False dawn

No. Don't feel hard done by. For my part, I just want clarity. If something is done that is clearly going to cause controversy, is it not simpler to communicate that it is happening, why it is happening and what rules are in place to cover the situation? Either that, or you have to accept the conspiracy theories, speculation and general anger from the paying public (of which I was one).

I agree. I think Jason was lucky since the ref had already decided it was an unsatisfactory start. Two things.... 1. Can anyone see why it was an unsatisfactory start? Hans came off gate 1 well, but this was made to look good by Jason coming out of that graveyard called gate 2 (stats available). 2. If it was an unsatisfactory start, why was no one warned?

I hope no one saw my analysis as a justification for moving to 6 man teams. If nothing else changes I think the percentage of guests and RR used would remain about the same meaning we would rhen move, effectively, to 5 man teams. Averages are, as I alluded to, a course measure. Can a rider with a 4 point average sometimes score 8 or 0? Well of course he can. But measure his performance over 10 matches or move and you would ecpect him to score about 4. This is the same. If there 2 riders "missing" on average per meeting do we expect a guest or rider replacement every time we turn up? Well there are more scientific answers to that question other than straight averages. But what is your experience? 19 meetings out 95 where both teams were fully manned with their own riders. Surely the most damning statistic of all. We all moan, yes. But we're almost conditioned to expecting the odd guest/RR or 2. These "facilities" should be the exception, not the norm. We have a rider injured or riding in the U21s tobnight, well okay. We have multiple riders riding for someone else. Excuse me, that cannot be right.

Surely the other 13 riders will have something to say about the final result?

No that's BWD on the golf course in North Dakota

Ooo I'm not sure about that. Let me think about it? Alright, I'll get my coat.

You choosed wrong, you loose (like what I would of done)

Trust me, riders do not care about trophies. Wining a GP has a massive effect on your chance of making next year's series, either through the points you've scored or increasing your chance of a wild card. In addition there's the sponsorship opportunities. And there's your place in history. When there have been 8 different winners in 9 rounds, it no small thing to win a round. Trophies just gather dust.

No, not Led Zeppelin, I'm talking about telling us fans what the flying figs is going on. A few examples.... 1. Meltdown Thursday I accept that a club can wash it's dirty laundry in private. But if I was a KL fan I think I would be entitled to some explnation as to what took place and why the promotion took the action it did. But hey ho, maybe I'm expecting too much. As a fan (KL or otherwise) I think an official statement from the "Authoriries" regarding Chris Holder's punishment would have been appropriate. I can't remember where I heard he was suspended for 28 days. And we all thought that was it didn't we? Oh no, suspended means put on ice pending further investigations, apparently. And so, later, he gets a 9 month ban. I'll read the official statement, thinks I. No you won't. The only "official" statement I've found was on the speedwaygp site. A news report. I seen more from Chris on Twitter than from the BSPA. 2. The Threes (The Fours without Jack) The club were forthcoming with a statement about the agreement that was, "For the good of all parties". We were left to infer what this meant. But that's their business right? Well apparently not. The authorities have taken a dim view (apparently) and suspended Ged's promotional ticket. Suspended, mind you. There's that word again. And where do we get notification of this? On the Peterborough website. No official statement. No indication how long the suspension is for or if further sanctions are to expected. 3. Chris Harris at the Masters The ACU granted Chris a Masters wildcard some time back. Oh, he didn't qualify, didn't you know? Then how would you? The tenuous link between grasstrack's only event that is recognised by the FIM and counts towards competitors being able to take part in next year's longtrack championship is a well known fact, crystal clear to all speedway fans affected by a fixture clash. Yeh, right. It beggers belief that the authorities doin't feel it necessary to explain. Or was this so indefencible? I choose only these three examples because most of you will be aware of them. Feel free to add your own (or shoot me down in flames)

Now you all know I'm a nerd. But my interest here goes beyond simple statistics. Does anyone have the race times for last night's GP?

See what I mean?

Sinister? Where no information is forthcoming, can you blame anyone for drawing their own conclusions? The Chris Harris situation is a little complex in that the Longtrack championship is involved. Not something the average speedway fan would relate to, especially when it comes to participation in a domestic grasstrack event. A three line explanation and the reason a rider replacement facility was granted before today's meeting would have defused any speculation. Given the other recent absence, I would have thought Peterborough would be quick to keep fans in the loop.

