False dawn

If that is right, I am more worried than ever about the ruling body. A team manager determining what the SCB says in its public pronouncements surely can't be right?

It's not just baffling. The SCB continue to paint themselves into a corner. They declared a breach of the rules and continue to fail to say how they came to that conclusion. The referee at the time and Poole and others continue to say there was no conclusive evidence. However the ruling body says otherwise. Simple solution. The SCB explain their "breach statement".

I'm sure no rider is universally liked. But I do think Tom has wide support and like me, would like to see him rise through the ranks.

I don't agree with the SCB statement because it is woefully inadequate. It doesn't explain the rule we're all debating or the basis upon which it made it's decision. Or what might happen should a similar situation arise before the rules are rewritten, amended or "enhanced". If the SCB believe they can sweep this under the carpet by saying nothing, they are sadly mistaken. The sport might be in a mess but the fans and both clubs involved deserve better. In fact, everyone connected with the sport does.

I don't think they are going to tell us (or anyone). Whatever they do is worth an awful lot of money.

But people want to know who was at fault. Your options are: 1. It was Poole, it always is. 2. It was Zach. He deliberately rode a tight line/crossed the white line to gain an advantage. 3. It was the referee who, with the aid of the replays, came to the wrong decision. 4. It the rule as written by the SCB. 1. Don't be silly 2. I don't believe Zach took to the centre green on purpose. Nor did he gain an advantage. Picko let him by with a view to trying to slow down Richard Lawson and get MPT into 3rd place. 3. The referee interpreted an ambiguous rule and came to a decision on that basis. 4. The SCB in its own post meeting announcement said they declared a breach of the rule after they'd reviewed it. So it was ambiguous.

I support your thinking for the most part. However, inherent in the SCB statement is the strong implication that they declared a breach of the rule only after they'd reviewed the rule in question. In other words, at the time of the breach it wasn't clear (maybe) that the rule was clear enough for the referee to come to same conclusion. Reading this one way means that the SCB has thrown the referee under the bus and used other rules to prevent a change to the announced result. As I've said elsewhere, the SCB could simply have said the rule contained some ambiguity and that the referee ruled on the basis of his interpretation at the time. I think there would have been a much greater acceptance of the result standing.

So if a rider has alcohol on his breathe and is tested after the meeting and fails - no action? A bike is tested and found to be over size after the meeting - no action? Sorry. I don't care who "moves on" and its not because its Poole, there is absolutely no justice in the way the rules are structured and how this has been handled.

I think the SCB have poured fuel on the flames of this debate unnecessarily. It is clear from what they say that they considered the interpretation of the said law before deciding it had been breached. Why not just say that the rule contained a degree of ambiguity and undertake to define it better going forward. That would at least give the referee some justification for making the decision that he did. As it is they have implied, at least, that the referee made a clear mistake but the rules don't allow a retrospective change in the result. The referee will now be pilloried when in fact inherent in the SCB statement is the fact that they had to review the rule before reaching the decision that a breach occurred. The upshot now is that (apart from Poole supporters) there will forever be a massive asterisk against who was the 2026 Championship League Champion.

Where's the sense of fairness in this? https://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.260

I was acutely aware of the pain felt by Ipswich fans last winter. Sadly I, and many others, have felt that pain for 10 years waiting for Brandon to reopen. And before the naysayers post that there is no chance, believe me, you should examine the evidence and talk to the team fighting this battle.

My understanding is that Plymouth have to raise the £46K by November 3rd. They have to declare they are running by then and they can only do that with certainty if the money has been raised. For sure, we've all seen exceptions made and clubs given extra time but the deadline is currently in place I believe. Just checked on progress and a £5000 donation has been made this morning. The total raised is now close to £11K. Why, oh why, didn't Plymouth start this appeal months ago.

From the Edinburgh website: "Yet another change has been forced upon the Monarchs for our final Scottish Cup meeting on Friday as Michael Palm Toft, after riding well in Scunthorpe's brave Playoff Final performance, suffered an injury following the Superheat" Elsewhere on the same website: "....replacing the previously announced Michael Palm Toft, who was involved in a post-race incident after Scunthorpe's contentious Super Heat loss in the Championship play-off final at Poole last night" Anyone know what happened to MPT?

Is it actually official that Kyle has retired? Or did he just take a break?

The only reason there was more overtaking than normal was due to the overnight rain. The sight of the grader being driven the "wrong way" round the track to move the shale from the inside to the outside speaks volumes. Poole wanted the usual slick as a badger's ar*e inside track to "race" on as they couldn't deal with anything else. And thanks heavens the track was so deep and unpredictable so that we saw some real racing by competitors who can adapt to such conditions. I enjoyed this meeting. Pity it ended with a controversy we might never hear the end of. Oh well, we're facing a long winter. Got to talk about something eh?