Grand Central

For goodness sake, please read my post again. I actually said that I beleived it went on. And yes I have actaully been in the company of many ex riders who have given me chapter and verse on the ocassions they knew about. I believe them and I believe you! I just said ... again ... that all this 'knowledge' doesn't make it 'well documented'. That's all!

Oh dear, oh dear. I really have not made myself clear if it looked as if I needed to told that the Tribunal had shown guilt conclusively. I know full well that the case Simon Wigg, Malcolm Simmons and so on was proven. But as I am sure you remember 'The Sunday People' actually ran corruption stories on Speedway over three weeks - actually always on the inside pages not the front page as someone stated - quoting people such as Chris Pusey and indeed Jiri Stancl. They claimed he had allowed Bruce to win the 82 title because he 'threw' the last race! The point I was making, again. Is that the corruption that has gone on in Speedway in the past is generally not properly know beacuse it was all done behind the scenes and we will only hear about it from autobiographical confessions and allegations but on the whole it has never been 'well documented'. And OK, just to help, EXCEPT in the case that went to tribunal!

No. I would never regard an article in the Sunday People being apt for the epiphet 'well documented', on any subject. A journalist gained the confidence of a few riders who gave verbal accounts of certain indcidents and he reported that in the paper. That does not make it 'well documented'. Only a small number of the allegations in the 'Sunday People' ever got as far as a tribunal. And only a very small fraction of the their story was ever proven. Most could not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Some may have been true but it will always be difficult to know just one person's word and not, in fact, 'well documented' at all. My point was not that these incidents have never happened - I believe they have on many occasions. But they are just 'brown enevlope' jobs and can only be known aboout when people write books and make DVDs in their dotage; and they choose to let in some light on this shady world. But it can only ever be unsubstantiated hearsay, now, and none of it was ever 'well documented' at all.

Absolutely ... so is it really surprising that it is precisely now that they change the system. In previous years Denmark and Poland have always been going to qualify for the final, even if it had to come via the race off. But for the next two years things aren't so easy to predict are they. In 2012 there was no surity that the Swedes would get through to their finals (50-50 chance at best) BUT in 2013 if Belle Vue gets built England will be staging the final. Actually our only chance of being in that final is if this change was made. So this is no favour to the Poles; this is for Team GB's benefit isn't it?

I agree there are many many cases of 'reported' misdemeanors of this type, and certainly more is being revealed as time passes and people feel more able to speak candidly about the past. But it will be down to personal recounts of individual's memory; perhaps sometimes with the corroboration of others telling the same story ...BUT I don't think you'll find even ONE that could be described as 'well documented' ... that would be really foolish.

Yes it is. I have never felt able to offer any contribution about the talent, the greatness or any other quality of riders who I have never seen at all. Can you, really, just from the records?

Nostalgia a is wonderful thing, but it doesn't always come with accuracy. At this particular meeting DENNIS SIGOLOS was the challenger that was due to take on KC that night. Michael Lee didn't get a shot until August. The famous Carter v Lee did not precede a League meeting at all. It was on before a completely meaningless 'Calderdale Pair's event where the pairings were just made up of Halifax riders and juniors plus Michael Lee. Lee was partnered with Julian Parr. Lee was not beaten by anyone that night and I'm afraid John Louis was not even there as he had been transferred to Kings Lynn before the start of the '83 season. And I'm sorry but I don't share this memory of Michael Lee's performances at The Shay. I know I saw him score 13 for Poole in June 1983 and I think it was 17 points for Kings Lynn at The Shay in 1982!. I don't think it's fair to make out he had a poor record at Halifax, at all. My memory of that night was of a poor (by Halifax standards) crowd for a poor meeting ... although when you speak to people so many claim to have been there that I simply don't believe it. Michael Lee was phenominally quick, I mean really really fast. He led all his races from the gate and just went further and further ahead to win by about a third of a lap. I don't think he moved more than an inch away from the white line round any bend and hardly slid the bike at all. His wheels were in line and driving all the way. It wasn't spectacular just terribly efficient and very fast! I am surprised that no one has mentioned the Carter v Penhall Golden helmet clash at the end of 1981. It was the Sunday night after Carter had won the BLRC; Cradley Heath and Swindon were at The Shay in a Double Header but first on was the Golden helmet. My memory makes this one of the most thrilling Match Races I have ever seen. Carter had won the first leg at Cradley so would retain the helmet for the winter if he won at home. The crowd was massive - anywhere between Ten and Twelve Thousand at a guess and the tension incredible after the Carter Penhall war had been raging all year. Penhall gated ahead in all three races. Carter was all over him for four laps but Bruce held on to take the first; in the second Carter smashed his way through on the top bend and Bruce only just kept on, after he had been clouted very hard, to set up the third and decider. In that Bruce again led for the first lap and Kenny stormed through, cleanly, on the inside going into the pits bend - a sort of Gollobesque manouvre - and Bruce couldn't come back. No that is the night you want video of ... but there is none I'm afraid

