500cc

Isn't it rather that dead heats are no longer declared in GP's. You can't change the law of physics that there may be no measurable difference between two riders. Athletics ocasionally has dead heats when no difference can be detected and the quality of their technology is significantly better than those camera's we see at speedway which don't even seem to be in line. Is the referee simply instructed to guess, pick his favourite when he his not presented with any discernible evidence, toss a coin, award to the rider leading after the third lap or select the rider his mate has had a bet on !!! It is a serious question, what are the referees instructions when it is impossible to separate two (or more !!!) riders?

Where a GP race ends in a dead heat, who is awarded the win? Same question for the minor placings? Is the win awarded to rider with the lower riding number (i.e. Greg Hancock will always be given the win in a dead heat, whilst Andreas Jonsson would get the win against everybody but Hancock). Does a track reserve get the benefit over a temporary rider (not the wild card) replacing an injured 1-15 rider? Or is there a different rule for deciding the winner?

Isn't the facility for the lower average? If I was Birmingham I'd sign Ryan Fisher as his Barker's doubling-up partner. If a fixture clash ever occurs, the facility will be based on Fisher's 6.02 average. If Barker is injured, then Fisher is the best replacement I can imagine in the PL. I'm not aware of a rule specifically preventing a double-upper from the same PL team, although it is slightly abusing the system.

Am I correct that the use of 2010 meetings is dependant on the status of the rider. For example Riders A and B both rode 10 meetings in 2010, and both rode none in 2011. So in 2012 Rider A's Rolling Average includes those 10 2010 meetings. He only starts dropping them once riding is 19th meeting of 2012. In contrast Rider B's 2012 Rolling Average is exclusively made up from 2012 meetings (his 2010 meetings are all ignored) Am I correct the both scenario's can be played out in 2012? Equally is it true if Rider's C and D both rode 6H/3A in 2010 (but none in 2011), that Rider C could get a new average after his first 2012 away meeting, whilst Rider D would have to wait at least eight 2012 meetings (4H/4A) to get a new average? I think the scenarios for Riders A, B and D are all possible. Not so sure about Rider C.

In fairness to Allen, he didn't realise Wimbledon was an anti-clockwise track so wasn't expecting a left turn at the first bend !!! I don't actually remember Lee Strudwick ever falling. I was actually referring to the fact that he and cousin Niall were regular second-halvers at Plough Lane and their 'pits' area was on the stock-car track. I'll get my coat !!!

Lee Strudwick probably spent more time on the Wimbledon Stock Car track than virtually any other rider in the 2002-2005 Wimbledon Speedway era.

Sweden seeded directly to the final. Only the winner of the Race-Off qualifying for the final. Better or worse ?

And so Hans has been offerred and accepted the last spot. Where this all leaves the GP series going forward is another question. So two of the three newcomers (not participating in 2011) turned down their places. Two more who had to be offered a place turned them down as well. And that's all we know about officially. How many more, who knows. I can see the organisers changing the rules on automatically offering places to riders from the Qualifier if any of the first three turn it down. The danger is that is that the quality of rider may be totally out of his depth in the GP series. Throw in the Polish regulations and some of the top riders nearing international retirement, I think we are entering a really challenging period for the GP organisers.

Has always surprised me that extreme track records are never verified by match video. The entire Track Record History of Wimbledon's last track was incorrect (albeit for two heats). Wayne Barrett's first ever heat on the track was inaccurately recorded by between 4 and 5 seconds. He was heading into the River Wandle at the point the "track record" was recorded, not the finish line !!! So Martin Williams track record in Heat 3, Rory Schlein's a week or two later and finally Chris Neath's were never recognised. Why or why wasn't this verified. I understand that Wimbledon had wanted to build publicity around possible new track records, but it was never going to happen as this original heat was based on about 3 and two thirds of a lap. I should point out that the time keeper did an excellent job. This is the only glitch I'm aware of; but unfortunately it happened in the first ever heat on the new track. If this had happened later in the season, I guarantee you it would have been obvious to all regular followers that it was never that fast. Why or why didn't someone just check the video? It was a videoed match.

Does anybody know how many years can count in a rider's rolling average going forward? In an extreme scenario would a rider making a single appearance per season carry his 2010 EL meeting all the way through to form part of his starting average for the 2038 season? i.e. 28 meetings over 28 years? Or do "old seasons" get dropped off after a certain period? Personally I think that only the previous seasons meetings should count when calculating the starting averages for the following season, provided the rider has ridden a qualifying minimum, e.g. 4H and 4A. Two years is a long time in speedway. It would make sense that the 2012 starting averages were based on 2011 meetings only (subject to 4H & 4A). Although small, the building of teams below 42, effectively means that year on year, a rider should have a small increase on his average.