Coventry V Poole 1/6/15

[marko 956]

Easy with hindsight, but heat 10 might never have started if 4 tape breakings had taken place?

Coventry usually have two sets of tapes set up on the gate.

Harris breaks tapes..Excluded and replaced by Garrity.

Rain continues to fall as the two minutes passes. (Second set of tapes is used)

Kylmakorpi breaks the second set of tapes and is replaced by Sarjeant.

Still raining as a further two minutes passes, plus extra time whilst new tapes have to be put in place.

Garrity breaks tapes.

Raining whilst tapes now have to be repaired again.

Sarjeant breaks tapes.

Definitely too wet to continue now!

 

Absolutely right Gambo but Coventry choose to go the honest approach and are now getting fined for it which frankly i find pathetic, would they have been fined if what you suggested had happened? would they have been fined if Chris and Joonas has gone out then both retired from the race before the first turn?

[foreverblue 6,096]

Absolutely. It's one of the reasons why the sport is dying. Any threat of rain and riders automatically go into won't ride mode. Likewise fans don't bother to go either because it's unlikely a match will start or will they get value for money. The riders and promotions are turning the sport into a good weather sport only.

The track looked OK, not perfect and nor should it have it expected to be. It was also expected to be only 10 heats and those few who attended probably expected it.

It's the hypocrisy of the coventry promotion tho that brought about this issue, yet don't moan when they have won a meeting over 10 heats, No wonder it was thrown out.

I completely agree with the decision to fine them, we all remember meetings in far worse conditions and fans are continually being short changed by promotions not giving value for money, Coventry still wanted 18 pounds for a meeting that was never going to go the distance and on monday i watched 15 heats for a tenner with a pretty decent programme too which is rare in itself and why is it that clubs produce a programme that covers two meetings and expect us to pay extra, when especially away fans, we are unlikely to attend both meetings.

[Star Lady 5,400]

I completely agree with the decision to fine them, we all remember meetings in far worse conditions and fans are continually being short changed by promotions not giving value for money, Coventry still wanted 18 pounds for a meeting that was never going to go the distance and on monday i watched 15 heats for a tenner with a pretty decent programme too which is rare in itself and why is it that clubs produce a programme that covers two meetings and expect us to pay extra, when especially away fans, we are unlikely to attend both meetings.

 

 

And I suggest even if the price were £5, given the weather conditions that day there would have been very few, if any, extra bodies thro the turnstiles which kind of negates your argument about 15 heats for a tenner

[RobMcCaffery 2,752]

I completely agree with the decision to fine them, we all remember meetings in far worse conditions and fans are continually being short changed by promotions not giving value for money, Coventry still wanted 18 pounds for a meeting that was never going to go the distance and on monday i watched 15 heats for a tenner with a pretty decent programme too which is rare in itself and why is it that clubs produce a programme that covers two meetings and expect us to pay extra, when especially away fans, we are unlikely to attend both meetings.

I remember a meeting at Rye House way, way back in the late 70s which was raced in a mud bath. Riders were covered from head to foot in wet shale , yards apart, just able to keep upright. I remember seeing the late Ashley Pullen, as determined and gutsy a rider as you could ever watch battling to see, all tear-offs used, goggles removed and shaking his head as the muck covered his face. The supporters were crowded under what little cover there was at Rye House in those days.

 

A result was achieved, one less match to stage and all gate monies kept. It wasn't speedway though. At least we were only paying a fraction, in real terms as well as absolute, of what those poor disregarded supporters did at Brandon.

We were still ripped-off.......

[foreverblue 6,096]

 

 

And I suggest even if the price were £5, given the weather conditions that day there would have been very few, if any, extra bodies thro the turnstiles which kind of negates your argument about 15 heats for a tenner

And the ones stupid enough to go got stung for !8 pounds, i would suggest there would have been quite a few more if the prices had been reduced.

[stevebrum 6,821]

You never got call offs back in the 70s, hence the difference. You knew that speedway would be on. Apparently riding bikes with no breaks back then wasn't dangerous , it only is today.

