Mildenhall V Dudley - Ko Cup Final 1st Leg - Sunday 7th October

[montie]

[quote name='norwichkev' timestamp='1349875697' post='2193

 

 

 

 

 

Also: “It has been brought to our attention that Mildenhall were informed, in writing, by the British Speedway Promoters’ Association that Josh Bates could not be brought back into the side

 

If it is the case,and somehow i doubt,that the BSPA have informed Mildenhall that Josh Bates,a 16 year old british rider,returning from a nasty injury,cant ride then someone at the BSPA needs hanging up by there balls as im sure that is what the NL is about

[neil3065]

I dont want to see our supporters involved in this, The protest has to be registered before The meeting starts, so its irelevent how many Bates scored, to my mind Mildenhall won, end of.

 

The process, as far as I knew, always was that, as you say, a protest had to be registered (and a fee lodged) before a match started. But I'm sure the BSPA can take retrospective action if an ineligible rider has been used.

 

Once again, there is a very different version of events from each club.Mildenhall suggesting that Bates' return was OK'd by the league co-ordinator and BSPA. But if that was the case, why was the team declaration not published with Bates in the side?! I thought I'd seen one issued since the start of October with Bates in, but apparently not.

 

I cant see why he wouldnt be allowed to return. He was in the Mildenhall side until injured, As others have said, he's a 16 year old Brit who has made decent progress in his first year in the sport and is now fit again to resume his career.

 

Dudley stating that Mildenhall have had written notfication Bates was not eligible.

 

If the latter is true (or if Bates' eligibility was not confirmed by the appropriate authorities), then I cannot understand why Mildenhall put Bates in the team on Sunday.

 

Dudley obviously want Bates' points removed if he wasnt eligible - therefore, I fail to see why they didnt lodge a protest prior to the meeting. Neither do I understand their suggestion that doing so would have been unfair to the fans in some way.

Edited October 10, 2012 by neil3065

[Halifaxtiger]

 

Separately, as for the part of the Dudley statement: “It is quite clear we could have objected on the day to the use of Josh but that would not have been fair on the Mildenhall and Dudley fans who had paid to watch the meeting. Indeed, had we done that, than we could accept an accusation of dirty tricks

 

 

As the team had been on here since Thursday 4/10 & would have been with Dudley at least 24 hours prior to the meeting why not raise then? Isherwood could have ridden then and we would not have this conversation, both sets of supporters would have seen the requisite number of riders - lets be clear on this if it was not fair to fans before the meeting, nothing has changed - except that Josh Bates scored more points than perhaps was expected.

 

o: “It has been brought to our attention that Mildenhall were informed, in writing, by the British Speedway Promoters’ Association that Josh Bates could not be brought back into the side AlsWould be interested to hear where that came from.

 

Kev

 

So its 'dirty tricks' to object to a rider just before the meeting, but not to do so after he has ridden and scored a bucket full of points ? Laughable.

 

Second point, spot on. If Dudley knew that Bates was ineligible well in advance (and I really can't see how that was not the case) then they are guilty of dirty tricks because they said nothing until after the meeting had been run and that can only be to take advantage of the situation.

 

Perhaps the question is not who said Bates couldn't ride but why that was the case. Its clear that both Baseby and Isherwood were replacements for him and he was returning from injury. Per the above rule stated by JL above, he most certainly could and that suggests that the Mildenhall view of the situation holds a lot more water than the Dudley one.

 

As to punishment, the worst Mildenhall have been guilty of is sloppy practice by not updating their declared line up. Phil K is usually right and he is here; no more action than deducting Bates points is necessary.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Halifaxtiger

[Damon]

Let them have the points back and go and beat them anyway, I suppose that will do !

[Super Blue]

Surely if the rules state that no more changes to lineups can be made after said date unless rider is returning from injury this whole debate is irrelevant ?

After all , Josh was just coming back into the team as he is entitled to do !

[neil3065]

Surely if the rules state that no more changes to lineups can be made after said date unless rider is returning from injury this whole debate is irrelevant ?

After all , Josh was just coming back into the team as he is entitled to do !

 

The issue is whether or not the change was confirmed as registered with the authorities.

 

If it was, why wasnt a revised team declaration published?

