Halifaxtiger

I have no doubt in the overwhelming majority of cases that it is an 'expression of relief' as you put it, and its almost certain that every track has fans who choose to behave in such a fashion. As to fans wishing harm on riders, I suspect that some might quite like to see a rider notorious for making dirty moves getting his comeuppance at the hand of another - providing the outcome isn't too serious. I once saw a rider (at a track that no longer exists) savagely barracked by members of the home crowd for apparently throwing a race (he was at the back, his partner on a TR third). The barracking continued right up until the point that the ambulance came out - as it happened, he'd broken his ankle. To me, therefore, its a matter of thinking before reacting. After all, its far from impossible that a video might show a rider being seriously injured - or even paying the ultimate price - to the sound of fans celebrating. In such circumstances, you & I (and other speedway fans) might appreciate the point about 'expression of relief' but I suspect our voices would utterly drowned by those expressing repugnance and horror.

XC weather says negligible rain after 4pm and only light stuff before.Met office is different but experience tells me those sods are often wrong or change their minds at the last minute.

Bryn has the decency to come on here and let everyone know what the weather conditions are and you have a pop at him. Grow up. Bjerre was poor and a pale shadow of the GP rider he was a few seasons ago. I thought this was a cracking meeting and one that reinforced my belief that Lakeside is one of the best racing tracks in the EL. I can only think that those who constantly criticise it never go there, have an axe to grind or are reliant on its reputation from years ago.

Bit harsh - it was better than that. I managed to get an edit in about heat 15 and Will- very convincingly- blame the fact that I am posting using a mobile phone and a weak internet connection for the error !! Kurtz did move, though, and the referee's failure to do anything cost the Witches dear.

Not a classic but not a bad meeting either, conditions for racing not being helped by a short but sharp shower half way through. Couple of excellent races late on - I am still not sure how Ruddick finished third in heat 14 and the Hughes/Halsey duel in heat 15 was as good as I have seen anywhere. Both teams deserve a great deal of credit for the commitment and effort they put in on the night - its rare that you see a rider give anything less than 100% at NL level, something that can't always be said about their EL and PL equivalents.

At the risk of being out of sinker I thought this was a cracking meeting with some good racing and a knife edge ending. As far as I could see Kurtz moved at the start of the crucial heat 13 but it was Ipswich that got punished.

First of all, I'd ask how happy you would be if Debbie Hancock and Colin Hamilton were to make a ruling on whether a rider was eligible to ride for Edinburgh or not. If you said 'not very' I'd understand completely yet here we have Alex Harkess and Rob Godfrey (at least potentially) deciding whether an ex Scunthorpe rider can sign for Edinburgh's nearest and dearest and one of their most serious rivals for the PL this season. I have rarely heard a word to question Harkess' integrity (outside of Coventry, that is) but the scope for allegations of bias is unquestionable. On Sunday I was told that one promoter, when told of Glasgow's plans to sign Howe, commented 'but that means you'll win the league'. His motivation in making such a decision is clear and hardly gives confidence that there will be an informed and objective conclusion to this matter. I fully take your point about cost but, like everything else, its whether the outlay would be worth it. With fans incensed about the corruption at the heart of the sport and the potential for bent decisions being made it might well be worth a levy of £10per week per club (or less than one entry fee) accepting a fee of £500 for the person concerned and there being 10 or so decisions made per season. British justice is based upon openness, lack of prejudice, explanation, reason, culpability and precedent. BSPA rulings are directly the opposite: closed and arbitrary decisions with precedent being disregarded made by interested parties without explanation. That has to end, and its not lost on me that exactly the same circumstances could arise next season and a completely different conclusion drawn to which we, paying spectators, will not be party or allowed the benefit of a statement of reasons. Recent decision making certainly doesn't inspire confidence. Bradley Wilson-Dean of Eastbourne rides in the NL so must have patriality. SCB regulations clearly state that a rider coming from the NL has a PL average of 3.00, yet Wilson-Dean has been ruled to have a 5.00. Why ? Your guess is as good as mine, but inevitably there is a suspicion that bias and jealousy regarding the availability of a very talented but very southern based rider come into account. Perhaps the most pertinent point is that even if a person could be found with the right credentials to make independent decisions for free there's no doubt that the BSPA wouldn't be interested. They want to retain the present system because it suits them, regardless of the damage it does to the sports credibility. I'd accept that 'shameful' might be a little strong to describe actions in this case but on this point it is very apt indeed.

I think all riders must stay stationary at the start but I don't have an issue with them anticipating it. If you are still but drop the clutch at exactly the right time and get a good start out of it fine. What happened yesterday was a very good example of what happens when you anticipate: In one ride Sarjeant got a flying start and in another he broke the tapes. The answer is to use someone who has no interest in any decision on whether to use discretion - preferably someone out of the sport altogether. That, sadly, is not going to happen and we will have the usual prejudiced call made by persons who will not be named and therefore take no responsibility. Shameful.