[Star Lady 5,400]

And the ones stupid enough to go got stung for !8 pounds,

I wouldn't have dreamt of calling you stupid lol

[SCB 0]

I completely agree with the decision to fine them, we all remember meetings in far worse conditions and fans are continually being short changed by promotions not giving value for money, Coventry still wanted 18 pounds for a meeting that was never going to go the distance and on monday i watched 15 heats for a tenner with a pretty decent programme too which is rare in itself and why is it that clubs produce a programme that covers two meetings and expect us to pay extra, when especially away fans, we are unlikely to attend both meetings.

So Coventry were right to be fine 4 grand in total for wanting it off at heat 9 but it was totally acceptable to call it off at heats 10 and nobody gets fined?

[g13webb 4,254]

You never got call offs back in the 70s, hence the difference. You knew that speedway would be on. Apparently riding bikes with no breaks back then wasn't dangerous , it only is today.

 

Obviously there were degrees of danger, even back in the 'Olden Days' .... The main difference now, relates to the greater speed of the bikes, rather than the skill of the riders. When there was limited power and even less grip from the used tyres, the skill of the rider was to home all their ability to find that magic ingredient to get more speed from those low torque motors. Today the skill emphasis, is on balance and the ability to keep the motor revving and the wheel spinning. Once a rider eases off he losses so much of his momentum.

[foreverblue 6,096]

So Coventry were right to be fine 4 grand in total for wanting it off at heat 9 but it was totally acceptable to call it off at heats 10 and nobody gets fined?

They only wanted it called off in heat 9 because they were losing, do you think if they were winning they would still have wanted it called off, they should have ridden heat 10.

 

If they didn't fine them it opens another can of worms for meetings to be manipulated. What they did was against the rules and were rightly fined.

Edited July 17, 2015 by foreverblue

[dj350z 2,266]

You never got call offs back in the 70s, hence the difference. You knew that speedway would be on. Apparently riding bikes with no breaks back then wasn't dangerous , it only is today.

 

You did get rain-off's in the 70's Steve but you would get a re-admission ticket up to heat 6 if I remember correctly. The difference was that you didn't a result by heat 10. I think I remember meetings being called off at heat 11 on the old 13 race format and the result did not stand.

[foreverblue 6,096]

I wouldn't have dreamt of calling you stupid lol

I wish i hadn't!!

[SCB 0]

They only wanted it called off in heat 9 because they were losing, do you think if they were winning they would still have wanted it called off, they should have ridden heat 10.

 

If they didn't fine them it opens another can of worms for meetings to be manipulated. What they did was against the rules and were rightly fined.

But lets assume no result could be called at heat 10. Do you think Coventry would have wanted it off? If you could only call a result at heat 15 do you think Coventry would have carried on? Bearing in mind that 8 months earlier, in a play-off final, Coventry were losing at home after heat 10 and GSI/sky/meeting co-ordinator decided to call the meeting off. Coventry, with this still fresh in their mind thought, "we played fair that day, we carried on. But someone called that meeting off while we were still battling for a win. Like hell are we going to have that happen again".

 

The issue is that meetings are far to easily called off at heat 10 and DONT carry on. But nobody in power will admit to this, they'll all claim this "safety" bullrubbish. Because 50% of the time when its raining at heat 10, it suit the promoter to call it off and pay a few ££ on points money!

[00000 1,279]

 

 

The issue is that meetings are far to easily called off at heat 10 and DONT carry on. But nobody in power will admit to this, they'll all claim this "safety" bullrubbish. Because 50% of the time when its raining at heat 10, it suit the promoter to call it off and pay a few ££ on points money!

Very true, there is an attitude around of let's rush it through and get to heat ten.

[Starman2006 2,354]

But lets assume no result could be called at heat 10. Do you think Coventry would have wanted it off? If you could only call a result at heat 15 do you think Coventry would have carried on?

You tell us ? Would both teams had carried on, and risk injury ?