21st century heathen

What if a NL club has riders that are offered a ride in the PL after the season has started? Does the NL club have to drop those riders? If so consider that each of the Heathens riders had at least one PL outing. How could the team have been rebuilt had they all had to be dropped? I would hate to see any gimmicks such as messing around with the heat format. The points limit is, I believe, already set. I wouldn't want a dramatic drop in the points limit in any case. Watering down the competition at any level will not help our riders in the long run. They need stiff competition to improve. Stability is the key for me. I hate knee-jerk (over)reactions. Forward-planning with carefully through-out ideas is fine, but an ill-considered reaction to something that's happened or not happened this season that's implemented in short-order will almost certainly be doomed to failure. There will always be a redistribution of riders as clubs have to get back under the points limit and there will be some riders moving on and not looking to return to their current NL club as well. Things should be kept fundamentally the same for 2013 with consideration give now to what should be done in 2014. This is regarding rules and reg's not to teams moving up/down from other league's or joining the league if it's a new club.

I'm not dressing anything up. I've explained how I have come to the conclusion I have and shown the images to prove the point/s I've made. You have not specifically offered any counter-view just Roynon should go. Given the evidence to the contrary that I have posted how do you come to that conclusion? I like the KL track and agree there's some fantastic racing there, as there is at Monmore. I fail to see how that's a relevant point though. That's a bit flippant. Of course it's not, but the attempted, not completed, overtake was proven to be an unsafe manoeuvre as Nielsen was not clear of Roynon as he tried to get past Morris too. Change lanes sharply on the motorway before you are clear of the other vehicle and see who the insurance company holds accountable. Not exactly true to say that just about every neutral thinks the decision was correct. There are plenty of comments on FB and Twitter, some from riders, saying Roynon was wrongly discluded and did nothing wrong. Of course the most important thing is that Roynon makes a full, speedy and comfortable recovery both physically and emotionally. He sounded very down yesterday and even hinted at calling it a day which would be absolutely heartbreaking. That's out of order and I've edited the end of your post. Do not resort to personal comments. I had a great view of the nudge Ash got and again there was not intent whatsoever. There was slight contact and in the conditions, try as he might, Ash just couldn't hold on to the bike. It happened to him twice and he was extremely unfortunate not to get a decision from the ref on either. I do wonder where the replays were on those occasions.

The incident is just a racing incident with no malice intended by any rider out there. I just want to make my feelings on that perfectly clear, but I can't see how Roynon can be considered at fault. Allow me to play amateur accident scene investigator. Roynon rides the inside for the entire race up the point of contact. I don't think anyone would dispute that. In the image below the two riders can be seen (sorry for poor quality - phone snap off lap top) at the apex of turn 3/4 with Nielsen way out wide and Roynon right around the inside. https://twitter.com/...8/photo/1/large On the next image look where the riders are now. This is barely even coming off the turn. Roynon is still right around the inside. Nielsen is now also around the inside. By Nielsen's own admission (ITV Anglia clip) he "thinks" he can turn back and "squeeze" in between the Heathens lads. Look at the two riders body position. Nielsen has his left leg out, his backside off the seat his shoulder dipped (either his should or elbow in Roynon's ribs) and hanging off the bike. Just to the right hand edge you can see the back end of Morris' machine. Nielsen, by his own admission remember, is trying to turn to the inside of Morris' position to squeeze between the two riders. Roynon has held his line. Nielsen is still trying to change his line to get inside Morris. https://twitter.com/...8/photo/1/large Some have pointed to the back of Roynon's bike 'flicking' out. But why did that happen? As we can all see that Roynon holds the inside line for the whole lap and Nielsen makes a dramatic change to the line he's ridden. What effect has that had? From the image above we can see that Roynon's front end has been forced in toward the centre of the track as a result of being leaned on. The front end of the bike being slowed by contact and the rear wheel driving the bike hard has the effect of making the back end step out toward the outside as the front end is slowed and pushed inward. That's just simple physics but it does explain why people think Roynon 'flicked' the back end out. It's the contact on the front end that makes this happen. Also, on the image you can see just how small the gap between Roynon and Morris was and remember that Nielsen is aiming for this gap which is tight to the inside from a far outside line when he was in the middle of the corner. Roynon can't just stop or disappear. He's already there, and had been throughout the race. The conclusion I draw is as follows: Roynon held his line. Nielsen changed his line dramatically. Nielsen leans on Roynon. Nielsen admits trying to squeeze between the Heathens which is an admission he changed his line and that he knew how tight it was. The contact is sufficient to force Roynon's bike into changing direction. It's just racing with no malice but Roynon absolutely cannot be held accountable for the decisions Nielsen took in trying to come from behind to overtake the riders in front of him.

