King's Lynn 2016

[BWitcher]

There is nothing factual about Lakeside rolling over for Poole.

 

Yes there is, knowingly allowing another team to break the rules and allowing it is rolling over.

[foreverblue]

 

Yes there is, knowingly allowing another team to break the rules and allowing it is rolling over.

What rule did we break?

[Sings4Speedway]

If Lynn have moved race night I would be amazed if the deal wasn't already signed for a very decent number 1. Think its just a waiting game / let the suspense build for a while.

 

What is the possibility of moving Rose to 6 and getting Simon Lambert in at 7? Might not be top dog but would do more than hold his own at home and pick up bits and pieces away.

[ouch]

What rule did we break?

That was my question when The Aces were fined and docked 3 match points.

 

Still waiting.

[orion]

 

As like so many others, you have gloss over facts, purely to verify your perception of my opinion. When the draft was first introduced I was one of the biggest objectors, understanding the issues that would transform from riding in protected heats. When the list of draft riders were first released , they were positioned by their PL average because most had not ridden in the EL. In that list of riders, Kerr was placed at the top and Rose was positioned at the bottom... So yes in that first year, we utilised the option (Like other teams) of protecting Lewis Kerr, and also collared Rose who was the lowest. I can see why people are voicing their concerned , in that he was picked out first, but had the draw be done correctly, chances are, we would still have got our man. Thinking back, although the promoters agreed at the time, it was only when Rose started to perform did the sceptics start . Yes I have always pursued the point that teams should find the own riders and spend time and money to progress their talent. and thought it was wrong when teams like Swindon in 2015 took away a talented youngster in the view of fairness. Regardless of his low average, I am pleased he is back at Lynn in 2016.

 

My comment about being fair is related to the on-going deception of the positioning of riders and the availability of others. Why the BSPA persistently use PL averages to determine position of riders, riding in the EL is a complete joke. We all know that Newman is the standout Draft rider in the league, but relentlessly he is placed so Poole get preferential treatment. The whole draft idea is floored because of the false positioning of riders. The idea of the draft who introduced to help the team that finish bottom and should benefit more than those who finished top. But not in our sport......

 

So Yes, if we are running a draft, let the teams at the bottom of the league have first pick of both their Tier 1 and Tier2 riders, and the team finishing top have last choice. That's the 'DRAFT' way, If that cant be implemented, then let all teams secure their own riders with acceptable averages.. Either way I'm not bothered.

 

I'm sorry if my views don't agree with yours (by the way all your 'Likes' were so predictable ) but to me there is only one way to do things. While we have deceptions like Lakeside signing Kerr after the selection process is finished, the process will always be laughable......

Nothing to do with agreeing with you it's you forgetting what you posted ...Just to remind yet again you were a big fan of the draft when it started because it suited your team ...as I said I remember when people moan about it your reply was to say teams should grow there own talent ....it was only when Rose went to Swindon that you started to not like rule before as for the first time the rule was working against you .

 

So I not glossing over the facts just telling you that you have a real poor memory . As we all know with you only care on how the rules suit Kings lynn this was a classic example

Edited January 13, 2016 by orion

[Daytripper]

That was my question when The Aces were fined and docked 3 match points.

 

Still waiting.

 

I suspect it will be a long wait. The SCB have shrouded both the Belle Vue and Poole postponements in secrecy.

 

In the case of the Belle Vue -v- Poole postponement there was an investigation the same day and a subsequently judicial hearing in double quick time following which the SCB made a public statement giving details of the penalty but no details of what rule was broken or precisely why the penalty was imposed apart from the fact that it was in connection with the postponement. It is quite incredible that no details were given in the public statement of the actual rule infringement that Belle Vue were guilty of.

 

By contrast there was no immediate investigation following the Poole v Lakeside postponement. Graham Reeve is reported to have said that it would "come under the microscope " (whatever that means ) when the SCB met on 10th July, some 6 weeks after the event, and that was the last public announcement as far as I can see. I have made inquiries as to what happened ( if anything ) on 10th July and my unofficial information ( which I cannot guarantee is true but believe it probably is) is that the whole thing was basically kicked into touch until the end of the season by which time the play offs were done and dusted and it was apparently too late to change anything.. Whether of not Sky had a hand in any of this one can only speculate.

 

Lakeside have made two public statements, one saying the decision to postpone was beyond their control, the other saying it was solely Poole's decision. Anyone who does not know what " beyond our control" or " solely" means is probably thick or biased or both (if I may borrow that quote from a famous man).

 

No point in further raking over the coals. It doesn't look as though Bwitcher is going to be able to tell us which rule was broken. Once again it was the poor leadership and poor management by the SCB that was really at the bottom of the whole sorry affair, but that was 2013, now is 2016 and nothing is going to change the past. Time to give the thread back the Kings Lynn. Sorry Stars fans.

