Facilities For 'unavailable' Riders

[NeilWatson]

I would be interested to hear other views on Clubs' use of a facility for an Australian rider who has simply gone home before the end of the season.

 

I emphasise that I have no doubt that the rulebook permits this, but is it the right thing for the sport?

[kbt]

if the club were unaware of his intentions(unlikely i know) then the club should be allowed a facility because the rider has left the club in the lurch.the rider should also be discipled .if the club knew of his plans certainly not,as they should have arranged cover prior to him leaving.

[21st century heathen]

The rule book actually reads as follows:

 

 

18.1.2 To complete Team Line-Ups in the event of an Absent Rider(s), a Team may utilise a "Facility" to cover the absence of a Rider(s) who:

 

A is on FIM World Speedway Championship duty.

B is engaged elsewhere at a BSPA shared or fee Meeting.

C is recalled by a Rider’s Federation (with prior notification) for compulsory International or National Championship duty.

D has been injured whilst speedway racing, Within 48 hours of the injury occurring, if no evidence is available, a Medical Certificate must be sent to the SCB; failure to do so will result in the mandatory suspension of the Rider’s SCB Registration for the next home fixture. NB. The BSPA MC cannot overrule the suspension.

E is sick or carrying a non-speedway injury for which a Medical Certificate must be supplied to the SCB within 48 hours of the sickness / injury occurring in which case the Rider may only return within 7 days (including his Team’s next home Meeting) with the express permission of the MC. However failure to provide a Certificate will nevertheless result in the mandatory suspension of the Rider’s SCB Registration for the next home fixture. NB. The BSPA MC cannot overrule the suspension.

F has been suspended by the FIM, ACU or SCB.

G is in dispute with his Club, provided that the circumstances have been accepted by the MC, who will determine the Facility and period of the Rider’s inactivity.

H is engaged in an FIM Longtrack Championship Meeting (for the day of the Meeting only - no facility is permitted for practice day).

I being a PL Rider whose own Federation does not have a current Agreement with the BSPA and is competing in another National League or Open Meeting. This will result in the Competitor’s SCB Registration being suspended for 1 (one) season and the Team will be automatically granted be a facility for a maximum period of 28 days, after which it must re-declare.

J is awaiting clearance from the SCB Medical Advisor

K in the NL only, is absence for any reason

 

So it's perfectly legal for, for example, Buxton to have a facility for Morris and for the Heathens to have been given a facility for Dyer and Anderson for the Stoke meetings.

 

But no I don't think it's right that riders can just disappear when it suits them. And I was displeased with our duo not bothering to ride our last two fixtures (although rained off in the end) because they'd crated their equipment before the end of the season.

[Jayne]

Don't see how it is any different from a rider 'witholding his services' in the EL/PL for which there is a facility for 28 days.

[squall]

Don't see how it is any different from a rider 'witholding his services' in the EL/PL for which there is a facility for 28 days.

 

That's how I thought of it anyway. I expected some thread like this to be started due to Buxton winning something

[Fourentee]

the rider should also be discipled

 

Or beatified.

[NeilWatson]

That's how I thought of it anyway. I expected some thread like this to be started due to Buxton winning something

 

That certainly WASN'T why I started the thread and I am quite offended you should think so. I made a firm point that there was no allegation of rule-breaking, nor did I mention any specific team or rider.

 

I simply feel it is a point worthy of discussion and it has already obliquely brought to mind another issue - that of consistent rules.

 

If all three leagues did ride to a common code then it would be a non-issue anyway as Jayne has said above.

[Ron Butler]

if the club were unaware of his intentions(unlikely i know) then the club should be allowed a facility because the rider has left the club in the lurch.the rider should also be discipled .if the club knew of his plans certainly not,as they should have arranged cover prior to him leaving.

 

Yes, KBT, I feel that the club should be granted a facility and that the rider concerned should be penalised.

 

Best though that we leave it to the Lord to choose who should be 'discipled'.

[Trees]

I thought riders were contracted until the end of October?

[BigFatDave]

But no I don't think it's right that riders can just disappear when it suits them. And I was displeased with our duo not bothering to ride our last two fixtures (although rained off in the end) because they'd crated their equipment before the end of the season.

I've edited your post but appreciate the extract: just wondered if you knew the length of the visas that Jake and Micky were on this year and also if you were aware of the difficulties and costs involved in shipping gear from the UK to OZ. I know Mark Jones had to return earlier because he'd agreed to take part in Ashley's Memorial meeting in March and his visa ran out before the season finished. I'm not sure if MA organised a Container this year or if the lads have to sort it out themselves, but obviously if they're taking part in any MA-sanctioned comp down here they'd have to be prepared properly, wouldn't you agree?

 

That certainly WASN'T why I started the thread and I am quite offended you should think so.

 

As soon as I saw a certain Nationality mentioned in your opening line I had a pretty good idea why you started this thread; in fact it was elementary, my dear NeilWatson.

