Belle Vue Aces Vs Poole Pirates 29/4/2013

[LagutaRacingFan]

The match should be re-run but the Aces should start the meeting with a - 15 handicap but let Zagar and Zetterstrom ride as it's not good for crowds.

 

Zagar 8 + Zetterstrom 6.63 = 14.63 and round it up to 15.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Jepsen Jensen Fan Club

[Pirate Nick]

Give Poole a 75-0, I'm bored of this now. I know Holder gets a nose bleed coming north of Birmingham anyway the whinging git.

To be fair we southerners all get a bleeding nose coming up to your sh*^ty little northern track. Tried it once and won't do it again.

 

Looking forward to coming to the new one though.

 

[hyderd]

If it wasn't flooded at the time why would he take a photo of every part of the track?

 

The picture that Holder posted was of the Start straight not the part that was allegedly flooded, so his picture has no baring on this topic.

 

All these would be punishments will be voted for by the very same promoters who some have done dodgy things in the past, therefore will be voting for their own punishments in the future.

Speedway needs an independent body and until it does these dodgy tricks or whatever we call them will carry on.

 

Belle Vue have removed the apology from the official site... :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Try looking harder.

http://www.bellevueaces.co/newsitem.aspx?id=903

[SteveLyric2]

The picture that Holder posted was of the Start straight not the part that was allegedly flooded, so his picture has no baring on this topic.

 

All these would be punishments will be voted for by the very same promoters who some have done dodgy things in the past, therefore will be voting for their own punishments in the future.

Speedway needs an independent body and until it does these dodgy tricks or whatever we call them will carry on.

 

 

 

Try looking harder.

http://www.bellevuea...tem.aspx?id=903

Not true actually - the investigation is by the SCB (not the BSPA) into the circumstances of the cancellation/postponement!

[hyderd]

Not true actually - the investigation is by the SCB (not the BSPA) into the circumstances of the cancellation/postponement!

 

same wolf, different coat.

[oldace]

What exactly are the rules regarding postponement?

 

What are you wittering about now. It should now be apparent even to an Aces apologist like yourself that this wasnt postponed for legitimate reasons and was a cynical attempt to cheat. Teams in the past having refused to ride have seen matches lost 75/0 (or whatever score the system of the day allows) The Aces themselves walked out of a match at Hull many years ago and the home team rode on to a succession of 5/0 scores. Of course Poole were denied that opportunity by blatant cheating but it can, and should be awarded retrospectively as a 75/0 victory to Poole and the 4 league points given to them

[DunRobin]

It is a total nonsense to suggest that the points should be given to Poole! This would also penalise the other league teams who had no involvement in this debacle. If found guilty by the SCB (no not the poster of that name) then the promotion at Belle Vue should suffer a severe financial penalty. This results in the correct people being punished & not the Belle Vue fans, who had no part in the decision. Any Poole fans, who can prove that they travelled to the meeting, should have any reasonable costs re-imbursed from the fine that the promotion suffer!

[Sherborne Green]

I would always want to see matches raced. However, it looks as if BV would have had to race without their heat leaders, as per the rules. Althought things could happen I do believe the result would have gone Pooles way and they would have gained 4 points.

 

If the match is rerun should BV be allowed to gain by racing with all their heat leaders?

 

View and reasons please.

[DunRobin]

I would always want to see matches raced. However, it looks as if BV would have had to race without their heat leaders, as per the rules. Althought things could happen I do believe the result would have gone Pooles way and they would have gained 4 points.

 

If the match is rerun should BV be allowed to gain by racing with all their heat leaders?

 

View and reasons please.

Already given in above post, it favours Poole against other league sides who were not involved. Poole gain 4 points & 75 points in for column without having raced. Other league sides going to Belle Vue have no chance of getting 75 race points in their for column. This could be important at the season's end, if any clubs finish equal on points with Poole. No sorry it has to be a large financial penalty to be fair to all other league sides.