 

If it wasnt, why did Mildenhall include him in the team for Sunday?

 

You cant just bring a rider back into your line-up without getting the move confirmed by the authorities! Surely, Mildenhall informed the BSPA before Sunday they wanted to re-declare their team, with Bates in, and the BSPA either said yes or no!!!

 

This needs to be resolved ASAP, though, as Mildenhall need to know whether they are OK to keep Bates in the side or not.

Edited October 10, 2012 by neil3065

[Thehitman]

From the mildenhall website

 

 

Mildenhall Speedway would like to clarify our position over the use of Josh Bates in the first leg of the National Knock Out Cup Final against Dudley at West Row last Sunday.

As everyone is aware Josh had spent a number of weeks out injured with a broken arm. Knowing that he should be fit for the last few weeks of the season we re-declared Josh in our 1-7 on September the 10th. We were then told by the National League co-ordinator Mr Peter Morrish, it would be okay to use Gareth Isherwood until Josh was fully fit and able to return to the side. Therefore on September the 11th we re-declared again naming Gareth instead of Josh.

Josh then returned to the side for the match against Dudley. We were simply following the rule that an injured rider can return to a team line-up at any point and replace the rider that was covering for them. Our re-declared line-up on 10th of September did not include Aaron Baseby, which is where we believe the confusion lies.

The simple fact is that Gareth Isherwood replaced Josh and not Aaron, therefore we feel we were quite within our rights as agreed by Mr Morrish, to name Josh as part of our team again.

Before the match at West Row began, both the referee and the Dudley management, said they were happy that Josh had been included in the Fen Tigers line up. We have e-mails and a log of telephone calls to support our case and remain confident we have broken no rules in this matter.

As far as we are concerned the National League is a development league and it would be hugely disappointing if the sport's governing body, find us guilty of breaking a rule something that we are adamant we have not done, and make us remove one of the sport's brightest prospects from his legitimate place in the Mildenhall Fen Tigers team.

We would also like to make it clear, having worked hard to restore good relations after events earlier in the season, we have no wish to fall out with Dudley and whatever the outcome of this matter, we and our supporters are looking forward to the second leg of the Knock-Out Cup Final, at Monmore Green on October 23rd.

[Super Blue]

 

 

The issue is whether or not the change was confirmed as registered with the authorities.

 

If it was, why wasnt a revised team declaration published?

 

If it wasnt, why did Mildenhall include him in the team for Sunday?

 

You cant just bring a rider back into your line-up without getting the move confirmed by the authorities! Surely, Mildenhall informed the BSPA before Sunday they wanted to re-declare their team, with Bates in, and the BSPA either said yes or no!!!

 

This needs to be resolved ASAP, though, as Mildenhall need to know whether they are OK to keep Bates in the side or not.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying .

 

One would now say it's been 3 days since the event so why is there not an answer yet ?

 

Another case of the authorities taking their time to make up rules and regulations to suit which side they got out of bed this morning perhaps ?

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2012 by Super Blue

[fentigers79]

 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying .

 

One would now say it's been 3 days since the event so why is there not an answer yet ?

 

Another case of the authorities taking their time to make up rules and regulations to suit which side they got out of bed this morning perhaps ?

 

Or if you we're cynical you could say who they were in bed with more to the point, isn't van straten involved with the bspa?

[seanmuffe]

Or if you we're cynical you could say who they were in bed with more to the point, isn't van straten involved with the bspa?

 

Silence......last time beds bspa fornication were mentioned in the same sentence the forum was shut down!!!

[Halifaxtiger]

The issue is whether or not the change was confirmed as registered with the authorities.

 

If it was, why wasnt a revised team declaration published?

 

If it wasnt, why did Mildenhall include him in the team for Sunday?

 

You cant just bring a rider back into your line-up without getting the move confirmed by the authorities! Surely, Mildenhall informed the BSPA before Sunday they wanted to re-declare their team, with Bates in, and the BSPA either said yes or no!!!

 

This needs to be resolved ASAP, though, as Mildenhall need to know whether they are OK to keep Bates in the side or not.

 

Its a question of whether the BSPA said Bates could not ride because he had not been re-declared or whether he could not ride even if that was the case.

