E I Addio

What do you mean they didn't know about it ? It was one of the first things announced in the post-AGM statement last November and here we are 6 weeks into the season and people reckon they still don't know about it. What do they expect? Headlines in The Sun ? Full details on the back of their cornflakes packet ? I despair about the fans base in this sport at times. 50 % of the complaints are from people who can't read/can't be bothered to read/wander round in a dream. I am surprised some of them can remember their way home after the meeting. Anyway it was George English that announced it . Jon Cook wasn't even on the MC at that stage. They also announced that there will now only be one TR which I suppose is taking a few people by surprise.

Many a true word id spoken in jest. In industrial situations, in the construction industry's hand signals are still used to this day especially where there is a noisy environment. I know I am speaking with hindsight but maybe some of the communication difficulties for example between the referee and officials could have been resolved if there was some basic visual system as a back up. Sounds silly I know but if hand signals are an approved safety system for manouvring heavy loads, reversing large vehicles and shunting trains they should be adequate to ensble to ref to tell track officials whether a rider is excluded. Just a thought.

It basically highlights the farce that basically good idea of the FTDR has degenerated into. Lewis Backbird for example has been graded into the fast track yet he is of such high calibre he was being wheeled out to replace the Heatleaders riding at No3 and No 5. Yet he wiil spend the whole season without being promoted to the 1-5 whatever his average. That is not what the FTDR was originally designed for. It's very difficult to see a case for riders like Blackbird, Newman and Garrity to not be going up into the top five. That is before we get on to the ridiculousness of the pick where, for example the team who should have had first pick finished up with fifth pick as I recall.

Do you have a link to confirm that or is it something you just dreamed up ?

Barry Thomas rode for a promoter who in that era was a very good track man and did the job himself. The bikes that Barry rode were not so sensitive to set ups and didn't have constant changes of silencer regs messing things up all the time. In short Barry Thomas rode in a what many consider to be a better Speedwáy era. But times change and we have to work with what we have today. It wasn't just Mikkel. Nobody could have tried harder than Rory last night and when a rider of that calibre can't make any impression after bend 2.something is very wrong. Whichever way you break it down, people are not going to pay 18p let alone £18 to see a meeting on a track like last nights week after week. Unless Jon Cook gets a grip the fans won't last the season.

Utterly diabolical track. Have to say well done to Wolves because the tr ack was the same for both sides and te am riding between Freddie and PK in heat 15 was comparable to anything the turbo twins produce but Lakeside management need to have an long think about all this. This seems to happen every year. We get a settled track prep that suits the team and produces decent racing then out of the blue a different track is produced. We have had some reasonable racing this year but tonight wasnt even gate and go it was gate and race over. When staunch long-time fans start complain inthe crowd and on the fans forum, saying they are finished with the sport if this carries on, the promotion need to notice. There were bad vibes from the start when Jon Cook couldn't be bothered to announce the riders on parade. Someone said he went home and if that's true it just about sums the evening up. A couple of years ago we had issues it the track being poor and breaking up and Jon Cook said in his programme notes that certain people were being relieved of their duties and he was going to assume responsibility. After that he got a grip and we started getting good tracks again . They have been reasonably good this year until tonight we suddenly get a dustbowl with no grip and no overtaking and holes appearing. It would be excusable if there was some unusual weather condition like a threat of rain or hot day but there were no problems of that nature. There is no excuse. You can't charge people £18 for tracks like that and expect them to keep coming. Words fail me to describe what a rubbish meeting it was. I can't remember the last time I saw such a poor meeting. One final point. Poole have had ongoing complaints from fans about poor tracks. Now Lakeside fans are complaining about a poor track. Both tracks have the same track curator. Maybe there should be team changes other than the riders.

Fair comment. Its not quite what the Star says but it makes no difference. If the SS version is correct then the worst that can be said is that other refs might have made different judgments but Lawrence was working within the latitude allowed under the rules so any criticism would at most be minor. If your facts are correct then he was a victim of the generally shambolic organisation. I don't doubt what you say, given the general background of organisational incompetence As far as Doyles exclusion is concerned I didn't have a problem with the exclusion itself, but the long delay in announcing the decision made it seem at the time that the referee was dithering and indecisive. However we now know the problem was that the exclusion lights weren't working nor was the referees telephone to the pits so again it was the shambolic organisation of the event. So I happy to say that based on what we now know my original criticism of Lawrence's decisions appears to have been ill-founded, and you have made some valid comments. Not what Steve Brandon said. But what would he know ? He was only in the pit lane talking to the riders.

