Grand Central

You may be right ... It doesn't really matter. Riders who were assets of clubs that fold revert to being assets of the BSPA, I believe. The BSPA would then want the fee before he rode for another team. To me, having someone as an 'asset' beyond the expiry of their contract on October 31st is just so close to 'ownership' as to be indistinguishable. When my contract ends with someone at work ... That is is it! I am not retained as an 'asset'. If someone wanted to retain an option on my future services they could have to pay me a fee and continue to maintain that with further fee payments into the future. My guess is that Greg has not been picking up such retainers. But in Speedway he will STILL be regarded as someone's asset and they would want a fee if he returned. It may not be technically ownership ... But it is pretty damn close.

Yes, WE all know that one cannot OWN another person ... But the asset system as operated currently often mimics this, doesn't it? Using Greg Hancock as an example. He will still be regarded as being the asset of one promotion. And if Greg were to return to Britain to ride for any other team you can be damned sure that that same promoter would want a loan or transfer fee before any new contact was registered. Whether or not that is technically 'ownership' seems to be just a semantic irrelevance.

So, to summarise your post in two sentences... The best racing is produced by tracks with more than one racing line, but that this is often difficult to achieve as there is no set formula. Ole Olsen favours slick tracks that do not provide more than one racing line but do allow close combat racing without much passing. I think that is all most people have been complaining about for years. And just a thought ... If Ole Olsen had been track curator at Hyde Road instead of Stan Ford or, later, Roy Carter ... Would it's reputation for producing great racing be higher or lower?

But, for about the fourth time now ... The change to the way the picks are given out is NOT changing ... Olsen was wrong. Yes, I think many people agree. I can well expect that there are others that share Mr Risings view on Ole Olsen. But if we take this thread down the route of talking about others great dislike of the man and his doings then it will just run on and on ....

But if he did score about the same as Chris Harris did his year (65), which you do expect, then that would probably put him in about 12th place, wouldn't it? Which still begs the question about those who he will push back to 13th, 14th and 15th? I don't think he would just have done well to get 12th spot. I think he would be celebrating a success beyond his wildest dreams

PHILIPRISING has already stated in post 27 that the only change is that the usual method of picking is to be done in the pits and not at the scoreboard. So we don't need to come up with alternative methods ourselves. My concern is that Ole Olsen is the sort of man that thinks that coming out as a top scorer after five races against all other competitors makes it UNFAIR for you to given first pick for the semis. Isn't it just a little bit weird to have someone with such a cockeyed view of fairness in his position?

How is it possible for someone with the job title of 'FIM Speedway Director of Sports' to go into an interview to announce a rule change to the World Championship ... And then get it so wrong? Is it any wonder that the people at the top of our Sport are held in such low regard by so many?

It actually looks as if they are trying to make it more likely that the best rider does not win. On this forum people constantly argue about the best way to get to a worthy winner of the Championship. Despite disagreements on how we think this is best acheived we generally agree that we want the most worthy winner. It does not look like the FIM share that view.

But the 'gate pick according to points scored' could be done without pomp or ceremony, even in an ad break. The randomised draw that Olsen is talking about would take just the same time. What is more troubling is that the FIM Director of Speedway actually believes that for the highest points scorers in the first twenty races to be given the pick is actually unfair. Whether he turns out to be right or wrong on what has been ratified the tragedy remains that Olsen is in a position of such power and yet so befuddled.

Is this a sign of dementia?

Georg Transpurger may have been inept. But he was certainly not Polish.

"too great" for what? When you hear people 'at the top' (the CCP, not PR!) making such specious comments with no basis it just make me want to scream. Last year's championship went right down to the wire, and as other people have proved, the scoring change would not have made ANY alterations to the ranking order. In fact I do not think any championship would have changed hands if the scoring systems were changed. so why the hell bother? It is to justify their existence at all. Their weekends away and freebies may dry up if they can't find a rule to tamper with, especially if it is of no import. They could make decisions for the good of the sport, but they don't. They could have had the gonads to entirely scrap the joker system in the SWC but they didn't. At least it was a nice weekend in Czecho. I have no problem with giving that extra point to the 4th in the final, ... BUT he did get the extra 3 or 2 for his first/second finish in the semi-final. So he was rewarded something, wasn't he? The guy that finishes last in the semi, however, doesn't get anything extra over a non-qualifier. But no-one seems to mind that.

"as a whole" ... how big is the "whole" you are thinking about? In general, I'd probably make a guess that it is pretty respresentative, actually. Some think Tai's selection is good and others disagree. There isn't a concensus. I happen to be in the latter camp ... but it's only the opinion of someone who does not matter. The people who count at BSI and the FIM have spoken and we just have to live with their decisions, don't we?