 

If its the former, Mildenhall are definitely at fault. If its the latter, then they (and we) are entitled to some answers as to why that was the case.

 

I suspect, however, that if it is the latter we will be met with a wall of silence because it is yet another direction that is directly contrary to the rule book.

[neil3065]

Mildenhall are saying they re-declared their side with Bates back in after Aaron Baseby was injured, then were told by Peter Morrish that they could use Gareth Isherwood as a temporary replacement until Bates was fit to ride again.

 

Mildenhall are adamant they have re-declared their team legitimately and done nothing wrong, having evidence to support their case.

 

Dudley seem sure they have, but then Dudley would rather face an 18 point defecit than a 28 point one in the KO Cup. If Dudley were so sure a rule had been broken, why did they not lodge their protest before the meeting. It could have been ridden under protest, with Bates in the Mildenhall side, surely?

Edited October 11, 2012 by neil3065

[21st century heathen]

It seems that Dudley may have decided to go ahead with the meeting and then protested after the event. Certainly, that would open the club up to accusations of sour grapes after the result. As a fan I can see, and acknowledge, that. However, it may not make any difference what Dudley did. The statement on the Dudley website states the ref made a note of the Bates situation. That, surely, means one of two things. Either the ref believes the Mildenhall team was illegal but was not certain so couldn't make a statement of fact before the meeting so he/she has had to raise it him/herself with the SCB, or Dudley raised it before the meeting to make the ref aware. If whichever of those two is correct then the potentially illegal use of Bates was raised before the meeting. The rules state a dispute must be settled 30 minutes before the meeting. If it can't be then surely it's better for the sport and the fans present that a meeting goes ahead on time rather than 2 hours of arguing followed by it being called off?

 

If what the Mildenhall statement suggests, or states outright actually, is true then I believe they are in the wrong. You cannot re/declare an injured rider in your team. Mildenhall state that Bates was brought in to replace Baseby, then the following day Isherwood was brought in to replace Bates. Two things about that. There is no issue of the declaration that states Bates was back in the team at this time, in fact he's still not in the team on the latest issue. Bates was injured at the time and still out of action injured for 4 four weeks after that date. This could be why the move was not ratified? The other fact is that every re/declaration must be cleared by the BSPA MC. Clearly that did not happen as at no point has Bates appeared back in the re/declared line-up.

 

I know I'll be accused of being biased but I can see no other resolution than his points being removed from the team total.

 

CVS is still a BSPA member (someone mentioned him). The rules are produced by the SCB so I assume the SCB will apply its rules to the situation rather than the BSPA making a ruling.

 

---------------------------

 

Just a quick note to clarify an earlier comment I made regarding further punishment. The current rules should be applied - no more and no less. What I was suggesting is a change to the rules for the future. I believe a points deduction would add a further deterrent without the risk of the BSPA opening itself up to accusations of profiteering from fines and also not impact clubs financially for what could be a genuine error.

 

Relating to the Mildenhall situation this season I was suggesting that it's not so much the breaking of a rule, if that's proven the case, but rather that it may be the case that the club may have twice ignored a BSPA ruling. Ignoring a ruling is far worse than breaking a rule in the first place. There are a number of rules I don't like and could easily join the rally call for any club if I feel they are dealt with harshly by a dodgy rule. But a club cannot be seen to do its own thing against a ruling.

[norwichkev]

It seems that Dudley may have decided to go ahead with the meeting and then protested after the event. Certainly, that would open the club up to accusations of sour grapes after the result. As a fan I can see, and acknowledge, that. However, it may not make any difference what Dudley did. The statement on the Dudley website states the ref made a note of the Bates situation. That, surely, means one of two things. Either the ref believes the Mildenhall team was illegal but was not certain so couldn't make a statement of fact before the meeting so he/she has had to raise it him/herself with the SCB, or Dudley raised it before the meeting to make the ref aware. If whichever of those two is correct then the potentially illegal use of Bates was raised before the meeting. The rules state a dispute must be settled 30 minutes before the meeting. If it can't be then surely it's better for the sport and the fans present that a meeting goes ahead on time rather than 2 hours of arguing followed by it being called off?