Yes I was critical of Lawrence, and I also said that I was biased because I never thought much of him in the past, which inevitably colours ones judgment. Speedwáy Star did give a good explanation of events and the problems Lawrence had to deal with, even down to being paranoid that the red lights might fail if he needed them. The Star also gave an informative explanation of how he came to his decisions regarding the tapes and Doyles exclusion. However the Star did say in relation to the the tapes " Lawrence's view of this incident is open to interpretation" and in relation to Doyles exclusion "In such unusual circumstances, maybe riders should have been given a second chance". So in the light of what SS has said about the pressure he was under coupled with the comments half questioning his decisions I'd have to say I still don't think he was a paragon of virtue but not as bad as I thought before reading the SS article and I would now agree with you that in the grand scheme of things he was at worst only a minor player in the tragedy. We are in agreement about the track though, even more so since theSS has now outlined the problems from the start of practice and Olsen is clearly at the front of the firing line, but even then I wonder if their were others factors behind the scenes connected with the time available and maybe other things that have yet to come out. As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

Well said. That is pretty much the point Anyone who does not agree with Oldace is, in his words "a moron" but then reality is that, as you say the track was not perfectly anything, at least that's what a lot of the "morons" think. The mere fact that even before the riders meeting it was said that after heat 12 there would be some extended track maintenance, is in itself evidence that the track was not perfectly adequate, otherwise they would not be doing it when the meeting was already running 2 hours late. The question of whether the extended track maintenance would have returned the track to a decent standard suitable for the occasion is something will shall now never know. However, Paul Burbidge makes an interesting point in SS when he said that there seems to be a common denominator in temporary tracks that don't come up to scratch, and that Is excessive moisture. If that was the case on Saturday it difficult to see how the track werecould have been significantly improved as the evening got colder. However that is just speculation. Speedwáy Star has just arrived and I have to say that I think t he article by Peter Oakes (presumably another"moron" on Oldace line of thought) is excellent. Peter Oakes in my view draws the right balance between bluntly saying what needs to be said without mincing his words but at the same time without going OTT as Oldace and a few others seem intent on doing. There were a few interesting quotes from riders in SS:- Chris Harris: Everyonewas in agreement that the track wasn't raceable and for safety reasons the right call was made. Everybody could see that the track wasn't great . We didn't want anyone seriously hurt. Matej Zagar: I even refused to practice. I knew the track wasn't ideal ......I did my best to take points from 3 heats. But rider safety comes first. I totally agree with this. We made a common decision. Everybody has there own opinion but common sense won. NKI . We ne ed to look at safety before anything else. It would have been the wrong decision to continue because people were falling off by them selves. When it's like that I tells you everything about the conditions. I think it was the right decision to call it off, but it's really disappointing Jason Doyle: The track was very dangerous for myself........the right decision was made in the end. Something went wrong with the track and it was like walking on cushions......It wasn't that we didn't want to ride, it was just how dangerous the track was. Nicki Pedersen : The surface was unstable. It was very inconsistent and just moved around all the time when they did the preparation and grading. I put the riders quotes out for what they are worth, to be put in the melting pot of opinion. What is not in dispute is that the track had been giving problems from the first practice session. Maybe in theory the track could have been improved after maintenance and maybe the combined hassle of the practice sessions, the starting gate, and Batch and Holders crashes were the last straw. I don't know. I tend to agree with Peter Oakes when he says that whether the full story of what went wrong will ever come out is hard to say at this juncture. What is clear though is that the bulk of the eveidence suggests that the track was less than "perfectly adequate" as Oldace would have as believe.

But there was an issue with the starting gate. There was also an issue with the track and an issue with poor refereeing. You can't separate one from another and say what if? You are losing sight of the fact that even if the full 23 heats had been run it would still have been a shambles of a meeting probably taking the best part of 4 hours to complete, on a deteriorating track, possibly with more crashes and further injuries. Even if the riders had continued it would still have been an unacceptable standard for a showcase event and there would still be major questions to be asked about the track and general organisational standard. People who were put off the sport by th e cancellation would still be very likely put off if them event struggled on to full distance. The one good thing that comes out of this is that there is probably ((slightly) more chance of something being done about it.

The difficulty is where to you draw the border line between "not ideal" and dangerous. I remember years ago in another area of motorcycling the organisers dismissed complaints of an unsafe track at Monza. The riders went out to give a full throttle show and the result was two dead and twelve injured.

Oh my word, Speedwáy Star in refusing to blame officials shock. Theres a surprise.

Probly more chance of getting a straight answer from a politician.