Edited October 29, 2010 by BigFatDave

[21st century heathen]

I expected some thread like this to be started due to Buxton winning something

 

Hang on mate. Yes, I mentioned Buxton and Morris but I also mentioned my displeasure at the situation with two riders at my own club. With Morris having grown up a Heathens fan through his father, who is a member on the Cradley Forum - and people on it have obviously kept on a keen eye on Morris, they were obvious examples that jumped to mind.

 

I know it's almost Halloween but there was nothing sinister about it.

 

Don't see how it is any different from a rider 'witholding his services' in the EL/PL for which there is a facility for 28 days.

 

I simply feel it is a point worthy of discussion and it has already obliquely brought to mind another issue - that of consistent rules.

 

If all three leagues did ride to a common code then it would be a non-issue anyway as Jayne has said above.

 

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with Jayne there or not Neil. The rules are not consistent as you suggest but Jayne is suggesting that it is the same. Surely the difference is that in the EL/PL a rider withholding his services will get banned and the club gets a facility for 28 days, giving time to make alternative arrangements for the rider that has gone AWOL. But in the NL the rules allow a rider a to go missing without giving a reason and then simply come back. It also allows a club to leave a rider out for no reason, get a facility and then bring the rider back in. That's useful if you've got a rider that is crap at 'x' and doesn't fancy it 'this' week!!!

 

I thought riders were contracted until the end of October?

In theory, but there's always the possibility that certain individuals could have negotiated a different deal.

[scribbler]

I've edited your post but appreciate the extract: just wondered if you knew the length of the visas that Jake and Micky were on this year and also if you were aware of the difficulties and costs involved in shipping gear from the UK to OZ. I know Mark Jones had to return earlier because he'd agreed to take part in Ashley's Memorial meeting in March and his visa ran out before the season finished. I'm not sure if MA organised a Container this year or if the lads have to sort it out themselves, but obviously if they're taking part in any MA-sanctioned comp down here they'd have to be prepared properly, wouldn't you agree?

 

IIRC there was a long thread about whether Mark Jones was riding over here legally or not. I think it was something to do about whether his visa was correct. If Jake and Micky were on the right visas I don't think there was a 6 month time limit.

They probably left before the end of the season to get home early for the OZ season. This (to me) just shows lack of committment to a team or not thinking of the consequences of leaving a team before season end. It's well known that the season ends 31 October and it should never be presumed that any team's season will end before that date as has been shown these past couple of weeks. It is perhaps something that should be made clear by promoters to riders at the start of next season, giving this season as an example - and therefore no excuses for early departures at the end of next season.

[themilkman23]

I've edited your post but appreciate the extract: just wondered if you knew the length of the visas that Jake and Micky were on this year and also if you were aware of the difficulties and costs involved in shipping gear from the UK to OZ. I know Mark Jones had to return earlier because he'd agreed to take part in Ashley's Memorial meeting in March and his visa ran out before the season finished. I'm not sure if MA organised a Container this year or if the lads have to sort it out themselves, but obviously if they're taking part in any MA-sanctioned comp down here they'd have to be prepared properly, wouldn't you agree?

 

But they are coming over here to further their career, I think it's safe to assume that it would be very hard for their career to reach the level that it would whilst riding over here. So they should treat the opportunity with the respect it deserves as I don't see Poland or Sweden clamouring for all the young riders from other nations to ride over there and develop them.

 

Why should the league bend over backwards to let them have team spots and then let them pick and choose their meetings so they can arrive late and go home early?

 

Bottom line is that I don't care about visa's and the amount of time or costs that are involved in them getting over here to ride, that their choice as they want to develop as a Speedway rider.

[21st century heathen]

The thread is not really about the reasons why the Aussies are not riding the last couple of weeks of the season but about the rules that allow teams to have a facility for them. The rules allow it but that's not right, surely?

 

And just for the record I am pro-Commonwealth riders in the NL so please don't let this descend in to more accusations of anti-Aussie attitude by Brits.

[chopper]

IIRC there was a long thread about whether Mark Jones was riding over here legally or not. I think it was something to do about whether his visa was correct. If Jake and Micky were on the right visas I don't think there was a 6 month time limit.

They probably left before the end of the season to get home early for the OZ season. This (to me) just shows lack of committment to a team or not thinking of the consequences of leaving a team before season end. It's well known that the season ends 31 October and it should never be presumed that any team's season will end before that date as has been shown these past couple of weeks. It is perhaps something that should be made clear by promoters to riders at the start of next season, giving this season as an example - and therefore no excuses for early departures at the end of next season.

 

I agree with this 100 percent, if you start the season you should be commited to see the distance.

I think you will find if Jake and Micky had been required for the play offs they would have been avalaible.

I know that Jake isnt flying home till monday, not sure about Micky.

