BWitcher

No it hasn't, you haven't yet managed to prove in one way that it has. You keep talking about 'black and white' but are yet to back anything up. You conveniently ignore all the compelling evidence against what you claim, simply because there is no argument against it. You've given 25 riders. I've given you no 24 now as Chris Holder who is well above the standard of the 24th rider on your list. So if we're talking 'black and white' you've lost that particular debate. The overall standard of rider now IS higher. The lower riders are of a far higher standard than in years gone by. Not only that but all sports improve, competitors learn adapt and improve. This has happened in every sport there is from fitness based sports such as athletics through to skill based sports such as Darts and Snooker. The only debate to be had in these matters is the level of success riders had against their peers in their own particular era. Speedway is even worse as the sport was vastly different in 1980 to how it is today. Totally different bikes, different track surfaces, different rules. For you to insist you are right in your assertion that riders were better in the 80's is nonsensical arrogance. As I have said before, you are 100% correct there were more STARS in the 80's. And as I have said many times and quite simply cannot be argued with, that was the result of the system at the time. From reading your comments it seems we're also at cross purposes. I'm not just talking about the British EL, of course that is of a lower standard (by standard I mean in terms of its world standing) than it was in the 80's. However Britiain isn't the only place speedway is raced. The level of professionalism and indeed the overall standard of the top flight in Poland blows that of the 1980's British League away. PS.. to add.. If I had to choose an era to live, re-enjoy, it would have been back then over now too... so please don't think I am knocking the riders of that era!

Sidney stop talking nonsense again. In 1981 Nielsen and Gundersen were good riders. Not greats. FACT. If we take your argument, Chris Louis is better than Gundersen as he finished 3rd in his first World Final in 93.. I was there. I saw it, Louis was on the rostrum. Was Gundersen on the rostrum at your meeting? No he wasn't. What happened in later years is an entirely different story.

Tony Rickardsson Jason Crump Greg Hancock Leigh Adams Nicki Pedersen Tomasz Gollob Mark Loram Billy Hamill Sam Ermolenko Jarek Hampel Andreas Jonsson Peter Karlsson Matej Zagar Niels Kristian Iversen Kenneth Bjerre Scott Nicholls Mikael Max Freddie Lindgren Piotr Protasiewicz Hans Andersen Rune Holta Antonio Lindback Chris Louis Ryan Sullivan Gary Havelock Joe Screen Lee Richardson Bjarne Pedersen Krzystof Kasprzak Jesper B Jensen A list of 30 riders all taken from 1 year. Easily comparable with the list from 1981, again with the benefit of history behind some of the names on there. Still to see any argument put forward as to WHY some believe riders from the early 80's were of a higher standard other than they were 'unbeatable'. Now we know this to be false, as many of the riders on the list provided, when it came to the big meets showed they weren't unbeatable.. the cream, as in any era, rises to the top. Hence a select few riders have great World Championship records and others don't. Once again, it all boils down to the format used at the time. The top two riders in a team would almost always score 9-12 pts from 4 riders.. indeed 9 would be deemed as a below par night. Last places were rare, very rare indeed Thus everyone had the impression that they were stars and the difference between the real top boys and those just below wasn't shown up that much... hence creating an impression there were more real 'top boys' than there were. However, that image is dispelled when we translate into World Championship performances where its a much smaller group (the real top boys) that dominate convincingly. Move into the modern era, the notion of riders being night on 'unbeatable' is far, far harder to obtain. Ignoring the format of last year in the EL which makes it harder still, there were two heats, 13 and 15 where in most cases you would have the top 2 riders from each team against each other. In every single meeting there were would be 2 last places to be shared amongst them. It's not long before their air of superiority is tarnished. Exactly the same would have happened had the format been used in the 80's. It's nothing to do with the riders abilities even then or now.. simply the format and the perception it creates. I've said this on another thread too... Maybe we see too much of the top riders racing each other now and take it for granted? Would it help the sport if the format was altered so that they didn't race each other as often, creating more 'big unbeatable stars'? Let's face it, one thing we ALL agree on was back then we would be excited each week because each team had two 'big names' that we rarely saw lose.. It's the format that creates the names, not the riders.

