Barney Rabbit

Maybe, but if we are talking free coverage I'd rather it be with the Beeb than a pay-for channel.

Bowls. That's the sport that gets seven days live blanket coverage on BBC2 for it's World Championship. Must be doing something right.

No, never for Panthers' matches. One I can remember paying more to sit in the stand (other than King's Lynn) was Somerset but that was some time ago and for a Cardiff Eve meeting, possibly an individual event.

Can't ever remember paying extra for the stand at EoES for Panthers' meetings. It costs more to sit in the stand for shared events, or whatever they're called, like the4s and World Team Cup events.

As the majority of folk used to be when happiness was 40-38, with 38-40 not far behind. Someone came top, another came bottom with the rest somewhere in between and speedway folk weren't over-bothered which of those positions their team occupied. Now it's all about winning and there are promoters prepared to do anything to ensure their team is a winner.

That sort of situation was the beginning of the end for me. In 1999, two teams, Peterborough and Poole, were neck and neck for the title (it was done proper in those days, first past the post, no second-chance saloon for second to fourth places). Peterborough were at Belle Vue and needed a guest. Enter Mark Loram, a Poole rider. Where's the credibility in that? Mark, bless him, got a maximum. Now, on that day, a relative newbie came along for the ride (I say relative because he'd been to a GP with me and had watched a couple of televised matches). He thought he'd seen Loram ride for someone else so asked me. What could I say? On here in a previous thread we were advised to tell newbies to shut up and watch the racing but I couldn't do that - a loud shout telling Mark to f off back to f...ing Poole after he'd won a heat sort of gave the game away. A look at the programme showed the relative league positions of Peterborough and Poole. You can guess the rest of the conversation.

In the first few years of Panthers' existence, a speedway match used to be the last thing on two of the days of the Peterborough/East of England Show at the Showground and anyone still there from the show could watch the speedway free. You could tell the ones that had never seen the sport before because they always lined up leaning on the safety fence to get a good view of the action. They were warned to get back from the fence but most never heeded the warning. After the parade it was great to see the riders method of moving them back - a few well-executed turns ensured a good shower of shale went out covering these 'newbies' in the stuff. They soon moved back.

I don't know how far back you're going with this but certainly, between 1966 when I first sat (legally) on a Golden Arrow to selling my Kawasaki 400 4 in the mid-1980s and belonging to several motorcycle groups I was very much in the minority for liking speedway, very often a minority of one. Most couldn't identify with the brakeless, single-geared machinery and had no interest in watching short bursts of action limited to just turning left.

I don't think anybody is trying to deflect away from that, but that in no way makes him liable to be thrown out of this season's GP competition. I do not condone what he did but he broke no rule (as I and some others read it, you read it differently) and rightly keeps the World Championship he won over the season.

That's exactly how rules work. Anybody having to interpret the rule will read beyond the first 17 words which you seem to get stuck at. They will read the words 'take part', as you do, but will go on to see the words 'Grand Prix meetings concerned'. They won't see 'part-meetings' or 'rides', which is what Greg Hancock didn't take part in. He did take part in the meeting. Also, when considering a rule, the reason for it's inception will be considered and, if the reason was as in my previous post it will be considered whether you like it or not because that's how rules work. However, since Greg was apparently given permission to stand down from those rides, we will never find out the correct interpretation.

Really? Would cause a load of problems. I'd be intrigued to know when the rule was penned and brought in. If, as I believe it to be, it has existed since the inauguration of the GP style championship then I would say it refers to meetings missed, not rides. I contend it was introduced to stop the lower-end riders missing a far-off GP which would see them eliminated after just two rides in favour of riding two or three league meetings instead. The one day before (the day of compulsory practice back then) and the three days after encompass the Polish and Swedish league meetings and are not just a random number of days. The likes of, say, Mario Jirout would have made more money riding a British match or two on the Friday and/or Monday, a Polish match and a Swedish one rather than travelling to a GP for just a couple of rides before elimination. I'd say the rule was brought in to prevent them doing that.