 

If what the Mildenhall statement suggests, or states outright actually, is true then I believe they are in the wrong. You cannot re/declare an injured rider in your team. Mildenhall state that Bates was brought in to replace Baseby, then the following day Isherwood was brought in to replace Bates. Two things about that. There is no issue of the declaration that states Bates was back in the team at this time, in fact he's still not in the team on the latest issue. Bates was injured at the time and still out of action injured for 4 four weeks after that date. This could be why the move was not ratified? The other fact is that every re/declaration must be cleared by the BSPA MC. Clearly that did not happen as at no point has Bates appeared back in the re/declared line-up.

 

I know I'll be accused of being biased but I can see no other resolution than his points being removed from the team total.

 

CVS is still a BSPA member (someone mentioned him). The rules are produced by the SCB so I assume the SCB will apply its rules to the situation rather than the BSPA making a ruling.

 

---------------------------

 

Just a quick note to clarify an earlier comment I made regarding further punishment. The current rules should be applied - no more and no less. What I was suggesting is a change to the rules for the future. I believe a points deduction would add a further deterrent without the risk of the BSPA opening itself up to accusations of profiteering from fines and also not impact clubs financially for what could be a genuine error.

 

Relating to the Mildenhall situation this season I was suggesting that it's not so much the breaking of a rule, if that's proven the case, but rather that it may be the case that the club may have twice ignored a BSPA ruling. Ignoring a ruling is far worse than breaking a rule in the first place. There are a number of rules I don't like and could easily join the rally call for any club if I feel they are dealt with harshly by a dodgy rule. But a club cannot be seen to do its own thing against a ruling.

Some assumptions in there my friend

 

The statement on the Dudley website states the ref made a note of the Bates situation. That, surely, means one of two things. Either the ref believes the Mildenhall team was illegal but was not certain so couldn't make a statement of fact before the meeting so he/she has had to raise it him/herself with the SCB, or Dudley raised it before the meeting to make the ref aware. How about option 3 the referee was told after the event? or option 4 was happy that Mildenhall were O.K. - The key option, however, would be for the referree to announce that Dudley were riding under protest.

 

As for harping on about Mildenhall breaking rules before a) This states back to the firm evidence that you had on a time change that was I believe summed up in final conclusion by a Dudley statement that said "we were led to believe" or words to that effect b)Didn't somebody on here explain that the BSPA cannot dictate a start time? But if a rule was ignored why was it then not punished?

 

Let's draw a line under all this and move on, until the next time Dudley go to the BSPA and whinge that life is unfair and they want dates or something changed.

 

Kev

 

Some assumptions in there my friend

 

The statement on the Dudley website states the ref made a note of the Bates situation. That, surely, means one of two things. Either the ref believes the Mildenhall team was illegal but was not certain so couldn't make a statement of fact before the meeting so he/she has had to raise it him/herself with the SCB, or Dudley raised it before the meeting to make the ref aware. How about option 3 the referee was told after the event? or option 4 was happy that Mildenhall were O.K. - The key option, however, would surely be for the referee to announce that Dudley were riding under protest.

 

As for harping on about Mildenhall breaking rules before a) This states back to the firm evidence that you had on a time change that was I believe summed up in final conclusion by a Dudley statement that said "we were led to believe" or words to that effect b)Didn't somebody on here explain that the BSPA cannot dictate a start time? But if a rule was ignored why was it then not punished?

 

Let's draw a line under all this and move on, until the next time Dudley go to the BSPA and whinge that life is unfair and they want dates or something changed.

 

Kev

[21st century heathen]

Some assumptions in there my friend

 

As for harping on about Mildenhall breaking rules before a) This states back to the firm evidence that you had on a time change that was I believe summed up in final conclusion by a Dudley statement that said "we were led to believe" or words to that effect b)Didn't somebody on here explain that the BSPA cannot dictate a start time? But if a rule was ignored why was it then not punished?

 

Let's draw a line under all this and move on, until the next time Dudley go to the BSPA and whinge that life is unfair and they want dates or something changed.

 

True. I did throw in all sorts of ifs buts and maybes though.

 

I don't want to really drag up the previous debate which is why I didn't get into specifics or make a particularly big deal about it in itself. As it happens the Heathens also went against the ruling by agreeing to the changed start time. If you go back you'll see that ultimately I criticised both clubs at the time because neither did as they were told!

