Ipswich Jules

Tonight I've gone for E/W on PUK and Buzkowski, Gollb to win. Also Over 6 points for Buzkowski and Lindback all with Bet365. Also, Skybet have changed their E/W placed payout from 1/4th to 1/5th - not sure when they done it but B365 still do 1/4 so obviously Skybet are to be avoided for SGP racing.

How's that pie tasting Aljack?

Yes, speedway is dangerous because of it's nature, but it becomes more dangerous on a slick and greasy track - worth the risk? The referee though not. If you think no effort had been made during the day to get the track perfect then you know nothing of Bob Ellis the Ipswich trackman, he would of been there from the crack of dawn working on it and getting it in tip top condition as he does on every raceday, sadly though despite as much of a brilliant curator as he is, he cannot control the weather!

Not true, ref called it off. Nothing Ipswich could do

I'm sat here wearing shorts and t-shirt, I'm not afraid of a little bad weather!! We will need some water on the track after the high winds and I expect Bob has been watering it most of the day and will probably continue to do so. I can't see us losing this meeting - even with our six riders - but in saying that I thought Somerset would beat us quite easily last week - so expect a SJackalhorpe win this evening!

Justin Sedgmen would fit

Looks like Aljack was wrong... Even the name is a poorly disguised anagram!

Lets do a head to head of the 1-7's 1 Barker v Allen - Barker, any track, anywhere - Barker should outscore Allen. 2 Makinen v Bunyan - Bunyan may edge this through experience, Makinen may need a few meetings to settle in at his new home. 3 Tungate v Mellgren - Tungate, nothing more needs to be said. 4 Risager v Garrity - Could go either way. I'll put this as a draw. 5 Lanham v Nelson - Lanham, if it's not then it's going to be a long season! 6 Ellis v Lykke - I'd give it to Lykke, Ellis is no doubt a talent and has a big future but Lykke is already a step or two ahead at the moment. 7 Heeps v Lambert - Hopefully Heeps but it's been a long time since he raced Foxhall, could go either way. So I make it Ipswich 3, Rye 2 and 2 drawn. Could be closer than some think but my opinion is that the Witches should win by 15 or so some 5pm today. It's been on Twitter and Facebook that the meeting is on - with pictures of the track in tip top condition, maybe the people at the track are working on the track - just because nobody has answered the phone doesn't mean that's the only way to find out information.

Have the Echo printed an apology for the mis-quote yet?

From how I understand this part of Australian law is that if you plead guilty to something like this then no conviction is recorded as you haven't been "found" guilty by your peers as you've admitted it - so in effect you haven't been convicted. Doesn't change the fact though that guilty is guilty, whether it's via a conviction or a confession. It doesn't suddenly make it vanish from history. So that's all he done was it? All the posts about this topic and that's all you think it is?

He can still be refused entry by UKBA immigration when he arrives in the UK, the passport and visa would of been applied for before this latest episode I expect.

I've no doubt that Poole will track him - as is their right, and for what it's worth it's probably the correct decision from a purely speedway perspective. The potential fly in the ointment is if he gets a UK visa, that is down to the UKBA and nothing to do with speedway clubs, his riding ability or what is good for the sport in the UK. What concerns me however is Neil Middleditch's comments on the subject as covered in the other thread on here.

^ This I believe (from reading elsewhere on this forum) that in Australian law an admission of guilt means a recording of a conviction isn't necessary - I assume because he hasn't been convicted by his peers due to the admission of guilt. Doesn't change the fact that guilty it still guilty - whether it's a confession or a conviction by judge and jury.

The Echo don't agree that it was "botched up", they stand by their reporter and the quotes. The journalist still has her notes from the interview if needed and insist he wasn't mis-quoted. Aside from saying he was mis-quoted on Twitter it's interesting to notice that Middleditch has done nothing towards trying to get the situation cleared up over his alleged mis-quoting... So you admit that you don't know what he "really" said yet you know he's been mis-quoted? Amazing.

The "report" that said no convictions? Do you have a link to that please as I can only see that in Darcy's statement, a statement which the first half of was clearly written by someone else and where Darcy says "I don't do drugs" before saying in the very next paragraph that he "puffed on a spliff"! I think I'll take that statement (report?) with a pinch of salt.....

I know that Drink and Drugs both start with the same letter, but surely even you can see that the three examples given are all drug related, and your question is about drink? Silly KKS! Oh and in reply to White Knight, when have they ever been consistent? They have changed rules to keep Ward here as he's "box office" and needed in UK speedway - apparently - He won't get banned by the powers that be if he gets let in to the country that's for certain.

If they could just make up any old guff (like you seem to think), then surely anybody could be a journo? They are obligated - by law - to report fact, anything that isn't fact has to be amended and apologies / damages made out to the wronged person. The Bournemouth Echo insist that they stand by the article and that the reporter still has the notes taken from the interview, it's over to Middleditch now.

The Ford and Middleditch interviews were done by two different journalists.

I've asked him on Twitter as I expect he would check that more often than here. I don't expect any kind of reply however.

Because there are serious consequences if they intentionally mis-quote people. Today Middleditch has said he was misquoted, the Echo have said that what they printed was accurate and the reporter has it in her written notes and they stand by the article. So now it's either up to Middleditch to take it further - if he truly believes he has been wronged, or to do nothing about it as he knows what he said. I think it'll be the latter personally.

What's his username on here?

Well how am I suppose to be able to say it to his face if I can't get in touch with the bloke? You do talk some guff. Oh and I'm not your pal.

He's saying it about everybody elses kids and that is ok? I'll happily say it to his face, you arrange it (PM me his phone number or email address or whatever) and I'll say it. If he can't stand by what he's said in the press then maybe he should think first before saying such things.

<double post deleted>

Please explain why? Middleditch is the one that said it's what all kids do, he has kids, so how are his kids invulnerable to that comment than anybody elses?. See, that's the trouble with tarring groups of people with a brush, sometimes it includes people close to you.