Grand Central

This question of legal semantics may interest you greatly but it is of very little help to Mr Ward by perpetuating the discussion. He pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (plus other offences). He had admitted to having smoked cannabis when questioned by Police at the scene. He has since admitted in his own statement to same. He was convicted at Magistrates Court of driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (plus other offences). That conviction is entered as 'not recorded against your name' as is allowed under Australian Law. Under this law you are still guilty, you have still been convicted. That conviction will still appear on things like Police computers and it will still be held against you if you are convicted of other offences in the future. You just don't have it against our name in situations like applying for a job. It remains to be seen how it will affect Mr Ward. At places like border control it will all depend on exactly the question he is asked. If asked 'Have you any convictions recorded against your name?' ... He will be able to say 'No' and go on his way. But if asked 'Have you been found guilty, or been convicted, of an offence?' ... He will have to give a full disclosure. Then it may very well matter a great deal about what those authorities judge to be the semantics of his guilty plea.

I agree entirely. Perhaps I should have indicated my sarcasm a little more obviously in my previous post.

Did you, by any chance, serve on the Vicky Pryce Jury? You must be equally scathing on Matt Ford who thought the matter to be rather serious. If you do a little searching around online you will be able to better understand the Australian Law whereby you can admit guilt in a case but not have any convictions RECORDED. Apparently this is something the defence can ask to be done in cases where the guilty person is fined not imprisoned so that their future job prospects are not harmed. But it does not change their guilt!

Having read Darcy's heartfelt apology, I feel I must take every word at face value and trust that HE has not been misquoted in any way, unlike poor Mr Middleditch. Now I know what Darcy's version of event is, precisely, I am more confused than ever. As he says, he did just about nothing wrong at all and has no problems left to address as he has already moved on with a new attitude. It was all a 'once-off'. So why on earth is Matt ready to book him into Betty Ford's clinic, or wherever, for professional help. You could be forgiven for thinking that Matt had his doubts about the voracity of Darcy's own words.

SELL Darcy Ward at $8 SELL Chris Holder at $2

Good. Now we have someone with access to facts. The journo who interviewed Middleditch but botched up the quote should be named and shamed, at the least.

I think this is all spot on. I know it is always said that before people with 'a problem' can deal with it, they first have to acknowledge that they have one. But this will prove very very difficult with a headstrong man who is having a great time. I just don't think that anything that has happened so far will have penetrated one inch. A court case, or two, a visa problem, some bad publicity.... they will all be overcome and I bet he goes back to feeling fireproof again. Last year's 'wake up call' seems to have been slept through. I fear that this young man will have to suffer a damn sight more real pain himself before he genuinely takes the true steps needed to sort himself out. As Mr Rising said, Matt Ford only has limited influence as the UK is just a small part of Darcy's life .... But is there someone who'll help him get to the straight and narrow?

So, just for clarity. Ford was interviewed by Wadley of the Sports department. Those comments were accurately included in the News Department report, in an abridged form. We are not yet sure of who interviewed Middleditch. It could have been the same journalist or someone else. But only his comments have been misquoted in the News Department report. I think he should take it further; bring this miscreant to justice and remove this stain on his character.

Ian Wadley's report in the Sport section gives a fuller account of Ford's views. But the snippets included in the News report are just shortened versions of the same that have been very accurately and fairly reprised. So why should we fear that the same reporter has been so unfair on Middleditch alone?

Could that not be a mis quote of Darcy as well? Or do they only occur in Poole newspapers and not google translations of Polish websites?

You're quite right, i wouldn't either. So, Matt Ford seems to be taking a hell of a risk giving such a long interview/press release to the same puveyor of untruths today. You'd think he would know better. Or is it only Mr Middleditch that offers opinions that we must beware of being misquoted?

This could be a very good negotiating position for Sky to take, I would have thought. The NZ GP is quite dislocated from the European series that starts several weeks later and can only be shown live at an ungodly hour in Europe; so it could be easily missed by Sky and no one in Isleworth would shed a tear. But I bet a deal would be done for the rest of the series at a rock bottom rate then. It would all depend whether there really were any serious rivals willing to pay anything at all. My guess is that the possible alternatives of Eurosport or BT would only be interested in Poundland deal.