Sidney, I said in 1980 he averaged 8.09.. which equates to a 6pter now. In 81, it was 9.71, which equates to about 8-8.5 now. He finished 4th in the World Final. At that point he was still a promising young rider (in the World Title sense). Nobody knew how many titles he would go on to win. As I've pointed out Chris Louis finished 3rd in 1993... he went on to win nothing.. as have many other riders who were touted over the years.

Was Erik Gundersen World Champion in 1981? No he wasn't. Therefore quite simply he was still a rider who 'may' go on to become World Champion. Chris Louis came 3rd in 1993 on his debut... how many titles did he go on to win? The rest is statistical information, so, no nonsense there I'm afraid, try again. As for your standard of rider, I've already pointed out to you Chris Holder being 24th in Swedish League Averages. I would say he compares favourably with the 24th rider on any list from any era. As would Hans Andersen at 34. Waihekeaces uses an excellent ranking system, in which last year he had Freddie Lindgren at no 30. Again, he would compare with the no 30 rider in any other era. Not really, it says a lot about the tinted glasses we all wear when it comes to the past. I grew up watching Sam Ermolenko, to me, he is the best rider ever. Was he really, of course not.

Point taken Grand Central. My mistake is trying to really dumb things down so Sidney understands... its clear he doesn't though.

How many times did the top 2 riders for each team race each other in the same heat? That is the key difference. Someone is going to finish last... twice. Same riders, but now a vastly different perception and differing averages too.

Yes Collins and Lee did beat up on lesser riders, as did most other no 1 riders in the league. Once again Sidney, you are trying to argue against FACTS: They faced their opposing No 1 once... Put them in the current system, or even the old 15 heat system and suddenly they are racing their opposing no 1 three times in a meeting. Not so unbeatable anymore.. but still the same rider.

No I'm not. In 1980 Gundersen averaged 8.09 (including bonus), equivalent to about a 6pt average now at best, so going into 81 he was as I described, a young promising rider. In 81 he began to establish himself, lifting average to 9.71, finishing 4th in World FInal. However, he was still one who 'may' go on to be champion. There have been many riders who have not fulfilled their potential. As for your comments about PC and Olsen...what you still aren't grasping is ALL the no 1's were 'nearly unbeatable' as they rarely raced each other. It's no evidence at all they were better than riders from a later era. Of course they were good riders, but being 'nearly unbeatable' in the league was simply beating up on lower riders than themselves.

You're defeating your argument somewhat by saying how many more titles would have been won by certain riders in the past if there had been a GP format. I thought it was meant to be sooo much tougher because of all the greats around? As I've said over and over, in every era you have your handful of standouts who will dominate... then there will be a tier below who on the day can beat them, but not regularly... then a 3rd tier below that etc. The old 13 heat format made the 3rd tier riders look almost as good as the very top tier, when the reality is and was they weren't close. The British League v current Elite League argument is irrelevant, in the context of the day of course the British League was stronger then as most of the worlds top riders rode here. That is why it can only be compared to either the Polish or Swedish Leagues.

No it isn't strange for precisely the reason you have given. In 1981 nobody would have rated Gundersen and Nielsen as highly as they are rated now. They were promising yes, but hadn't yet won any World Titles. Yes of course those two would have found GP's easy. They found the World Finals easy as well. You talk about there being more depth in 1981.. Chris Holder was 24th in the Swedish League Averages last year. Hans Andersen 34th... In Poland Troy Batchelor is 40th in the averages. There is just as much depth now in World Speedway.

It's not nonsense. The standard then was lower, there's no argument about that. The sport is far more professional now, any old rider will tell you that. That doesn't mean to say riders from then wouldn't be able to compete now, most would adapt.. some wouldn't. The same goes in reverse. The group is fine, no different to selecting a top 25 from pretty much any other year.. What it has the benefit of is history.. You look at the names of Hans Nielsen and Erik Gundersen in that group and you think a lot more highly of them now than you would have in 1981 when they were good promising youngsters. It also has its selection of 2nd and 3rd tier riders. Decent in their own right, but never a threat to the real top guys on a consistent basis... again just like any other era.