http://www.dudleyheathens.co/news.php?extend.697 As previously I remind the BSF members we have rules so away you go but do not let it descend into abusing each other on here.

Adam has a badly broken leg just below the knee and faces an operation today. He also has a less serious break to the bottom of his shoulder blade. His Tweets have been very downbeat. Chin up Royno. Just a racing incident and some of the comments I've seen about Stef are bang out of order. But all clubs have some little 'treasures'. Had some of you, and perhaps some did, seen the way a couple of Mildenhall fans reacted after Ash was knocked off early on you'd have been sharing my view that any club can have a small minority that shout the loudest shall we say?! As for the way the ref came to his decision in heat 15 - more when I have the time. ...tbc

Congrats to the Mildenhall lads.

Just picking up on a few comments - The reason the KOC is second is surely because it's more important to get a result from the PO 1st leg. The KOC could be won after about 10 heats so if necessary that meeting could be abandonned if the time is against us. It would be foolish to run all 15 heats of that meeting and risk running out of the time for the PO meeting. Whilst I will acknowledge that r/r potentially hits Mildenhall hard be under no illusion it's going to potentially hit us hard too. 'Boris' had been in superb form, certainly the form of his season. The two lads perform pretty much the same roll for their respective club. You can make arguments that this rider or that rider might cover well, and yes Ash for example is very good at Monmore, but I could counter with Ash and James have blown an engine each over the weekend and Dan has been ill. We could all point to a hundred potential influences but I think r/r, on paper at least, pretty much evens itself out tonight. Some of the stats for the Heathens are quite staggering and rarely will a whole team improve so much as a unit in one season. In '83 arguably the, or one of the (just for Rob ), greatest teams of all time posted a combined average of 61.72 (incl BPs) for the Heathens. In '12 this Heathens team has posted 61.35 (incl BPs), though from less meetings. At home, though from only a few meetings, the figure is 66.67 with two riders way over 11 and five over 9. Even James, who's taken some unfair stick from some quarters, has a home average over 6½ (with BPs). However, these figures were not posted by facing a team with the qualities that Mildenhall have every week. If I remember right, in the league fixture Mildehall had a shaky start (or the Heathens were flying) and then they pegged us later when tradionally (if three years constitutes a tradition ) we come on strong. Roynon had his worst league meeting of the season against Mildenhall at home. He's only human and is, of course, beatable. Jacobs had a cracker last time and Garrity is a very real threat. Bates is a potential trump card at reserve. The bottom line for me is that the riders are largely very closely matched an ultimately it's going to come down to who can perform on the night (and tomorrow). Hopefully we'll see some cracking speedway and everybody will come out the other side in one piece. *stats from the Dudley and Cradley websites

80p per race rather than 50p per race tonight. Blatant profiteering. Baggy must be on a cut to drum up some neutral support. Real shame for any 'home' fans that can't make it now. It's not too far though. I'm gussing a similar distance as if we had to go to Brandon instead(?) so hopefully most can make the journey. Luckily from our perspective the distance must be almost exactly the same so shouldn't affect travelling support. You could make a case for it suiting a couple of Heathens riders, but I'm not sure all would feel the same. And whatever our lads think it doesn't mean the Mildenhall lads aren't perfectly happy aruond there.