Quite. I must admit I was a little disappointed yesterday although I think that was my own fault because I expected it to be a classic in front of a packed house and it was neither. The problem was that Monarchs were just too good and while they usually hit the starts when they didn't they did most of the passing (I thought the quality of the racing was good) as well. Morris would have made a difference but I think Edinburgh would still have won. Cook was imperious, Sedgmen impressive (when he gated) and Riss could well be a trump card at reserve. Lawson aside, Glasgow simply weren't up to it - Sarjeant looked slow and Summers is still no more than a decent second or third heat leader. One final comment : I was right in line with the starting gate and I didn't see Sarjeant move at the starts on any occasion (although he did anticipate it once or twice). Lawson, on the other hand, most certainly did.

I am judging Coventry at least partly on reputation - last years NL 4's and the ELRC spring to mind. I should point out that while the track curator might have changed, the excuses haven't. To be fair, complaints do seem to be at a much reduced level but I do get a little tired of some tracks sodding things up while others never seem to have any difficulty producing decent racing tracks week after week. If others can do it, why can't Coventry ?

In my experience, the one area of track preparation Coventry excel at is excuses.

Seems I was misled. Good job I went to Glasgow instead.

That is true but its also a long way to go to pull out of a meeting after one ride and as a result of an existing injury. I hope so too because otherwise it meant that those of us who were there were treated badly by a rider. You could well be right that Boxall's reputation proceeds him. It might easily have been the case that he was injured but because of what has happened in the past noone believes him.

Sadly I am not surprised. He went feet first at high speed into an unprotected part of the third bend fence and word I got was that one ankle was trapped underneath the gate there. Awful. There is a question as to whether Boxall was injured or just couldn't be bothered. Bach deserved a maximum and I was very impressed by Jakobsen - best newcomer I have seen anywhere. I was, not for the first time, disappointed by the attendance. Laura Morgan has tried very hard at Derwent Park and the cost, racing and presentation deserved better.

'Hump at the dump'. Love it.

I think you're pretty much spot on here in that dust is a real issue - more so in afternoon meetings than evening ones because then the cooler air allows the track to hold its moisture better. But there's dust and there's what I saw yesterday (if you have access to facebook there are pictures on the Mildenhall page). You're also right that tracks that regularly run afternoon meetings are better at controlling it - I have never seen it that bad in my infrequent visits to the likes of Mildenhall or Glasgow. I have to say, though, I haven't seen it so bad at Scunthorpe either. This begs the question that if Mildenhall can keep it down, why can't others ? To be fair, it was both windy and sunny and that is every trackman's nightmare. I would, however, raise two points. When I arrived at 2.15 the track was dry and the dust started at heat 1. That means the amount of watering was nowhere near adequate. Secondly, and most importantly, we are talking about Stoke here. I asked a good friend of mine if he was going and he responded: 'There are just so many things that can go wrong at Stoke as we have seen in the past'. Yes, we have. Had this been Mildenhall, most would have treated it as a one off. At Stoke, its anything but. If allegations of incompetence were made, Mildenhall would have got the benefit of the doubt. I suspect few would do so with Stoke.

It can't run when the dust is such that the riders can't see each other and the referee can't see the riders. That's what happened yesterday.

To be fair, I didn't know that the circumstances regarding track preparation at Coventry had changed and that the promotion had taken responsibility. You (and one other) have now put me straight. That makes a huge difference in that anyone put off by last year's shambles cannot allow that to influence a decision to attend or not this year. I am not certain if I will be coming or not but I will at the very least now consider it.

That's why I won't go. I simply don't understand how you can make a disastrous mess of a meeting and then be awarded it again the following season. Doesn't the ability to put on a decent show (or the lack of it) count for something ?

That's the irony of it. Last week we had a terrific meeting in front of a big crowd. We all might just have been a little (just a little, mind) more optimistic. Then we get this.

I certainly don't accept that there is some sort of conspiracy between Sky, SCB officials and Poole Speedway. Such a suggestion to me smacks of paranoia and/or a vendetta against the Pirates. Given the huge amount of pressure put on promotions to run televised meetings and run them to heat 10 (because lets face it had this not been on the box it would have been postponed mid morning as Belle Vue and Wolverhampton were), I have no doubt that the decision would have been the same. The real issue is nothing to do with Poole. Its about promotions not having the balls to call Sky meetings off and referees having some backbone to do what is right in the circumstances. While it might be suggested that a postponement would have annoyed Sky, this farce will have done far greater damage to the relationship between the broadcaster and the sport than if it had been called off this morning. EDIT : Pirate Nick has said exactly the same things I have but I didn't see his post before I put mine on.

Its all very well taking the opportunity to put the boot into Poole, but in the same circumstances every other team and team manager would have done the same thing. If it had been at Poole with Coventry winning, Middleditch would have wanted to abandon and Havelock continue. The real problem is that this meeting was not called off but run at the behest of Sky television.

To be fair, even if entry had been substantially reduced there would only have been a few there. The main reason for the unbelievable attendance is the weather. The match should have been postponed.

It looks like a lock out !

Never seen anything like that at an EL track. There must be less than 200 there.