Chris Harris And The 28 Day Ban

[NeilWatson]

He didn't say that he shouldn't be banned I will hold my hand up to that but he does agree that Chris Harris had no choice about where he was riding which to me would be a bit hard to ban him for 28 days as he was not at fault as I have already stated the fault is the making of whoever sanctioned the facility not the rider or Peterborough who have not broken any rule here as the facility was obviously sanctioned rightly or wrongly . Agreed there are a lot of things that are not going correctly by the rules , as an example the Redcar v Glasgow A fixture result , where in the rules does it suggest a meeting can be called of after 9 races and the result stands or awarded.

Re Redcar v Glasgow, see http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.62

[New era Panthers]

Re Redcar v Glasgow, see http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.62

Agree common sense was used to make that ruling but it's still not in the rulebook.

[Alan_Jones]

Agree common sense was used to make that ruling but it's still not in the rulebook.

 

It's in rule 15.12 as quoted in the SCB statement.

 

"In exceptional circumstances where the result is mathematically sure, following

referral to the SCB, the Meeting may be awarded."

[ruffdiamond]

Agree common sense was used to make that ruling but it's still not in the rulebook.

so what is rule 15.12 ?

 

sorry, the above post confirms it, it is there.

Edited September 11, 2017 by ruffdiamond

[lucifer sam]

Re Redcar v Glasgow, see http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.62

 

That result was not mathematically certain. Glasgow 5-0 in Heat 10 makes it Redcar 24 Glasgow 37. Five 5-1s to Redcar then make it Redcar 49 Glasgow 42. That rule may have been quoted, but it certainly wasn't applied correctly.

 

All the best

Rob

[ruffdiamond]

That result was not mathematically certain. Glasgow 5-0 in Heat 10 makes it Redcar 24 Glasgow 37. Five 5-1s to Redcar then make it Redcar 49 Glasgow 42. That rule may have been quoted, but it certainly wasn't applied correctly.

 

All the best

Rob

at the time of the accident it may not have been certain, but by about 21.55 am sure it was,,,

seems common was used, even tho it doesn't usually mix well with the sport.

[New era Panthers]

I've maintained all along he should be banned The ban is automatic because Peterborough used a facility that the rules don't allow. Thats how it works.

 

Still, by all means show where I've said he shouldn't get a ban. But as you've not been able to quote a rule that shows a facility was allowed I won't be holding my breathe while you prove my double standards either. Christ, I started a thread about Chris Harris getting a 28 day ban, I'm hardly likely to start posting elsewhere he shouldn't get one am I?

So why are you so hell bent on Chris Harris getting a28 day ban when you have nothing to say about Steve Boxall who failed to turn up guesting for Peterborough at Workington and Ben Barker who gave Peterborough very short notice at Glasgow he was unfit to ride yet got his arse down to Stoke practicing on the very same night admitting afterwards that he'd stitched Peterborough up to help Redcar's chances of getting into the play offs shouldn't those 2 be banned also then or is that o/k.

[greyhoundp]

Just to say Richard Hall, and Luke Harris rode in the Masters ? I understand the ACU meeting takes precedence, were they not to appear at the Masters Grasstrack, they would be in trouble with the ACU, its the ACU who stated the riders had to ride in the Masters rather than in there respective speedway meetings, It then reverts to which speedway rule covers this eventuality. So maybe the thread should be about Chris Harris, Luke Harris, Richard Hall, facilities were allowed for all of them so no conspiracy, i realise the NDL rules allow a facility for a rider being unavailable for whatever reason, but we were told it was due to them riding in the Masters.

Edited September 12, 2017 by greyhoundp

[waiheke1]

As you say, facility is allowed for the NL riders as per the rules. Not sure how you can compare it to Harris where no favility is allowed per the rules, which is the whole point of the thread.

[ruffdiamond]

As you say, facility is allowed for the NL riders as per the rules. Not sure how you can compare it to Harris where no favility is allowed per the rules, which is the whole point of the thread.

one rule for one and, other rules for others.

So why are you so hell bent on Chris Harris getting a28 day ban when you have nothing to say about Steve Boxall who failed to turn up guesting for Peterborough at Workington and Ben Barker who gave Peterborough very short notice at Glasgow he was unfit to ride yet got his arse down to Stoke practicing on the very same night admitting afterwards that he'd stitched Peterborough up to help Redcar's chances of getting into the play offs shouldn't those 2 be banned also then or is that o/k.

