Jump to content
British Speedway Forum
racers and royals

Warsaw Gp Saturday 18th April

Recommended Posts

For whom the bell tolls.

A day of shame and chaos.

A flagship sailing too close to the wind.

All of it is as plain as the nose on your face.

 

Before making any comment, on the meeting in Warsaw 18/04/2015, I waited to read what was said in the Speedway Star. All the questions expected to be asked were asked. It is said the PZM is contemplating legal action, therefore it needs to be made plain the reasons why, if they do so. It also needs to be made plain the reasons why if they decide not to do so.

 

It is said the FIM have launched a major investigation into the Warsaw travesty (or tragedy). It needs to be made plain what this investigation involves on every level. It needs to be made plain when the investigation begins, who is involved in it, what are the speedway qualifications of those investigating and when the results will be published.

 

All the details involved in the investigation need to be made plain so that justice can be done and the paying public can plainly see that justice has been done. It also needs to be made plain to the FIM that anything less than the truth of the matter would be deemed unsatisfactory and detrimental to speedway in general. It is suggested that people involved with the meeting didn’t do their job properly, the FIM therefore has no excuse if they don’t do their job properly.

 

Jim Easter of Travel Plus Tours ‘wants assurances’ before committing to taking customers to anymore GPs held on temporary tracks. This piece suggested that Mr Easter can’t afford to ruin the reputation of his business when inviting people to an event that is expected to take place in the expected manner. Mr Easter saId his customers ‘were lovely on Saturday, they were understanding and very kind to my hard working team’. Therefore if needs to be made plain to Mr Easter and all of his customers and his potential customers that this won’t happen again.

 

The piece entitled ‘Silence wasn’t golden’ concerned the reaction of the riders to all that was happening on and off the track. One of the questions asked, by Tony Hoare, was why didn’t the riders explain to the audience the reasons for their final decision not to ride, on the night? One answer is a possible ‘media blackout’.

Therefore the riders either as individuals or as a group, at some point soon, need to make plain, and in depth, to those in attendance at the arena and to the speedway GP followers in general, their reasons why they refused to continue riding. Individual riders making seperate individual comments in other words ‘a little bit of this and a little bit of that’ does not constitute the plain truth

 

The writer also classed the statement on the Speedway GB website as a ‘dismissive gesture’. He points out that no one from the FIM or BSI ‘was prepared to front up and answer questions on what had gone on and why. The 53000 deserved more respect than that.’

Recently Tony Blair made a comment stating why there should not be a referendum regarding the UK staying in the EU or not. He indicated that the British voter did not have the common sense to make the right decision. Perhaps the FIM and BSI have much the same regard for speedway fans as Blair does for the British electorate. Perhaps they believe speedway fans don’t have the common sense to understand the plain truth of what went on Saturday night.

 

Some people may think politicians get angry, when put on the spot, if they are asked to give an honest straight yes or no to a specific question when, in their opinion, it is not possible for them to do so. Perhaps politicians don’t get angry because they are put on the spot about a particular issue, they get angry because as far as they are concerned it’s got toss all to do with us. Tony Hoare calls into question the lack of a response by FIM and BSI. Mr Hoare is it possible that neither party made a statement regarding the meeting to the 53000 because it had toss all to do with them, (the 53000 that is)?

 

In the piece entitled ‘Humiliating’ the write describes the state of the track and the remedial efforts made to rectify the situation. The article also goes on to cite’ the Gelsenkirchen debacle of 2008 and the near chaos of Cardiff 2013’. The ‘FIM Probe article refers to ‘that pantomime night in Gothenburg’ and ‘who can forget the farce of the Latvian round last year which was called off and the meeting transported 140 miles from capital Riga to Daugavpils because of what were termed safety reasons- is scandalous and unforgivable’.

 

The real point of all these articles in the Speedway Star is the damage done to the reputation of speedway and how to rectify it as soon as possible to everyones satisfaction.

 

I read all the articles a number of times. Paying special attention to all those ‘hairy moments’ where other meetings were in danger of being called off, but for last minute remedial action. In the end, the article that stuck in my mind was that by Tony Hoare. He said ‘the people who emerged with dignity (regarding the whole business) were those fans, most of them Polish’ He also said, ‘When I covered GPs regularly for the Speedway Star in the 1990’s there would have been fears of a riot. In the stadium on Saturday , there was a hostile atmosphere, but it never turned nasty. The fans dropped their heads and walked out.’