I have just looked back over the interviews. Keep in mind that the interviews were being relayed to the crowd so they will be a bit circumspect about what they say. After heat 8 MJJ said "This is tough........the track is a bit rough..." Matej Zagar said " I am a bit surprised at this level.... the Devil has been naughty today, a few things on the track" Niels said " difficult out there....tricky conditions.....difficult conditions." When the riders meeting started after heat 12 Steve Brandon said the starting was an issue with the riders early doors but talking to the guys up and down the pit lane they just shrugged their shoulders and got on with it but he thought the track was becoming a bigger issue. None of this proves the track was dangerous but it does show the track was a growing concern as the meeting wore on and Kelvin mentioned it several times.. One point Kelvin mentioned was that it is very difficult to maintain concentration over a period of two hours with a lot of delays and stop start. . Possibly if the gate had not been an issue and the meeting had progressed at normal speed the riders may have been better placed mentally to deal with the track,, I don't know, I am just speculating on the possibility. It is clear however that concern about the track had been bubbling up for some time.

Of course the riders can be critised if people wish, subject to the proviso that they are the ones riding the. bikes. Unfortunately , on the forum in general not just this thread, 75% of posters seem to think that knee jerk reaction and hyperbole as if they were writing headlines for The Sun is a substitute for constructive criticism. Let's try to look at it more calmly:- Phil Morris comes in for a lot of stick (Phil Morris hang your head in shame" screamed one poster-do people really still speak like that in the 21st century) , but I don't know, and I don't think anybody on here knows, what exactly do his responsibilities include. Part of the clue is in his title ~ "Race director" but it's not clear where his responsibilities end and the FIM jury starts is not clear, and as I said before Ashley Holloway, who has more insight than most on here has tweeted that the blame lies with nameless ones other than Phil so criticism of him may-I stress MAY- be premature, but that won't stop the lynch mob. The failings of Jim Lawrence are there for all to see, inconsistent decisions, failure to spot the uneven tapes, taking so long to communicate Jason Doyles exclusion etc should not be acceptable in an NL match, let alone a GP , and those failings set the scene for what was to follow so he is one that must be in the firing line. Ole Olsen we probably will not get to the bottom of. Clearly there were problems with the track hence the cancellation of practice but whether it is his fault or whether he was not given sufficient time remains to be seen. I am biased because I never did like Olsen so I'll say no more. Then we have the FIM jury. At the risk of repeating myself they were the ones that pulled the plug on the meeting. They have questions to answer. The FIM statement says the track was unfit. I wasnt in the room with the riders so I don't know what was said. we can infer certain things but the bottom line is that they, not the riders signed the meeting off due to an unfit track. That is not in dispute. That raises the question of how they approved the track 12 heats earlier and how it supposedly became unfit in only half the meeting. They are the officials, they need to explain. All I will say about the riders is I am still not clear what supposed motive they have for walking out if they did not have genuine feelings about track safety, but I don't Belive that strong personalities like Tai, Holder, Bomber and especially Zagar who was having a good night are so weak willed as to go along with the walk out simply because Greg and Nicki pulled the wool over their eyes. For my part I think the truth of what happened there has yet to come out.

No, you haven't got it right. You are getting like Bwitcher and reading things that aren't there.I never said Ole Olsens opinion is rubbish, and in fact the only comment I have seen from him on this particular matter is that he said the FIM jury signed it off as safe before the meeting so maybe that is something else for them to answer. If you want to draw any inference from what I said it is to suggest Olsen is not infallible, just as Uncle Len is perhaps not the man he once was. Plus of course it Olsens track so as an infamous lady once said "he would say that wouldn't he?" Olsens culpability or otherwise is yet to be determined but since the track went from being safe to unsafe in the space of twelve heats acccording to the FIM jury there needs to be some explanation as to why that supposedly happened. Perhaps in time honoured tradition it will be "nobody's fault". How does that sound?

No, you are tilting at windmills. Try reading the post in context without the old red mist rising up and clouding your judgment.Someone asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer. The question was where is the riders statement and I said there isn't one, which is correct , unless you can tell us otherwise. I also pointed out that there is an FIM statement saying the meeting was called off because the track was unfit. Now, you can huff and puff all you like but the plain fact is that the FIM jury are the ones with authority to sign the meeting off, not the riders. We can debate whether it was the right or wrong decision but it was the FIM jury that made the decision, not the riders so I said if they got it wrong the buck stops with them. Incidenrtly you have chosen not to mention that in the footage you provided Kelvin Tatum refers to ruts and at various times describes the track as choppy, difficult and challenging. Just his opinion of course, and in fairness he does not use the word dangerous but it is interesting that you chose to ignore those comments because it doesn't suit your argument. Anyway the bottom line is that the FIM jury have rightly or wrongly deemed the track unfit so that is a closed issue. The only matter for discussion is what line of reasoning brought them to that decision. Looking at the overall conduct of the meeting though I would agree that the FIM jurors should never officiate at another prestigious event. No doubt more information will emerge with the passage of time, but in the meantime do try to read what my posts say instead of reading more into them than is actually there. EDIT. See Henry W's more measured post about KK's comments before launching into a tirade about riders breaking ranks, as it seems you have clearly not read the article yourself.