Steve should be banned, full stop

Ben should be commended for his efforts for his team, high fives

[cityrebel]

The mugs that make the rules are the ones who should be banned!

[ruffdiamond]

The mugs that make the rules are the ones who should be banned!

who's the mugs tho ?

[cityrebel]

who's the mugs tho ?

that is the million dollar question.

[flagrag]

I have asked this question about why Harris did not get a ban and was told it was down to the seniority of the ACU organisation and that all Speedway is run under ACU regulations

 

I was informed that the BSPA are responsible to the SCB who in turn have to report to the ACU whose decision is final and have the final say.

 

This has come up before with riders getting bans they have got fined for misconduct and banned by SCB the right of appeal is then to ACU who can ban them from all levels of motorcycle racing

[northyorksbear]

So why are you so hell bent on Chris Harris getting a28 day ban when you have nothing to say about Steve Boxall who failed to turn up guesting for Peterborough at Workington and Ben Barker who gave Peterborough very short notice at Glasgow he was unfit to ride yet got his arse down to Stoke practicing on the very same night admitting afterwards that he'd stitched Peterborough up to help Redcar's chances of getting into the play offs shouldn't those 2 be banned also then or is that o/k.

 

If you are looking for a reason as to why Ben Barker's injury flared up to the extent he could practise, but not ride in a competitive meeting, I suggest you look a lot closer to home and any actions there, which may have influenced the situation!

[Vince]

I've said it before that anybody who thinks the BSPA are a 'difficult' organisation should contact the ACU who can make the simplest task near impossible and whose motto must surely be 'Bloody minded stubbornness will always reign'

[SCB]

So why are you so hell bent on Chris Harris getting a28 day ban when you have nothing to say about Steve Boxall who failed to turn up guesting for Peterborough at Workington and Ben Barker who gave Peterborough very short notice at Glasgow he was unfit to ride yet got his arse down to Stoke practicing on the very same night admitting afterwards that he'd stitched Peterborough up to help Redcar's chances of getting into the play offs shouldn't those 2 be banned also then or is that o/k.

Because in both of them cases, they have broken no rules. Both been dicks but sadly there nothing in the rules about not being a dick or we'd see a lot of riders banned.

Just to say Richard Hall, and Luke Harris rode in the Masters ? I understand the ACU meeting takes precedence, were they not to appear at the Masters Grasstrack, they would be in trouble with the ACU, its the ACU who stated the riders had to ride in the Masters rather than in there respective speedway meetings, It then reverts to which speedway rule covers this eventuality. So maybe the thread should be about Chris Harris, Luke Harris, Richard Hall, facilities were allowed for all of them so no conspiracy, i realise the NDL rules allow a facility for a rider being unavailable for whatever reason, but we were told it was due to them riding in the Masters.

I assume Luke Harris and Richard Hall were meant to be riding NL? If so, they've done nothing wrong, the rules allow a facility for any reason in the NL. They're not at all relevant to this discussion, no rules were broken.

 

Again, speedway fans confusing rules with, "I'm not happy with and it should/shouldn't be allowed"

The mugs that make the rules are the ones who should be banned!

Or maybe they quite rightly don't agree that you should get a facility for riding around a field in an amateur event? Because you know, that makes perfect sense. If Chris Harris wants to pursue his Longtrack ambitions he should quit riding speedway if the two don't tie in.

 

I'd like to be able to do my job, be an alcoholic, play with cars and watch speedway every day. Sadly time means I can't do them all. Why does Chris Harris think he can be a speedway rider and a grasstrack/longtracker?

[racers and royals]

This isn`t a new problem with facilities for longtrack/grasstrack. Scunthorpe and Edinburgh were past masters for illegal facilities for longtrack. Something I wasn`t slow in pointing out.
Those with good memories will recall the David Howe facility for the longtrack team final- which was another ACU ruling.the
rule in the rule book is this- 16.5.1 d) is recalled by his own FMN in accordance with the FIM ISLB Regulations.- the international speedway league bureau is very much a dead duck nowadays, however I`m pretty sure this is the rule they have used.

Edited September 12, 2017 by racers and royals

[cityrebel]

A lot of the greatest riders in the history of the sport have combined speedway with grass and long track. At the time speedway was a household sport, not a minority like it is now. Those guys were multi talented motorcyclists that could ride a variety of surfaces. Not like some of the modern day riders that can only ride dry, slick tracks devoid of any dirt.

[idanthyrsus]

Harris is a British hero, he doesn't deserve a ban.

I'm assuming you are referring to Sir Arthur "bomber" Harris.