Grand Central

It seems interesting that you have mentioned, more than once, that Ward may feel it worth ploughing the line of 'poor procedures'. Is there anything that one could learn from being in the pits on GP nights that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a slip-shod operation is being run on these matters?

Absolutely right. No one is really saying that they think he didn't really 'blow' a true positive here are they? What we are talking about is that the procedures that need to be followed in order for the test to be so watertight that it will not be taken apart by some high flying lawyer in Geneva may not quite be adequate. Or that is what they are endeavouring to check out. The truth is that the guy, by his own admission, had too much to drink the night before. And he got caught out the following lunchtime. The serial D!ckhead is the one at fault here. Any only him.

No, I think you slightly misunderstand. The Mildenhall case did not make the legal precedence here. That had already been established by other cases in the past. Not Motorsport cases but ones involving unreasonable noise nuisance being complained about by 'newcomers' who could have 'known before they bought'. The defence may have been presented poorly in this case. But then it would appear that they did not have much of a case if the noise really was being created unreasonably and at ridiculous times of the night.

She made two very valid points. But only for us chatting about it here, I'm afraid. Not in law. According to the judgement in this case the Supreme Court ruled that legal precedent has been set. And that any legal case along these lines could well end up being settled in favour of the nimbys. We can moan and whinge all we like. But it will make no difference to that. What we could do is learn from it. It would seem that one of the major reasons why these people got judgement on their favour was specifically because of the noise nuisance occurring at such an unreasonable time, in the early hours of the morning. Without such an obvious cause for complaint they may have lost. Surely the main thing for all track/promotions/track curators/stadium owners is to make sure they never give these people that sort of ammunition at other venues. Concerted efforts to reduce and eliminate noise nuisance; and a demonstrable commitment to prevent it at unsociable hours will not only help foster better relations with neighbours. It will also form a very robust defence at Court if tested.

Yes, a little known incident that provided amusement to up to 1000 people who were at Owlerton that night. No one else knew, or cared. But this is Tai. At the British Final. On TV. And the professional moaners can have a field day. What are the chances that the knee-jerk responders in Rugby will take the opportunity to add in a subsection to the regs? Given half a chance.

In sport, as in most areas of life, we tend to only make rules to deal with matters that we have seen occur before and need attention. As far as I can remember I have never seen a Speedway rider use a shovel to remove dirt from another gate position and use it to improve his own. Now this most unlikely of events HAS happened, it will need a 'rule' to be introduced. Such is life..

Classic. You never disappoint. Keep on taking the tablets!

That'll be a 'double Woooosh', then Any more?

Paul ... dear, dear Paul. Gemini was trying to help you out by drawing your attention to the fact that Paulco's contribution had been one of pure sarcasm. I don't want to say 'lighten-up, for God's sake, Paul!' But you do seem to take others' posts a little bit too earnestly, to say the least.

Thanks for that clarification. For those of us who hold no negative feelings for the man or his family it is just this sort of detail that we need to fully understand this thread. I don't think anyone needs to have any animosity to those of us who have not kept up to date with all the facts of this case before. Perhaps just a simple clear statement as to the exact circumstances may have been helpful. .

Oh right. So, had he 'won' his case he wouldn't have had enough money left to get them over anyway?

I'm just not clear on this... If his family had been allowed to return to the UK as 'normal' who would have paid for the fares? Why are the flights to Poland an 'extra' expense that need to be paid for by public donation? Surely the flights to Poland are a similar cost to the ones they were expecting/wanting to take to the UK, but haven't? .

In a post by Tony McDonald back in 2009 in a thread announcing the news of Ole Olsen's retirement as SGP director he quoted a certain person called PHILIP RISING who made that exact claim. Could he be a relation? The link is here

And why shouldn't he ... if your opinion is correct that the attendance is so dependant on his inclusion? If the profitability of the venture is related to HIM. Why should he not be paid his worth?

My esteem for, and our goodwill toward, Ivan Mauger is immense. I understand completely that his family wish for privacy and we should respect that. But it was also quite moving to hear Barry Briggs' update (albeit in German translation), and perhaps unauthorised (?). I think the future is going to be extremely difficult for those close to Ivan. And for those of us with a much more distant 'connection' to the man we will have to accept that we will not have any priority for information. But I think this is one subject that we can all agree on wholeheartedly. No one here has any intent to pry or to upset anyone. No matter what, we all wish the great man and his family the very best of wishes. .

This is an outrage! Have Amnesty International been informed of the plight of BSI? Prisoners in a contract of such cruelty. In my own business I must pay for my staff, for my stock, the rental of my premises, my business rates and sundry other expenses. All in the hope of making a profit at year end. Oh I do wish I had someone to plead poverty on my behalf. Especially someone so impartial. .

.I tried so hard to be really reasonable. And fair. Perhaps Darcy is not nearly as bad as his advocates? .

When it comes to people I meet or know in the world. I decide if I like them or not. Sometimes that will be decided for quite irrational reasons. Other times it will be for more specific tangible reasons. But I'm not going to be persuaded to change my dislike of someone because of a post in their favour made here. That would be impossible. I do not like Darcy Ward. And riding Speedway for Poole is not the reason. Not by a long way.

Like manna from heaven! Perhaps the worst news of all to Mr Ward's 2014 hopes. An endorsement from gustix!

Yes. Tai started with 'blank piece of paper' for me. I had never felt cause to dislike, or like. Although in losing his father in the manner his did certainly meant that only the most cold hearted weirdo could do anything other that wish him well. This time last year I just did't think he stood a chance. How wrong was that? But it was the character of the man that was shown over the year that transformed by opinion. As well as his victory. I wish him well for 2014 and really hope he can get back-to-back titles. That would be some achievement, indeed. Darcy Ward .... Is quite another thing.

My answer to the original poster is yes Ward can win it. I will not be betting on him do so As I would prefer anyone but him to win. I want to look forward to an exciting year of racing. In which I can shout and scream for others. Enjoying myself thoroughly. Whilst hopefully seeing him fail.

Any commercial enterprise that wants to be the SGP organiser must pay big fees to the commercial rights holder, the FIM. Especially if that organiser can turn a profit of several million as a result. They negotiate to determine a fee that both agree to before signing the contract. Are you suggesting that the FIM should be charging BSI less than market rate for some reason? Presumably the inscription fees were laid out in detail before those poor people at BSI were forced into signing up. The Prize money is paid directly by the FIM, not BSI.

Really HA, do keep up. It was tmc who posted the snippets who was thinking they had been taken out of context. No one else. Absolutely no run ins with the guy here. It is a very interesting article. And it has stimulated debate. It is why we come here

.There is, and always has been, a section of the forum called 'The Future of Speedway' with just one subsection entitled 'The Way Ahead'. It is accessible from the main page. It is not over populated.

I think your assumption may be a little wide of the mark though. We are taking about a time when the British League was graced with the likes of Ivan Mauger, Ole Olsen, Bruce Penhall, Michael Lee, and Dave Jessup. I have no no reason to believe that Ipswich were paying Sanders more than other clubs were paying these guys. The very fact that upon hearing what Ipswich were paying could lead to others immediately offering more would tend to suggest that actually he was not getting that good a deal from JB at all. I do not think that JB was attempting to set a MAXIMUM ceiling of any type in this anecdote. He was just trying to limit Sanders options, to just his own advantage. Ivan and Ole's paymasters at the time probably silently winced knowing just how high the REAL 'ceiling' had already got at the time. Miles above Billy's head. .