500cc

The concept of British reserves is excellent. Took years to get to a point where Brits (or British trained) riders are given guaranteed spots due to the BSPA's inability to understand EU legislation; not that I think they do now. To continue working, these riders must progress through to the 1-5 in the future. But that must be done using guaranteed positions. It is legal, but as I say, I doubt the BSPA know that. The fact the PL isn't integrated into this concept, tells me everything I need to know about British Speedway. It needs to operate with one clear vision from grass roots to the elite level. That doesn't mean each level has to operate to the same racing regulations, but where major initiatives are introduced it needs to be fully supported through the entire system. That doesn't necessarily mean PL reserves should be Fast Track, although it's the most obvious solution. It does mean that the initiative must be supported. As a starter that would have to be guaranteed British spots in the PL. I have no problem the PL operating its own way, it's probably a good idea, but there are certain fixed initiatives that it should have to include. Without doing that any vision has no future. The EL is at 8 teams. No sign of further additional parties, but there is a risk of the numbers dropping (admittedly the two biggest risks having already dropped to the NL). There must be a reasonable risk that the EL can not continue as is in the future. Then what happens to the Fast Track initiative? Quite likely falls by the way side dur to no buy-in from the PL. That is no way to manage a vision. No successful business would operate that way.

Agreed. If there is reasonable doubt that the readings were correct (or even if the procedures were correctly followed) then he should be found not guilty (not the terminology for this case mind).. But my point was about finding a loophole. If he was indisputably over the limit, but the objection was a minor documentation issue, then, in my opinion, that's a very different matter.

Typically legal processes are (frustratingly) time consuming. The view seems to be that Ward's lawyers are responsible in some way. How much this delay is incorporated in to any final decision on length of suspension may depend on whether the lawyers have a reasonable case, or are simply looking for loopholes. If reasonable, then I suspect a reduced final length. If not, then no reduction (beyond what legally is constituted) will be offered. The final outcome must only be decided on fact. However, I can't help feeling Ward would benefit from a guilty decision. He certainly appears to have an issue with alcohol (I don't mean an alcoholic, but his use of it). I can think of four high profile incidents he has been involved in that are linked to alcohol. Worryingly that includes alcohol and motor vehicles. He could really benefit with a mature individual in his corner to focus him going forward. I'm speculating, but because of what we pick-up from those in the know, I assume Ward is attempting to prove is innocence on a technicality. Whilst nobody should be wrongly found guilty, innocence on a technicality is a different matter. There is quite a difference between a faulty measurement and the tester entering the wrong date on the documentation for example. You would hope the objections relate to reasonable doubt he was over limit as opposed to a (non impacting) administrative error.

Just love that post. I guess if it starts tonight, it will only be allowed to reach Heat 10 if Poole are ahead on aggregate !!!

Interesting info Phil thanks for that. It does leave one problem for BSI. Was it too much rain or was the track not fit for purpose? If the former (which appears to be the way its being portrayed), then the promoter could claim that the meeting was called-off against their wishes over a day before the deadline (Sunday afternoon). Now in terms of getting the GP on that may well be the best (by a long way) chance of success. But not many speedway meetings of this level with the man power available are cancelled so far in advance. Last year at Cardiff an example of the state of a track with 24 hours to go. The promoter wasn't given this chance. A weather forecast being a prime reason for a cancellation with the financial implications to the promoter is dubious to say the least. Better for BSI yes, but not the promoter. The impact on him is probably worse than being cancelled on Sunday, especially if it was chucking it down it the reasons obvious to all. It's interesting that BSI offer the GP's and write the contracts, but don't appear to be able to insist on the FIM being involved in track prep. We've heard more than once of help being offered and the local track refusing.

I think Cardiff costs are higher than London's for hotel rooms mind.

Good points guys!!! I was looking for a mention of Heat 9, rather than following the logic. I read this both before and after I read Cook's quotes, and both times came to the same conclusion that Heat 9 was an eligible Tactical Heat. I'd also read regulations 17.8.5 and 17.9.6 which had suggested reserves were eligible for tacticals. I do remain confused as to whether 17.8.5 and 17.9.6 override 17.10.1. I'm assuming they do but who knows !!!