As far as I can see both falcace and Impartial One are both heading towards a circular argument with each other and with themsleves over who does or does not constitute the greater natural talent. And how it can be measured or quantified. I just don't think it can be done like that. Falcace's point is that the more NATURAL talent a rider has; the more you will be able to see it as soon as they first put their leg over a bike. His success will be immediate. Whereas the rider who has less natural talent but dedicates himself with drive and determination won't do so well at the outset but his success will come later as that application to the task bears fruit. My experience of both Joe and Kenny goes back to their very early days. I must have seen Joe's first rides in the Yorkshire Junior Grass Club as a young teenager and for the next few years. And I certainly was at The Shay for Kenny first rides (and almost all the rest as well). There is no doubt they were very different riders and very different boys/men. But I don't think it's possible to make ANY differentiation between them in terms of natural talent at all. It is true that Kenny was unbelievable in those first second halves at The Shay in 1978; his talent was obvious and immense. I was amazed at what I saw and I don't think anyone who saw those first rides and then his rapid progress thereafter was EVER in any doubt that he would be a superstar. It was obvious straight away. Joe, of course, had tons of Grass experience and hours and hours of Speedway practice all over the country before he rode the first professional ride for Belle Vue. BUT going back to those first grass track rides as a Junior when he first started it was JUST as outstandingly obvious that he was going to be incredibly special. He was miles and miles better than any other Junior starting out. Honestly you are all just arguing about nothing here. Immense natural talent. Both of them.

As I was saying, except for the perreniel 'which Brit do we gift a place to' question the discussion of the various representatives could have been over and done within about ten minutes ... in previous years. And Darcy would have been at the top of everyone's wildcard wishlist but that is without this new phenomonen; that ACTUAL world title aspirants (as opposed to the aformentioned no hopers) actually have a very reasonable argument AGAINST the taking of a GP place. Add in your own valid point about the oldsters and the lack of adequate replacements looks a bit pitiful doesn't it? That's why this current deliberation, especially if it results in completely new thinking regarding wildcards, should go beyond that rather narrow clique you mention. Yes, is would seem that Darcy was like a 'thumb in a Dyke' .... remove him from coming in and the whole system suddenly looks a lot more fragile than if he'd just accepted the damn place, or felt in a postion to do so.

I wonder if Mr Rising can can offer some insight into one aspect of the GP wildcard issue. I just wondered what the actual process is for the decision making. Both in normal years and, more especially, in these extraordinary times. Is it decided upon by just one individual or do BSI form some sort of committee to discuss options. Just what is the 'speedway' input into these deliberations and how or by whom is this provided. Ole Olsen, Tony Olsson, you?? Actually, I do appreciate, that for most years the choices have almost made themselves despite all the talk on forums like this that have made them into minor controversies every year. BUT it would seem that this year we are going into very different territory. We may, if reports are to be believed, be seeing multiple 'opt outs' by qualified, next in line or 'obvious choice' men for places. And that the choice of wildcards are moving into farcical areas of having to go for the lesser of some pretty evil choices. Relative no-hoper who just happened to be next in the qualifying meeting VERSUS tired old has beens or NEVER wills VERSUS random meeting by meeting men who cannot take part in the season long title chase. I mean the just the mere thought of NICHOLLS gives me a headache. I've said before that on the GP pro v GP anti debate I definitely am pro the GP; but these matters are testing the faith. And the resolution will need to be judged well. And I was asking out of genuine interest NOT to make mischief

Yes, that's why I specifically said such action/reaction was difficult to appreciate from a UK perspective. Mind you, I'm still not convinced a UK City Mayor for any of the cities listed who would get any electoral advantage from running on a platform of spending public money on professional Football either. Despite what your analogy suggests. The Polish voters really are different.