It wasn't. The standard was considerably lower. Riders could roll up to a meeting with a bike on the back of a car and score well. Chances of doing that now, virtually non existent. Heat leaders had it easy. Decent riders were made to look like stars simply by the format. A rider such as Troy Batchelor would have been a 10pt rider in those days just as Schwartz was. Someone like Rory Schlein would have been a 9pter and so on. As said, the World Final was so tough you could not even race in Europe, fly in for the meets and finish joint 1st. This is one of the reasons why the Brits have lagged behind.. we're still very much in the patter of the 80's in terms of professionalism. The Polish League wipes the floor with anything the British League has ever had in terms of depth. Put 16 of those into a GP, and the rest of them into a format like the Elite League is now, you wouldn't be thinking over half of them were all that good. The John Davis's of the world would be around, or below Chris Harris level. It's the format of the leagues you see the riders race in that dictates how many 'star' riders there are.. Far more than the talent itself. This is why, then, just as it is now, you have a select group of riders who in each era stand out from the pack.

Where does it say anything about a meeting being needed? The process as written is a written verdict will be issued within 45 days of the final hearing. Unless you are suggesting there is another hearing? In which case the 45 days won't have started yet

I see you were gullible enough to believe Wards tweet as gospel. Oh how easy it is to manipulate the acolytes. Once again, be reminded, the ruling is issued in writing within 45 days of the hearing.

The opening poster doesn't go to a meeting because its packed to the rafters? Yeah, its awful when its a big crowd with a great atmosphere. Much better to have a sparse man and his dog crowd. Agree with Leicester though! Awful choice.

No you wouldn't come up with 25 worthy World Finalists. You'd have a list, who apart from the top boys, would be full of riders of a lesser level who looked great because they were riding in a weak format and whom you rarely saw get beat. Schwartz would waltz into the GP's? Why would he? Based upon? He got a maximum in a World Pairs Final? That means he won 3 races of note in one meeting.. i.e. beating the Danes, English and the Aussies.. although you could only really call Sanders top class of the Aussie pair (Gary Guglielmi the other). The Finns, New Zealand and the Czechs.. nothing to write home about by beating them. As for the World Team Final... boy what a tough meeting that was! What with the mighty West Germany and Czechoslovakia being two of the four teams. You can just as easily point out storming meetings that riders such as Martin Vaculik, Bartosz Zmarlik, Troy Batchelor and Martin Smolinski have had in major events... none of them you would class as being amongst the 'big names'.... boy its tough these days... an EL reserve can win a GP less than 1 year later Back in those days you could finish joint 1st in a World Final without even racing in Europe, and having only had 1 years experience prior... That would never, ever happen now.

He might not have been breathalysed at all. Perhaps they just made it up, Darcy just thought he'd go along with it for a laugh. Then go to the time and expense of having a hearing, and not only that, writing up a verdict. All If's in your little world isn't it.

What hype? You've just hit on all that is wrong with speedway. It's rarely promoted that way, far more so as the 'family sport'.

In Hancocks case, I'm not entirely sure it does prove it. Speedway is a sport where machinery/setup is at the very least as important, and arguably more important than actual riding ability. It seems in his later years Hancock has mastered this art.

You are the one who is making the claims by stating Darcy isn't a cheat. You have no idea, neither do we.

I didn't mention Darcy. You really should stop being paranoid. I simply pointed out your assertion that someone being 'good' makes them less likely to cheat is ridiculously far of the mark. Whoooshh!

The higher you are, the more incentive there is and quite frankly, the more likely.

Doubt they are unless someone protests.. then they have to pay a fee to do so. There wouldn't be if its the substance that certain famous Poles are alleged to have used over the years. It''s designed to help propel you from the start, after which all traces of it are gone.... so I've been told, who knows if there is any 'substance' to it...

Well we know from a couple of seasons ago the Star reported Barry Briggs accusations of cheating with the dirt deflectors... which apparently he could see from sat on his sofa watching a Sky meeting. The Star gave it a big headline.. Briggs accused riders and team managers of being aware of it... he claimed it gave you a bike lengths advantage to turn 1.. At the time I said this was a serious accusation and either Briggs just wanted a bit of attention or he should be reporting his findings and the names of the riders to the BSPA/SCB. Of course that didn't happen.. so one can only conclude he was talking codswallop. A further investigative story was promised in the Star... which never happened.