Dave the Mic

I made no mention of double standards. Don't resort to abuse. I just asked you to get some perspective.

I don't dispute that all amounts are important. The point is, he id it. Many on this thread have questioned him as a person. His charity work highlights how wrong they are. You insinuated that he didn't do it, it was others. I was merely pointing out that isn't correct. So what if he hasn't won in Cardiff? But can you imagine the crowd reaction if he did? It doesn't stink of the highest order, what rot. Your last but one sentence makes no sense. I'm not suggesting it will make any difference, but the point is this is a storm in a tea cup. Lots of riders have done similar & haven't been slated as this. I had forgotten Mark Loram had done one on the British Championship one year, but he is treated like a deity by most Britis fans. It's a load of cobblers & what it stinks of is double standards. Read the posts by Gavan & BWitcher. Get some perspective.

Sorry Colin, can't agree with your comments here. Bomber gets slated by all & sundry on here for "not being good enough to be in the GP's", so I don't see everyone here standing up & cheering him on, when all he does is gets criticised. Your choice not support Woffinden & you are entitled to your view, but your comment concerning his charity work is odd. I don't think anyone else did the cycling for him, did they? Yes, we donated the money, but it was his commitment & profile that got us to do it. If you are suggesting he did that as a stunt, I think you are way off the mark. And you are right - he chose to do it, no one forced him to, it was his decision. How many other riders have?

What a load of verbal diarrhoea most people on here have spouted. Woffinden was born in England & his parents opted to emigrate to Australia. I don't see how that is his fault & anyone in his position will have a natural affinity with the country & it's people. He grew up there & essentially, it is "home" to him. I have a friend who moved there about 3 years ago & already calls it home. He chose to represent the country of his birth, but could easily have elected to race for Australia, but didn't. You can argue it was a choice of convenience all you like, but for someone with the confidence he has always had in his own ability, he would have backed himself to get in an Aussie side any day, so the "He races for GB because he couldn't get in the Aussie side" argument is bollox. He has always been the first to hold his hand up & race in the SWC, just like Bomber has & has excelled very time, just as Bomber has, but he gets a slating from all and sundry as well, because he "doesn't deserve his place in the GP". Brits can't win, can they? Bomber races in every meeting going & gets slated, Woffinden picks his racing & gets slated. Brilliant. The British Championship means almost nothing these days, unlike in the heady days of the 70's & even the 80's & 90's when there were many world class Brits & several who could win it in any given year, unlike now, when the reality is Woffinden has no real competition & only has to turn up. If you doubt his commitment - PC dropped out of the BL in 1981 & I remember the uproar when he was denied a place in the WC qualifiers that year, almost everyone came in on his side after the BSPA said he couldn't compete - he even considered taking out a foreign licence to do so, Wiggy did that, took out a foreign licence to race in the WC's back in the late 90's & early noughties. Nicholls refused to race for Team GB & so did the sadly missed Lee Richardson. Assume that's all OK, because everyone wants to bash Woffinden, yet institutions like PC & Wiggy can do what they want. Nicholls is BRitish & proud, but had his reasons for not competing & his decision was respected by most, what is the difference between those I have mentioned & Woffinden. Nowt, as far as I can see. Woffinden may not be everyone's cup of tea, but don't slate him for looking after his own interests. Many, many riders have done so in the past, usually winners, which, unless I am mistaken, is the name of the game. Ivan Mauger did exactly the same thing & he did OK out of it, didn't he. Woffinden is THE most professional rider in speedway at the moment, which is why he is a double world champion. Speedway is a sport, not a popularity contest & the best know it. Do you think sponsors will care what a few whingers on a forum think, when their man is all across the TV & media promoting them? Of course. Many riders have cut down on their racing due the hectic schedules they have. How many world class stars have stopped racing in the UK - dozens, because it's a pain in the ass with different race days, flights in & out & to be blunt an EL that is about as strong as the second tier sides in Poland & Sweden. So why bother? The BSPA are bunch of idiots & couldn't run a bath without burning themselves, much less run a "professional sport" properly. Why do you think speedway in the UK is in the mess it is in? Riders have had to wait ages to be paid, put up with poor management & decision making & lord knows what else from the powers that be in this country. It doesn't matter if you are from Birmingham or Botswana, putting up with the crap dished out by the people that run the sport in this country is enough to drive anyone away & there have been plenty of Brit's who have felt the same. They are the ones that cause the issue, not the likes of Woffinden. If his reasoning is that he hasn't been paid on time previously, or that the dates for the semis & final are either side of a GP weekend, or whatever, then to be honest, I would back him totally. In his position I would sooner focus my energy on winning a third world title than race in what, to be honest, is at best a second rate meeting these days. Regardless of you lot moaning, when he pulls on the GB colours at Cardiff & Belle Vue, there will be plenty cheering him on & if his reaction to his reception at Cardiff in he last few years is anything to go by, with the tremendous support he gets from the Cardiff crowd, he is pretty proud to represent them. Finally, before I step down from my soap box, if any of you have raised the money he has for charity by doing to bike rides he has, whilst trying to compete as a professional sportsman all across Europe, I take my hat off to you & will accept all your moaning & whinging. If not, I would argue he is a better man than all of you - and me - because, despite what you lot think, he does care & cares about important stuff like raising money to help sick kids have a better life.

