Warsaw Gp Saturday 18th April

[bigcatdiary]

Well said. That is pretty much the point

Anyone who does not agree with Oldace is, in his words "a moron" but then reality is that, as you say the track was not perfectly anything, at least that's what a lot of the "morons" think. The mere fact that even before the riders meeting it was said that after heat 12 there would be some extended track maintenance, is in itself evidence that the track was not perfectly adequate, otherwise they would not be doing it when the meeting was already running 2 hours late.

The question of whether the extended track maintenance would have returned the track to a decent standard suitable for the occasion is something will shall now never know. However, Paul Burbidge makes an interesting point in SS when he said that there seems to be a common denominator in temporary tracks that don't come up to scratch, and that Is excessive moisture. If that was the case on Saturday it difficult to see how the track werecould have been significantly improved as the evening got colder. However that is just speculation.

Speedwáy Star has just arrived and I have to say that I think t he article by Peter Oakes (presumably another"moron" on Oldace line of thought) is excellent. Peter Oakes in my view draws the right balance between bluntly saying what needs to be said without mincing his words but at the same time without going OTT as Oldace and a few others seem intent on doing.

There were a few interesting quotes from riders in SS:-

Chris Harris: Everyonewas in agreement that the track wasn't raceable and for safety reasons the right call was made. Everybody could see that the track wasn't great . We didn't want anyone seriously hurt.

Matej Zagar: I even refused to practice. I knew the track wasn't ideal ......I did my best to take points from 3 heats. But rider safety comes first. I totally agree with this. We made a common decision. Everybody has there own opinion but common sense won.

NKI . We ne ed to look at safety before anything else. It would have been the wrong decision to continue because people were falling off by them selves. When it's like that I tells you everything about the conditions. I think it was the right decision to call it off, but it's really disappointing

Jason Doyle: The track was very dangerous for myself........the right decision was made in the end. Something went wrong with the track and it was like walking on cushions......It wasn't that we didn't want to ride, it was just how dangerous the track was.

Nicki Pedersen : The surface was unstable. It was very inconsistent and just moved around all the time when they did the preparation and grading.

I put the riders quotes out for what they are worth, to be put in the melting pot of opinion. What is not in dispute is that the track had been giving problems from the first practice session. Maybe in theory the track could have been improved after maintenance and maybe the combined hassle of the practice sessions, the starting gate, and Batch and Holders crashes were the last straw. I don't know. I tend to agree with Peter Oakes when he says that whether the full story of what went wrong will ever come out is hard to say at this juncture. What is clear though is that the bulk of the eveidence suggests that the track was less than "perfectly adequate" as Oldace would have as believe.

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

 

This shambles was predominantly down to the crap track, but whether Olsen manages to sidestep responsibility remains to be seen.

[Starman2006]

Get Cardiff right? Not a chance. It's always been crap, as far as 'Speedway Racing' is concerned, no matter how often we try to delude ourselves that 'they really got the track right this year' and that it's the 'jewel in the Grand Prix crown'. I gave it the benefit of the doubt for the first ten years, but no more. And whilst I have travelled abroad to several Grands Prix, I wouldn't dream of going across the road to any of the rounds on temporary tracks.

Its time mate, you cannot lay a temperary track anywhere in 3 days and expect it to hold up, it just won't happen, simple as that. They actually LAY the track and give it a week to bed in, providing the shale is not soaked you will see a far better track. once its laid graded and rolled leave it to bed in. Then, you can lightly spike it lightly water it, then roll and roll again, from outside to inside. but as i said, unless you get decent shale you are wasting your time. Edinburgh red shale is by far the best.

Have been at Cardiff for years.

 

Niamh

Yep fair point, one behind the other. And so there should be. But, they need testing, and testing again.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Starman2006

[orion]

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

 

This shambles was predominantly down to the crap track, but whether Olsen manages to sidestep responsibility remains to be seen.

Must have missed it but did Lawrence keep Batch in the race where he knock a rider off . also did he let a result stand when quite clearly the tapes went up quicker on one side before asking for a re run when the tapes done the same a couple of races later .

[racers and royals]

Its time mate, you cannot lay a temperary track anywhere in 3 days and expect it to hold up, it just won't happen, simple as that. They actually LAY the track and give it a week to bed in, providing the shale is not soaked you will see a far better track.

Yep fair point, one behind the other. And so there should be. But, they need testing, and testing again.

You are so right-how many times have we seen new permanent tracks having problems in their opening meetings. Maybe they might just have a chance if no practice is involved-however that would then bring up the question-how do we know the track is ok ??

[Starman2006]

 

http://speedwayupdates.proboards.com/thread/12801/belle-vue-poole-2013-30pm

 

Wasn't dangerous that night though was it Starry?

Yep that was dangerous, and un-ridable due to the rain. That was the right decision.

You are so right-how many times have we seen new permanent tracks having problems in their opening meetings. Maybe they might just have a chance if no practice is involved-however that would then bring up the question-how do we know the track is ok ??

