chunky

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't get that, and they think that everything is black and white...

That's what amazes me. Here in the US, drugs have always been more widely available/used, and people always say, "recreational drug use is fine". When it leads to harder drugs, and when it leads to crime, no it's not! Yet they still try to claim, "Oh, it's just a coincidence..."

That is why I never referred to religion, as I didn't know your standing. Again, that's why I refuse use the term "mistake". It sickens me when people use the term "mistake" instead of "bad decision". They are not the same.

No out is trying to justify his actions; there IS no justification. I am just trying to find out whether people believe in rehabilitation and atonement.

Okay, so some simple - and honest - questions. Do you think that ex-cons should ALWAYS be considered cons? Do you think that they can redeem themselves, and become useful - even upstanding - members of the community? Should they ever be re-employed? Should they even be given the opportunity? Should they be locked up for life? Should they be deprived of any contact with the outside world for life? Should they simply be executed?

If he posts sensible stuff, yes. Why should he not be allowed to post on a speedway forum? You don't think he should be allowed to talk to people? Probably not... Yes, what he did was bad; very bad. However, addictions - good or bad - can be considered an "illness", and like regular afflictions, there is treatment for them. I hope to God that he has been cured, but at least he owns up to his own issues.

That's hardly a second chance, is it? Or maybe it's a second chance - on YOUR terms?

Along with an opportunity to redeem himself. Yes, he is an idiot, and yes, he is a violent thug. BUT, do we just consign him to the scrap-heap of life (as the warm-hearted and incredibly perfect Lisa-Colette wishes), or do we give him a second chance? Not everyone makes the most of a second chance. In fact, a lot don't. However, history is littered with idiots and violent thugs who HAVE turned their lives around in the best way possible. No, he shouldn't be given endless chances, but he SHOULD be given one...

The reason I said it didn't count was because it appeared you were using Vernon, rather than Ross - which is what he went by. Had you just listed "Ross Gilbertson", there would have been no question. However, off the top of my head, I can think of Ross Brady and Ross Nickisson.

As a rider, or as a hit man?

Can't have Cecil; been several Cecils, including Brown and Forbes. Can't have Marcus, as Marcus Williams rode for Exeter. Ross used "Ross", so that doesn't count. Sorry...

He did get his name in the history books, though!

As I said, I was looking at Roger's transition to BL. Here are the BL figures for both, and Gordon was a year ahead, so I'll do a direct comparison. Gordon posted a sub-6.00 average during his first three seasons of BL racing; Roger posted a sub-6.00 average in his first SEVEN seasons of BL racing. In his fifth season, Gordon went up nearly a point to 7; Roger dropped over a point to 4.4. Following year, Gordon put over a point on his average, while Roger continued to drop (to below ). That's why he didn't appear (to me) to be going anywhere. 1970 1971 Gordon : 2.33 Roger : 2.00 1971 1972 Gordon : 3.45 Roger : 4.31 1972 1973 Gordon : 3.73 Roger : 4.36 1973 1974 Gordon : 6.42 Roger : 5.45 1974 1975 Gordon : 7.32 Roger : 4.40 1975 1976 Gordon : 8.41 Roger : 3.91 1976 1977 Gordon : 9.69 Roger : 5.46 1977 1978 Gordon : 10.41 Roger : 7.82 1978 1979 Gordon : 9.52 Roger : 7.89 1979 1980 Gordon : 9.91 Roger : 8.22

Moggo? Yeah, maybe out of his depth at Plough Lane, but he was just a kid thrown in at the deep end. However, he had an immediate impact when he joined Crayford the following year, so it's not like he was a zero for long! I certainly never felt like he wasn't going to make it...

Yeah, Roger was a "big" signing, but never really got anywhere for a few seasons. In his first year at Plough Lane, he did okay, average over five points a meeting, but went backwards over the next couple of years. He averaged less than four in 1976, and considering his experience, that was very poor. Suddenly, things changed! I was there for for Kelvin's first meeting, and yes, he looked great! It was also a shame that he got whacked by Preben Eriksen... As you say, we had a habit of throwing in youngsters to keep under the limit. The best two were Brewer and Pleece. Jay SHOULD have done better, I feel, but never progressed at all. Dave Brewer actually did, and was doing fine at Exeter. I was talking to Dave online a few months ago, and he said it he said it was an injury that stopped him. I think it was a leg injury, and he just wasn't able to bounce back from it, and he retired. He was never going to be a world-beater, but he could have had a decent career. Another couple who were never going to make it were Martyn Charles (before your time, probably) and Mark Fordham.

Definitely Roger Johns! He always had "potential", but was unable to fulfill it. His Second Division averages were okay - nothing great - and generally, his BL averages were poor when he moved up. For some reason, he started to develop in 1978, and ended up becoming a Dons legend! The moves he would make, like sweeping around the boards, or making one of his famous cutbacks, became the norm. At Plough Lane, he would regularly beat the opposition No.1, often in great style. In 1980, he inflicted the only defeat on Bruce Penhall in Heat 13 of the BL clash. There was the famous last heat 5-1 with Edward Jancarz (from the back) over Ole Olsen and Mitch Shirra to get us a draw against Coventry! His best night was probably when he beat Peter Collins twice - from the back - on his way to a full maximum against Belle Vue. Then, there was the KOC clash at Hyde Rd in 1980, when he scored 16 paid 17, and beat Collins three times. Never a superstar, but Johnsy provided some of the greatest trackcraft I've ever seen.

I don't think the problem was so much "shock" wins, more that a World Final could be - and often was - decided by a fall, an e/f, or a questionable referee's decision.

That would be a great name for a speedway rider!

I'll keep my bloody mouth shut, then...

That's why I posted it in the 'Years Gone By' section! Too many names these days look like a bunch of Scrabble letters pulled out of a bag! So, moving on from your last sentence, you forgot Maxine, Sarah (as opposed to Sara), and Lisa...

Another one off BL65's list: Dominic Perry - Dominic Manzares (USA)

Good call - as would be Lloyd Goffe...

Please note, the first names I have listed are the names they rode under. So, Split doesn't count as it was a nickname, and Squire doesn't count as he never used it! Middle names ARE acceptable, as they are part of the legal name, as are variations (Joshua/Josh, Valentine/Val etc).

Josh Larsen...

I thought of Sumner after I'd posted the list! Strange how many Americans are on the list, eh?