 

On the Speedway Star letters page the first post is from someone who attended the meeting. Towards the end of the post they write, ‘ The first we knew it was off was when a photographer was making gestures to the crowd on the home straight that we should make for the exits.What other professional body with a responsibility for the organisation of such an event and the safety of the crowd, would leave matters to leak out in such a haphazard way?

It was lucky that the crowd leaving the stadium proved to be as compliant as they were and lucky too, that the reported calling of the police to the stadium weren’t needed to marshal the fans or take control of what could have been a very incendiary situation.’

 

So again it can be said the real point of all these articles in the Speedway Star is the damage done to the reputation of speedway and how to rectify it as soon as possible to everyones satisfaction. Therefore it is not unreasonable to ask for the plain truth to be told regarding all the questions everyone is asking.

 

While the FIM, BSI and all the other bodies involved in the organisation and running of the meeting that took place on Saturday are contemplating revealing the plain truth to the speedway supporting public, here is something else for them to contemplate.

 

Speedway is a ‘family sport’ meaning men women and children attend who belong to the same family, that is one of speedways ‘main selling points’. Something for all the family to attend.The words ‘pantomime’ and ‘farce’ have been used to describe other disrupted meetings that were called off . Something to be ‘pissed off about’ when it is happening, but something ‘I can laugh about now’, years down the line.

 

But think on this, the FIM, BSI and all the other bodies involved in the organisation and running of the meeting, while contemplating the plain truth. What if there had have been a riot? What if a photographer had been indicating to the crowd (the meeting was off and they might as well) leave the stadium and it turned out the meeting wasn’t off after all and people started returning to their seats against the rush of those trying to get out of the stadium? What if there had have been a riot and the police had been called to the stadium in force, to take control of what could have been ‘a very incendiary situation?’

 

Think on this, the FIM, BSI and all the other bodies involved in the organisation and running of the meeting, while contemplating the plain truth. There could have been a disaster unfold like the ones at Heysel, Hillsborough, Bradford and Ibrox. A disaster where people were killed or injured. What then the reputation of speedway?

Overstating the issue? Look at the headlines used, ‘FIM probe, ‘Humiliating’, Fans must come first’, Silence wasn’t golden’ and ‘Black Day’. Look at the comments ‘a day of shame and chaos’, ‘Warsaw Travesty’ etc. If a disaster did unfold then perhaps the headline might read ‘Oh what a price we paid (speedway) for loving you’.

 

If a disaster of that nature did occur what then of the plain truth? What would the FIM, BSI and all the other bodies involved in the organisation and running of the meeting have to say? That question brings to mind the old rhyme, ‘Who killed Cock Robin? Not I said the...........................’

Edited by Mr. Clemens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said. That is pretty much the point

Anyone who does not agree with Oldace is, in his words "a moron" but then reality is that, as you say the track was not perfectly anything, at least that's what a lot of the "morons" think. The mere fact that even before the riders meeting it was said that after heat 12 there would be some extended track maintenance, is in itself evidence that the track was not perfectly adequate, otherwise they would not be doing it when the meeting was already running 2 hours late.

The question of whether the extended track maintenance would have returned the track to a decent standard suitable for the occasion is something will shall now never know. However, Paul Burbidge makes an interesting point in SS when he said that there seems to be a common denominator in temporary tracks that don't come up to scratch, and that Is excessive moisture. If that was the case on Saturday it difficult to see how the track werecould have been significantly improved as the evening got colder. However that is just speculation.

Speedwáy Star has just arrived and I have to say that I think t he article by Peter Oakes (presumably another"moron" on Oldace line of thought) is excellent. Peter Oakes in my view draws the right balance between bluntly saying what needs to be said without mincing his words but at the same time without going OTT as Oldace and a few others seem intent on doing.

There were a few interesting quotes from riders in SS:-

Chris Harris: Everyonewas in agreement that the track wasn't raceable and for safety reasons the right call was made. Everybody could see that the track wasn't great . We didn't want anyone seriously hurt.

Matej Zagar: I even refused to practice. I knew the track wasn't ideal ......I did my best to take points from 3 heats. But rider safety comes first. I totally agree with this. We made a common decision. Everybody has there own opinion but common sense won.

NKI . We ne ed to look at safety before anything else. It would have been the wrong decision to continue because people were falling off by them selves. When it's like that I tells you everything about the conditions. I think it was the right decision to call it off, but it's really disappointing

Jason Doyle: The track was very dangerous for myself........the right decision was made in the end. Something went wrong with the track and it was like walking on cushions......It wasn't that we didn't want to ride, it was just how dangerous the track was.