Could have been Pinny. He had some awful nights at Exeter, but just as many good ones. He always moaned about it, but often delivered.

Yeah, Stoney was a proper guy. I used to see him at Exeter, get interviewed about how crap the track was & the score a bucketful of points. The crowd hated him, but he was box office. That said, he was the first to congratulate the Falcons when they secured the league title in 2000 after securing the bonus point with a 46-43 defeat at Derwent Park. Even came over to congratulate the Exeter fans who had made the trip.

I do understand it, you cannot honestly believe I don't. I'm not upset, I am a rational & logical thinking human being. The context in which the word was originally used was meant as per the definition I highlighted, I wasn't choosing a definition to suit myself, not at all. I haven't ranted, I haven't abused, insulted or called you names. The definition of words may well change, but the word referred to here still has the meaning I pointed out & I am not the only one who pointed it out, so we are all wrong, are we? Don't get me wrong, I'm not part of the PC brigade, hyper sensitive or easily upset, far from it. But neither am I any of the things you called me in your earlier post, which I thought were uncalled for. I have no intention of falling out with you, but please accept that I am entitled to my view on a subject that could easily offend & make your argument without the need for name calling & being insulting. I managed it, why can't you?

Agree Liam. I wasn't happy with what SCB posted originally & I stand by that & my right to that opinion. However, I see no reason for him to have been banned. The title of the thread should have been changed IMO and that would have sufficed.

So, I have a warped mind, a problem, I'm unintelligent & I am attention seeking. Thanks very much. Have you ever met me, probably not? I am many things & have many faults, but I think it is safe to say none of these would be included. Your post is deeply offensive to me. Later apology or not. And the context is vital, as you say. I accept my original comment was incorrect. The context here was obvious. Your comment concerning how young people use the word is beside the point - if you don't understand what a word means, then you shouldn't use it.

As I said, the whole point of a forum is debate. I take your point regarding Pedersen, I just don't rate him as highly as the other Danes. That's all. As for the comparison with Crump, Crump finished in the top 3 10 years in a row and that isn't something Nicki did. I don't see that Crump had any poor years, apart from the last season or two and even then they were only poor by his own incredibly high standards. I'm not saying Nicki isn't a great, I think he is, but I think there are other Danes and others better. I fully understand that someone doesn't win three titles at that level without being a bit special, as I said about Hans. I just feel Hans, Erik and Ole were better. Ease bear in mind, though, it's just opinion, which everyone is free to disagree with. I also fully appreciate that it's hard-impossible even - to compare riders from different eras and I've tried to be reasonable in assessing them and I don't think I'm too far off the mark on the main.

