idanthyrsus

I've quoted directly from the regulations - feel free to post something different from the Speedway regulations that backs your point.

Just to quote the actual rules: "15.5.2 If the Referee stops a Race and the leading Rider has completed a minimum of 2 laps of the Heat, then the Referee has the sole discretion to order a re-run or award the Heat based upon the Rider’s positions when the Heat was caused to be stopped" So it seems that if certain fans want to berate the referee then they should actually be in a position of knowledge prior to passing comment. Or to put another way, those who reside in vitreous constructions, should refrain from the hurling of heavy projectiles.

To assist further, It's the button next to "Goldy" on the keyboard.

There were Premier League clubs who weren't present

I can't see anybody who has said he did it on purpose. However, he had other options open to him - instead of trying to manufacture a space that wasn't there he could have shut off the throttle and attempted another line. Instead he found out there was no space to go and therefore had to put the bike down. I watched the match on Sky and there was no contact between the riders just a running out of space. The rider in front has the line to ride is the rule that governs space and the lack of it - so the fact that Morris suddenly found out he didn't have any was his own fault. That being said I think Jim McGregor is easily the worst referee in speedway. Being a Newcastle fan I have seen him taint more meetings than I care to remember. I would also state that it was a hugely unfair advantage for Somerset having the meeting held at their own track. Had the meeting been staged at Brough Park I'm sure Newcastle would have fared better. These blue ribbond events should be staged at neutral venues.

Perhaps if the lads got well and truly drunk before preparing the track that would work.

Does that mean you are Tinky Winky?

There are simply too many jokes...

Except there was no factual evidence to Berwick's statement. I've made my statement - you may not like it, you may not agree with it. But I'm afraid you are going to have to live with it as I'm under no obligation to provide any further comment (just like Berwick Speedway aren't)

Possibly. I await the official announcement from Berwick Speedway with the result of the investigation and a full description of the event's leading to the fiasco on Saturday then. Hang on, I've just looked out the window and I can see the Porcine Aerial Acrobatics team warming up outside.

Yes - that is absolutely the case. But since the provable fact's aren't going to be posted and many people seem to be of the opinion that "everything will happen behind closed doors" and "this thread should be shut down" I feel it's best to get as much information out there as possible. It's not ideal, but when you don't give any information out, then this is what happens.

That was the information that I received. Obviously along with a lot of other things it has not been officially reported. Sorry - it's a bit lame, but I can't say anything more than that. It's the problem when officials and those who do have the full story don't publish it. I heard directly from somebody that the rider refused to be treated, but that's not on the Berwich "whitewash".

Yes, we've all read it and if you bother to read the previous pages we've all commented on how it doesn't say anything with any conviction. It certainly doesn't mention any facts. So unless you want people to "tittle tattle" I suggest you make sure Berwick Speedway publishes a more comprehensive communication rather than attempting to fudge the issue and hope everybody doesn't examine it too closely. And it's not "being sad and little" to enquire how a person who is responsible for the lives of 14 professional sportsmen in a dangerous sport is unfit for duty such that one of the riders refused to be treated by him. A fairly pathetic post by all standards. Exactly, which is why I haven't said anything of that nature.

You might think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. I am used to preparing updates and project status reports to board level directors of blue chip companies though. That helps a bit

How do you know he didn't?

There are of course, numerous ways to stop all the speculation - something like this would work: "The Paramedic in question received some distressing personal news and reacted in an unforseen manner. The person in question was not under the influence of alcohol at the meeting. Richard Lawson quite correctly pointed out that the paramedic was behaving in an erratic manner, which he attributed incorrectly to the paramedic being under the influence of alcohol - this was in fact due to stress to the personal issue. We are going to review the situation and make any necessary changes to our match day operational procedures that we deem appropriate as a result of this highly unfortunate incident. We apologise for any inconvenience caused but especially to the supporters of both Berwick and Redcar Speedway teams who were at the match in question" This would pretty much put everything to bed - so the question has to be asked - why have they never denied that the paramedic was under the influence of alcohol?

You mean Berwick Speedway have attempted to brush the whole thing under the carpet? That's how it looks to a lot of folks.

Although I do believe there is a stock car meeting on the 19th July, so we can't get too complacent.

You missed the health and safety inspection.

More importantly - will their be medical cover available?

If the facts are not available then we can only take the known facts and attempt to map a logical and correct sequence of events that match the known facts. This is what is referred to as deduction. There are no legal repercussions in discussin an incident and putting forward an opinion based on the evidence available. As long as they are based as an opinion and not as factual evidence then we just about have the right to free speech. So saying that there are legal repercussions is factually incorrect.

Sorry - it was Richard Lawson. But why is it time to end the story? Obviously this event had a massive impact upon the match on Saturday night. If we don't know what caused the upset we can't fix it. Will the BSPA be informed? Will this potentially be used to make the sport safer and better in the future? Perhaps we should breathalyse all riders and safety officials prior to a match starting. There are many things to discuss and just because you don't want to discuss them for some reason is no reason for the debate to end. After all, one of the first rules of medicine is that if you don't know the cause, you can't find prescribe a cure. If you really don't want to discuss further, then simply don't read this thread. It's easily done, just don't click on it.

Nowhere on this statement does it state that the paramedic wasn't under the influence of alcohol. In fact it clearly states he was not suffering from a physical illness at all. He took a phone call and subsequently was unwell. A Berwick rider then tweeted that the paramedic was drunk. Would it not seem logical to say that the paramedic took a phone call, had a drink to calm himself down and then subsequently collapsed as a result. It's difficult to draw any conclusion from the statement from Berwick as it says a lot, but there's a lot it doesn't say which in itself, say's a lot.

They absolutely are - as the company in charge then any paid (or indeed unpaid) persons operating under their authority are their responsibility. If they failed to take due diligence as to whether persons under their control were fit and able to carry out their assigned duties then they are the ones liable for any litigation and/or law suits resulting as a result of said employee being unable to carry out their assigned duties.

And presumably if it wasn't down to illness then Berwick Speedway should be heavily fined and made to recompense those present?