The Heat Leader List....

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

On the first point, does it matter if ACU exists because of FIM or FIM exists because of ACU?

The ACU existed before the FIM (and was indeed a founder member of the FIM) and would also continue to exist even if the FIM wasn't around. The FIM ultimately derives its authority from the national federations, rather than conferring authority on them, although it does of course have a role in recognising newly established federations.

 

This is an important issue because it's about who ultimately has the authority to make and impose rules, not to mention what can be done with competition rights. More generally, I think it has been problematic that federations with little or no speedway involvement have been able to make decisions that affect professional speedway competitions, the CCP notwithstanding.

 

On the topic of former promoters, your suggestions as to who would be suitable would be interesting. You need to take account, though, that, under ACU rules, members have to be under 70. To be honest, I can't think of any former promoters who are under 70 who would able to bring a better insight than the current members, but I stand to be corrected.

That probably highlights a lot of the wider problems with speedway.

 

I think that we are in total agreement on averages. They have been used religiously for team building for many years, and continue to be so. It is my view that trying to find a weighting to adjust for the different race format that is fair to everyone, riders, promoters and supporters, is exceptionally complicated if not in face impossible, so I disagree with your second paragraph on this rather.

I don't believe it would be exceptionally complicated. I didn't get involved in the recent discussions advocating a weighted average system, but years ago I worked out a generic system that could be used for any heat format because most heat formats have harder races for some riders than others. Once you have an agreed formula, then it's not really necessary for anyone to understand it, anymore than the average cricket fan knows how a Duckworth-Lewis target is calculated.

 

I'd agree that if you don't automate this process from the beginning (basically with some sort of computer app), then it would be quite time consuming and error prone to have to go back and work out the relative rider weightings at particular times during the season. I could also well imagine that Peter Oakes didn't fancy going back over a season worth of programmes to update his averages either.

 

Of course, by the time you've tinkered with all the averages in this way then they wouldn't really be averages anymore. They'd be more rider ratings.

 

And your comments rather contradict the idea that averages are the correct basis for team building.

Averages are not really ideal for team building, but it's actually difficult to come up with a better system that would work in a speedway environment. For me, the issue is not so much the use of averages, but the way they've been used punitively to discourage any sort of longer term team building, meaning that success seems to be built on who can swing the right assessed averages.

 

Cheque book speedway should be discouraged at all costs, but equally teams should be allowed to naturally develop up to a certain point, and not forced to be broken up merely for finishing in the top half of the table. There are ways in which this could be done, using averages and without the need for anyone to vote on lists.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Humphrey Appleby

[Tsunami 10,219]

Many thanks for your replies which are appeciated we'll certainly by me.

 

One quick question, bearing in mind the whole topic came about because of a flawed race format wouldn't it have been common sense to scrap it and go back to a race format that provided accurate averages which were fair to all concerned.

I think maintaining protected positions for Brit riders in a certain race format, would overrule the need to go back to where we were. Why drop a system that was to fix the "no Brits coming through', just to keep the rules/averages pure.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

Why drop a system that was to fix the "no Brits coming through', just to keep the rules/averages pure.

Averages were never really pure anyway. The reserves met each other more often even in old versions of the heat format, and the No.2 position usually had relatively easier opposition as well.

[Skidder1 7,637]

Why then is/was the number 2 position regularly quoted as the toughest riding position in the 1-7??

 

Maybe because the number 2 rides with and against each team's number 1 and against at least one other programmed opposition heat leader!!!

 

 

ps. As one or two other posters have commented on my post of 2 weeks ago - exactly who has been disadvantaged by the HL list??

 

pps. Thanks and well done Gordon - see you in March!!

Edited January 4, 2016 by Skidder1

[Woz01 3,589]

I think maintaining protected positions for Brit riders in a certain race format, would overrule the need to go back to where we were. Why drop a system that was to fix the "no Brits coming through', just to keep the rules/averages pure.

Now though we will get foreign riders in a reserve position with protected heats after the 1st set of averages.

[Skidder1 7,637]

Not just foreign riders - you could also get other underperforming Brits dropping to reserve, but possibly only for 4 meetings at a time?!

[E I Addio 15,845]

Averages were never really pure anyway. The reserves met each other more often even in old versions of the heat format, and the No.2 position usually had relatively easier opposition as well.