There appears to be an inconsistency between Jon Cook's quotes and the Regulations. Cook states that Heat 9 (reserves race) is not an eligible tactical heat. The Regulations don't appear to rule out Heat 9. I think I saw something backing Cook's view last week (probably the BSPA press release). I actually think in the circumstances Cook's view is preferable. Whilst the 1-5 are effectively equal (yes I know), there is likely less equality at reserve. With the new format already having the potential for the reserve pairings to have a huge influence on the result, the danger is that Heat 9 will further over balance the impact of the reserves. The mitigation (and effectively the counter argument) is that if you are already struggling but have good reserves it gives the opportunity to substantially reduce the deficit, whilst if your leading with strong reserves, the opposition probably don't want to use the tactical in that Heat anyway.

I think there is a slight difference. R/R prior to the meeting allows rider one place above in the averages to take a ride. R/R for an injury during the meeting only allows riders with a lower average to take a ride. Makes sense as currently three quarters of the R/R rides are covered by a lesser rider average wise. With an in meeting injury you could end up with your Number 2 replaced by 1 and 3; half the R/R rides covered by a better rider average wise.

10. This may increase to the scheduled 15 subject to finances. Due to the new cost management strategy, there is likely to be a break after Heat 10 whilst all the gate money is accumulated and the figures are analysed in Microsoft Excel. Excel will fire out the most cost efficient number of heats to be run. Fears that the generated number may well be 42 were alleviated when it was agreed this would be treated as a "Terminate Meeting With Immediate Effect" message with each home promoter allowed to make up their own excuse. Belle Vue were exempted from this regulation, with their opponents determining at what point they'd like to pack up for the evening.

I think the press release got chopped off. The last bit presumably said. "This is a one-off change for 2014 only. In 2015 the wild card will one again be given to Chris Harris selected by BSI"

14 riders !!! Will there be enough room in the pits for these extra riders. And think about the increased mileage claims the promoters face from these extra riders.

Of course the promoters may be congratulating themselves on saving more money. There are only 90 points (excluding bonus points and whatever tactical rules/payment may be in place). 12 of those are already locked into the reserve races and therefore at the cheapest rates. I suspect four more heats will have two reserves so that's another 4 points. With so many heat leaders clashing, that's more saving against the highest paid riders.

I suggest the first match of the season is run on Sky. The marketing opportunities are immense. As the riders leave the pits for each heat, you get your first glimpse of the new Heat format. And just think of the debates we could have. Was rider X programmed for that Heat or is he a replacement under regulation 17.99.3.5.2c.

There's the added issue that third heat leader is likely to be the toughest position this year if the TOP SECRET Heat Format is as suggested. In a perverse way I suspect third heat leaders to have a major influence on who win's the league, when it the same time their averages are comparatively low.

Sadly I think that points to a lot of Speedway's problems. If a crowd of 4,500 (best possibility) is deemed insufficient to be viable for 20 riders that once again the inherent costs of the sport should be questioned.

But that would just make the whole competition look stupid. How an earth would it have any integrity if Holder didn't ride for Piraterna (a club he is riding for this season) and instead rode for Poole (a team he no longer rides for). You may as well enter an Australian team as nationality trumps all in that list.

A promoter states a deal with Sky is done A Sky employee states a deal with Sky is done A journalist states a deal with Sky is done Imagine a rider states to a potential sponsor as part of his negotiations that a deal with Sky is done. Any guesses what would happen to that rider? This is why if you hear of a rumour in speedway, there is a good chance that it may be true.

The Press Release suggests the 1-7 is complete. I'b be surprised.

4 rides beating your team mate only gets a 4 point average. Beat a reserve once and your into 5 point land and a tasty set of options open up. Extreme end of the points scoring possibilities, but it does illustrate the potential.

I guess it depends if he gets through the British qualifiers !!!