There isn't one. The statement says the FIM jury deemed it unfit. They are in charge of the meeting, they are the only ones with authority to sign the track off as unfit so if it was a wrong decision the buck stops with them. I have to say that last Satyrday was the first GP I have watched in over a year and most of the time I really don't know what people get excited about. I honestly believe that if it wasn't the tension of a world title at stake there would be very little in them race-wise to entertain the audience most of the time. The thing that puts me off most is the poor quality inconsistent refereeing. Too many GP' s IMO. Six is more than enough. Maybe a couple of qualifier early season to narrow the top 32 down to 16 but on good tracks. Part of the problem with the present system is that a lot of the qualifying tracks are rubbish. Just my opinion.

No. It usually means that the track curator has enough time to do the job properly and is not squeezing the job in between dog racing etc. going back to Len Silver he keeps banging on in his book about endless laps round and round on the tractor and in fairness he did do some decent tracks at Hackney back in the day. I don't think its money spent on material these days it's fiding the right quality stuff in the first place, and in this country at least a lot of the best pits have closed. As far as Olsen is concerned , there was undoubtedly trouble with the track surface at some stage hence the cancellation of practice. I don't know enough about it to be specific but if it is true that Olsen only had three days to lay the track it doesn't seem much time to me. What Starman said in an earlier post about tracks needing time to settle and take water is my understanding as well. When all is said and done about this shambles it wouldn't surprise me in the least if corners were cut on track prep, possibly to cut costs.

Len Silver has ridden a speedwáy bike. He has prepared more tracks than most including for international events, but anyone going to Rye House these days can see he has clearly lost the plot. Olsens track prep has been controversial for some time. Maybe he is losing his mar bles as well.

It stops people sitting in them.

Ultimately it was not the riders but the FIM jury that signed the track off as unfit. That is what the record now says. The rules very likely say something to the effect that the FIM jury are solely responsible for the decision . They could have deemed the track race worthy and ordered the riderst to carry on or face suspension. Whether they should have made a different decision is or irrelevant now as rightly or wrongly they have signed the meeting off as unfit to race. In due course they will no doubt be called upon to explain their decision, especially if there are legal proceedings.

The FIM are vicariously responsible for the actions of their servants or agents which means they can be sued for any negligence of the jury members. On thinking about it though, I think it would be very difficult to blame the FIM in legal terms for the state of the track. The FIM Jury made a subjective decision that in their opinion the track was not safe. Other people might have other opinions but in legal terms that doesn't automatically make the FIM wrong. You would have to show that there was something either negligently or fundamentally wrong with the decision, which in legal terms is not that easy. Hanging the blame on OleOlsen would be easier in legal terms but the whole thing would get very messy and the only winners would be the lawyers. A more practical and less costly alternative would be to quietly make sure Jim Lawrence and Tony Steele are out out to grass, and unless Ole Olsen is deemed to be squeaky clean get someone else to do the tracks. Olsen must be about retirement age anyway.

Nothing wrong with the set-up per se. Other sports around the world manage similar when TV is involved, but like any other organisational arrangement it depends on people doing their jobs efficiently. We saw for a start Jim Lawrence was not the sharpest tool in the box and hopefully we won't see him in charge of a GP ( or an EL meeting) for a long time. Tony Steele lost his credibility at the Pool/Belle Vue rain off a couple of years ago and he hardly restored it in Warsaw. If we put to one side our differing opinions on the track for a moment the situation seems to be this:- The FIM jury apparently accepted the track as being in a fit state to race and at heat 12 they decided it was not fit to race so one of the following scenarios must apply- 1. Either the FIM accepted the track as fit when it wasn't or 2. They decided at heat 12 that the track was unfit when it still was or 3. the track was so poorly prepared that it went from being fit to unfit in the space of 12 heats which presumably hangs the blame round Olsens neck. I find it increasingly difficult to see how the buck does not ultimately stop with the FIM jury even if they managed to hang part of the blame on someone else.

TBF with lawyers floating around the standard advice to all involved would be to keep their traps shut. It looks like someone is going to have to pay big bucks for all this and behind the scenes it is likely to get very messy. The acid test for Joe Public though is (and I hate this expression) will lessons be learned? Will we now see a big step forward in the professionalism of the presentation? Only time will tell but it will be bad news for the sport if we don't The problem is though, the way the wind is blowing at the moment suggests the FIM might find it hard to completely exonerate themselves. If Olsens comment is to be beleived the FIM jury passed the track as satisfactory and the FIM jury called the meeting off so whatever mudslinging goes on, some of it will presumably land on those guys.