Grand Central

I suppose it is the 'good nature' of decent human beings to be reluctant to 'lay into' the opinion of an ex rider who has suffered enormously at the hands of fate. And we cut him a lot of slack. in the last few weeks the Ben Fund meeting was a reminder of the cruel way in which this dangerous sport can take down the most decent and noble of the speedway fraternity. Guys like Garry, Wilkie, Joe et al. I suppose this Twitter rant, which advocates causing another human being deliberate harm during a race, does show that tragedy doesn't just strike the good guys.

As I have said before October 25, 1993 ... Best night of my Speedway watching life. Somehow, after reading this topic, it feels all the sweeter.

Oh no i didn't miss your point. I just considered it and, upon reflection, disagreed with it.

Quite true.... But, then again ... The Karlsson's were certainly up for it that night and Henka put in a lot more effort as a guest than others hiding in Wolves clothing. No matter how considerable Sam's talents were nothing would have been capable of improving the performance of Evitts and Kennett that night. And the reserves were out of their depth before a wheel was turned. Psyched out of it. Devine intervention may not have been sufficient. It really was a fantastic night .... For us.

By bringing in Paul and Max, John Perrin made the sort of changes that in the modern day Matt Ford makes to win league titles. Their impact on the team was tremendous, and not just on track in terms of the points they produced at 7 and 8. Without them the Aces would have never been within touching distance of Wolves come that fateful night even with all their misfortunes. The Northern junior grass track alumni of Joe, Stoney, Paul and Max had quite an effect on galvanizing them into a real 'team' and on the night itself it was critical. The truth is that the pressure on the riders that night was quite enormous and sadly Steven Morris and John Wainwright succumbed to it badly ... Whilst their counterparts Paul and Max thrived on the atmosphere, outscorng them hugely. PS.. Shawn Moran was the captain in 93. Max Schofield was captain for the second half of 1995.

That would be a 'no' to a straight draw, then. And as you say just like many other years That would be a yes, or partly, perhaps. I only wondered. That is all. I'm not really any wiser, but hey-ho. Not of any improtance at all.

Did a 'draw' actually take place at all. Or would it be more accurate to say that the composition of each semi was 'chosen' by FIM/BSI more deliberately than by chance.

The saddest part really is that this is probably the best outcome of an AGM that was ever going to be possible. Rather like Mrs Mays deal is. Though it pains me greatly to say it. I know just about everyone wanted more or bettter. But there was never any true consensus as to what that 'better' was. And the people actually involved can only deal with the situation as it is today. The real Politik. The last thing speedway needs is a rash of supporter resignations. We are better than Cabinet Ministers, surely.

This was back at the start of 1980. It was actually Christopher Wenner who rode not Simon Groom and he was helped to 'win' the race in a time of 91 seconds.

For many years you have been able to vote for free online. I believe that is where the vast majority of people chose to do so. To pay 15p to vote by phone would be an option ... If you were either wishing to donate it to Children in Need ... Or just a bit thick!

As did we all. it's obvious. But Torben's fertilizer was still spread.

It was a direct quote from Torben Olsen. The Star published that and the rest of his nonsense verbatim. Perhaps just for a laugh.

No need to be apologetic at all. You have got the point well and used a good hypothetical analogy to express it. I offer no hope that this will be understood by the same old faces who have been spouting their nonsense for years.

This is SO beyond question. Why can't some people get it?

Oh you're right about that. No doubt. But I think BB is just a bit too far back in time for most, now. 45 years since TIYL. Ivan's name still has a decent currency today that I would say is higher that Briggo. But It will be gone soon sadly. And will not be replaced by any other. But as Iris said ... Not even Alastair Cook is a household name. This week he was the answer at our pub quiz because of all the news around his test retirement and amazing scoring. Half the teams did not get his name right. And one put down Ian Botham.