Nicki Pedersen : The surface was unstable. It was very inconsistent and just moved around all the time when they did the preparation and grading.

I put the riders quotes out for what they are worth, to be put in the melting pot of opinion. What is not in dispute is that the track had been giving problems from the first practice session. Maybe in theory the track could have been improved after maintenance and maybe the combined hassle of the practice sessions, the starting gate, and Batch and Holders crashes were the last straw. I don't know. I tend to agree with Peter Oakes when he says that whether the full story of what went wrong will ever come out is hard to say at this juncture. What is clear though is that the bulk of the eveidence suggests that the track was less than "perfectly adequate" as Oldace would have as believe.

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

 

This shambles was predominantly down to the crap track, but whether Olsen manages to sidestep responsibility remains to be seen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get Cardiff right? Not a chance. It's always been crap, as far as 'Speedway Racing' is concerned, no matter how often we try to delude ourselves that 'they really got the track right this year' and that it's the 'jewel in the Grand Prix crown'. I gave it the benefit of the doubt for the first ten years, but no more. And whilst I have travelled abroad to several Grands Prix, I wouldn't dream of going across the road to any of the rounds on temporary tracks.

Its time mate, you cannot lay a temperary track anywhere in 3 days and expect it to hold up, it just won't happen, simple as that. They actually LAY the track and give it a week to bed in, providing the shale is not soaked you will see a far better track. once its laid graded and rolled leave it to bed in. Then, you can lightly spike it lightly water it, then roll and roll again, from outside to inside. but as i said, unless you get decent shale you are wasting your time. Edinburgh red shale is by far the best.

Have been at Cardiff for years.

 

Niamh

Yep fair point, one behind the other. And so there should be. But, they need testing, and testing again.

Edited by Starman2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

 

This shambles was predominantly down to the crap track, but whether Olsen manages to sidestep responsibility remains to be seen.

Must have missed it but did Lawrence keep Batch in the race where he knock a rider off . also did he let a result stand when quite clearly the tapes went up quicker on one side before asking for a re run when the tapes done the same a couple of races later .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its time mate, you cannot lay a temperary track anywhere in 3 days and expect it to hold up, it just won't happen, simple as that. They actually LAY the track and give it a week to bed in, providing the shale is not soaked you will see a far better track.

Yep fair point, one behind the other. And so there should be. But, they need testing, and testing again.

You are so right-how many times have we seen new permanent tracks having problems in their opening meetings. Maybe they might just have a chance if no practice is involved-however that would then bring up the question-how do we know the track is ok ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://speedwayupdates.proboards.com/thread/12801/belle-vue-poole-2013-30pm

 

Wasn't dangerous that night though was it Starry? :rofl:

Yep that was dangerous, and un-ridable due to the rain. That was the right decision.

You are so right-how many times have we seen new permanent tracks having problems in their opening meetings. Maybe they might just have a chance if no practice is involved-however that would then bring up the question-how do we know the track is ok ??

Thats a fair point. You can have as much practice as you like on a conventional track, but a temperary track is going to cut up. But, if the track is given time to bed in ie a week, you are going to minimise the risk. The problem you have is practice is ALWAYS on a friday the day before, so it gives the curators no time to pull the track back and let it sit. IF, you had practice on the Thursday, that would give it a little more time, but thats just not practical.

But they should still lightly blade grade spike water and roll and roll on the day.

Edited by Starman2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

 

Actually Peter Oakes only offers a defence of Jim Lawrence on the subject of testing the starting gate.

He passes no comment at all on the other aspects of his performance.

 

Others, elsewhere in the magazine, seemed to wish to give the man a clean bill of health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

This shambles was predominantly down to the crap track, but whether Olsen manages to sidestep responsibility remains to be seen.

Yes I was critical of Lawrence, and I also said that I was biased because I never thought much of him in the past, which inevitably colours ones judgment.

 

Speedwáy Star did give a good explanation of events and the problems Lawrence had to deal with, even down to being paranoid that the red lights might fail if he needed them. The Star also gave an informative explanation of how he came to his decisions regarding the tapes and Doyles exclusion. However the Star did say in relation to the the tapes " Lawrence's view of this incident is open to interpretation" and in relation to Doyles exclusion "In such unusual circumstances, maybe riders should have been given a second chance". So in the light of what SS has said about the pressure he was under coupled with the comments half questioning his decisions I'd have to say I still don't think he was a paragon of virtue but not as bad as I thought before reading the SS article and I would now agree with you that in the grand scheme of things he was at worst only a minor player in the tragedy.