Henry, I can see your thinking on Trick & Ivan. My logic is based on the fact that during Ivan's reign, not only did he have the likes of Olsen, Collins, Mich, Briggo, Fundin, Lee, to contend with, but others like Louis, Simmo, Sjosten, the Poles in the their on back yard etc, but he also almost single handedly took NZ to a WTC win, was a real mainstay of the GB team when Kiwis raced for GB, topped the BL averages more often than not & raced at a near 11 point average (or more) for many years, won 3 individual titles in a row, including one in Poland, where it was always hard to achieve anything, won a title at 37 & again at 39, won three BL titles ina row with Belle Vue & then turned unfashionable Exeter into title winners with an average team & almost did the same with Hull. I was lucky enough to see both over many years & I simply think Ivan was the complete package, on & off the track. He was something of a winning machine. Agree with both you & Martin re Hans & Erik, their intense rivalry spurred them both on to great things & I do believe Hans lost a little something after Erik's crash. The point I made about GP v one off wins was based on the fact that Hans was more consistent over time & I feel his mindset was more suited to a GP series, in that he was a little bit like Ivan in some ways, a points scoring machine, whereas Erik seemed to be able to raise his game for the big day as he did when needed for example in 84 & 85.

Thanks TWK. Agreed. You could also add (& I probably should have) Bettsy, Jessup & Crash to name 3. Who from the latter periods? Very few.