That is good for the GP, no doubt. It is just difficult to appreciate that the people of these cities actually approve of this way of spending public money ... it would be a very difficult sell for a directly elected UK City Mayor, wouldn't it? It is only unelected QANGOS in the UK that can get away with doing this sort of thing isn't it?

Yes, the rather ubiquitous and yet so incongruous appearence of TORUN and LESZNO on race jackets at GPs in other countries for the last couple of years is, I think, testomony to this funding mechanism. Goodness knows what the council tax payers (or their equivalent) in these Polish 'tourist' centres feel about their money being spent in this way is rather open to question.

But goodness gracious me ... don't tell me that Peter Ljung has a sponsorship and backroom set-up in place so able to cope with the GP circus of 2012 any better that Darcy could not have had within about 24 hours .. this would be to send the GP to hell in a hand cart!

Yes ... There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip ... to turn down the invitation now in the hope that a future opportunity will arise so easily is a gamble that, in speedway, should not be done lightly ... I hope Darcy does not live to rue the day ...

Perhaps it is best to leave Jack and Dave out of the debate for the moment until they have had the opportunity of reading Ian Hoskins article. For those that have had the chance of the reading it ... don't you find it rather surprising that Ian Hoskins didn't jump to defend the creationalist argument for his father as others have done on this thread. Instead, he seems to have taken the position of trying to carve out a new, rather more esoteric, place for Johnnie where he was a facilitator moving speedway from it's rather vague indeteriminate origins to the more certain european narrative with with we are all familiar. This is a rather new perception of Johnnie's role, is it not?

Absolutely ... 1977 versus 1974 for wetness ... 1977 wins! I was not decrying the GPs at any point, quite the reverse. But Ullevi happens to be a bit of a leveller, doesn't it. It's one of those places that SHOULD show the best of world speedway but it actually never has, has it? It is not a particularly good example of how the old system was bad any more than it is a good example of how the modern way is any better. Goodness know why BSI keep going back! It's dreadful! But having said that 1974, 1977, 1980, 1984 AND 1991 I was there every year, thoroughly enjoyed my stay in the city including Saturday/Sunday at Liseberg ... but funnily enough I haven't set foot in the place since the GPs took over. I just find it interesting that you chose '74 as an example of the nadir of World Finals. As a modern-day lover of GPs that is the one place that would never get me to leave my seat in front of Nige and Kelv to see a live GP, yet it always drew me to travel to a world final at the place. Funny that, isn't it?

I have said previously that GPs are the future and that World Finals are of the past and only for nostalgia. BUT ... this is a little disingeniuous, is it not? You mention the 1974 Final held in the pouring rain at Gothenburg of all places. Yes it wasn't good but for goodness sake NONE of the GPs held at that place have been any good either have they? AND when talking about the past world championships is the whole year-long story of the qualifying rounds that has to be remembered. Truth is that today there is hardly a person alive who can remember the events of ANY GP qualifying meeting (except for a couple of GP Challneges back in the 90s) but you mention 1974 ... the British Final at an absulutely ram-packed Brandon with Eric Boocock pulling off the win in his last ride, the European Final at Wembley with Peter Collins winning his first big title after beating Mauger and Olsen in a run-off and not to mention the initial rounds around the whole of the UK that, in those days, were genuinely must-go-to meetings. Really Phil, I think you should choose your examples a little more carefully.

It is an article by Ian Hoskins to which he refers to the ongoing debate about his father but adds only a couple of very short paragraphs of his own comment on the 1923 question. There is no new information divulged. The quote from Mr Hoskins that you gave at the beginning of this thread seemed to promise much more. Thankfully, Mr Hoskins deals with whole matter in a rather relaxed manner and does not make any assertions about his father inventing speedway at all. He prefers to look upon Johnnie's role as the man who provided continuity with the pioneering days and on to the world wide spread of the sport. This may or may not lead to an entirely different debate!