[Starman2006]

It is a total nonsense to suggest that the points should be given to Poole! This would also penalise the other league teams who had no involvement in this debacle. If found guilty by the SCB (no not the poster of that name) then the promotion at Belle Vue should suffer a severe financial penalty. This results in the correct people being punished & not the Belle Vue fans, who had no part in the decision. Any Poole fans, who can prove that they travelled to the meeting, should have any reasonable costs re-imbursed from the fine that the promotion suffer!

Don't agree, poole should get all 4 points. BV admitted they should not have called the meeting off, therefore its the same as admitting liability. I agree with your point re poole fans should be re-embursed, providing they have reliavant receipts.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Starman2006

[Sherborne Green]

Already given in above post, it favours Poole against other league sides who were not involved. Poole gain 4 points & 75 points in for column without having raced. Other league sides going to Belle Vue have no chance of getting 75 race points in their for column. This could be important at the season's end, if any clubs finish equal on points with Poole. No sorry it has to be a large financial penalty to be fair to all other league sides.

sorry, but not answered. On the day BV would have not had three heat leaders because 1 injured bu for whom rRNA applies but two missed flights so only PL replacements allowed.

 

This is the same as Magic missing the flights when Poole were at Eastborne.

 

Explain your argument on these facts not as anyone would like. It would have been exactly the same as if Swindon were due to ride at BV on that day.

 

Await your reply.

[dorset delight]

Already given in above post, it favours Poole against other league sides who were not involved. Poole gain 4 points & 75 points in for column without having raced. Other league sides going to Belle Vue have no chance of getting 75 race points in their for column. This could be important at the season's end, if any clubs finish equal on points with Poole. No sorry it has to be a large financial penalty to be fair to all other league sides.

 

42-48 Poole get max points,either way i couldn't give a monkeys.Don't know why everyone is still arguing about it.

[ouch]

It certainly makes grim reading if the allegation are true. Sitting in their ivory tower with the whiter than white attitude makes the potential fall from grace have a greater impact. I think having a big club like Belle Vue join the rest when it comes to dodgy dealings could ultimately do the sport some good. Sure it goes on, I myself have traveled across the country or wasted a days holiday only to see a meeting cancelled in said dodgy circumstance. If this stops it happening then its some kind of silver lining.

 

I said a few years ago how long before The Aces join in with the rest and get sick of the nice guys finish last tag. I thought they would continue on to the new stadium with their heads held high and the chance to come good in the manner we're accustomed to. If we're now no different from the rest where does that leave the sport?

 

As to a punishment should the allegation be true, it's a tough one. Fine them with the money going to those who ended up out of pocket and not some SCB/BSPA pot. Points awarded or taken off is tricky as it effects other clubs who had nothing to do with the fixture.

Something will happen and there will be not whitewash primarily due to the fact it involves Belle Vue. We've never strayed off the straight and narrow before mainly due to our culture, but also because we would never be afforded the flexibility with the rules that other tracks seem to enjoy.

 

Cautiously looking forward to the tribunal findings

[DunRobin]

sorry, but not answered. On the day BV would have not had three heat leaders because 1 injured bu for whom rRNA applies but two missed flights so only PL replacements allowed.

 

This is the same as Magic missing the flights when Poole were at Eastborne.

 

Explain your argument on these facts not as anyone would like. It would have been exactly the same as if Swindon were due to ride at BV on that day.

 

Await your reply.

Would take exactly the same attitude if it was Swindon or any other side, sure you might have got 4 points but you would not have scored 75 race points. there is nothing guaranteed in speedway. You are not to know whether there might have been an accident to a Poole rider, engine failures etc. This is a typical Poole mentality, they are unbeatable are they not! So how come you are in your present league position? I can not understand why you think you should be given the points!