Isn't it great that most of the people on this forum can agree, or disagree in peace, putting forward well thought out and reasoned arguments to any subject raised, without the need to be abusive or insulting to either each other, or any of the great and the good (and slightly less great) that have entertained us so brilliantly over the years. It's one of the reasons I still love speedway after 40 years of watching it. It saddens me that it is in such a parlous state at the moment and that some people can be so vitriolic towards their fellow fans, or indeed, just patrol these forums to stir things up. I have read every post on this thread since I posted my initial point which caused so much debate & would like to add some thoughts to he overall debate. I will refrain from including riders I never saw race. Firstly on the Americans. Some of them were fabulous riders, some less so. Sam was one of the better ones & his world title win in 1993 alone demonstrates that. It wasn't just the title, but his form throughout the year, which was as dominant in one season as any rider of the modern day. In my view, he was deserving of his title not only for being the best rider on the day, but the stand out rider of that year. That said he was lucky as he should have been excluded in the race referred to by a few people after shedding a chain. However, I don't begrudge him the title, he deserved it. Don't think there is any debate that Hans took him off. Of the Americans, I would say he is in the top 3 of the modern day, behind Penhall, who I feel is the best, despite transgressions, Hancock (it's hard to argue with 3 world titles over such a sustained period) & then Sam. Sigalos & the Morans were great riders, (the latter two as spectacular as you could wish to see) but I feel that for either longevity, commitment & achievement, the other 3 outstrip them easily. Six individual titles between them, compared to none for the others demonstrate that easily. Hamill was an excellent rider also, but I would rate him along with those that are named above that didn't win a title. Special mentions for Bobby Schwartz & Scott Autrey. Boogaloo was a great league rider & team man, but didn't seem to have the drive or edge on the personal front. Autrey was a great rider & I was fortunate enough to see him develop at Exeter, where in the last 3 years he was nigh on unbeatable. He was also a great team man, brilliant on all shapes & sizes of track & a lovely guy. I think many would rate him higher than they do if they saw him race as much as I did, he championed his own cause a bit more & was a bit more of a showman. He was a little unlucky in some ways in both 78, when he rode in the World Final all night with a cracked frame and still placed third & was then prevented from competing in 1979 after a dispute with the AMA, a year in which he would have a great chance of World Final glory as he had few if any equals that year. Had Exeter not dropped down to the NL in 1980, forcing him to move on, his career could have been even better. I rate him above all Americans except the top three I mention. On Hans Nielsen, I can't believe any would doubt his credentials. You don't win four world titles by accident, plus a host of team & pairs titles (among a host of other honours), plus run a huge average in the BL for four different clubs over almost 20 years without being a bit special. Personally I rate he & Erik about similar of these two. Had the GP been run in Hans' era, I feel he would have won more titles, he was by light years the most consistent rider of his day. Erik was more suited to the one off final I feel & had his career not been cut short would have won more titles in that format. Olsen was possibly a better all round rider than both, but Hans and Erik probably won more titles as they were by some margin the two stand out riders of their day, whilst Olsen had many more peers to contend with. Jan O Pedersen was a good rider, spectacular as they come & one of the best "racers" of is day. I accept he was unlucky with injuries, but I don't feel he was quite in the same league as the other 3 here. Knudsen was good, but not great, although he was unfortunate in '86, when there is no doubt Nielsen should have been excluded for taking him off. Nicki Pedersen is also in the mix here, & although his three world titles speak very loudly, I feel he would have won less had he raced in a different era. No other Danes are worthy of significant mention. Ivan I feel is the best there has ever been & had there been a GP series when he was racing from the mid 60's to late 70's he would have been a ten time champion. He had it all, the best machinery, organisation, racing brain, team spirit, business acumen, planning, gating, speed, cunning, consistency, focus, sponsorship, just everything oozed professionalism, class, discipline, focus on winning total single mindedness on winning every race - the superlatives could fill a dictionary. Some could argue that I am biased as I watched my speedway at Exeter, but let me tell you Ivan was never a favourite of mine - quite the opposite as PC was always my favourite - but you simply cannot argue with all he achieved, he has no equal. Briggo was a great rider, as was Ronnie Moore, although I only saw each of them at the end of their careers, but they don't match Ivan in many, if any, of the attributes above. Rickardsson comes fairly close to Mauger, if only for his 6 titles & how much better he was than all of his peers, although I feel Ivan had more peers at the top level & would have outstripped Tony had they raced at the same time. None of the other Swedes in "my era" come close. Michanek was good, but couldn't be bothered half the time, Per Jonsson was an excellent racer whose career was sadly cut short, as we know, but I don't think he compares to any mentioned above. I never saw Fundin race, so any comment is heresay, but I know enough to know that he is in the same league as Ivan & better than Rickardsson & possibly all the Danes. Of the Aussies, there are only four worthy of mention. Phil Crump, Billy Sanders & Leigh Adams were all excellent riders. Phil didn't want to win badly enough and he has said as much, Adams is probably the best rider of the era I am looking at to not win a title, but wasn't ruthless enough & Sanders career was cut tragically short & as such is difficult to quantify, although I am not sure, without wishing to appear unkind, he would have challenged the really top guys. Jason Crump is the best of them all, better than all the single title winners mentioned in this post, and many of the others. Ten years in a row in the top 3 of a ruthless & demanding GP series with three titles to boot, plus uber consistent over an even longer period in world cups & the 3 top leagues is too much to ignore his claim to be one of the greats. Of all the others that have scaled the heights - Gollob, Wiltshire, Plech, Nilsen, Muller, Szczakiel, Hamill, and others. Good riders, great even, but not in the same league as those already discussed. So the English. John Louis was better than Chris. Mark Loram is probably the best "racer" of the modern day, not sure anyone came close. A great rider, but not a true great, in my opinion, not consistent enough. Micheal Lee? Possibly the most talented of them all & that galls me as he was PC's main challenger to be top Englishman. In terms of ability on a bike, I think he had few equals. He was remarkable as a speedway rider. His flaw was his wayward personality that ruined his career. Had he not been a flawed genius & been able to keep his nose clean like Ivan, he would have won a hatful of titles. Havvy? My modern day favourite, fully deserved his title - he was the stand out rider internationally in '92 blew most away wherever he rode, I just think he peaked to soon & wasn't as driven as he could have been. His serious back injury ruined his career at the top level & he was never even close after that. PC? A truly great rider, even without my bias. Between 74 & 78, he was one of the top 3 in the world & could easily have won three tiles in that time had the fates smiled on him. I would argue easily on a par with any other English rider & many of those named above who won more than one world title. Tai Woffinden could easily turn out to be the best ever if he stays fit & as focused as he currently is. Some of the moves he makes are sensational, he has a good racing brain, a good team , great machinery, the right attitude etc. He reminds very much of Ivan, it's just a different era. personally I feel he is likely to end up the best of the Brits & there will be more titles to come. Of the rest, the Louis' Andy Smith, Simmo, Ray Wilson, Chris Morton, Les Collins, Rico, rest his soul, all good racers but not great. Likewise Wiggy & Tatum, Very talented, but more like good all round track racers than great speedway riders & their long track titles confirm that. For charisma, Wiggy was probably almost on a par with Penhall & he is still missed. Finally Carter. This might be controversial but he was good because of his passion, I don't think he was a "great". Sadly he actually never achieved a great deal, although you could argue he was unlucky in two of his three world finals, and did suffer from injuries, but a lot of that was about he raced. He was always very committed & dedicated, but in some ways I feel that was his undoing on the track sometimes. sadly we will never know if he could have become a great, maybe he would have, who knows? So, in my humble opinion, who is the best. Ivan Mauger - so far. I appreciate some, maybe all of you will disagree with some or maybe all I have said. Again, that's the beauty of this forum.