Thats a fair point. You can have as much practice as you like on a conventional track, but a temperary track is going to cut up. But, if the track is given time to bed in ie a week, you are going to minimise the risk. The problem you have is practice is ALWAYS on a friday the day before, so it gives the curators no time to pull the track back and let it sit. IF, you had practice on the Thursday, that would give it a little more time, but thats just not practical.

But they should still lightly blade grade spike water and roll and roll on the day.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Starman2006

[Grand Central]

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

 

Actually Peter Oakes only offers a defence of Jim Lawrence on the subject of testing the starting gate.

He passes no comment at all on the other aspects of his performance.

 

Others, elsewhere in the magazine, seemed to wish to give the man a clean bill of health.

[E I Addio]

Like a lot on here you slated Jim Lawrence for his handling of the meeting yet it appears he did very little wrong in the great scheme of things, Oakes did a good job of explaining how he wasn't to blame.

This shambles was predominantly down to the crap track, but whether Olsen manages to sidestep responsibility remains to be seen.

Yes I was critical of Lawrence, and I also said that I was biased because I never thought much of him in the past, which inevitably colours ones judgment.

 

Speedwáy Star did give a good explanation of events and the problems Lawrence had to deal with, even down to being paranoid that the red lights might fail if he needed them. The Star also gave an informative explanation of how he came to his decisions regarding the tapes and Doyles exclusion. However the Star did say in relation to the the tapes " Lawrence's view of this incident is open to interpretation" and in relation to Doyles exclusion "In such unusual circumstances, maybe riders should have been given a second chance". So in the light of what SS has said about the pressure he was under coupled with the comments half questioning his decisions I'd have to say I still don't think he was a paragon of virtue but not as bad as I thought before reading the SS article and I would now agree with you that in the grand scheme of things he was at worst only a minor player in the tragedy.

 

We are in agreement about the track though, even more so since theSS has now outlined the problems from the start of practice and Olsen is clearly at the front of the firing line, but even then I wonder if their were others factors behind the scenes connected with the time available and maybe other things that have yet to come out. As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

[BWitcher]

I couldn't understand that nothing was done to the track whilst discussions were taking place. A light blade, and tyre packing, together with a light watering, could have retrieved something to allow them to finish the meeting. The issue of the gates could have been forced on the riders as it was plain to see, except Doyle, that the gates off the green light were relatively decent and even.

 

See HenryW's post.

 

Work was done to the track, not that the riders even took a look.

I'm not rubbishing Cardiff just now.... I've always had my misgivings! I've always loved the day out, but I think we're all guilty of getting so wrapped up in the sense of occasion that we lose sight of the fact that the actual racing is never much better than very ordinary, at best. I'll never go again.

 

Which places you very much in the minority..

 

Events such as Cardiff destroy the myth that it is the 'racing' that brings the fans in.

[Barrycuda]

Post removed

Edited June 6, 2015 by Barrycuda

[BWitcher]

Yep that was dangerous, and un-ridable due to the rain. That was the right decision.

 

It hasn't dawned on you how ridiculous this comment is?

[Humphrey Appleby]

Tony Hoare calls into question the lack of a response by FIM and BSI. Mr Hoare is it possible that neither party made a statement regarding the meeting to the 53000 because it had idiot all to do with them?

Of course BSI are responsible. They are the series organisers, they choose the local organisers (the PZM in this case) and make stipulations as to who prepares the track etc... The PZM may technically be responsible for the event, but if you can insist that a particular company prepares the track, can you not insist on contingency plans and ensure they're in place?

 

The FIM is really only responsible for the officials with respect to the actual event, but after one fiasco after the next, they must surely question whether the company they've leased the rights to is up to the job?

As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

 

Maybe that is indeed the issue.

 

I see the Star repeated the story about the shale coming from a Derbyshire quarry and being shipped through King's Lynn and Gdansk, despite the reported transport ship apparently not calling at those ports in the past weeks. Of course, the ship's name may have been misreported, and the shale may have been delivered some weeks previously.

 

However, is it possible something went wrong in the shipment or storage and a local source had to be hastily found - thus necessitating a delayed start to work on the track?

[bigcatdiary]

Yes I was critical of Lawrence, and I also said that I was biased because I never thought much of him in the past, which inevitably colours ones judgment.

 

Speedwáy Star did give a good explanation of events and the problems Lawrence had to deal with, even down to being paranoid that the red lights might fail if he needed them. The Star also gave an informative explanation of how he came to his decisions regarding the tapes and Doyles exclusion. However the Star did say in relation to the the tapes " Lawrence's view of this incident is open to interpretation" and in relation to Doyles exclusion "In such unusual circumstances, maybe riders should have been given a second chance". So in the light of what SS has said about the pressure he was under coupled with the comments half questioning his decisions I'd have to say I still don't think he was a paragon of virtue but not as bad as I thought before reading the SS article and I would now agree with you that in the grand scheme of things he was at worst only a minor player in the tragedy.

 

We are in agreement about the track though, even more so since theSS has now outlined the problems from the start of practice and Olsen is clearly at the front of the firing line, but even then I wonder if their were others factors behind the scenes connected with the time available and maybe other things that have yet to come out. As I said before, I am intrigued by Paul Burbidges comments about lessons not being learned regarding excessive moisture in the temporary tracks at cold damp meetings. We shall have to see if the full truth ever comes out.