Funnily enough I had made that very same mistake as I read that particular paragraph. For some reason 'THE supreme achievement' tripped off the page better than the 'A supreme achievement', as written. A semantic distinction, perhaps. But vital to understanding the paragraph correctly. The most interesting thing about the piece is just the lack of anything new at all that Mr Hoskins adds. And actually he is to be commended for that. He does not make any out landish unsubstantiated claims for his father (except for the bit about 'led to High Beech' perhaps). He thankfully makes no claims or defences along the lines used by Jack or Dave. I am sure he is not foolish enough to honour his father's memory with statements that cannot be shown to be true. Just another interesting semantic (twice in one post) from the Ian Hoskins piece is that he mentions the word speedway with reference to the sport as it was to become but he actually only refers to 'motor bike rcaing' at West Maitland in '23. Significant, I think. And like (I think) everone else on this forum can I just put on record that I believe that Johnnie Hoskins was a truly great man and who did as much, if not more, for Speedway as any other in it's history. But the search for a more fuller understanding of the true origins of the sport must be allowed to continue using proper resaerch that others are doing so diligently. Keep up the good work. Just thank god Mr Hoskins has not found wikipedia, or if he has at least he must understand how it works far better than some on this forum.

I wholeheartedly agree. Like lots of other retro products and nostalgic delights of the seventies and eighties I love to look back at those times. They were great. At the time. But time has moved on. There is no going back. The Grand Prix system (under BSI/IMG or their inevitable successors) is the present and future of world Class speedway. We need to make sure that is works. And works very well. And I don't want to be too over-dramatic but this present situation with riders turning down places seems a bit of a crisis for me. The system of the top eight from last year plus three Challenge qualifiers and four permanent wild cards seemed to be a good balance. But that is now being dismantled not by the FIM, not by BSI but by the Polish league. And it's not in the interests of speedway or the World Championship at all, is it? The indiviual wild card at each round may have helped some attendances and was useful for the appearence of Darcy and Thomas H. But beyond that, it was already a bit of a tired 'add-on'. Most of them are fairly ho-hopers. We surely cannot cope with yet more 'one-offs' who offer nothing to the quest to be World Champion at all. An extra one, two or even five (!) meeting by meeting wild cards would just look silly, wouldn't it? You've also got to wonder about some of the men in the middle ranking of the GP who take up their qualified place or wild card as offered and who are willing to forgoe the 'Polish Shilling' for World Championship hopes. How are they going to feel about the riders who have turned down guarenteed places to take the big money and then get the chance of coming back as 'guests' without all the attendant costs and trouble that the season-long guys have put up. A little division in the ranks will occur, surely?

Ah bless, someone has learnt how to use Copy & Paste. Well done, Jack. Historical investigations can be forgotton now.

That had been my understanding as well. Looking up the FIM regulations that govern the GP and qualifiers (seee the FIM website) it makes matters very clear for riders who qualify for the next round of the championships. If you qualify for the next round you HAVE to ride. Only bonafine injury will be an excuse against participation in the next round. If you 'pull out' without such good cause the FIM have all the powers that they need to prevent you from riding that weekend anywhere in the world and also have the option of greater suspension. This is written down and clear to all. What is not clear at all is what options a rider is left with if he has qualified for the GP FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR from the qualifiers. There seems to be nothing in the written regulations that says whether the same principles apply. We all know that wild cards are totally different. Anyone, it seems, can turn those down with impunity.

I notice from HenryW's previous post that Protasiewicz has not actually 'pulled out' of the 2012 GP as yet. Whilst I understand that it is perfectly possible for a rider to decline a wild card place when offered (a la Darcy) I wonder if it is so simple as to just 'pull out' when you have actually qualified. I always understood that the meeting regulations, signed by competing riders, for rounds of the world championship included a clause where the rider had to agree to take his place in the next round if he qualified (injuies permitting, obviously). It isn't usually possible just to 'pull out' of a place in the next round. Will Protasciewicz not have actually agreed to this sort of clause when competing at Vetlanda in the Challenge Final? If he has, surely the FIM won't just allow him to pull out and then also allow him to ride in league racing in this way, will they?

Like many others, I'm sure, I've been watching this thread without commenting. But could you just clarify for us watchers, Jack. Are you really just PRETENDING to be the thickest person ever regarding wikipedia or are you really this unworldly? If we are to understand anything else about your writings we really need to know becuase you just seem to be making a huge fool of yourself as it is.