 

We are in agreement about the track though, even more so since theSS has now outlined the problems from the start of practice and Olsen is clearly at the front of the firing line, but even then I wonder if their were others factors behind the scenes connected with the time available and maybe other things that have yet to come out. As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't understand that nothing was done to the track whilst discussions were taking place. A light blade, and tyre packing, together with a light watering, could have retrieved something to allow them to finish the meeting. The issue of the gates could have been forced on the riders as it was plain to see, except Doyle, that the gates off the green light were relatively decent and even.

 

See HenryW's post.

 

Work was done to the track, not that the riders even took a look.

I'm not rubbishing Cardiff just now.... I've always had my misgivings! I've always loved the day out, but I think we're all guilty of getting so wrapped up in the sense of occasion that we lose sight of the fact that the actual racing is never much better than very ordinary, at best. I'll never go again.

 

Which places you very much in the minority..

 

Events such as Cardiff destroy the myth that it is the 'racing' that brings the fans in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep that was dangerous, and un-ridable due to the rain. That was the right decision.

 

It hasn't dawned on you how ridiculous this comment is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Hoare calls into question the lack of a response by FIM and BSI. Mr Hoare is it possible that neither party made a statement regarding the meeting to the 53000 because it had idiot all to do with them?

Of course BSI are responsible. They are the series organisers, they choose the local organisers (the PZM in this case) and make stipulations as to who prepares the track etc... The PZM may technically be responsible for the event, but if you can insist that a particular company prepares the track, can you not insist on contingency plans and ensure they're in place?

 

The FIM is really only responsible for the officials with respect to the actual event, but after one fiasco after the next, they must surely question whether the company they've leased the rights to is up to the job?

As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

 

Maybe that is indeed the issue.

 

I see the Star repeated the story about the shale coming from a Derbyshire quarry and being shipped through King's Lynn and Gdansk, despite the reported transport ship apparently not calling at those ports in the past weeks. Of course, the ship's name may have been misreported, and the shale may have been delivered some weeks previously.

 

However, is it possible something went wrong in the shipment or storage and a local source had to be hastily found - thus necessitating a delayed start to work on the track?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I was critical of Lawrence, and I also said that I was biased because I never thought much of him in the past, which inevitably colours ones judgment.

 

Speedwáy Star did give a good explanation of events and the problems Lawrence had to deal with, even down to being paranoid that the red lights might fail if he needed them. The Star also gave an informative explanation of how he came to his decisions regarding the tapes and Doyles exclusion. However the Star did say in relation to the the tapes " Lawrence's view of this incident is open to interpretation" and in relation to Doyles exclusion "In such unusual circumstances, maybe riders should have been given a second chance". So in the light of what SS has said about the pressure he was under coupled with the comments half questioning his decisions I'd have to say I still don't think he was a paragon of virtue but not as bad as I thought before reading the SS article and I would now agree with you that in the grand scheme of things he was at worst only a minor player in the tragedy.

 

We are in agreement about the track though, even more so since theSS has now outlined the problems from the start of practice and Olsen is clearly at the front of the firing line, but even then I wonder if their were others factors behind the scenes connected with the time available and maybe other things that have yet to come out. As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

 

 

 

I can tell you that Jim Lawrence,s view of the start line was as expected (above and looking down) so he wouldn't have seen the tapes going up unevenly, his replay view from another angle was also high looking down and didn't give a clear front view that most fans got.(why he only got that view I don't know)

 

Doyle was excluded because of instructions given on green light starting at the riders briefing by Steele and Morris and on the fact he made a big jump at the gate rather than a small one, to be fair I didn't have a problem with Doyle,s exclusion he shouldn't have moved until the light went out and he clearly did, no one else had any problems and in fact the rest of the GL starts went without incident.

FIM rules allow for a flag start in the event of a starting gate & GL failure so it could have been worse.

Edited by bigcatdiary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It hasn't dawned on you how ridiculous this comment is?

 

Or the rest of his 12,315 posts.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have missed it but did Lawrence keep Batch in the race where he knock a rider off . also did he let a result stand when quite clearly the tapes went up quicker on one side before asking for a re run when the tapes done the same a couple of races later .

 

Both the incident where Batchelor knocks off Pedersen and the tapes going up unevenly are all covered in this weeks star but as others have said not necessarily by Oakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy