Halifaxtiger

Perhaps I should first say that I am a huge fan of Workington Speedway. To me, though, its a question of how you respond and, in this case, I think it has been unnecessarily heavy handed. Surely a chat and a warning would have been more appropriate if the comments were considered to be unreasonable ? It is easy for me to say but you just cannot allow the pressure that you are under to affect how you treat your paying customers. You can't do everything for them and its a case of sorting the wheat from the chaff, but I don't think that the consequences of how you reply can be underestimated - be that for good or bad. I have stated the following example many times and apologise for doing so again, but it sums up my position in a nutshell and it is based upon personal experience. I went to one track, saw an awful meeting on a dreadful, ridiculously dusty track (the meeting itself was eventually abandoned) and took to this forum to state my opinion in no uncertain terms. As a paying customer I believe I am entitled to do that. A co-promoter at that track sought me out and gave me 15 minutes of aggressive abuse. I went to another, Isle of Wight. Same dusty track, same response from me. I then got a truly remarkable - for speedway - reply from their promoter, Barry Bishop. It was : 'We're sorry about the dust,. We are new and learning and we will try to make sure it doesn't happen again. We really hope you come back and see us again and, if you do, we'll take you on a pits tour and the centre green'. It perhaps says a lot that I couldn't believe my eyes. Same problem, same criticism, entirely different responses. One track I have not been back to since, the other has become a huge favourite for whom I bang the drum on every occasion.

Completely agree. Scunny has always been one of my favourite tracks but last night was poor stuff on a track that looked patchy to say the least. The sight of Auty desperately trying to pass summed it up. Sublime performance from Schlein backed up by big contributions from Allen and the impressive Berge saw Scunny through. Equally impressive was Nicol, thoroughly deserving an extra ride. Best wishes to Danny Philips, that was a nasty one.

That doesn't mean that we are free to make scurrilous, vicious and unfounded attacks on individuals. There must be some sense of rationality, truth and fairness in what we post. Having said that, I have never had cause to think that Jenga's contributions would fall within the above description. In these days where every paying fan is like gold dust, you have to be very careful and very certain about taking such an action. To do so utterly without warning - and it seems that that is the case - is far too heavy handed for my liking and will attract the bad publicity that it has. I have a huge amount of time for Workington Speedway but this is an own goal that will do their credibility no good whatsoever. A good friend of mine once posted some strong criticism of his team's track surface - completely justifiably, and he wasn't the only one - on here. The person responsible for the track sought him out, verbally abused him and attempted to persuade the promotion to issue him with a ban (and he has been a long term and passionate supporter). The promotion then insisted that he apologise and he did so, out of fear that he would not be able to attend again. I was appalled that a genuine fan was treated in such a way. I would suggest that there was only one person who should have been shown the door, and it wasn't him. One of speedway's worst failings is the way it treats its paying customers and sometimes I think they will never learn. Engage, not confront.

Sadly, and from every source I have ever heard, its fact.

Which of us doesn't have an issue with a track that has a meeting abandoned due to the state of the surface, has13fallers in 10 heats and sends three riders home injured and then calls off their next scheduled meeting due to the track ? Every single speedway fan puts rider safety first, so every single one will have an issue. Do you ? I am concerned about one club - and it is just one - doing their job properly and ensuring riders are as safe as they can. What you are saying is that this isn't Stoke's fault at all - because you still haven't condemned them in anyway and almost certainly will not, regardless of what happened - and that Saturday night was down to riders and bikes. It wasn't, for the simple reason that it hasn't happened anywhere else to that degree. If the bikes are so bad, why were there just two fallers at Belle Vue on Friday ? Your solution to what happened is to have every rider in the country change all their equipment to suit the needs of promoters who simply can't be bothered to put the time and effort in to prepare a track properly. Mine is to make those who think they can get away with that accountable when riders are injured.

What sticks in my craw is that you are attempting to say that this is down to riders, not the track and I'd say that it is difficult to see how that is not a defence of Stoke (as is quoting that rider). You're certainly not condemning a club that had a meeting abandoned due to the surface and who then cancelled their next meeting 24 hours before hand for the same reason and without any adverse weather (unlike everyone else on this thread). Care to do so now? I think we can both agree that as bad a position as speedway is in it would be far worse if such circumstances were a regular occurrence. The rider quote I saw in respect of this meeting described Stoke as a 'sh*thole' (his words, not mine), I know Isle of Wight asked for the track inspection because they did not want to send their riders out and its clear the referee thought the meeting had to be abandoned. That (taking also into account the number of falls and injuries) sounds like the track was not merely rough, but dangerous. There's a difference.

I don't think anyone that went to Workington last night or Belle Vue on Friday would say that the product is poor. Mixed is perhaps a better description. Otherwise, I agree .

The biggest disappointments must be Harris and Sarjeant. Harris was especially disappointing last night and 8 points from 5 rides and no heat wins simply isn't good enough. That's how I saw it, too. Klindt was hard on Starke but he left room whereas Vissing didn't.

I would see the difference is clear from the meeting listings I have posted. After all, its the same engines at all the above tracks isn't it ? If that's the case, why is it that those engines cause 3 or 4 fallers and no injuries in 15 heats at almost every NL track and then 13 fallers and 3 injuries in 10 heats at Stoke ? Do they suddenly disastrously misbehave when they get to Staffordshire ? Or is it quite simply that the track is in such dreadful condition there that even the best and most experienced riders in the NL can't stay on ? Bluntly, its insulting, unsubstantiated and unjustifiable to claim that the carnage at Stoke the other night was caused by rider incompetence and, worse, it attempts to deflect the blame away from a club absolutely notorious for their shoddy practices.