Sky may well relish such an arrangement. But it would be a very strange negotiating stance on the part of BSI to let them cherry pick in that way. If Sky cannot agree a deal with BSI surely Mr Bellamy would want to be able to offer exclusive rights to the whole series to a rival operator. Not the other eleven minus the showpiece event.

You are quite right. Once again our resident marketing expert is found wanting.

Oh no, with no implements of any type to grind, it does just look poor. To think that it has been 'designed' so recently and 'sold' to such a new venture is so sad. .

Goodness, the 'good old days' are now being seen as recent as 2002 .... That makes me feel ancient! Surely the modern-day decline has it's origins further back than that.

Yes, as I've said before, there was a time or times in the past when the 'Night at the Speedway' just 'fitted' into people's lifestyles and entertainment expectations. I don't think there was anything Speedway actively did to make that 'fit' and equally I don't think that there is anything specifically that it has done to break it. The product that the sport offers today is just getting further and further away from what the overwhelming majority of the public will ever want for a night out. On the whole he sport is standing pretty still whilst they are just disappearing into the distance. This topic started as a discussion about 'The Start' of the decline, though. It is interesting to see that different people have such different opinions on just WHEN the current decline actually did start. We have assessments that seem to range from the mid-seventies for those who blame 4valves to the later nineties and beyond for those who make Sky and the most bizarre rules of recent times to be most at fault. I wonder just where the starting point actually is. My own feeling is sometime in the early to mid eighties. Up until then things felt to be fairly consistent. Since then there does seem to have been a general downward slide, not every year as some have offered hope of stabilisation. But there has never been a revival in that time, has there? A lot of things did change in that early eighties period but I don't think here was one internal or external cause, it was just the starting point. Do you know, it could just have been the switch from bobble hats to baseball caps all along!

Yes, I think this is the best assessment by far. It is all so easy to pick out each and everyone of the external and internal changes and, depending on your own bug-bear, make a case for each one. But oldace's critique holds most water. The saying that 'even a stopped clock tells the correct time twice a day' is quite apt for Speedway. Just a few times in it's existence it's been in the right place at the right time to be a bit of a success story. And for the rest it never really did get it right.

Henny Kroeze got a 21 point max from seven rides at The Shay in 1976. This followed a 20 point haul just a few weeks before.

Sorry, but I'm one of them. I cancelled Sky Sports at the end of the season as I just do not watch Sports other than Speedway enough to justify the expense. I would have considered reinstating in March if the GPs were covered. But the EL coverage for the last couple of years has been too poor on on it's own.

You may be right ... It doesn't really matter. Riders who were assets of clubs that fold revert to being assets of the BSPA, I believe. The BSPA would then want the fee before he rode for another team. To me, having someone as an 'asset' beyond the expiry of their contract on October 31st is just so close to 'ownership' as to be indistinguishable. When my contract ends with someone at work ... That is is it! I am not retained as an 'asset'. If someone wanted to retain an option on my future services they could have to pay me a fee and continue to maintain that with further fee payments into the future. My guess is that Greg has not been picking up such retainers. But in Speedway he will STILL be regarded as someone's asset and they would want a fee if he returned. It may not be technically ownership ... But it is pretty damn close.

Yes, WE all know that one cannot OWN another person ... But the asset system as operated currently often mimics this, doesn't it? Using Greg Hancock as an example. He will still be regarded as being the asset of one promotion. And if Greg were to return to Britain to ride for any other team you can be damned sure that that same promoter would want a loan or transfer fee before any new contact was registered. Whether or not that is technically 'ownership' seems to be just a semantic irrelevance.

So, to summarise your post in two sentences... The best racing is produced by tracks with more than one racing line, but that this is often difficult to achieve as there is no set formula. Ole Olsen favours slick tracks that do not provide more than one racing line but do allow close combat racing without much passing. I think that is all most people have been complaining about for years. And just a thought ... If Ole Olsen had been track curator at Hyde Road instead of Stan Ford or, later, Roy Carter ... Would it's reputation for producing great racing be higher or lower?

But, for about the fourth time now ... The change to the way the picks are given out is NOT changing ... Olsen was wrong. Yes, I think many people agree. I can well expect that there are others that share Mr Risings view on Ole Olsen. But if we take this thread down the route of talking about others great dislike of the man and his doings then it will just run on and on ....