False dawn

He;s making a real contribution at Leicester in the Championship and famously said on TV recently that it isn't worth him getting out of bed to ride at Belle Vue.

If that is the rule, I've never seen it in action. A rider is always excluded beyond the first bend.

I hate to be the harbinger of doom, but as a Bees fan, your words are eerily familiar.

Do you know, I'm not entirely sure. I think the GP reserves don't come from the Challenge as they have previously, but I thought the qualifiers did. I see R&R has quoted the relevant rule.

If any two of Matej Zagar, NKI or Martin Vaculik finish in the top 8, then Anders Thomsen qualifies from the Challenge. If all three get into the top 8, then Pontus Aspgren also gets in.

Tonight was the 4th time this year.... Martin Vaculik tonight Matej Zagar in Mallila Antonio Lindback in Wrovclaw Robert Lambert in Krsko But not once in the previous two seasons.

Have a care. You can't expect Ellis Perks to ride in 3 major championships on consecutive days

I was, of course, trying to invoke an opinion on how you viewed the current Challenge purpose. That is, it's intended purpose rather than what the rules allow. I guess I'm arguing that under it's current set up / timing, it is not fit for purpose. The GP series allows for the top 8 to progress to the following year with the addition of the wildcards. Along side that we have a process to encourage the best "other" three in the World into the series. My point is, that having a parachute, mid series, for riders that won't otherwise qualify, seems to be against the spirit and intention of the Challenge route.

This is not a personal vendetta. I have nothing against NKI and Matej Zagar. Their world ranking and if they are in the current top 15 in the world is not the issue. The GP Challenge is supposed to be about giving 3 riders, not currently in the series, a route into next years WC. Is that wrong? Current GP riders have 8 places to shoot at, and if through exceptional circumstances they miss out, a further chance of being given a wildcard. I refer you to where this discussion started.....

On 30/9/1995 at 7:15 PM, Craig Boyce said: Tomasz Gollob

I guess I'll do what most politicians are doing just now, I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want riders coasting through the back half of the GP season, already knowing that they have a guaranteed place in next year's series.

I think I agree. But doesn't that support the argument that the Challenge should be after the GP season? The more current GP riders that take part in the plan B route, the more devalued the Challenge becomes. I know we still get 3 qualifiers from the Challenge, come what may. But we might have to go well down the finishing order to see who that is. And worse still, we won't know who those 3 are, on the night or potentially for many weeks. Surely the Challenge route was set up to provide a focused route for the top three riders to get into the GP series? Not as a safety net for riders in the middle and lower order of the current series.

Retired, 3, withdrawn (reason unclear)

I suppose it depends on whether you live in Eastbourne or Glasgow.

It's not Coventry! The Middlesbrough Middlesborough quip was a real story, I think (??). I'm sure I remember one of their last team managers (or at least a member of management) getting a set of body colours made with the wrong spelling. He left the club shortly after.

You spell it like that and you'll get the sack as the team manager!

Thanks Steve. The rule was quoted at the time and yes, by-the-book, the ref was correct. But it's odd isn't it? Watching one rider, riding for a 3-0 is not very entertaining is it? But seeing the same rider doing one handed wheelies and waving to the crowd makes everyone smile. Ho hum.

Thanks for that confirmation. I'm only usually wrong when I think I was wrong. Seriously, I started to convince myself that it was that other American Billy Janniro. And I agree with you. How can a ref exclude a rider for not racing when he's the only competitor left in the race?

This might be all wrong. It's an age thing...... Wasn't it Rick Miller that was the only rider to finish a race at Brandon only to find he'd been excluded for not trying. He spent most of the race performing wheelies for the crowd. That was a 0-0.

Get rid of those silly silencers and go back to wooden rattles (for the fans, not the bikes).

Given that the "easiest" target audience is the "I used to go" brigade, why don't you advertise the NSS as "You remember how good it was at Hyde Road, well this is better". I think it's open to debate, but who cares? As long they come. Then they'll stay.

A bit extreme, but an understandable reaction. I'm a bit confused about the 15m penalty rule that came in and some say has been dropped. Did referees complain that they were being asked to adjudicate on what was in a rider's mind? "Did he stay down on purpose or not?" For me, referees often have to make such judgements and this is no different. "Did he close the door on purpose or did he just drift a bit wide?" being a common example. The 15m penalty for a team mate in the rerun seems a fair response to a rider apparently staying down on purpose when his team mate is in 3rd place. I think I can tell if a rider is making a bonafide attempt to clear the track. How many times have we seen riders hobbling off the track with a damaged bike? For sure, if there was a suitable punishment for manipulating the situation, would riders take the risk?

Well I only "watched" this one on live updates, but the performances of Ryan Douglas and Ellis Perks were clearly exceptional. The team as a whole, rounded off their league programme in style and can now only wait and see if it's enough for the top spot.

Actually sounds like a cracking meeting

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was alluding to the need for "stand-in" paramedics when the regular guys and girls have to disappear off to hospital leading to long delays or abandonment. This joke doesn't work when you have to explain it, eh?