I'm surprised by a couple of early posts about the riders in the field. For as long as I can recall it's always been the same. It's the top rider from each club and the best of the rest. In '95 there were more than 16 teams so there was just one rider from the top clubs with some others missing out. Cradley had Hamill in it as he had topped the averages nationwide, but Hancock, who was second in the averages that season, missed out on the meeting. In fact Simon Cross, who was third in the Cradley averages, missed out despite averaging more that year than all-but five of the riders in the EL this season (and I've subtracted the bonus points to get a comparable figure). There's no reason why the named field can't produce a good meeting though. As long as the BSPA insist that the nominated riders must ride, or face a fine/ban, to stop riders suddenly developing a cough or an ingrowing toenail then there's no reason that the ELRC can't be a cracking meeting whenever it's held.

http://www.speedway-forum.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=71865&st=0

Who else was in the line-up? Too early for Tom to DU in the EL. IMO Tom should consider another year NL and DU PL. With a near 10-point average in the NL he would become the out-and-out number 1 which will be a new challenge at that level to help him raise his game again. He's averaged less than 4 in the PL, seemingly finding the pace a bit hot more often than not. I would speculate, having not watched him riding PL, that he's often missing out from the start and is finding the PL boys don't come back to you quite so readily as in the NL. He's made huge strides in just 3 seasons on shale but let's not expect too much too soon. If he can average 10 as a number 1 in the NL next season and can average 6+ in the PL then perhaps it could be a possibility. I do agree with your comment about the crowd. It was certainly up there with the higher attendances of the season. It'll be dwarfed next Tuesday though.

He rode one of Wells' bikes (or the engine at least, not sure about the frame). The poor ol' bloke looked knackered after about 2½ laps of each race. Jokes aside, he did fine for one of his age in his first competitive meeting for a number of years. He held on well when he took a race win. I reckon he could compete well with the other older riders back in The States but I don't see him riding in the league here. I can't see his ageing body standing up to the test of weekly racing for 7 months+. I don't think was ever meant to be a test to consider a comeback. It was just a bit of fun and he enjoyed himself.

It was an okay meeting but lacked some better riders with PK and Kennett pulling out late. It was a bit of a joke to see some of the jump starts not pulled back. King jumped the start three times and Kildemand's jump start was a joke. He nearly broke the tapes from a 20 metre handicap!! The entry to turn 1 caught a lot of riders out with several falling there and Lindgren appeared to almost lose it in an early heat when he backed it in. Hope the Polish lad is okay. Does anyone have any news on his back injury? It took a long time, and rightly so, for the medical staff to be happy to move him. Klindt tweeted he was pretty sore after his fall so hopefully he's okay too. Kildemand is a lucky boy to have walked away after seemingly falling asleep and landing in front of the following pack. Congrats to Scott for another Monmore master class. Wells was very good value for his second place, and well done King on getting away with the rolling and taking advantage of another turn 1 victim when Fisher fell while leading the run-off. King does win the 'save of the week' award after almost dumping himself in the turn 4 air fence. It looked for all the world he would slip off the low side but somehow picked it up again.

I would think the original plan to ask Royno but since his injury Tom was asked in his place. Wolves could have hardly been expected to twiddle thumbs waiting to see whether Royno would be fit again this season. I've seen better and worse line-ups than that.

Playing devils advocate - the double-header is a one-off not a weekly commitment. That said I was with you, particularly with regard to entering the NL Trophy. I'm no happier with my club for that than with some clubs opting out of the KOC.

