PHILIPRISING

BUT the tracks do have to obtain an FIM licence and meet safety criteria, etc

SURE it will be available for FIM events ...

HAD a strange truncated FIM email today suggesting CLF at Gorzow on April 25th ... but that was it. Maybe more tomorrow ...

THINGS are moving at quite a pace now so staging the SWC Final there in 2016 must be a strong possibility.

THE FIM obviously felt that having attended well over 100 GPs I was capable of doing the job required. Why do you think I was not?

OF course they haven't done anything wrong but do they really need 45 days to make and announce a decision? You wouldn't expect a jury at the Old Bailey to take that long. Leaving aside whether it is Darcy Ward or Old Tom Cobley surely this whole matter could and should have been expedited far more swiftly than it has.

Sky have never had 'control' of the SGP series

NO ironing ... BUT it is the FIM's decision to say nothing Also a long time since someone called me a five-year-old

NO it's not. I wasn't the referee or the Jury President. I was really just the guy who stood by the pit gate indicating when the next four riders could enter the track. There was no real serious decision making involved. The same with the draw... the referee informs me of the picking order, I call the riders to the scoreboard, line them up in the right order and put the names on the board. When Ole missed two meetings other FIM officials including the referee and the Jury President stepped into the breach when necessary. I certainly wasn't running or refereeing the meetings in any shape or form. Yes, at KL, the FIM did appoint me and felt that on this one occasion no one else had as much experience of the role as I did and working alongside the Clerk of the Course, the referee and the Jury President we were more than capable of doing the job. Of course, if the appointed referee is unavailable a fully fledged replacement is on stand-by but deputising for the RD (who in the event of any official dispute does not have vote on the FIM Jury) is an entirely different matter.

BEEN called a few things in my life but any old tom is a first. Mock away...

THINK or say what you like but it wasn't quite like that. On the two occasions when Ole was ill at the last minute and having been at his side for scores of events I simply fulfilled the basics of his role but it was the FIM Jury President who was formally in charge as I had no official status and no FIM licence. At King's Lynn the FIM did ask me to deputise for Tony Olsson and I was happy to do so and thoroughly enjoyed it as a one-off.

UNOFFICIAL assistant Race Director ... not paid either by the FIM or BSI. Deputised as RD a couple of times when Ole Olsen was absent and was officially FIM RD at the King's Lynn round of the SWC last year when Tony Olsson stayed in Sweden. Just one of many trying to ensure everything from practice, pre-meeging parade, scoreboard, semis and final draw, presentation, press conferences run as smoothly as possible. NO I'm not.

SOME comments here are getting a little out of hand. He certainly didn't have eight pints before his lunch. I was there, in the pits, at the riders' briefing when his number was called, outside the room where the test was carried out. The metre reading was not made public nor in private to anyone other than those who had a right to know. But to suggest that he was drunk - in the obvious manner than Stefan Danno was in Bydgoszcz all those years ago (was also there) - is simply not true. I understand and fully accept that over the limit is over the limit but 'drunk' seems to suggest that he was slurring his words and falling about which certainly wasn't the case. My own view is that panic set in at the time and his immediate comments (re-hydration, parents splitting) and actions (limping out of the pits) were very ill-judged and his 'advisers' in situ didn't know what to do. They couldn't just spirit him away because he was obligated to attend a Jury Meeting after the conclusion of the event. In hindsight it would have been better for Ward to simply admit that he had had a drink the previous evening but was shocked by the failed test and would be making no further comment until the FIM had confirmed, in writing, that they were completely satisfied the tests were carried out correctly, the calibration of the machine used verified by the proper authorities and what the next steps would be. Since then this whole episode has developed a life of its own... not least in the 245 pages here.

EXACTLY ... we agree again.

THERE used to be rider control, of course ... most famously Mauger to Exeter (although the move only went through because the then promotion paid him a fortune) and Olsen to Hull, which eventually saw Briggo extend his career to allow Ole to join Coventry.

IN full agreement with you Humphrey! And please don't ask for an editorial ... wrote many on the subject when I was in the Editor's chair but fell on deaf ears then as it would now. The late John Perrin came close to challenging the system when he signed Jason Crump but didn't want to be the one to open the flood gates. But I am surprised that no rider hasn't actually challenged the notion that he is 'owned' by a track despite not having a valid contract and, in many cases, not for many years.

YOU keep going on about an 'Editorial' ... but that is only the view of the person who writes it, no more, or less. One person's opinion. Apart from the fact that I am no longer a full-time working journalist, questions have been asked of Ward but, not surprisingly, his lawyers don't want him saying anything. And neither do those of the FIM. It may not be a court of law but we cannot force those on either side to talk about if they on the advice of their lawyers do not wish them to do so. And even if, as you put it, this is not an unusual or unduly lengthy process, which incidentally I don''t accept, it still doesn't make it right. With regard to the BSPA and the visa issue ... why would being roundly condemned by the World's leading speedway magazine make any difference? Again, it would just be one person's opinion. The public at large are quite capable of making up their own minds.

WELL, actually I will but out of interest why not provide some evidence of me defending either Darcy or Neil as opposed to suggesting posters stick to the facts. It's not for me to determine whether Darcy is guilty or not. He failed a test, was charged with an offence and had his day in court, so to speak, just as any civilian would having been breathalysed on the roadside. My complaint is that this matter could and should have been done and dusted months ago. And certainly not because it involves Darcy Ward. As for Neil, Twitter can become a dangerous social tool when people make spontaneous comments without fully engaging their brain first. And in my own view some of his tweets (and I doubt whether I have seen or heard them all) were foolish at best but no doubt the FIM will make their determination on the facts rather than what is flying around in the ether. There are times when I cringe at some of the comments posted on the bsf, especially when they are of a personal nature, but that seems to be the way of the world right now. Anything involving Poole, Middlo or Ward seems to inflame passions that might otherwise be kept in check. I don't pretend that my opinion even after 50 (not 40!) years involved with speedway is worth more than that of anyone else. But given that the Jury President and referee in Latvia would have sent details of Ward's failed test to Geneva within 48 hours, surely it is reasonable to expect that the FIM could determine a course of action far more quickly than they did. They have plenty of top lawyers at their beck and call who could surely quickly advise whether the correct procedure was carried out. Incidentally, I don't think the suggestion that the test was carried out by a policeman (on or off duty) is factually correct. The FIM assigned doctor was present. Ward should have been charged, given 30 days to respond and a hearing, if necessary, convened within another 30 days. It's not rocket science.

WHAT about Hancock? I HAVE a reasonable idea of how theses things work and given modern day communications (emails, etc) the whole process could have been done and dusted long ago. And I certainly don't see why having had a hearing it could take 45 days to deliver a judgement.

NOT taking sides here and leaving aside the fact that it is Darcy Ward on centre stage, don't see how anyone could not agree that the FIM could and should have expedited this matter far more quickly than they have and that it should not take 45 days to deliver a judgement having had the hearing ... and that would apply whether it was a World Champion in the dock on a rider at the bottom of the ladder.

THANKS for correcting me .... the old grey cells and all that

THAT was before a test match ... ... I think

HE was also found not guilty... and Speedway Star did report the court case HE was found not guilty of the charge against him and Speedway Star did report on the court case at the time.

BEING accused of rape ...

And he was banned by SVEMO not the FIM