[BWitcher]

 

 

No point in further raking over the coals. It doesn't look as though Bwitcher is going to be able to tell us which rule was broken. Once again it was the poor leadership and poor management by the SCB that was really at the bottom of the whole sorry affair, but that was 2013, now is 2016 and nothing is going to change the past. Time to give the thread back the Kings Lynn. Sorry Stars fans.

 

Obviously in the incident you are referring to Lakeside simply rolled over and accept Poole cancelling the meeting.

 

However, rolling over and accepting breaking rules occurred in another match between the two, the first Lakeside meeting following Lee Richardson's death.

 

Poole were planning to use Sam Masters, who was doubling up that year with Lindgren at No 2. However he failed a fitness test. That then meant they had to use a facility, which the RULE stated is for the lowest averaging double up rider (lindgren). Hence Poole should have had a guest at reserve.

 

Instead they illegally used Rider Replacement at No 2 for Sam Masters. Lakeside rolled over and accepted it.

Edited January 13, 2016 by BWitcher

[TonyE]

The Poole v Lakeside meeting was not, from memory, cancelled on the day and the opposition were not at the track as they were at Belle Vue..

 

I am not sure what BWitcher is inferring that Lakeside should have done - perhaps a futile appearance with bikes ready to race!! The fault on this one lies firmly on the 'Authorities' not Lakeside.

[orion]

The Poole v Lakeside meeting was not, from memory, cancelled on the day and the opposition were not at the track as they were at Belle Vue..

 

I am not sure what BWitcher is inferring that Lakeside should have done - perhaps a futile appearance with bikes ready to race!! The fault on this one lies firmly on the 'Authorities' not Lakeside.

Poole and Lakeside are the Authorities

[Daytripper]

Obviously in the incident you are referring to Lakeside simply rolled over and accept Poole cancelling the meeting.

 

.

Obvious in your world perhaps but you still haven't told us what rule was broken. "Rolling over" is a meaningless platitude, usually used by those who don't have a more substantial argumement. The issue has been done to death on many occasions and on many threads. You are entitled to your opinion, but however many times you snipe away at the issue, nearly three years after the event it won't change anything. You weren't there and have no first hand information beyond what has been reported. I can't think of anything of substance to add, especially on a Kings Lynn thread. If you don't wish to let the point go it might be a better idea to start a separate thread.

[BWitcher]

Obvious in your world perhaps but you still haven't told us what rule was broken. "Rolling over" is a meaningless platitude, usually used by those who don't have a more substantial argumement. The issue has been done to death on many occasions and on many threads. You are entitled to your opinion, but however many times you snipe away at the issue, nearly three years after the event it won't change anything. You weren't there and have no first hand information beyond what has been reported. I can't think of anything of substance to add, especially on a Kings Lynn thread. If you don't wish to let the point go it might be a better idea to start a separate thread.

 

The press releases made it quite obvious that they just rolled over regardless of your attempts to deflect or re-write history.

 

You stated I couldn't provide evidence of a rule Poole had broken. I have provided it, you are ignoring it and concentrating on a different event.

[orion]

Obvious in your world perhaps but you still haven't told us what rule was broken. "Rolling over" is a meaningless platitude, usually used by those who don't have a more substantial argumement. The issue has been done to death on many occasions and on many threads. You are entitled to your opinion, but however many times you snipe away at the issue, nearly three years after the event it won't change anything. You weren't there and have no first hand information beyond what has been reported. I can't think of anything of substance to add, especially on a Kings Lynn thread. If you don't wish to let the point go it might be a better idea to start a separate thread.

It you read topic he made it quite clear what rule had been broken ..everyone knows in the sport that cook does what Ford wants him do it's not really a secret .

[TonyE]

Poole and Lakeside are the Authorities

 

In your humble opinion. So what should Lakeside have done and what do you think the outcome would have been?

[orion]

 

In your humble opinion. So what should Lakeside have done and what do you think the outcome would have been?

Should never allowed the match to called off and when it was make a appeal kick off in the press etc etc ....the bottom line thou cook has always got a lot to say this time we here nothing from him ...as has been said yet again he rolled over for Poole .

[lynnboy]

Thought this was a Kingslynn thread !!

[tellboy]

Thought this was a Kingslynn thread !!

I thought it was to.There is 2 extra pages since I last looked,i thought Lynn may have signed someone.But no it seems to have turned into a Poole debate again

[E I Addio]

Obviously in the incident you are referring to Lakeside simply rolled over and accept Poole cancelling the meeting.

 

However, rolling over and accepting breaking rules occurred in another match between the two, the first Lakeside meeting following Lee Richardson's death.

