Danish Grand Prix - Vojens - 16th Sep

[Bojangles 594]

13 minutes ago, OveFundinFan said:

As it looks at the moment, still one GP to go, I would have the current top 10 back next year. Plus winner of SEC, currently leading is Mikkelson, plus the 3 from the GP Challenge of which Wozniak is already through, then possibly Kvech and a Pawlicki. That leaves 1 place....... possibly Rasmus Jensen, Lebedev, Kubera, even Anders Thomson who isn't too bad and mixes it (just injury took him out this year).

Neither Pawlicki has been good enough to warrant a wildcard in my opinion, much stronger Polish prospects that deserve a pick ahead of them (Kubera, Kolodziej, etc.). I presume they'll want at least three Poles in the series, so one pick will definitely go to them, unless Dudek or Janowski get given another chance.

It's extremely unlikely Przemyslaw Pawlicki will get a spot from the challenge as it'll require Doyle (unlikely), Vaculik (almost definitely) and Lambert (likely) all making top six.

[CB252 1,376]

Well this one is going to run and run. The revelation that disqualification wasn't mandatory, the fact that the referee deemed him good to go as he only inspected the back of the suit. The failure to punish any others in the past who had breached the rules (think Anders Thomsen in his underpants)

No wonder one of the big wigs at Discovery and Phil Morris were seen scuffling in the car park.

Common theme I'm seeing from Polish journalists is that they should be held accountable in some way. The series relies on Poland for any meaningful income and the vast majority of the series sponsors are Polish.

Could be an interesting winter, with this and the return of the Russians up for discussion.

Can't see many major Polish companies wanting to be associated with a series in which Russians are competing.  Wouldn't be a great look.

[eric i 617]

28 minutes ago, CB252 said:

Well this one is going to run and run. The revelation that disqualification wasn't mandatory, the fact that the referee deemed him good to go as he only inspected the back of the suit. The failure to punish any others in the past who had breached the rules (think Anders Thomsen in his underpants)

No wonder one of the big wigs at Discovery and Phil Morris were seen scuffling in the car park.

Common theme I'm seeing from Polish journalists is that they should be held accountable in some way. The series relies on Poland for any meaningful income and the vast majority of the series sponsors are Polish.

Could be an interesting winter, with this and the return of the Russians up for discussion.

Can't see many major Polish companies wanting to be associated with a series in which Russians are competing.  Wouldn't be a great look.

The ref and the FIM Jury must of been looking the other way.

There is no way Anders THomsen is only rider to get away with no punishment, I wonder if anyone is closely examining past footage.

 

[iainb 5,017]

7 minutes ago, eric i said:

The ref and the FIM Jury must of been looking the other way.

There is no way Anders THomsen is only rider to get away with no punishment, I wonder if anyone is closely examining past footage.

 

As amusing as that is to watch riding around in celebration after the meeting is not an official session, you may as well throw them out for wearing shorts and a t-shirt between sessions

[eric i 617]

4 hours ago, iainb said:

As amusing as that is to watch riding around in celebration after the meeting is not an official session, you may as well throw them out for wearing shorts and a t-shirt between sessions

The rules state.........Riding number jackets not worn or suit/covers not conform to the contract or front cover not fixed on the bike during the TV interviews, draws, qualifying practice, opening ceremony, press conferences, racing, prize-giving ceremony and in the pits area.

I believe the prize-giving ceremony includes the riders going round on the back of the cars/trucks showing their trophies to the crowd.

The rules state.........'The riders placed first, second and third shall immediately, after the prize-giving ceremony, make themselves available for the official press conference.'

 

[Grand Central 2,654]

My memory, in Anders case, was that he was to change into clean kevlars in the pits prior to the podium presentation.
But having removed the dirty ones found his clean kevlars had already been already  taken out to the centre of the track by someone.
He then went out on his bike in his undercrackers and suited up on the back of the podium.

There may be variatiions on this.

I don't think any of that spolied the series sponsors 'exposure'.

Edited September 19, 2023 by Grand Central

[tyretrax 2,253]

Good to see real trophies being presented, not some offcut pieces of plastic.

[eric i 617]

3 hours ago, Grand Central said:

My memory, in Anders case, was that he was to change into clean kevlars in the pits prior to the podium presentation.
But having removed the dirty ones found his clean kevlars had already been already  taken out to the centre of the track by someone.
He then went out on his bike in his undercrackers and suited up on the back of the podium.

There may be variatiions on this.

I don't think any of that spolied the series sponsors 'exposure'.

nonsense, watch the video, same leathers went back on?

[Grand Central 2,654]

29 minutes ago, eric i said:

nonsense, watch the video, same leathers went back on?

I stand corrected.

[Lioness 1,454]

On 9/16/2023 at 6:47 PM, chunky said:

As I said, most sport today is controlled by TV and sponsors. It is a rule, an UNDERSTANDABLE rule, and all the riders know of the rule.

I hadnt appreciated that the riders knew of the rule so Im setting on the reversing lights and admitting he has no complaint when it was given to him before the start of the series in black and white.
I do think though now it has arisen, the rule has to be looked at for the sake for the sake of the sport.  For a first offence and in practice only it should perhaps be a very heavy fine and relegated to last place in the qualifying.  After that, well it would have to be what happened to Zmarslik 

[chunky 6,092]

2 hours ago, Lioness said:

I hadnt appreciated that the riders knew of the rule so Im setting on the reversing lights and admitting he has no complaint when it was given to him before the start of the series in black and white.
I do think though now it has arisen, the rule has to be looked at for the sake for the sake of the sport.  For a first offence and in practice only it should perhaps be a very heavy fine and relegated to last place in the qualifying.  After that, well it would have to be what happened to Zmarslik 

I get what you're saying, but the problem is the fact that sport is "ruled" by money these days. It's easy to say that it was a minor offence, or a technicality, but that is not the way that governing bodies look at things now; it's all financial, and about control.