First one I have seen - if my hazy memory serves me well - in nigh on 800 matches.

I thought it was a very decent meeting indeed Some cracking racing - proving once again that passing isn't absolutely necessary, only knowledge that a rider can pass - with a close score line and some handbags thrown in. Vissing left Proctor with nowhere to go, Klindt shunting Starke on to the fence being almost as hard. Improved performance from Bach and Jensen and I thought Bickley was more on the pace.

First time I have seen Flint. Very impressed...........but not as impressed as I was by Kemp. Brummies well worth their win, using their in form reserve to their best advantage. Heats 13 & 15 would have graced a GP

To be fair, they are not. As CR has said, Isle of Wight, Somerset and Poole have all had problems with defective shale. Isle of Wight was dusty when I was there recently but it didn't cause carnage, which suggests that Stoke's problems are not down to the shale alone.

I don't agree that bad control is a bigger issue than track surfaces. Looking at the most recent meetings at all NL tracks on updates : Belle Vue 2 falls, no injuries, 15 heats. Birmingham 4 falls, no injuries, 15 heats. Buxton, 4 falls, no injuries, 15 heats. Coventry 3 falls, no injuries, 15 heats. Cradley no falls, no injuries, 15 heats. Eastbourne, 4 falls, no injuries, 15 heats. IOW, 3 falls, 1 injury, 15 heats. Mildenhall, 4 falls, no injuries, 15 heats. Plymouth, 8 falls, no injuries 15 heats. The one injury was Adam Roynon, - one of the best and most experienced riders - whose throttle stuck open. Plymouth's track surface was described as 'inconsistent'. And then we have Stoke. 13 falls, 3 injuries, 10 heats. Meeting abandoned due to the state of the track, following meeting cancelled a day before hand due to track issues. The above very much suggests to me that the issue here is not about poor throttle control at all, but a dangerous track surface in which all riders - and not just the young and inexperienced ones(I repeat, Ben Morley fell twice) - were unable to cope.

You mean Ben Morley, one of the NL's top riders ? He fell twice in three races on Saturday. Word I got from IOW was that it was so bad they did not want to send their riders out. Trying to pass the buck and blame riders is not just a cop out, its a sham - and it could be seen as an attempt to get promoters whose tracks are dangerous off the hook. If this were happening everywhere and there were multiple fallers and unacceptable levels of riders leaving stadiums injured as a result of the track surface you might have a point. It isn't, though, and no other track in Britain has a reputation for such incompetence as Stoke - and that's by a long chalk. The sooner the SCB get involved, the better.

What happened to Stewart ? He was nigh on unbeatable when I saw him a few weeks ago.

One of speedway's worst failings is the way some of its management (for want of a better word) treat paying fans. Aggressive, arrogant and even abusive on occasion and at the same time as they are complaining about falling gates and making ends meet As an example, and solely because of responses I got to exactly the same viewpoint, I refuse to go to one track (and I am anything but alone in that) and constantly bang the drum for another.

You might well be right but I think that an abandonment due to the state of the track and after injuries and multiple falls and without any adverse weather should always be investigated.

Every track in the NL is on a limited budget (some more than most, maybe). That's not an excuse. According to the IOW facebook page, the meeting was abandoned after the Warriors requested a track inspection and its probably not a coincidence that that was after heat 10. There are some choice words about Stoke Speedway on that page. I suspect the SCB will get involved now.

Not totally unavoidable. I was at Plymouth a few years ago when Ash Birks was seriously injured after crashing and hitting a fence stanchion. Racing re-commenced after the fence was fixed, Plymouth having two paramedics in attendance.

I have - and he deserved both the ban and the sack.

I think you are right here. The NL has a lopsided look about it this season with one or two very strong and others weak. No-one's fault, but it might well not be good for attendances.

The thing is as Whisperer says that rule was brought in not for the benefit of the Poles but to protect speedway in this country. We can't then simply break it. As for referring to the 'demands of a Polish club', Harris signed contracts both with them and Glasgow in the full knowledge that there could be a clash. Glasgow knew it too. Why shouldn't the Polish team insist that he rides for them given that he has a contract and the agreement between speedway countries states that they have precedence ? I really do think you are pointing fingers in the wrong direction here. It is Glasgow, Harris and the BSPA that are at fault, not his Polish team. If this was the other way around - for example, Damian Drozdz riding for a Polish club on a Monday when he had a commitment for Belle Vue - we'd be screaming blue murder.

I wonder how many riders we would have left if we insisted that British Speedway had priority at all times. For Belle Vue, Cook, Fricke, Tungate, Drodz and Bewley all have Polish contracts. The chance of a clash is very small, but you're looking for an absolute guarantee. Practicality suggests that we have to allow them to ride elsewhere and that there is an agreement regarding who has preference in the event of a clash. If we want the Poles to co-operate we simply have to honour our side of the bargain.

I think you're pretty much spot on. We have all seen how arrogant the Poles can be but here surely they are in the right if the international calendar gives them priority on Sundays. Which league it is, to me, makes no odds. Harris (and Glasgow) should have considered that there was a small chance (given the squad system and that Sunday is Glasgow's second choice race day) that there maybe a clash and accepted that if there was he should ride in Poland. Its all very well for British Speedway and its fans to be aggrieved when the Polish authorities throw their weight (and money) around, but this simply gives them the opportunity to say that we are no better.