Nice early Christmas present. Congratulations to the entire family.

Sorry, that's crap, See the second definition of the word on the link below. It simply isn't appropriate to use the word in the way intended here. Context means nothing. If you think it's OK to use a word that is an insulting term to describe someone who happens to be less fortunate than most of us in terms of their mental capability, (regardless of context) shame on you and anyone else who agrees with you. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/retard As an accident of birth it could be any one of us, or our loved ones. If one of your family was in that position, how would you feel reading some of these thread titles or comments. Feel free to come back with a clever retort or sarcastic comment, I couldn't care less. It won' alter the fact that it shouldn't be used, regardless of your view.

Sorry but this whole retard thing is totally unacceptable. Regardless of the situation, using that word to describe someone else is totally out of order, whoever it is using the word, or describing. Cook, Middleditch & SCB should all be ashamed of themselves, as should the mods on here for not simply deleting any thread containing such abuse. People have been prosecuted for less.

Justify both your topic title & how you can include everyone on this forum with the statement you have made.

OK. First, read your own post number 108. You say unfair rules applied in the old system. If that isn't saying the old system was unfair, what is? You genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. My comments are reasoned and thought out. I am stating that both systems have good and bad. I haven't "denied" anything. Why are you so aggressive? Can no-one disagree with you? Your comments regarding the two riders are a joke.Head to head races between Mauger and Szczakiel was 7-6 to Ivan and I repeat the comments regarding Ivan's view of my "mate" Szczakiel, as you stupidly put it. Ivan rated him as a rider and felt he was a deserved champion. Reading replies on here it seems Ivan's view of him is accepted by many as being totally valid by everyone except you. Forgive me if I put him above you in terms of depth of speedway knowledge. On Muller, I honestly think you're just winding everyone on here up. Muller would have graced any world final, or GP series. When he raced here in 1976 his first meeting for Hull was at Perry Barr, Birmingham and he scored 11 from 4 rides, a track so far removed from anything on the continent as you can get. How many riders do you think could have done that? Ask any if his racing peers what they think of him, not one would share your view. You know nothing.

I have to be honest, I am not too interested in who was at fault as you can't change it anyway, but how any of you can make a call based on any internet footage is a bit beyond me, as it is so grainy & poor. Or are you watching a clearer version?

You have no idea at all. Do you actually watch speedway?

What rot you talk. Muller was a class act. In the 81 World Final to name one meeting, he scored 9 points in a very competitive field on a track hardly suited to his style, In addition, in an albeit short spell with Hull in 1976 he averaged 8.75. There were many riders who "some" would regard as more deserving of a place in a final who got nowhere near that at any time. Muller was not handed the title on a plate - there were some good riders in the world then (many more than now) & he whipped them all as if it were men against boys. Own back yard or not, he was still a very worthy champion. As for Szczakiel, check out the 1971 World Pairs Final - unbeaten, Look at the riders he beat. In addition, you should perhaps be aware of Ivan Mauger's opinion of him. Even Ivan who must have been gutted, said he was a worthy champion & with the greatest of respect, I would take his opinion over yours any day of the week. In addition your argument holds no water. You state the old system was unfair, the new one not. If the argument is that riders who should not have been there were, thus devaluing the meeting, I would say three things. First, I went to many "one off" world finals & have been to many GP's too. The atmosphere at World Finals was generally second to none & the anticipation leading up to the meeting, knowing that you would see the champion crowned that night couldn't be beaten. In addition, part of the interest then was seeing some big names fall by the wayside in the qualifiers, or knowing one incident could change the context of the meeting. Second, if the old system was so unfair because here were "no hopers" in the field, what do you call most (that's most) of the wild card riders today? What is the difference between them & the likes of Muller or Szczakiel being nominated by their home federation? Answer: none. The reality is, bot the old & new system have their flaws & benefits, not everyone will be happy, however, your particular argument is flawed, because in some ways the same thing exists now.