 

It's a significant development in one of the most important meetings of the season. For so long as everyone continues to debate in a friendly manner it is something that can be discussed. With my mod hat on for a moment I'm grateful that everyone has done that so far, and long may it continue.

[Super Blue]

It's all Dudleys fault ;-)

[Nikko]

An official complaint must be logged with the referee before the meeting and both Team Managers and promotions must be informed that this is the case. All referees have the contact number of Mr Morrish and at least one other member of the Management team to check any queries.

 

If Dudley did not log an official complaint before the meeting and ride under protest, which Mildenhall must have known, then I cannot see this being changed.

 

Unfortunately the NL is not run to a fix set of rules but by the decisions of one man which is something I have not agreed with for years. The SCB and BSPA take very little, or no, interest in the NL and leave it up to the NL Chairman.

 

On another point, it seems such a shame that the two current big clubs in the NL seem to be continually at each other. From what I can see from the outside neither promotion have conducted themselves well this season which is a shame for the fans of two great clubs.

[Halifaxtiger]

An official complaint must be logged with the referee before the meeting and both Team Managers and promotions must be informed that this is the case. All referees have the contact number of Mr Morrish and at least one other member of the Management team to check any queries.

 

If Dudley did not log an official complaint before the meeting and ride under protest, which Mildenhall must have known, then I cannot see this being changed.

 

Unfortunately the NL is not run to a fix set of rules but by the decisions of one man which is something I have not agreed with for years. The SCB and BSPA take very little, or no, interest in the NL and leave it up to the NL Chairman.

 

On another point, it seems such a shame that the two current big clubs in the NL seem to be continually at each other. From what I can see from the outside neither promotion have conducted themselves well this season which is a shame for the fans of two great clubs.

 

I actually think that having one man making all the decisions (and everyone knowing that that is the case) is a good thing..........providing that the decisions are made in accordance with the laid down legislation applicable to the NL (which are available for all to view) and that man is competent.

 

Consequently, what the NL has is rubbish.

 

I have to say that its seems astonishing to me that the referee seems to have been well aware that the Mildenhall line up was illegal yet he allowed Bates to ride.

 

Dudley have stated that they did not raise the matter before or during the meeting and Mildenhall can redeclare Bates in the team as that is specifically confirmed in NL regulations.

 

Absolutely agree on your point regarding the two promotions. Dudley look like they have deliberately waited to say something and, at the risk of opening up an issue again and referring to the previous meeting between the clubs, its not so much that Mildenhall told Dudley that they were riding at 3pm as to whether the match could have been ridden at that time - which, aside from constantly altering start times, would have been in the best interests of all concerned, in particular the spectators.

 

Speaking to Bob Ellis a week or so ago, he told me he can prepare a speedway track in 4 hours - and that's after a stock car meeting. As such, Michael Lee's statement at the time that the track could not be sorted in time was blatantly untruthful, and suggests to me that the only motivation for not changing the time was that Mildenhall were indeed running scared (completely unnecessarily, it seems) of a full strength Dudley team.

 

Lee's subsequent indication that attempting to allow riders to compete in two meetings on one day is just not workable is, however, far more persuasive. If he had said that at the time instead of talking nonsense about track preparation Mildenhall would have come out of this a lot better than they have.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Halifaxtiger

[Jayne]

 

If Dudley did not log an official complaint before the meeting and ride under protest, which Mildenhall must have known, then I cannot see this being changed.

 

 

The SCB/BSPA can still intervene after the event as they did earlier this season after the Scunthorpe v Buxton match. No official complaint was made on the day regarding the inclusion of Steven Jones in Scunthorpe's team although he wasn't in their declared line up and he had an established average so wasn't eligible as an unattached 3 pointer. The end result was that his points were deducted although it didn't change the result of the match.

[TMW]

I don't know why they just don't do away with rules in the NL as everyone seems to agree to rules at the beginning of the season and then just spend the rest of the season breaking them bending them or stretching them. One of the sports brightest stars should be allowed to ride just isn't a defence, if a rule has been broken. The pure fact that they were riniging the NL coordinator in the first place to seek clarification indicates that they knew the rules prevented this facility anyway.