Apart from No1 they all had at least one ride against the opposing reserves. I don't see why you think the No 2 had it any easier than No 4, but even the numbers 3 and 5 had theoretically easier races against opposing reserves, but averages are only ever an approximate guide because they depend on so many variable factors.

 

I actually quite like the present race format.

[g13webb 4,254]

ps. As one or two other posters have commented on my post of 2 weeks ago - exactly who has been disadvantaged by the HL list??

 

 

I have never seen the reason why the question was asked, their will always be a difference of choices, when opinions are sought.

To me it was never an issue of which team benefitted from the list , more of a point of why a list was deemed necessary.

 

The only positive I take from the list is that the BSPA recognise that the CMA alone, gives an unrealistic indication of riders ability and therefore authorised an additional list just to add some sensible balance to team building.

[chris4gillian 1,832]

Thanks to Gordon though for posting that explanation. Whether you agree or not it's nice to see it out there. A bit of argy bargy does forums no harm though.. it's when they go quiet they die a death.

 

Speaking of which where's Statman!?

 

He won't respond to posts written well in the Queen's English as that's a foreign language to him

[Tsunami 10,219]

Now though we will get foreign riders in a reserve position with protected heats after the 1st set of averages.

I understood that they do get protection even if their average is above others.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

Your point about the SCB is more than a viable option, it is to my mind by far the most sensible option, and indeed the only sensible and workable option.

 

Speedwáy, comes under the general authority of the ACU . The ACU delegate management of the sport to the SCB who in turn delegate the day to day running to the BSPA. To add another body with a say in how the sport is run is adding another level of management to a sport that already has more lavels of management than any other discipline of motor cycle sport in this country. It would be a recipe for disaster, as things invariably are when there are too many fingers in the pie. The whole problem stems from weakness at the SCB as you point out. There should be a "Chinese wall" between the SCB and the BSPA and that would avoid a whole lot of problems.

 

I think you are right here. I don't think it would be a disaster to have independent adjudication, but if there was clear water between the SCB and the BSPA that's precisely what we would get without the need for any further party becoming involved.

[Halifaxtiger 5,318]

I suppose that post shows just how thin and relatively petty the argument has now become.

 

After two weeks someone eventually manages to answer to question posed by Skidder 1 and when the answer eventually does arrive it seems we are all agreed that actually nobody is disadvantaged by the heatleader list, at least not as far as team announcements are concerned so far. If nobody has been disadvantaged by it the surely it doesn't really matter whether the list was reached by logarithms, quadratic equations or levitating over the Lake of Tranquility, the net result is the same, a list that doesn't disadvantage anybody so therefore by definition is a fair and reasonable one. Certainly no promoters have been complaining that they have been hard done by because of the list.

The only beef seems to be exactly how the list was reached but that seems to be a relatively minor point once it is accepted that nobody is at a disadvantage.

You say that Jon Cook disagrees that there should be an explanation why certain ideas have been left off but that's not what he said. He gave an interview apparently on behalf of the BSPA that had to be edited on to one column of SS so did necessarily was an overview of that particular point.

Are you going to actually ask any promoter for the further explanation you want ? Jon Cook is on record as saying that if any fan approaches him in the Speedwáy office before about 7pm on race night he will try to answer any questions. Personally, I have never found him unwilling to answer sensible questions but you have to pick your moment. It's no good wading in with your size 12's when he is about to meet with sponsors or 5 minutes before the meeting starts. I don't think that's unreasonable. I have no doubt Stevebrum and a few others will be putting queries to CVS at the next Wolves forum.

 

But the bottom line is we have a list that you agree doesn't disadvantage anyone in practical terms and the only remaining thing is the ins and outs of a ducks posterior which is findoutable if you are that bothered but I am not sure where that takes anything in practical terms. Skidders last post was about right I would say.

 

This is what Mike BV said:

 

'..... And changing the rules which fundamentally impact the sport without firstly clearly explaining to its paying customers why the rules have changed, the rationale used for the changes and indeed the riders the changes impact is, I would suggest, also a bit 'thick'...

 

(Even more so when your patrons have built up a less than generous view of your competence in decision making, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of your previous 'track record')...'

 

I really don't see anything thin and petty in that.

 

According to Gordon Pairman, the heat leader list was ready on 02/11/15. Speedway Star announced that it would publish the 'mysterious' heat leader list on 09/12/15 (apparently as a result of a leak) and it appeared on the BSPA website on 10/12/15.