I can, I did. I travelled the world following speedway (Australia, USA, most GP venues and every track in Britain over several years). Had an 180 mile round trip just to watch my team whilst living in Yorkshire for nigh on twenty years (as well as regular trips to more local tracks like Sheffield, Hull, Scunny, Belle Vue, Bradford, Buxton and Redcar). But, after cottoning on to something not being right, there not being a level playing field, some teams getting things others didn't, you know the type of things I mean, my visits got less regular. Then the winter of discontent came and it sickened me how keen some were to see the end of two well run (at the time, don't know about now) clubs and the glee with which others jumped into the void despite previous declarations and I realised something was very wrong at the core of the sport. I gave it another year but, not getting the enthusiasm to go very often that year I gave it up altogether in this country other than occasional visits to Mildenhall, but even they have stopped now. I say gave it up in this country because I still go to speedway. Being of Polish parentage I visit Poland from time to time and take in speedway meetings there and, when in New Zealand visiting my daughter, I visit Auckland's Rosebank track whenever speedway's on.

Sounds most probable. Then the samples for the tests open to the SCB could be taken by any authorised (not necessarily qualified) sample taker and sent away for analysis. As long as the sample is taken and handled in accordance with laid-down procedure and the paperwork filled in correctly the results would be fine for SCB purposes. There is another, cheaper test available to the SCB, the dip-in-the-sample type carried out on the spot but this will most likely label the previously mentioned poppy seed bagel lover a junkie.

Yes, but there is further analysis available that sorts these freak results out.

I think you'll find that, In law, the actual wording is 'threatening OR abusive behaviour'. Don't know about the SCB/BSPA though.

I always found the 'averages' side of things (the principal, not exact figures) to be the easiest part of speedway theory to put over to potential newbies. The idea that all teams have the chance to start off equal, and that one team can't have the world's best seven riders, seems to appeal to most sport-minded folk.

Where have I posted I gave negative replies? After forty five years following the sport all round the world I know well enough what to answer and as I have posted, some accepted it and came again, others didn't. You posted, quite clearly, there is no need to discuss anything other than the actual racing with newbies. All I posted is that the newbies I went with invariably picked up on something and asked about it so I could hardly not talk about guests, d/ups, whatever.

I've answered them too. Some have accepted it, some haven't. I was really answering Tsunami's question about why would anyone be discussing guests, T/R, D/Ups etc. Every newbie I ever took (to a team event) asked me something about racing regulations, team make-ups, that sort of thing. Not one has ever just concentrated on the action.

So, when asked why one team only has six riders for the parade I tell him it doesn't matter, you're here for the racing. That'll go down really well! People ask things, you have to answer their questions.

No, but when the ball goes into the net and the defending side get a free kick they're bound to ask why. Just like speedway newbies will ask why one of a team is listed in the programme in italics, or why one team has seven riders the other has six, why one or more riders has (G) behind his name in the programme. Do we just ignore their questions and hope they'll think so much of the 20 minutes action they'll keep quiet between the heats?

Not necessarily. Unlawful Sexual Intercourse gets a lesser penalty.

Not exclusively. I say it's a lot more than four blokes going round a track. It's about an unambiguous set of rules being applied fairly and equally to all but I'd scrap play-offs for the league title tomorrow.

I've posted why I keep going on about some promoters being unhappy - I found out first hand from a couple! They were voted in by the EL but have you read all of that post you quoted? Can't put it any clearer. You've been going to speedway long enough. you must have read or heard of a couple of the promoters wanting less fixtures, both cup competitions have been dropped, an uneven fixture list was introduced (playing some teams four times, others twice) to reduce matches. Free-choice decisions have all been to reduce fixtures not increase them and, had they not have been introduced, thanks to Sky, their success would never have been discovered and would not have been in their armoury for any discussion on the subject even if the idea of play-offs would have been brought up.

Yes, I see you've edited your post to include an answer. If's that your belief then fine, but we don't know that they would have been voted in and that they'd have been title deciders if the 'suggestion' hadn't been made by Sky. Why a vote to have extra matches may well have failed has been posted before (that's why a lop-sided fixture programme was introduced) and we don't always follow every other sport or speedway league - we have yet to introduce a squad system, we don't have a set racing night and our play-offs are for the championship, many are not. But if you believe they would be in by now, fine, but having heard what some promoters were saying (one or two at first hand) back then I somehow doubt it. Yes, I think we are agreed on Sky's 'suggestion' being the catalyst but I go with the 'we want the title decider so have these play-offs or we're off' suggestion rather than 'we know how four clubs can make a bit of extra cash'. And yes, they would have to be voted in but three-line whip springs to mind. I take the point that the PL introduced play-offs but that was after they proved successful for some clubs in the EL. But, had Sky not introduced them in the first place....

Can't you just answer a simple question? In your opinion, why were play-offs introduced into the EL to start with the 2002 season?