One man's dangerous is another man's track record (almost) apparently.You ride a bike, a very powerful (tuned) bike, set up for a badger's arse on a grippy track and it'll frighten the life out of you.

Hey, don't hold me responsible for the Panthers lack of communication or Worky's for that matter. I'm a Bees fan and should therefore be treated with some sympathy. Seriously, my point was that many clubs don't communicate well with their fans. There is no excuse with the availability of their websites, not to mention FB, Twitter or a bloody pigeon if you like. I'm fed up with being taken for granted. Team changes, absences due to injury, or riders riding in another country are all of interest and could be properly communicated in a timely fashion. Why is silence seen as being justified?

Getting the facts straight by reading the Peterborough / ACU / SCB / BSPA website you mean? Oh, that didn't work. Or is the average fan supposed know the rules governing such cases?

But for the only proper explanation to be given at the meeting today at Peterborough over the tannoy in a noisy stadium is less than ideal. I thought that was what the club website was for, before the meeting.Oh, and the absence of 2 Workington riders due to injury, albeit from a meeting held last night, might have been nice to know about before the meeting.

Was it Kelvin in commentary that said something to the effect, "Dry, wet, grippy, dusty, you've got to ride them all"?

Don't kill the messenger....It was announced at Peterborough today that Chris was forced to ride in the Masters by the ACU in order to qualify to be a long track rider next year. I have a vague recollection about long trackers having to take part in a minimum number of international events and the Masters counts. Especially the foot stamping when he was beaten into 3rd place in heat 15.

Deserving? Worthy? Anymore words? I guess we have to define what being World Champion really means. Here's one definition to get you going... The World Champion is the rider that wins the World Championship. And for completeness.... The World Champion is not the rider (necessarily) that most deserves it or is the most worthy or anything else actually.

Interesting. Maybe the question should be "Was the system of determining the World Champion, worthy?". Just to complicate the discussion, there was a speedway Hall of Fame (not the several goes we've had on here but one announced by Briggo, I think) some years ago. It automatically contained all the previous World Champions, which, at the time I thought made it a bit pointless. To be a "worthy" enshrinee (what the US call their NFL Hall of Famers) surely you would have to be more worthy than simply winning the World Championship. Indeed there is a case for a handful of riders who never won the Championship.

Now you're into semantics. You must, to the satisfaction of the majority at least, define worthy. Just to illustrate the difficulty..., There are many that say that Mr Doyle would have made a worthy champion last year. Well maybe. But had the WC been held in Slovenia, Poland, Denmark, Britain or Sweden as a one off final instead of the GPs held on those dates, then the World Champ would have been Peter Kilderman or Tai Woffinden or Magic Janowski or Antonio Lindback or Greg Hancock. Would they have not been worthy champions? So maybe a worthy GP champion is the one that wins the most GPs. But then what about Mark Loram? (BTW that makes Magic the most worthy champion so far this year). Or scores the most points? Listen to the Greg Hancock critics on that score. One man's worthy is another man's "I can't stand the sight of him". Fans have been having this debate since the year dot. Fun isn't it?

No, it's not that old chestnut about reducing teams to 6 riders. It's more by way of an analysis of what's happened this year. Now let me say straight away that this is not an exhaustive analysis, rather it's a breakdown of 95 meeting results that I had "readily to hand". To date there have been about 270 league meetings (Premiership and Championship) so my sample is significant, representing as it does, about a third of the total. My interest is in the number and frequency of the use of guests and rider replacement. Of the 95 meetings. 19 had no guests or rider replacement. Not a brilliant statistic as this means that 80% of all meetings had at least one guest or RR. At the other end of the scale there were 2 meetings when there were a total of 7 riders missing (1 with 5 guests and 2 RRs and 1 with 6 guests and 1 RR). I hope these represent a record and not one to be repeated or beaten. I hesitate to quote averages but I do believe they indicate something. A total of 121 guests were used or 1.27, on average, per meeting. Rider replacement was used on 73 occasions or 0.77, on average, per meeting. Or to put it another way, on average, there were just over 2 riders missing or 1 per team for every meeting. Therefore, in a way, we already have 6 man teams.

I guess the sponsorship income eases the pain.

I'm still slightly confused. An amateur event, for which Chris didn't qualify (he's been given a wildcard) takes priority over a professional event at Peterborough? Hang on, what am I saying???

Much as I support grasstrack, why are Peterborough allowed any sort of facility for Chris Harris's absence, be a guest or rider replacement?