 

Doesn't the fact that it was sat on for 6 weeks and then made available when it was leaked to Speedway Star look just the slightest bit suspicious ?

 

According to Gordon Pairman, at least one promoter was indeed unhappy about it.

 

What makes you think you will get a sensible response to a question to Jon Cook about the heat leader list when he has already labelled at least one person who was critical 'thick and biased' ?

 

 

 

In my view, it is essential that two – out of five – members of the Speedway Control Bureau must be active promoters. How else will they bring a current perspective to decision making? We have two top notch delegates from ACU who are invaluable in guiding the Bureau members through overall disciplinary regulations, but they need the input of speedway officials to keep them up to date on the day to day operation of the sport. Disciplinary matters are a very small part of our duties – overall consideration of the safety of competitors, officials and supporters take up far more of our time.

 

When I put my name forward for consideration for the Speedway Control Bureau. It was partly because, at that time, both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the BSPA were the Bureau members and I believed that it was wrong, in disciplinary matters appealed from BSPA to the Bureau that the same people who passed judgement should also hear the appeal. In 12 months, of course, the whole picture has changed with neither of BSPA’s delegates being on the Management Committee. In other matters that fall within the Bureau’s jurisdiction, current experience is far more important than past theory. At present therefore, it can be argued that there is the necessary independence required to allow the Bureau members to carry out their duties.

 

 

 

First of all, thank you for taking the time and trouble to give your viewpoint here. Its greatly valued.

 

I also have no issue with the fact that you have two promoters from the BSPA on the SCB panel. I do not see, however, that either of those promoters can be part of an adjudicating decision in relation to an issue that has arisen between tracks.

 

Having an active promoter ruling on a dispute will almost inevitably provoke accusations of bias or prejudice. Had that been in 2015, for example, it is possible that Alex Harkess might have been called to rule on a matter that involved Glasgow or Somerset. Even if he acted with complete integrity, he should not be placed in a position where he might be accused of having an interest in any decision.

 

In addition, in my experience SCB decisions do not name those who make the decision, do not give sufficient explanation for the decision and, according to Gary Patchett, are absolutely binding with no further recourse to the ACU. That, too, simply isn't good enough.

 

E I Addio has very correctly suggested that there be a clear division between the SCB and the BSPA and I fully agree. It might be me being sceptical, but I believe the reason that the BSPA tolerate the SCB is because they have a form of control over it. In contrast, I have no doubt they would be violently and implacably opposed to an entirely independent adjudicator from outside the sport. If the SCB is as independent as you suggest, I'd ask why when any accusations of bias would clearly be nonsense.

 

As to the necessity of having two promoters on the SCB, I am sure I do not need to remind you that the most significant legal decision in the sports history was made by Hartley Shawcross, a man with no knowledge of the sport whatsoever. His report enabled the unification of speedway in a way that no promoter had been able to achieve.

[Gordon Pairman 457]

Halifaxtiger - I am happy to answer the specifics you raise. Firstly, the way in which disciplinary matters are dealt with by the Bureau have been and still are closely scrutinised to ensure that any questions of bias are eliminated as far as they can be. In my limited experience, I am not aware of any bias having taken place, but I do believe it is important that any matters dealt with by the Bureau can be seen to be dealt with impartially. Given the situation that you outline with Glasgow and Somerset, any perceived bias on the part of any member - and bear in mind that I would be in a completely opposite position given my past involvement with Glasgow, and the good working relationship that exists between Poole and Somerset - would be discussed and resolved before any hearing.

Secondly, the information about appeals is incorrect. There is a clear route to the ACU for appeals.

Your comments on the relationship between the Bureau and the BSPA may have been correct in the past, but no more. There is a very detailed deed of declaration between these two parties, and the ACU, which makes the constitutional position clear, and it is now as I outlined previously.

Finally, I am aware of the existence of the report by Lord Shawcross but I am unsure of its relevance to the current debate. Fifty years ago - the report is that old - there were rival promotions at loggerheads, and Shawcross was tasked with ending this. His job was similar to, for instance, a business consultant, parachuted in to help an ailing business. Such an individual needs to know about running a business in general, but not necessarily about any specific industry. Shawcross didn't need to know about the sport of speedway - he was needed to be able resolve a major dispute by bringing the parties together.