[Sherborne Green]

 

Would take exactly the same attitude if it was Swindon or any other side, sure you might have got 4 points but you would not have scored 75 race points. there is nothing guaranteed in speedway. You are not to know whether there might have been an accident to a Poole rider, engine failures etc. This is a typical Poole mentality, they are unbeatable are they not! So how come you are in your present league position? I can not understand why you think you should be given the points!

You assume far too much. You assume I am a Poole fan when actually I am a speedway fan and usually go to Somerset,Plymouth and sometimes to Poole or Swindon. I agree about the 75 - 0 but stand by my original thoughts stand.

 

I am sorry to say your attitude leaves a great deal to be desired and slagging off people does not help.

[SCB]

I didn't even mention the word cretin and you popped up again.

 

If you don't know the answer to the question why don't you slither back under you stone?

 

For the benefit of all the non-cretins, do the rules allow for the promoter alone to postpone a meeting or does an 'official' need to make the decision?

 

If so and the decision was made in good faith but subsequently proved to be incorrect what sanctions do the rules allow for?

 

We have all been aware of meetings called off early but weather conditions have improved dramatically making the original postponement incorrect. Clearly there should be no penalty as the original decision was made in good faith.

 

The statement on the Belle Vue website states the original decision was made 'for the right reasons', in other words in good faith.

 

If a fine or points deduction or any other significant penalty is involved it will be interesting to read how the original decision was proved not to be in good faith, no matter what the other alleged circumstances might suggest.

 

Only non-cretins need reply.

 

 

14.7.1 Specifically the Staging Promoter must:

* ensure no event is advertised in a misleading manner; specifically no Meeting can be classified as "International", "Grand Prix", "World/British Championship", "World Cup" etc., unless inscribed upon the FIM calendar or with the express permission of the SCB or BSPA, nor to advertise, announce or cause to be announced in any manner, the inclusion of a Rider who has not been engaged.

* ensure the track receives timely and adequate preparation.

* Except at a Meeting to which a Meeting Steward has been appointed, it is permitted up to 2 hours before the advertised Start Time on his/her own responsibility to postpone the Meeting if there are exceptional conditions as would make racing impossible. The Promotion must advise the Referee of its actions at the earliest opportunity.

 

So was racing impossible? If not, then BV are in the wrong.

Edited May 4, 2013 by SCB

[Griff]

 

 

 

 

 

So was racing impossible? If not, then BV are in the wrong.

I think the BV statement says they thought racing would be impossible. It seems they were wrong. However, similar decisions have been proved to be wrong in the past and I cannot recall any action taken.

If nothing else come out of this debacle then Promotors cannot be allowed to call off meetings without official approval.

[SCB]

Okay, so it needs a Meeting Steward to make the call. Who is that then?

 

If the Meeting Steward decided racing was impossible then the postponement was within the rules.

 

What happened subsequently and the other alleged circumstances do not prove the original decision was not made for the 'right reasons'.

 

No matter how dodgy this looks, and it looks as dodgy as it gets to be fair, proving it will be very difficult.

 

Case dismissed!

A meeting doesn't need a meeting steward at all. fore someone who calls other cretins and has a go at them for not knowing the rules you're a hypocrite.

 

A meeting steward is ONLY use for Sky meetings. So it was the staging promoter who called this meeting off.

[jimmy jimmy]

 

To be fair we southerners all get a bleeding nose coming up to your sh*^ty little northern track. Tried it once and won't do it again.

 

Looking forward to coming to the new one though.

 

I wouldn't blame you, I wouldn't either! Hopefully the new one will be

[SCB]

You quoted the rules and highlighted the bit which refers to the meeting steward.

 

Well done!

Seriously, you have the cheek to call other cretins. The meeting steward is irrelevant because there isn't one, so it falls to the staging promoter. Thats the point. So the BV promotion are he only ones who can cancel it, as there is/was not steward but they can only cancel it if racing is impossible.

 

You asked the the rule, you got it. BV are in the wrong.

Edited May 4, 2013 by SCB