No. I've consistently maintained over the years that 4 is too low are starting point. If Milic was listed as a 4 and it wasn't a typo on the Riders Grading List, then he's a 4. The amount of support Poole have received if those are the facts is incredibly high. There are more views that riders should not start on a 4, but very little (if any) suggesting it should be changed. Poole supporters themselves have suggested that the 4 may have been challenged. Other posters have simply stated that it may be changed (Kurtz precedent), but I think the vast majority would agree it would be wrong to increase it because other teams subsequently think its too low; which is very different from it being changed if the reason were an administrative error (i.e. all other lower riders were given a higher average). But most of us would need to see pretty compelling justification for it to be increased. Correct I think on this topic, you are fighting those who are on your side in terms of Millicks starting average. Now you can't get a much clearer summary than that.

In fairness apart from a single mention in the previous days, it was your own post below that got people (me included) re-debating Milik's average. There actually hasn't been much criticism about his average since he was signed. Debate over whether 4 is the correct starting point; yes, but I'd say a pretty high percentage of agreement; certainly much higher than typically in favour on a Poole topic. I would like to point out one thing. As far as I know, a 4 point average (Cat 3) is for certain riders who haven't ridden in a professional league. Milik has. He is a Cat 2 rider. A Cat 2 rider has a personal average assigned on the Rider's Grading List. Now that isn't public, although a number of individual averages have been published. Prior to the Milik signing; I'd assumed 4.5 would be the lower level of Cat 2, but that was just my assumption. What also is unclear to me is why the general concensus (based on current rules not what people think it should be) is that 4 was correct for Milik. Not saying that's wrong, but I wasn't aware that riders (presumably riders not reaching 6 in the top Polish/Swedish leagues) were allocated a 4 rather than be individually evaluated in the way Pawlicki junior has.

I think it’s a very good team as well and credit to the promotion in getting all the riders on board. Pretty sure this is exactly the team they wanted. So, in terms of the selecting the team I think it was probably the easiest job of all teams. The new regulations; points limit and reserve strategy fell perfectly for KL. KL had the advantage of two protected riders in the reserves draft. The level of those two immediately took the pressure off the building of the 1-5, although probably wasn’t that significant based on the strategy KL were following. Iversen, Schlein and Porsing were all returnees from last year. Lambert has come through the NL team. Bjerre was arguably the most problematic, although he’s very suited to KL and its highly likely they would be his first choice. His position was the least “worrying” anyway as his average was very tasty if KL had needed to go a different route. Don’t get me wrong, there a lot of good reasons for this; the investment in an NL team, the quality of the track, a promotion that riders want to ride for etc. This is about reaping the benefit of those successes. Most seasons a team or two reaps the benefit of the updated regs, existing riders on attractive averages etc. This season KL are the major beneficiaries.

I was under the impression the Milik was an agreed 4 on the Grading Riders List so shouldn’t really be the issue. Whether he should be a 4 is a different matter, but I thought one of the purposes of the Annual Jolly AGM was to agree all averages, which surely should include the Grading Riders List. Pre- the Grading Riders List a Cat 2 rider as Milik is today, would have come in on a 4. Now riders are coming in higher. Has anybody come in as low as a 4 since the Grading Riders List was introduced? The Kurtz situation is just typical confused BSPA thinking ending in a compromise that is wrong. The reasoning given is his Danish league appearances. If that’s the case he’s a PL 7. But he’s been given a 5 which means he either has no professional league experience or he’s a Commonwealth rider. If the former, the Danish experience has been ignored. If the latter then his British qualification means he’s eligible for the NL, except Dudley were told he’s not. In other words if the Kurtz situation is such a mess, then I suppose there is a chance that the Milik average is being questioned. I guess the Dennis Andersson precedence suggests initially proposed averages can be overturned and maybe a fellow promoter has lodged an objection. If the average is the problem, then the BSPA really need to look at this whole process. Really promoters should be getting confirmation of the average of a rider they are attempting to sign and that’s it. The problem is that needs an independent arbitrator (yep, that issue again), because as things stand certain promotions (on the MC) would have the advantage of knowing who their competitors were chasing.