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

Apart from No1 they all had at least one ride against the opposing reserves. I don't see why you think the No 2 had it any easier than No 4, but even the numbers 3 and 5 had theoretically easier races against opposing reserves, but averages are only ever an approximate guide because they depend on so many variable factors.

Under the 13 heat format, the best rider normally rode at No.1, the next best at 3 with the remaining heat leader at 5. You then normally had the best second string at 4, the other second string at 2, with the best reserve programmed at 7. To roughly determine the relative strength of opposition faced by each rider, you can assign 7 points to the opposing No.1, 6 to the No.3, 5 to the No.5, 4 to the No.4, 3 to the No.2, 2 to the No.7 and 1 to the No.6.

 

So under the old 13 heat format, that gives you the following:

 

No.3 - 8, 9, 10, 11 = 38 (37 when riding away) - meets the opposing No.1 and No.7/6 twice

No.1 - 10, 7, 9, 11 = 37 (38 when riding away) - meets the opposing No.3 and No.5 twice

No.5 - 9, 10, 7, 11 = 37 - meets the opposing No.1 and No.4 twice

No.4 - 9, 10, 7, 11 = 37 - meets the opposing No.3 and No.5 twice

No.2 - 10, 7, 5, 8 = 30 (31 when riding away) - meets the opposing No.2 twice + both reserves

No.7 - 3, 5, 10 = 18 (16 when riding away)*

No.6 - 3, 8, 9 = 20 (22 when riding away)*

* NB, reserves only had 3 programmed rides

 

The original 15 heat format merely added an extra reserves race, so brings the No.7 to 21(19) and the No.6 to 23(25) from their four programmed rides.

 

Under the revised 15 heat format, the second heat leader tended to be programmed at No. 5, which gives you the following:

 

No.1 - 10, 7, 10, 13 = 40 - meets the opposing No.1 and No.5 twice

No.5 - 7, 10, 10, 13 = 40 - meets the opposing No.1 and No.5 twice

No.3 - 9, 10, 7, 6 = 32 (33 when riding away) - meets the opposing No.3 and No.6/7 twice

No.4 - 9, 10, 7, 6 = 32 (31 when riding away) - meets the opposing No.4 and No.6/7 twice

No.2 - 10, 7, 5, 10 = 32 - meets the opposing No.2 twice + both reserves

No.6 - 3, 10, 10, 6 = 29 (30 when riding away)

No.7 - 3, 8, 5, 6 = 22 (21 when riding away)

 

So under the old 13/15 heat format, the No.2 quite clearly has less strong opposition even before you take into account they're riding against their opposite number twice + both reserves. It's reasonable to argue there's much less in it under the more recent 15 heat format, although still facing slightly less strong opposition.

 

However, if you actually did the same exercise calculated on the basis of the averages of the riders faced (which will differ from team to team), then I'd suggest the No.2 comes up against substantial weaker opposition on average.

Why then is/was the number 2 position regularly quoted as the toughest riding position in the 1-7??

I think there's a degree of mythology in that, although unlike the other second-string, the No.2 effectively had to ride as heat leader in Heat 8 under the old 13/15-heat format. That was often where tactical or even double tactical substitutions were made by the opposition, and of course the No.2 was expected to support the No.1 rider.

 

However, in reality riders often yo-yo'ed between the No.2 and No.7 positions. The No.7 would quite often find a bit of form through virtue of having easier rides at reserve, and then move into main body of the team where they ended-up at No.2 with tougher rides. So the No.7 would often be an in-form rider, whilst the No.2 would be an out-of-form rider.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Humphrey Appleby

[Humphrey Appleby 13,961]

As to the necessity of having two promoters on the SCB, I am sure I do not need to remind you that the most significant legal decision in the sports history was made by Hartley Shawcross, a man with no knowledge of the sport whatsoever. His report enabled the unification of speedway in a way that no promoter had been able to achieve.

To be honest, Shawcross seemed to be more of a dispute resolution process - polling different viewpoints from the rival camps and getting them to agree on an organisational structure that was mutually acceptable. In fact, it seems more a process by which the Provincial League promoters were able to kick out the people they didn't like from the existing governing structure.

 

The report itself is written in typical non-committal lawyerly way and contains nothing revolutionary at all. It's something anyone could have come up with, including the promoters if they'd actually been willing to sit in a room together.