buy then there’s nothing to hand over.

Why (if you are referring to the Laguta case) do you think that? There is a a statutory rule banning riders for 7 days who present a medical note relating to a none speedway illness. Laguta is not due to ride in UK for 7 days so no meetings missed - other than the Wolves fixture which is "explained" by the medical note.

Would the Lions want/need him though?

Maybe, the story goes like this. Artem rides Thursday at KL but gets a knock which looks like will put him out of Sundays meeting in Poland and Monday night at Wolves. KL promotion books guest replacement "Bomber", who lives nearby and is something of a Monmore track specialist(?) Wolves print their programme. But then, for Artem, good news, he makes a quicker than expected recovery enabling him to ride in Poland - happy days! Except, it is now realised it means he is fit to ride in UK (whoops) so not needing any more money cuz he's done ok in Poland he looks for a way out? Strangely, he doesn't go down the "aggravated the ankle injury route" which would mean he can ride as soon as he's fit do so, but instead opts for the "upset stomach" option meaning a 7 day rest (sorry ban) and cant travel to UK for Mondays meeting. One promoter (maybe) happy because now he doesn't have a big wage to pay and also as Artem has provided a sick note he's clearly not "witheld his services" and thus avoids a 28 day ban. Not sure the SCB (who the BSPA are accountable to) can do anything about it - but there again, Maybe Artem did have an upset stomach after all?

Didn't the doubt that Laguta would be missing from the Wolves fixture stem from him having to withdraw mid-way through last Thursday's home match v Leicester with an apparent bad knock to his left ankle? Also, what aspect of the SCB statement do you consider not believable? That Laguta was taken ill? or that the SCB did not receive a doctors note? or some other angle?

Unlike how a rolling stone gathers no moss, its amazing how in the world of British speedway false news, Chinese whispers & suchlike gather believers to propagate inaccurate rumours'

The Auto Cycle Union Ltd (ACU), as the internationally recognised Governing Body for the sport of motorcycling throughout the British Isles delegates to the Speedway Control Bureau (SCB) as the sole National Body appointed to control the sport of motorcycle Speedway within that jurisdiction. Regulations generally conform to the ACU’s National Sporting Code (NSC) which itself is in conformity with the International Sporting Code of the Fédération Internationale de Motorcyclisme (FIM)

The 7 day ban is quite rightly a statutory rule, rather than one applied arbitrarily. So a rider suffering a none speedway injury/illness has seven days for the problem to go away which in many cases it does. In the case of the none speedway injury/illness lasting longer than the first 7 days then the period would be extended in 7 day increments Making the rule a statutory 28 day ban would (unnecessarily) prevent riders who have fully recovered in (say) 5 days from riding for a further 3 weeks.

Absolutely correct. As was the issuing of a seven day ban which is the long standing rule where a medical certificate has been presented for a none speedway related injury/illness. Whilst folk on this forum have ridiculed the situation, the same people appear not to have made any workable proposals of a better way the matter could or should have been dealt with.

It has been a very long standing rule that if a rider is declared unfit to race due to a none speedway related illness/injury & submits an appropriate note from a doctor then the rider cannot race for seven days. If the rider does not submit a doctors note then the rider is deemed to be withholding his services and is banned I believe for 28 days. It is not a case of the SCB overruling doctors (the rule is approved by the FIM) but a means to deal with riders who may wish to "pull a sickie". Its not a perfect solution, but at least a good one. Interestingly, A few years back I think it was Scott Nichols who pulled a muscle in his back loading his bikes into his van which prevented him from setting off to a meeting and subsequently had to serve a seven day "ban" because the injury was not regarded as a speedway related incident! -

False news based on speculation & nonsense.

Yes.

As they didn't, he isn't! He had no choice but to ride in the qualifier or face a 24 day ban, which of course would have meant him missing more than one Lions match (which as it happens they won anyway)

Just to emphasise a particular point. At no point was the meeting delayed by riders not being ready to go nor by the time taken to grade/water the track. All of the extra time taken was to accommodate the requirements of Eurosport and I'm not saying that is a bad thing at all, its just what was required. Speedway is actually "made for TV" given its regular breaks between races and track maintenance, its not unlike American football where the TV breaks add quite a considerable amount of time to the overall running of a match. The key is to optimise the timing of on and off track requirements.

To add some perspective to the negative points being made here. The "delays" during the meeting were down to waiting on TV advertising, coverage of the match at Wolves as well as interviews being made - not all were shown on TV. this combination even caused delays after the track had been graded and watered, not forgetting between the introduction of riders & heat 1. Kelvin was alone in the commentary box because his usual co-commentator was with his team at Wolverhampton. The crowd was affected by Leicester City being on Tv as well as the Lion. There was a camera on bend two which having viewed the recording appeared to be out of use? Can only agree with everybody who has criticised the production in terms of what was being shown - hopefully they will get better as more matches are covered. The Lions rode well as a team - the Tigers did not - doesn't help for good TV.

Not doubting the track at the time of the call off was not looking good & any additional rain would only add to the problem. However, promoters being keen to avoid wasted travel costs has added Weight behind this particular decision. Shame the decision has been followed by nothing other than glorious sunshine. Let’s hope it pours down between now and 7pm to justify the decision,