Fair enough to all that. But the real answer to the 'Ivan Mauger question' was NO Speedway has been a household name since him. Not even remotely close. In NZ or anywhere. And never will be to be honest. To answer 'Larry Ross' just sounded ... a bit weird.

This was his quote Honestly Larry may be 'well known' in NZ but could never be called a Household name. Anywhere.

I hate to intervene in your never ending spats with Humphrey ... But surely you cannot be serious in comparing Larry's public profile with Ivans. I will assume you are just joking.

Well, your comment pushed it from 20 to 21. So I am betting a fair few more.

If the riders were truly ready to race no one would have been excluded. That is all they needed to be. It is that simple.

NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE just a few riders need to understand one of the fundamental.principles of the sport from down the years. Be at the tapes and be 100% ready to race when the 2 minutes expires. And you will NOT be excluded. Bugger about as it expires and you cannot have that certainty. It's your risk.

Frankly we all know that it is rare and that the riders are usually all ready at the tapes whe the two minutes expires. That is what is supposed to happen. And it works so well so much of the time it would be ridiculous for anyone to try and come up with 'different procedures' when this procredure works very well indeed in thousands of races, as you say. Any rider in Heat 16 who WAS at the start and ready to race at 0:00 was NEVER going to be excluded. That is the only lesson they should ALL learn. Especially if they have designs on being World Champion.

Except ... the referee excluded him. And him alone. So something did actually matter to the only person that mattered. I was trying to reason out just what that was from the evidence available. We can rant and rave but the exclusion will stand. Even if you think the reason the referee used was wrong. (as I do too!) But If I wanted to be World Champion I would at least 'bear that in mind'. Just in case it happened again. Having an idiot in the box has been quite a feature of this year's series. So it might quite easily.

Quite right. I personally agree. But there are many many reasons why I dont agree with a whole load of refereeing decisions. They do seem a bunch of jobsworthy idiots so much of the time. At all levels and in many ways. I am just trying to percieve the reasoning for this jobsworthy idiot in this case. I don't go for curruption. I go for nerdish pedantry on the part of these type of people. It usually explains their daftness in decisions as refereeing always seems to draw that sort of nensense out of otherwise quite sane and reasonable folk. There was a distinction observable between the postion and therefore "readiness" of the rider in white and the other three at 0:00 specifically. White is a length or so back at 0:00; he was neither 'at the tapes' nor under the starting marshalls control. Definitely NOT ready to everyone. And just at that same moment of 0:00 the others happened to be 'at the tapes under the starting marshalls control' Their readiness could be debatable. But after the thirty seconds of gardening that was quite exhaustive by all four; whoever found themselves a length or so back from the tapes at that precise moment the two minutes expired was open to having his exclusion button pressed. And at that moment it was only true of white. It just seems that the starts today with stoppages, warnings and exclusions are proving to be a a major issue at every level that is materially affecting the sporting spectacle at a time when we cannot afford it to happen at all.. And the current poor crop of referees nationally and internationally seem to be just the sort of prattish bunch to mess it up more rather than help sort it out. This is an endemic problem.

To play devil's advocate. According to the rules the critical factor for exclusion is just what the position is at the moment the two minutes expires. Not before , not after. They are to be excluded if they are not ready to race or under the control of the starting marshal at that moment only. We all know that as the clock counted down from 30 seconds all four were fannying around gardening. But as the clock ticks to 0:00 for that one or two seconds ONLY Tai is about one length back from the tapes and the other three are at the tapes (but still fidgeting). One second later Tai moved forward to join the others. But at second-zero he was the one that wasn't and that gave the ref the chance to pounce. I have a picture of the referee poised with his hand hovering over all four coloured buttons. Whoever was 'out of position' at the single moment of 0:00 was going to 'get it' and it was Tai just being a yard of two back from the tapes that gave him that opportunity. Whether he was being even handed in his approach of whether he was 'itching' to put Tai out is moot. But at second-zero Tai, inadvertently, have him the option. And he took it.