Apologise for what? I formed an opinion based on the information available. And, incidentally, the declared team for the date of the meeting still does not have Bates in the line-up. Far from being proven wrong the only information we have, and it is all we should need, suggests the team that Mildenhall tracked was illegal. The powers-that-be don't always follow the rules. Why do you think there are so many arguments on here about rules being ignored, made up or somehow circumnavigated? My mate SCB (the forum member) has posted a list before now about the number of teams that have re/declarations against the rules, riders with the wrong average, ineligible guests etcetera. Only three clubs in the NL complied fully with the rules in their initial declaration this season, and neither Dudley nor Mildenhall were amongst those three. The rules and reg's are treated more like a set of rough guidelines and until it's tightened up and there is transparency in the decision-making process there will always be fans like me, and many others, grumbling about this, that or the other. I do not believe that Mildenhall deliberately cheated or tried something underhand to gain an advantage, and once again, as I did at the time, I congratulate the team on their win on the day and well done, again, to Bates for a cracking return to action. The SCB write the rules. The BSPA have made a ruling and so we must accept it and move on whether any of us feel it's right or not. I wish Bates all the best for the rest of the season and beyond. The lad clearly has some natural ability and I hope he continues his improvement quickly.

Please don't start bickering. It's been a good, honest, open and friendly exchange of views so far.

True. I did throw in all sorts of ifs buts and maybes though. I don't want to really drag up the previous debate which is why I didn't get into specifics or make a particularly big deal about it in itself. As it happens the Heathens also went against the ruling by agreeing to the changed start time. If you go back you'll see that ultimately I criticised both clubs at the time because neither did as they were told! It's a significant development in one of the most important meetings of the season. For so long as everyone continues to debate in a friendly manner it is something that can be discussed. With my mod hat on for a moment I'm grateful that everyone has done that so far, and long may it continue.

It seems that Dudley may have decided to go ahead with the meeting and then protested after the event. Certainly, that would open the club up to accusations of sour grapes after the result. As a fan I can see, and acknowledge, that. However, it may not make any difference what Dudley did. The statement on the Dudley website states the ref made a note of the Bates situation. That, surely, means one of two things. Either the ref believes the Mildenhall team was illegal but was not certain so couldn't make a statement of fact before the meeting so he/she has had to raise it him/herself with the SCB, or Dudley raised it before the meeting to make the ref aware. If whichever of those two is correct then the potentially illegal use of Bates was raised before the meeting. The rules state a dispute must be settled 30 minutes before the meeting. If it can't be then surely it's better for the sport and the fans present that a meeting goes ahead on time rather than 2 hours of arguing followed by it being called off? If what the Mildenhall statement suggests, or states outright actually, is true then I believe they are in the wrong. You cannot re/declare an injured rider in your team. Mildenhall state that Bates was brought in to replace Baseby, then the following day Isherwood was brought in to replace Bates. Two things about that. There is no issue of the declaration that states Bates was back in the team at this time, in fact he's still not in the team on the latest issue. Bates was injured at the time and still out of action injured for 4 four weeks after that date. This could be why the move was not ratified? The other fact is that every re/declaration must be cleared by the BSPA MC. Clearly that did not happen as at no point has Bates appeared back in the re/declared line-up. I know I'll be accused of being biased but I can see no other resolution than his points being removed from the team total. CVS is still a BSPA member (someone mentioned him). The rules are produced by the SCB so I assume the SCB will apply its rules to the situation rather than the BSPA making a ruling. --------------------------- Just a quick note to clarify an earlier comment I made regarding further punishment. The current rules should be applied - no more and no less. What I was suggesting is a change to the rules for the future. I believe a points deduction would add a further deterrent without the risk of the BSPA opening itself up to accusations of profiteering from fines and also not impact clubs financially for what could be a genuine error. Relating to the Mildenhall situation this season I was suggesting that it's not so much the breaking of a rule, if that's proven the case, but rather that it may be the case that the club may have twice ignored a BSPA ruling. Ignoring a ruling is far worse than breaking a rule in the first place. There are a number of rules I don't like and could easily join the rally call for any club if I feel they are dealt with harshly by a dodgy rule. But a club cannot be seen to do its own thing against a ruling.