Robert is booked to fly home tuesday, we knew the season finished on the 31st and booked flights accordingly.

 

Chopper

[21st century heathen]

With regard to what the Heathens fans were told about Dyer and Anderson:

 

HEATHENS V STOKE SPITFIRES - TUESDAY, PREVIEW MONDAY 18 OCTOBER 2010 HUGELY popular Dudley Heathens Speedway duo Tom Perry and Micky Dyer will mix with the fans at Tuesday's Staffordshire Cup tie with Stoke at Wolverhampton's Monmore Green Stadium (7.30).

 

The pair have been ruled out of the meeting but both will be in the pits to help their colleagues in the first leg tie with the return at Loomer Road on Saturday.

There was no mention of why Dyer wouldn't ride at this point. Perry had been injured so an injury for Dyer was the most logical conclusion. Then this appeared a couple of days later.

STOKE V HEATHENS - PREVIEW FRIDAY 22 OCTOBER 2010 DUDLEY have named their side for the one-off Staffordshire Cup tie at Stoke on Saturday (7.30).

 

The former Cradley club are without Tom Perry due to a fractured wrist, Ashley Morris is riding for his Premier League club Edinburgh and Aussie duo Jake Anderson and Micky Dyer have sent their equipment home for the winter.

The implication of these meeting previews is that Anderson would have ridden in the home leg on the Tuesday but not the away leg on the Saturday. I don't know anything about arranging shipping but I suspect it would not have been possible for the lads to make short notice arrangements after the rained off Tuesday meeting in Anderson's case or perhaps after the Sunday 17th meeting at Buxton in Dyer's case (as it was made clear he wasn't riding in either meeting v Stoke). If that's right then both must have made prior arrangements and would have been missing for the last two weeks of the season regardless of what fixtures were remaining for the Heathens.

I believe Dyer goes home on Monday chopper.

[Jayne]

I dont really see where there is a problem. The NL/CL has always been more flexible regarding absences and the r/r facility mainly due to the fact that it is not a professional league and that riders can race from the age of 15. With no guests being permitted (other than for a NO 1) then teams need some back up for when a rider is missing. What happens for those at school doing exams or riders whose parents cannot get time off work to get them to meetings? We as promoters have a duty to put on the best show possible for the paying public and with the best will in the world that does not mean replacing one of your 1-5 with an untried rider. As I said previously the EL/PL are permitted a facility for 28 days for a rider witholding their services which technically you could argue applies to a rider who has gone home before the end of the season.

[Mr S Bear]

Riders are classed as withholding services and it is nothing to do with visa's/work permits due to the fact that 6 month work permits do not allow you to ride speedway in Britain. Following questions being raised regarding Mark Jones returning home due to his visa running out after 6 months I wrote to Newport Speedway in September questioning if he had the correct visa to ride in Britain, no reply as yet and to the Management Committee of the BSPA asking if they checked riders paperwork to ensure they had the correct visa's/permits. They have replied "the BSPA have consulted with the BSPA for the 2010 season and are in dialogue for 2011 to ensure any changes are adhered to by the members of the association"

[NeilWatson]

I dont really see where there is a problem. The NL/CL has always been more flexible regarding absences and the r/r facility mainly due to the fact that it is not a professional league and that riders can race from the age of 15. With no guests being permitted (other than for a NO 1) then teams need some back up for when a rider is missing. What happens for those at school doing exams or riders whose parents cannot get time off work to get them to meetings? We as promoters have a duty to put on the best show possible for the paying public and with the best will in the world that does not mean replacing one of your 1-5 with an untried rider. As I said previously the EL/PL are permitted a facility for 28 days for a rider witholding their services which technically you could argue applies to a rider who has gone home before the end of the season.

 

Thanks Jayne that explains the situation clearly.

[21st century heathen]

I dont really see where there is a problem. The NL/CL has always been more flexible regarding absences and the r/r facility mainly due to the fact that it is not a professional league and that riders can race from the age of 15. With no guests being permitted (other than for a NO 1) then teams need some back up for when a rider is missing. What happens for those at school doing exams or riders whose parents cannot get time off work to get them to meetings? We as promoters have a duty to put on the best show possible for the paying public and with the best will in the world that does not mean replacing one of your 1-5 with an untried rider. As I said previously the EL/PL are permitted a facility for 28 days for a rider witholding their services which technically you could argue applies to a rider who has gone home before the end of the season.

 

I have no problem with that type of thing Jayne as they're genuine reasons. What I don't like is the rules specifically stating for any reason as it's far too ambiguous and open to exploitation. It has allowed the like of Dyer and Anderson to pack up before the end of the season, even though they're still in the country. Surely that can't be right?

 

The Stoke meetings for the Heathens would have been a joke. Due respect to the riders that were going to ride but it was not as advertised. We were told it would be 'Heathens v Stoke'. It turned into 'those that were fit and could be bothered to turn out for the Heathens v a NL select'.