Warsaw Gp Saturday 18th April

[Grand Central 2,654]

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

As Cilla would say

'Surprise, surprise!'

 

Sometimes it really does need an extensive enquiry.

Across many countries, taking written and verbal evidence, and costing a pretty penny.

Looked over by the finest minds in the land.

 

Just to arrive at the patently, bloody obvious.

 

Well done to all concerned.

.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Grand Central

[SCB 0]

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

Well the "arm chair experts" pretty much all called that one 3 weeks ago!

 

 

thinking about officialdom were never going to blame themselves were they? So it has to be the riders!

Edited May 11, 2015 by SCB

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

DON'T think it is a case of blaming the riders. General consensus amongst the various parties involved is that a whole series of factors, none of which should have happened, conspired to bring the matter to a head after Heat 12.

 

Lots of ifs and buts of course ... and the riders certainly had legitimate complaints about the condition of the track (although not as bad as they perhaps made out), the starting procedures, etc. If there had just been one problem the meeting would most likely have run its course but it was a succession of mishaps, ultimately the starting gate, that brought the house tumbling down.

 

While green light starts are the defined alternative, as one rider pointed out it requires a very different technique to what they are used to. Looking back at TV replays Jason Doyle, who was excluded of course, can be seen looking to his side as he would normally do, then realising that he had to look at the green light ahead of him, probably panicked and let the clutch go.

 

Serious consideration is once more being given to transponders but, again, the riders would need to have to adjust their starting techniques for just one meeting at a time, and the most important one at that, so perhaps not quite as straightforward as we think.

[Sotonian 610]

The opportunity should be grasped to implement green light starts and transponders asap. Starting gates and tapes are an aspect of the sport that makes it look too last century.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,957]

Serious consideration is once more being given to transponders but, again, the riders would need to have to adjust their starting techniques for just one meeting at a time, and the most important one at that, so perhaps not quite as straightforward as we think.

 

Why just do it for the GPs? Transponder systems are not particularly expensive and available off the shelf, and would probably work out cheaper than bespoke starting gates over time. It therefore wouldn't be impractical to do away with starting gates at all meetings.

 

Riders would soon adjust. I remember all the fuss about the tape touching rules in the 80s, but most riders got the hang of it quite quickly.

[theflyingkiwi 136]

The issue of the starting gate is laughable. Enough riders would have gone off 15m in their time and these are meant to be the 15 best riders in the world surely they can adjust? . It took away the advantage at the tapes and that for some was enough to get the meeting called off.

[Grand Central 2,654]

Just for the purposes of balance.

 

I do think the riders are to blame.

 

We shall see in the developing future whether the resistance of others to that notion ends up solving problems.

Or just creating bigger ones.

[HenryW 1,178]

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

If the track condition should not have caused the abandonment then the responsibility for it surely lies squarely on the shoulders of Jim Lawrence, Tony Steele and Andrzej Grodzki as they are the ones that decided it was unfit to continue.

Edited May 11, 2015 by HenryW

[baldinhio 16]

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree?

BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify?

You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough?

If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?

[iris123 20,988]

If the track condition should not have caused the abandonment then the responsibility for it surely lies squarely on the shoulders of Jim Lawrence, Tony Steele and Andrzej Grodzki as they are the ones that decided it was unfit to continue.

Which is pretty much what was said here within hours and without the need for a jolly in Geneva or a meeting with any officials on or off duty.............

[baldinhio 16]

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree?

BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify?

You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough?

If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?

[Trees 2,814]

The riders had all got used to the green light starts surely?

Are you sure it wasn't the track, heat 8 it really starts to show up as rutty and dangerous. The riders were all riding gingerly through the bends trying to miss the ruts, they couldn't race properly. Troy's second fall was too far for some I think.

[oldace 1,678]

The riders had all got used to the green light starts surely?

Are you sure it wasn't the track, heat 8 it really starts to show up as rutty and dangerous. The riders were all riding gingerly through the bends trying to miss the ruts, they couldn't race properly. Troy's second fall was too far for some I think.

 

None so blind as though that cannot see, very true in your case

 

And why were they happy to race a Mickey Mouse challenge on Saturday on a far more rutted track?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Oldace

[The White Knight 9,039]

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

i) Well they are hardly likely to say anything else are they? You don't bite the hand that feeds you. :nono:

 

ii) Yeah right!!! That is self evident. :rolleyes:

[Trees 2,814]

None so blind as though that cannot see, very true in your case

 

And why were they happy to race a Mickey Mouse challenge on Saturday on a far more rutted track?

Perhaps u r the blind one .....