SPEEDY69

Have to grin at all the talk about loyalty. Rosco is only the team manager at Swindon and this decision is all about money, not loyalty. From a business perspective the moves are seen as the best ones for Swindon financially.

And that is absolutely right in my view - the decision to call of a meeting should be one for the referee, as it was at Belle Vue on Monday.

As i see it and said on the Coventry thread previously, there is no rule about calling off 48hrs beforehand. What the gospeed statement said to me was that if it's not called off with at least 48hrs notice, then Sky incur costs which in some way are recovered from gospeed/bspa. This is nothing to do with postponing meetings, which is in the hands of scb etc, as with any other meeting. As we all know cov vs poole, the track was absolutely fine at the start whereas the belle vue one was not. Completely different scenario. I'm always a bit suspicious off call-offs based on the oh so reliable weather forecasts!

Don't know abpout last night but was on a GM on Friday. The result was pretty much as expected - Coventry are top of the league for a reason and this is not their first away win. They have riders who do well at Wolves so no need for Wolves fans to be too despondent as others get beat by them as well. Let's hope the match report which said both Bees were moving at the start was not happening all evening - we know Hans likes a roller!

Now now, some will get upset if we go over that one again!

Shame it's 10 months late! (And no wasted journey for us this time either!)

Probably because the "flak" is from Coventry fans and he doesn't ride for them! Worrying for Bees fans because he didn't even look like he was trying beyond the first bend - that's a trait I really can't abide in any rider. If they try their best and get beat well never mind there's next time but not bothering deserves some action by the promotion.

The two usual suspects cost belle vue again on the road - how many more times?

Very interesting statement on Greg's website: www.greghancock.com

Just watched this. Utter nonsense all those saying Greg should get a bigger punishment than Nicki - he didn't endanger his life by wrestling with him! This sort of thing used to happen more often than now and given some of the idiot riding I've witnessed over the last few weeks may well increase again (Sundstrom, in the race off and final, Pawlicki and others). Pedersen knew he was there and could have passed Greg without squeezing him up but that's him and what so many riders dislike about him. I agree with an earlier poster, would be good advertising for future GPs to build interest.

Key point for me is would there be less protestation had Coventry won?

They are allowed to postpone a meeting within 48 hrs, it's just that Sky will want to recoup their expenses, which GSI/BSPA will have to stump up for - that's why they were keen for it to be on, money.

That's how it's always been - anyone remember the rain soaked British Final that Kenny Carter won? Majority of riders wanted it off but officials stood firm and Carter went and won it despite being seriously injured - and there weren't any serious accidents as far as I remember. As I said before it's the Ht 10 cut off that's caused all the mullarky and not the actual state of the track.

For me it confirms that the meeting could be postponed on the day but that there would be a financial penalty for GSI/BSPA - Sky did not force the meeting to go ahead, GSI/BSPA did.

Too true.

It's clear that the 48 hrs bit is all about money. Within 48hrs then Sky will incur expense todevote resource to cover the meeting, which wil be recovered from GSI/BSPA if meeting does not go ahead - hence the reason for it actually going ahead. However, in agreement with Orion, the track was actually fine at the start and as we all know, weather forecasting is an imprecise business so at that time it may well have stayed fine all night. The thing that sticks with me is the lack of integrity of the meeting steward in promising an inspection which he then failed to do and then the automatic calling off once Heat 10 was completed - this is nothing to do with the Sky money, unless they withold payment if an official result is not declared. Isn't there also no obligation to offer refunds to fans if it's cancelled after heat 10? Whatever, it was a right royal mess.

Peter Clarke I believe is a qualified ACU referee, so not a Sky employee. I wasn't there in person but that makes no difference to my view. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on the 'dangerous' point - wet and slimy but consistent is not dangerous to me and I have ridden in those conditions several times as well as witnessed other meetings like that. To be fair the track looked good at the start of the meeting but if it was not on TV would have been cancelled before Ht 10.

This is exactly what I said in an earlier post - the steward is pointless and I agree that the growing power of riders/officials to influence the ref is not doing the sport any good.

The rather obvious response to this is though, would Havelock had shown this integrity had the meeting scores been reversed?? I agree about the promised track inspection - the meeting steward is wholly to blame there. Holder losing control is a red herring, was just a grippy patch that Andersen hit earlier, it's the heat 10 cut off that needs removing and the scenes didn't show the sport as particulalry well run.

Completely agree. The track was not "dangerous" - blimey, speedway itself is actually really dangerous. It was just wet and 66 seconds for 4 laps is not bad - they didn't look in too much difficulty. Those conditions do make racing a little more tricky due to visibility but I believe it was a red herring for getting it cancelled before Ht 10 - do away with the "result stands" bit and let the refs decide as they have always done in the past. By the way, there was information yesterday from Sky to say they have no involvement in the decisions to postpone meetings and that those decisions fall squarely to the BSPA.

Really? Batchelor last week Porsing this week - I can only think of one occasion in the last 20 years when anyone I've worked with or known has had real poisoning. He may just have an upset tummy, which usually only lasts a day maximum. Who is ever going to question it though?

I may be on my own here but I don't think the track was dangerous in Ht 10. Holder lifted on the same patch that Andersen hit earlier in the meeting, after that he and Watt actually raced much harder than they needed to given there was no opposition. A really dangerous track is one which is very patchy - this was the same nearly all over so you know what to exepct when going into the bend and I've seen plenty of meetings continue in those conditions. The issue is really the Ht 10 cut-off. As has been said, the actions of the meeting steward were diabolical - we could all hear him respond in the affirmative when asked if he'd inspect the track before Ht10, which he didn't do. Also what role did they ref have here - surely they're in charge? If Ht10 went ahead then an attempt to run 11 to 15 should have been made. It's happened before when Swindon got the meeting called at Ht 10 against Belle Vue when conditions were not worsening because they were concerned they'd lose if it went the whole way - and who remembers the Belle Vue - Poole swimming festival a few years ago. In the end, I think the score was right because Poole had done better up to that point but I don't think the result should count until it's impossible for one team to be overtaken.

Seem to recall he's used that excuse more than once before. If anyone has ever had real food poisoning they would know you are nearly always doubled up in pain and cannot undertake normal activities, it can last for several days as well. I struggle to like him to be honest as I think he is only really interested in himself - can't forget the Belle Vue match a while back where the GP superstars pootled around at the back (Troy and Zagar) while everyone else raced properly.

Don't agree with this. The riders you mention were talented motorcyclists and their development did not depend upon anything from the authorities in the UK. There are lots of talented British riders who get as far as the top of the amateur scene but no further due to a combination of a lack of guidance/training, opportunities and sometimes funding but I stress this is not always the main factor. It is not for BSI to fix the issues in the UK but the BSPA. They currently block British riders from competing abroad e.g. SEC & Best Pairs and do little to provide international experience or competition for those making it as far as becoming league riders. I am involved in the amateur scene and they are year on year making it harder for amateur clubs to provide practice opportunities for hopefuls and under 15s due to insurance and permit restrictions as well as track hire becoming too expensive - without the amateur scene just how does a new rider take their first steps into the sport? In Poland they have unlimited practising provided at tracks and actually support upcoming riders, Denmark have a racing infrastructure from small cc bikes upwards.

In pedantic corner, I think the whole name is a proper noun. It is correct that only the first letter is a capital letter.