Well, a full statement by the Heathens management regarding the Bates issue makes interesting reading. http://www.dudleyheathens.co/news.php?extend.672 The main point I would take from this is that if, and I can't stress that enough at the moment, it's true that the Mildenhall management have ignored a BSPA ruling for the second time this season then surely some sort of action must be taken. That simply cannot go unpunished. As I've said before, I would not be in favour of a fine. The sport is not in a comfortable position financially speaking. It would open the BSPA up to accusations of making rulings to make money too, which in itself would bring the sport into disrepute. My personal opinion is that a points deduction for the following season would be suitable. I know some people don't like the comparison but points deductions work in football so I see no reason why it couldn't in speedway. I would just like to reiterate that whatever happens it will not take the gloss off Bates' performance on track. Cracking score by him on his return.

Mostly a perfectly fair reflection on the meeting there Kev, though I have one major point to make. You state nobody got near Ash Birks until heat 15. That's not true mate. Both Ash Morris and Tom gave him a real run for his money in earlier heats, especially our Ash who was level with him and right on his back wheel throughout the heat. Ash Birks has had an awesome season. He's in my PL dream team for next season.

Well that was interesting. No, hang on I don't mean interesting do I? Crap, yes that's the word I was looking for!! Congrats to Stoke. Solid job on the night. It's a shame to read a couple of comments I've seen about Lee Geary's points haul. To finish first first you have to finish springs to mind. He rode safe and sensible lines on his first visit to Monmore, he stayed on the bike and was not let down by his machinery. You can't knock him for that. He deserved his points. Some of the comments about James White Williams are starting to annoy me as well. He is hugely frustrating because he can gate with the best of them at this level but doesn't seem to be able to hang on to the promising positions very often. However, he signed on 4.53 and upped it to 4.88. You can't ask any more than for a rider such as James than to improve on the average he joined on. I won't comment further because I'll just end up moaning about where it all went wrong. Big job on to get everybody in the right frame of mind and equipment ready for tonight. A draw will do.

Friday the 19th is reserved according to the Mildenhall website so I'm assuming that's the date for the PO Final home leg. To be honest even with his points taken off it's still a mammoth task and I would not expect to overhaul the difference. I don't think a technicality would overshadow his performance in the eyes of the fans. Super return and good luck to the lad. As below - my understanding is that the protest should have been made before the meeting.

I've seen the article and the, for once, well written response on the Heathens website which led me to mention it on here. I think the issue is that although there's no reason Bates shouldn't be brought back in he's not in the declared line-up. Take a look at the links I posted. The first link is when he was last in the declared team and the second link is the latest and update with all the current declared teams. He is not in the team so if a protest was made, as seems to be the case, it should be upheld. It's such a shame that it will be seen as another negative between clubs that have been sniping at each other a but too much this season but the rules are the rules. It's not certain that Roynon will ride for the Heathens again this season. He's riding for Worky at the weekend and I guess we'll see what happens after that. The Heathens would be in the same position as Mildenhall in that Roynon would have to be in the declared team. Currently Haines is in the declared line-up. It's not that Roynon or Bates can't come back in but rather about the paper work being sorted.

Well, well, well things are never straight forward are they?! It seems that Dudley may have made a protest about Bates inclusion as he is not in the Mildenhall declared line-up. That's something I'm sure none of us would have even thought to check. I have now taken a look at the Team Declarations on the BSPA and it seems to me that Dudley are correct. Bates was last in the declared line-up on issue 21 which was effective from 1st Sept. He was dropped from the line-up and has not been reinstated as far as I can see. Whatever the reason for it the rules are the rules and I rather suspect there is a very real possibility that his points will be removed from the team total. What is strange, if I remember right, is that a rider's points are not then reallocated with heat results being amended. So if it's true that a protest was made and the SCB rule in favour of the protest I think the result will be amended to 51-33. http://www.speedwayg...nl12_dec_21.pdf http://www.speedwayg...nl12_dec_25.pdf No doubt that whatever happens it will spark some lively debate again but remember that it's not the fault of our members on here so keep it respectful please. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I have seen a suggestion that Bekker may have broken a bone in his back. That's yet to be confirmed officially but he stated himself yesterday that he was waiting on the result of further x-rays and the Heathens website did state he had back and knee injuries. So good news about not breaking his leg may have been quickly followed by bad news about his back. ATB 'Boris'.