 

Poole were planning to use Sam Masters, who was doubling up that year with Lindgren at No 2. However he failed a fitness test. That then meant they had to use a facility, which the RULE stated is for the lowest averaging double up rider (lindgren). Hence Poole should have had a guest at reserve.

 

Instead they illegally used Rider Replacement at No 2 for Sam Masters. Lakeside rolled over and accepted it.

Only you could me so insensitive and dredge up something that happened in a highly charged emotional meeting three days after the Lakeside captain was fatally injured. It a very emotional meeting for obvious reasons . Both sides had various problems with their teams. The promotions for both sides agreed the important thing was to,put on a show for the crowd without bickering. Lakeside also fielded a technically illegal team that night using two riders who shared a d/u berth. Poole agreed to that, so by your terms of reference they rolled over and accepted it as well. The referee approved both line ups. The rider who took Masters rides failed to score in those rides as I recall so a protest would have made no difference anyway.

Given the sensitivity of the occasion I would say practically every fan with a grain of decency would say the trade off between the two teams to put a decent match on was reasonable and sensible in the circumstances. Pity you don't see it that way.

Edited January 13, 2016 by E I Addio

[SCB]

Only you could me so insensitive and dredge up something that happened in a highly charged emotional meeting three days after the Lakeside captain was fatally injured.

This is always brought up as a defence. I'd argue it was sick of Poole to cheat against Lakeside days after their captain and number 1 had been killed on track.

 

The line of, "The promotions for both sides agreed the important thing was to,put on a show for the crowd without bickering." is bullrubbish. That could have been done by following the rules.

 

There was no logical reason why Mateusz Szczepaniak could not have been moved from 6 to 2 and Todd Kurtz moved form 2 to 6 and the team be legal. So why not just do it? Poole didn't want to as it meant having a stronger reserve this way, thus cheating. Lakeside were understandably in no state to argue so "rolled over" for Poole.

Edited January 13, 2016 by SCB

[orion]

Only you could me so insensitive and dredge up something that happened in a highly charged emotional meeting three days after the Lakeside captain was fatally injured. It a very emotional meeting for obvious reasons . Both sides had various problems with their teams. The promotions for both sides agreed the important thing was to,put on a show for the crowd without bickering. Lakeside also fielded a technically illegal team that night using two riders who shared a d/u berth. Poole agreed to that, so by your terms of reference they rolled over and accepted it as well. The referee approved both line ups. The rider who took Masters rides failed to score in those rides as I recall so a protest would have made no difference anyway.

Given the sensitivity of the occasion I would say practically every fan with a grain of decency would say the trade off between the two teams to put a decent match on was reasonable and sensible in the circumstances. Pity you don't see it that way.

 

Only you could me so insensitive and dredge up something that happened in a highly charged emotional meeting three days after the Lakeside captain was fatally injured. It a very emotional meeting for obvious reasons . Both sides had various problems with their teams. The promotions for both sides agreed the important thing was to,put on a show for the crowd without bickering. Lakeside also fielded a technically illegal team that night using two riders who shared a d/u berth. Poole agreed to that, so by your terms of reference they rolled over and accepted it as well. The referee approved both line ups. The rider who took Masters rides failed to score in those rides as I recall so a protest would have made no difference anyway.

Given the sensitivity of the occasion I would say practically every fan with a grain of decency would say the trade off between the two teams to put a decent match on was reasonable and sensible in the circumstances. Pity you don't see it that way.

I would say it was more insensitive to cheat ..there was no reason for the teams be like the meeting could been run to the rules quite easy . Poole agree to what give them most chance of winning .

[BWitcher]

Only you could me so insensitive and dredge up something that happened in a highly charged emotional meeting three days after the Lakeside captain was fatally injured. It a very emotional meeting for obvious reasons . Both sides had various problems with their teams. The promotions for both sides agreed the important thing was to,put on a show for the crowd without bickering. Lakeside also fielded a technically illegal team that night using two riders who shared a d/u berth. Poole agreed to that, so by your terms of reference they rolled over and accepted it as well. The referee approved both line ups. The rider who took Masters rides failed to score in those rides as I recall so a protest would have made no difference anyway.

Given the sensitivity of the occasion I would say practically every fan with a grain of decency would say the trade off between the two teams to put a decent match on was reasonable and sensible in the circumstances. Pity you don't see it that way.

 

So on a night when a rider was being remembered, "Rule breaking" was decided as the best way to honour him.

 

There is absolutely nothing insensitive at all about bringing up an occasion (as asked) when rules were broken.

 

Apologies to Kings Lynn fans, I was asked a question, I've answered it... some don't like the answer of course.

 

Now its been proven that Lakeside roll over for Poole, back to the thread, which is Kings Lynn.