A very good point, I feel. I would have thought that Phil Rising or one of the other Star columnists of the time might just have mentioned this in post-meeting reports, reviews and special supplements, wouldn't you? In the 1980s there were numerous occasions of debate and controversy over the loss of Britain's place on the three-year rota, the loss of Wembley as a venue and the various times that it looked like Wembley could be brought back. Many of them backed by leader articles by Phil Rising in the Star, I seem to remember. Yet I have never, ever read before that the 1978 Finals was a sell-out. but that the 1981 had around 20,000 fewer. How come?

I have to agree. Having been to Cardiff every year I cannot think of one single improvement in presentation that has been evident since IMG became involved. It's not bad, but it's not really that good. And it certainly hasn't improved over time. The venue and the event make Cardiff a great day. Kevin Coombs and X factor rejects don't. I notice that Philip Rising rightly asserted his greater knowledge of the behind-the-scenes goings-on, but I think he may be very poorly placed to express opinions on the front-of house presentation. I think that is probably best left to the judgement of paying ticket holders.

For your reassurance. My visual acuity is perfect. my mathematical skills are top notch. I am not upset. I am not angry. But I still can't find the 10 cases you refer to. Please help.

The WTC round being referred to that was very, very wet was the 1979 one at Reading where England got knocked out by New Zealand.

Yes, i agree. And with the other points regarding Jessup and Crump. Spot On.

I fully recognise that you are not really agreeing with Orion's stance on this matter but are trying to use facts to show how the draw could have an impact. However, the 1985 example just shows how sometimes there are enough facts to choose from to substantiate any postion. You just have to choose carefully. You're right that Sam may have got a little early advantage from the two insides in his second and third rides but I fear that would tend to be a gross oversimplification and distortion of the days events if that is the only way we look at it. But of course, neither Ermolenko, or Moran, won that meeting. And neither the winner or the runner up actually enjoyed the gate advantage you mention as being so essential to Sam's fortunes. Gundersen went off 2-1-4 before the interval, and 3-2 after; Nielsen 1-2-3 for the interval and 4-3 after. Interestingly you picked Shawn Moran as an example who also had the same three gates before the inerval as Nielsen 1-3-2 yet where Nielsen had got 9 points from these three outings Moran had scored only 5 ... so not really down to the draw, just possibly down to who was better that afternoon, regardless of their riding number, I would suggest. I could go on but I just feel that this and your other mentions of gate positions are interesting but don't really cut it for attrbuting the meeting draw as the a major reason for titles won or lost. I await other examples for a our perusal

Wihout joining some sort of Sydney-Parsloes alliance against orion. I, personally, would just really want to learn and understand which particular World Championship Final it is that you feel was so influenced by the draw that you still feel strongly on the matter twenty or thirty years later. Was there there one that you remember as being so influenced by the draw or are your making a a more general point that hasn't got one specific year to quote?

It all depends on what you call an advantage. Ivan Mauger speciifcally disliked the Number 13 as he gets his first ride in Heat 4 and his second in Heat 5 ... the disadvantage he felt was that he may not have enough time to change anything after his first outing to put it right for his second and the gap for his third race is much longer. He felt that the double inside gate was less of an advantage that you are suggesting it may have had. In 1979 he did drop out of the runoff at the Inter Continental Final to avoid the number 13 jacket; even though he ended up with the number 15 which then gave him his last two races on the trot; which he thought was better. Actually without 'second sight' I have no idea how much difference this would ever have made because he could have easily have needed to have changed something between his fourth and fifth rides when the Championship was on the line and he still may not have had enough time. It's all swings and round abouts and MUCH MUCH more about psycology. In that one moment at White City he made the whole world know that he was to be a serious contender in Katowice; And I think that is more what he wanted to acheive. Personally, I would be interested to know - from the people are being so insistent that the draw mattered that much - to give a few examples of the specific finals where it really did make all the difference. I am not aware of any but await enlightenment.

Which, I think, just goes to show how much things have changed in the last forty years or so. I don't think there is one of those individual classics of that bygone age that could be run today with anything approaching the prestige and stature that they enjoyed back then. None of them would have got the valuable sponsorship that they had then. Few of those meetings would even break even today, would they? Times have just moved on.

Would that the be the last one held in 1973 at Plough Lane, the one before in 1967, or perhaps 1963?

Fair enough. I'm beaten.

For goodness sake, please read my post again. I actually said that I beleived it went on. And yes I have actaully been in the company of many ex riders who have given me chapter and verse on the ocassions they knew about. I believe them and I believe you! I just said ... again ... that all this 'knowledge' doesn't make it 'well documented'. That's all!