Grand Central

Absolutely true. But ... then again ... More unfair to the leading side = More effective at its goal of artificially tightening matches up. Especially in a 13 heat format. That may also be why we liked it, as well?

I, very often, love to argue. Just for arguments sake. But even I have to laugh that one of the issues Speedway faces at the current time is the dilemma created by Terry Russell owning a small percentage of Speedway Star 25 years ago. For sheer bloody minded irrelevance that takes some beating. Well done HA.

New tape rule? What has that got to do with this discussion?

Well, obviously nonone can know about these hypothetical things. But I genuinely do not think that Mauger would need the BL to 'keep sharp' at all (In the context we are supposing). It was several matches a week in those days, remember, so it was more jading than it was 'energising'. And he would have been immensely better prepared to just do whatever was needed in in the 1970s GPs than most others; except perhaps Olsen. No modern GP rider who is a potential champion would dream of dropping out of league racing in the modern era. PROVIDED the league is POLAND and that pays such fantastical sums of cash. So that theory really remains untested by anyone of Mauger's calibre.

This 'fantasising' about how the GPs round have worked out in retrospect is all a little contrived, to me. The truth would have been very different, I feel. As everything we know now about those days would be changed in many ways we cannot properly figure. Someone like Ivan Mauger would have set himself up with a totally different approach. He may have opted out of the BL in the early seventies and devoted everything on the GPs. He would have put together an invincible team. Don't think anyone else would have stood a chance for the whole decade; and with the reduced workload his career would have been extended in to Greg Hancock territory, quite easily. The old boy would have been champion many times more than 'just' six.

Interesting subject this one. I would be really interested to see what tmc's sales figures show for each of these single rider DVDs. Not prurient interest in his business. But to relate the sales and interest in the individual riders. Olsen, was someone I really disliked. Absolutely hated, as a rider, in the 70s and 80s But I have to also admit that as a 'grown up' I think he was brilliant, as well. Probably the best Danish rider to date.. Better than Nielsen, Gundersen, Pedersen. Them all. But I could not bring myself to pay one single penny to buy a DVD of him. Let alone £16. Daft isn't it? Sorry Tony.

This is the footage that is being discussed https://www.dropbox.com/s/fclsvhav5e4ex21/Overseas%20Final%201984%20Belle%20Vue.avi?dl=0

Quite true. And I imagine these are the real considerations that will matter when BSI, and their usual confidants, come to mull these things over. Once the Top 8 and Challenge qualifiers are known. They could be helped in that deliberation by the 'right choice' of wildcard at the Challenge, of course.

This is getting a bit daft now. People seem to want to be mind readers. Mystically gaining insight into the mind of the CDI judge. He was banned for a specific period of time. To a certain date in the Calendar. That is the end of the matter. No suspended sentence was given. No probationary return was laid down. He is a free man. He is able to be offered any wildcard for any meeting or series. Just like any other rider. But ONLY if those people or bodies who hold it in their gift decide to do so and can get it past the FIM ratification. Personally, I would not do so. But I think if they can swing it, they will. .

People keep asserting things about wildcards as if they are 'facts' when they are not. That they are, or at least SHOULD, only to be given in certain circumstances, for certain reasons, to deserving cases. Utter nonsense. That has never been said, announced, laid down in regulations, or even intimated by anyone in power. At all. Ever. They exist so that the people given the right to choose them, can do so, in whatever way they feel fit for any reason that they want. No explanations or apologetic reasoning is required. Ok it has to be 'ratified' by the FIM, but that is all. But no bad luck stories are required, no force majeure, no 'Simon Cowell' X factor excuses are needed. Why do people WANT to believe that this is some sort of 'ethical' judgement of the great and good. If they just decide that a loathsome, arrogant, disgusting individual fits the bill. They can choose him. Without a care in the world. And I bet. Will. . .

So, a wager it is! How do we go about getting some sort of mutually agreed method of judging who is the winner, though? If BSI go ahead with giving him a series wildcard for 2016.. Can I suggest a charity vote is organised in the 'Worlds Leading Speedway Magazine'. Charge say £1 a vote on the Question "Do you think it is outrageous that DW has been given a wildcard?" Yes or No? With all profits going to Tai's Charity fund. Winners all round. And a bit of winter fun ! .

. Quite a bit on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtWFIkmMq3w .

."Can I call matron to help you back to your room?" Poor old sod, here we are talking about a gravestone for a former rider who died in 1995, totally off topic. And this poor deluded one can't see it. "Don't worry Jerran Hart will be here to see you at visiting time. Have a nap until he gets here." .

.Thankfully this is not the case any more as others chipped in to provide a tribute. http://www.freewebs.com/customhousekid/pressarticles.htm So a little happier ending, after all.

All of which were integral parts of what helped make the National league just what it was in it's halcyon days of the 1980s. How people love to re-write history.

It really is quite quaint, how in the absence of REAL debate over substance. Some here just argue and argue over the minutest of semantics going back 40 years. But, was Michael Lee 'really NL' or 'not just NL' For god's sake Get me a drink, Darcy. Or something stronger, Mike. I need it. .

I would have thought it was time to retire this thread now. It once had ambition, full of drive, with a future. It was an Elite thread. But it has now dropped back into the lower division. Scoring just the easy points against rather mediocre debaters. It has become a Journeyman itself. A sort of self parody. And then we can start a new thread about DW when he next does something worth chatting about. Good or Bad. As he surely will do one or other. Or even both. .

One can imagine a Portuguese love nest. The pillow talk after a passionate conjugal congress. A glistening, exhausted Mrs BW turns to her triumphant partner in love. And says 'Your performance certainly matched up to your usual standard. It was really, spot on on your average.' 'You are mediocre ' .

Is this a first come, first served offer? I am a resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land. I swear allegiance to the flag. And I would like to be King.

Harris' was a 'professionally written statement' ?? Hancock's humdinger of a few weeks back set the bar very low. I know. Cringeworthy, just didn't come close. But if this one is what now passes for 'professional'. I'd want my money back.

Yesterday, I was reminded of just how slippery-and--slidy that ex PM Blair was. As he appeared on TV to ooze his own brand of snake-oil salesmanship and argue that black, was indeed white. In this thread I am getting some bizarre form of BSF deja vu. Wonder why ?

I'm sorry. Why are we denying that something was a crime, now. No one ever said it was. That is like a politician choosing to answer a question that was never asked. One person, not a party to the discussion, said a (legitimate) inducement had been offered, and rejected. One other person, the party in question, has said that this did not take place. Saying anything else about it is just daft. .

. Similarly Cardiff. Some well informed person let slip that the attendance at Cardiff was 40,750. All, of whom, did not have an engine to sell to anyone. Yet Marcel only travelled there from Switzerland - via Calais, I will have you know! All because of Chris Harris. That is all. If it wasn't for that he would have been tucked up with Heidi in his Alpine idyll without any need at all to go to the GP. Lesson number 178 in 'How to spin a story'. .

#37 makes specific points as regard inducements. I know of only one person that has stated in the public forum that they were made, and rejected, as being inadequate. There is no clarification on this matter here.

Chris Harris makes quite a lot of the people speaking out of turn on Social Media. Are your ears burning Philip? #37 pretty much says that some people are telling porkies. Especially regarding money and inducements. Perhaps someone could do a Hancock v Pedersen 'tribute' in next weeks comic. Harris v Risiing.