You're quite correct. Penhall, 80-82 & Carter 81-83. Incredible really that they are still two of the most talked about racers in speedway history

Very simplified version of the situation. Quaint. He may well not have been paid, but suspect he was. Appreciate he would have been asked to comment, but he had already stated he was uncomfortable doing so. So why do it then? The word hypocrite springs to mind. No one is "upset" as you so sweetly put it. This is a forum. Forums are for airing views. That is what we are doing.

Blimey, stirred up a hornets nest here, haven't I? Didn't mean to, honest. Please don't think I'm the shy & sensitive type, as I'm not, so feel free to disagree, I'm not bothered either way. I do, however, have my opinion, which, like all of you, I am entitled to. Firstly, I haven't had time to check the source yet & if it is the book, my apologies, although I believe there was an article in the mag too. In fairness Tony Macdonlad did both in any case. Taking the points at hand. 82 and all that. Watch good footage of LA & you can see Penhall does make contact with Carter. He also turned left on him earlier in the race. Don't think Carter would have fallen off on purpose, which only leaves one other possibility. At White City, Penhall took the p**s out of the paying public, pure & simple. Had it been Carter in the states, (or any other rider at all for that matter, the Yanks would have lynched him). I appreciate that other riders have done things that are similar, but at the time, speedway was big business & he was a huge draw. It was aired on WoS, prime sports viewing at the time & did the sport a huge dis-service. What got most peoples backs up was the fact that they had paid to see a proper race meeting, Penhall was supposed to the speedway knight in shining armour & he badly misjudged the British feeling towards speedway & the sport as a whole, which (whilst it had/has its issues) was & is largely "honest". He ruined that for many people by doing what he did so brazenly. The incidents with Wigg & Simmons were mentioned earlier & rightly so. There were fines & suspensions handed out at the time & rightly so. What sanctions did Penhall receive? Errr, none. There is then the issue of his messing Cradley about during 82, which if my understanding is clear started well before his actual retirement. Let's be clear about one thing, Bruce Penhall was interested in one thing. Bruce Penhall. Now Carter. Contrary to some comments on here that would suggest Carter is being defended or has been hard done by - not at all, at least not by me. I am certainly not defending him. He was a fine speedway rider, that's a fact. But what he did, regardless of the circumstances could never be condoned by anyone. Comparing him, however to the Paris terrorists is ridiculous. He was/is a murderer. These things are all facts & cannot be denied. Just facts. No insults, no opinion on what he did & why he did it. I have my view, but I see no reason to publish it for it isn't relevant, likewise Penhall's. So Penhall's comments. He is entitled to his view, of course. However, whilst Carter's crime cannot be condoned, I simply see no reason why Penhall should comment the way he did in print. It achieves nothing, serves no purpose (except to sell a book or magazine & secure Penhall a nice fee, I suspect-which of course makes it all OK). He has let himself down in my view, simply by being so vitriolic in a public domain & using his position in print to vent his hatred for Carter, for it cannot be described as anything else. Lovely. Bottom line is, Penhall hated Carter when they were racing & clearly still does. The words confirm it & he has simply used the platform to vent his spleen about someone he disliked. I think the term "cheap shot" was used earlier. Absolutely. There have been a few riders I have disliked over the 40 years I have been watching and/or been involved in speedway, but I don't feel the need to bad mouth them in public, especially after their demise. Poor taste from Penhall? Cowardly? Cheap shot? All of the above.

Well, it wasn't quite put like that, was it? I was no lover of Carter & would never defended what he did, but Bruce took advantage of his position to slate Carter mercilessly. I don't condone murder in any way shape or form (obviously), but Bruce was no saint, regardless of what anyone might say & I felt that he should have kept his comments to himself. I'm not saying the comments were "scandalous or unfounded" but regardless of Bruce's feelings, taking advantage of his position as a contributor to backtrack to say what he did wasn't appropriate. If I can find the article, I'll quote it. Don't get me wrong, I think what Carter did was abhorrent, but Penhall (if he's a great guy as everyone seems to think) shouldn't have used his position to make his point. Not that he hasn't done so plenty of times before. Just my opinion.