Teams and organisations are now producing contracts that are affecting their lives away from the sport (including social media), where they can go and what they can do/say, and rights to images and names. Competitors are getting much harder punishments for breaking these rules.

[Fromafar 10,363]

On 9/19/2023 at 5:46 PM, Lioness said:

I hadnt appreciated that the riders knew of the rule so Im setting on the reversing lights and admitting he has no complaint when it was given to him before the start of the series in black and white.
I do think though now it has arisen, the rule has to be looked at for the sake for the sake of the sport.  For a first offence and in practice only it should perhaps be a very heavy fine and relegated to last place in the qualifying.  After that, well it would have to be what happened to Zmarslik 

It’s all a bit fishy. IMO.Rules are Rules covers everything though.Pretty severe penalty considering the crime.

[Tim Templeton 43]

My thoughts on the Zmarzlik situation.  I think everyone reasonable would agree that the rules should apply to all equally.  All concerned should be responsible for their responsibilities and actions, whether they be failings or not.  And this must include those responsible for ensuring the rules are being adhered to, namely Zmarzlik, Morris, Olsson, Ackroyd, & Hanne Thomsen.  This did not happen, but only Zmarzlik has been penalized.  The FIM jury fell short of their responsibilities as well, and apologised, but have not been held accountable for their failure to ensure the regulations were being complied with.    

In today's Speedway Star it says "Under section 12.3 of the SGP regulations, riders CAN be fined and disqualified.....................".  The critical point is that the regulation is quoted as "CAN", which infers discretion, as it does not say "MUST".  Morris states that the only sanction listed for the offence in the rulebook is disqualification, plus fine.  Both of those interpretations are diametrically opposed, and cannot both be correct.  Everyone has accepted that the rules have been broken, so the only debate is whether the punishment of disqualification was non negotiable by any of the persons involved,  or not. "CAN" and "MUST" mean different things.  Which was it?

Just to muddy the waters further, the regulations further state "The sanction must be proportionate to the offence, and to circumstances................."  That again is at loggerheads with Morris's saying  there was no option but to disqualify & fine, meaning that being able to be "proportionate" in any way was not an option.  

 

[AFCB Wildcat 1,362]

18 hours ago, Tim Templeton said:

My thoughts on the Zmarzlik situation.  I think everyone reasonable would agree that the rules should apply to all equally.  All concerned should be responsible for their responsibilities and actions, whether they be failings or not.  And this must include those responsible for ensuring the rules are being adhered to, namely Zmarzlik, Morris, Olsson, Ackroyd, & Hanne Thomsen.  This did not happen, but only Zmarzlik has been penalized.  The FIM jury fell short of their responsibilities as well, and apologised, but have not been held accountable for their failure to ensure the regulations were being complied with.    

In today's Speedway Star it says "Under section 12.3 of the SGP regulations, riders CAN be fined and disqualified.....................".  The critical point is that the regulation is quoted as "CAN", which infers discretion, as it does not say "MUST".  Morris states that the only sanction listed for the offence in the rulebook is disqualification, plus fine.  Both of those interpretations are diametrically opposed, and cannot both be correct.  Everyone has accepted that the rules have been broken, so the only debate is whether the punishment of disqualification was non negotiable by any of the persons involved,  or not. "CAN" and "MUST" mean different things.  Which was it?

Just to muddy the waters further, the regulations further state "The sanction must be proportionate to the offence, and to circumstances................."  That again is at loggerheads with Morris's saying  there was no option but to disqualify & fine, meaning that being able to be "proportionate" in any way was not an option.  

 

It's a tricky one for sure. I've read and reread the regulation, trying to make sense of it and the only thing I can come up with is this.

The header starts "SHALL be penalised with a fine or sanction as provided in the FIM disciplinary code. The final sentence that says that the jury MAY sanction any persons breaking the rules as follows.

There is a direct contradiction between SHALL and MAY, so is the MAY referring to the offences listed below that give a variable punishment?  I.e. different fines depending on severity and state 'UP TO' disqualification. In that case it could be saying that the jury MAY sanction anything between the given parameters for a given offence. 

For the offence commited here though, there were no parameters given. It clearly states 600 euro fine plus disqualification from the meeting.

The Star didn't really elaborate on their interpretation of the rules when they used the word 'CAN'. Phil Morris was adamant though that it was black and white and that they had no choice.

I think the whole section needs rewriting for clarity. As with a lot of things, I'm sure it made sense to the person who wrote it at the time but it's a bit ambiguous!

[enotian 562]

On 9/19/2023 at 8:28 PM, chunky said:

I get what you're saying, but the problem is the fact that sport is "ruled" by money these days. It's easy to say that it was a minor offence, or a technicality, but that is not the way that governing bodies look at things now; it's all financial, and about control.

Teams and organisations are now producing contracts that are affecting their lives away from the sport (including social media), where they can go and what they can do/say, and rights to images and names. Competitors are getting much harder punishments for breaking these rules.

you're quite right but what else would that incentivise?

i'm sure the Torun GP promoters and the broadcasters would all prefer a last round decider for the title. that's how entertainment works now, nobody is bothered about a dead rubber.

all feels a bit WWF to me but i'll look forward to the final round