 

 

 

I can tell you that Jim Lawrence,s view of the start line was as expected (above and looking down) so he wouldn't have seen the tapes going up unevenly, his replay view from another angle was also high looking down and didn't give a clear front view that most fans got.(why he only got that view I don't know)

 

Doyle was excluded because of instructions given on green light starting at the riders briefing by Steele and Morris and on the fact he made a big jump at the gate rather than a small one, to be fair I didn't have a problem with Doyle,s exclusion he shouldn't have moved until the light went out and he clearly did, no one else had any problems and in fact the rest of the GL starts went without incident.

FIM rules allow for a flag start in the event of a starting gate & GL failure so it could have been worse.

Edited April 24, 2015 by bigcatdiary

[Blazeaway]

 

It hasn't dawned on you how ridiculous this comment is?

 

Or the rest of his 12,315 posts.

[bigcatdiary]

Must have missed it but did Lawrence keep Batch in the race where he knock a rider off . also did he let a result stand when quite clearly the tapes went up quicker on one side before asking for a re run when the tapes done the same a couple of races later .

 

Both the incident where Batchelor knocks off Pedersen and the tapes going up unevenly are all covered in this weeks star but as others have said not necessarily by Oakes.

[oldace]

 

http://speedwayupdates.proboards.com/thread/12801/belle-vue-poole-2013-30pm

 

Wasn't dangerous that night though was it Starry?

 

 

Yep that was dangerous, and un-ridable due to the rain. That was the right decision.

 

 

 

What rain?

 

The track was in the same condition at heat 10 as it was for heat 11 and yet it was safe for heat 10 but suddenly unsafe for heat 11. It didn't rain in the slightest.

 

The only thing that changed between those heat was a result could be declared, that result was by the 7 Poole needed and no refunds need be given.

 

Then along comes Tony Steele plumbing new depths of cobblers with the "moisture coming out of the track"

 

Rest assured, 100% dangerous or not that match was always finished between heat 10 and 15 at whatever point Poole were 7 up.

 

It is nice though that as a Poole fan you recognize that there was massive cheating by Poole and their cohorts to get them into the play off, as you say the match really should have been off and with it Pooles chance of a play off place. Of course they then went on to field a (retrospectively I grant you) totally ineligible rider so all in all a pretty hollow victory

[foreverblue]

Harris states the track was unraceable so was it worse than when he won the cardiff gp because the track that night looked far worse to me unless we have moved on and what used to be acceptable isnt anymore.

[Grand Central]

Harris states the track was unraceable so was it worse than when he won the cardiff gp because the track that night looked far worse to me unless we have moved on and what used to be acceptable isnt anymore.

 

 

Let's not kid ourselves, though.

Had Chris Harris been given the option of taking the result at Heat 12 in Cardiff 2007 he would no doubt have taken it.

 

After all, him and NP were on 7 points, in joint second place, behind the unbeaten Hans Andersen at the interval stage.

So he would have been in a podium position.

Just like in Warsaw

 

Of course that would have meant that he would have been denied the greatest moment of his career.

And we would have been denied the experience of Cardiff's best ever final.

And all the emotions that elicited.

 

Plus ... no one at all would now be going to South Wales on July 4 this year, either.

 

So who knows what would have happened on Saturday had we got through to Heat 23.

 

.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Grand Central

[arthur cross]

Top marks to Paul Burbidge's effort to report on the repeated "excessive moisture" problems of the dodgier temporary tracks over the SGP years, even if plenty of major football stadia groundsmen could have said much the same as far back as 20 years ago or longer !!

 

Once it became more fashionable for new sports stadiums (or revamps of existing venues) to wrap their seating round the whole playing arena (instead of having four separate stands along each side/end with relatively open corners), the groundsmen soon discovered how much tougher it was to keep the more sheltered parts of their pitch in good condition because it was now so much harder for the breezy and sunlight aspects of their pitch maintenance to help out with the temperature aspect of it.

 

It's why many stadiums built from the 1990's onwards have either a clear panel built into the southern roof of their stands (to refract more sunlight onto the pitch) or a couple of ground-level large ventilation shafts that double-up as emergency exits for on-the-pitch fans at rock concerts ... for example, Sunderland's Stadium of Light which opened in 1997 has both those features (clear southern roof plus south-west & north-west shafts) which is why it's allowed a 55,000 capacity for rock gigs despite the stage reducing its seating capacity from 48,000 to only 40,000.

 

But as soon as you try to put a temporary speedway track into a modern football or rugby stadium you're automatically putting one of sport's most weather-dependent playing surfaces into one of sport's most climate-regulated locations ... that's ok providing the temporary track is in ideal condition as it's installed but, as Gelsenkirchen proved (and Cardiff 2013 very narrowly avoided), a damp/dodgy track has almost no chance of being salvaged given the stadium architecture into which it's been plonked !!

 

Next time Tottenham are at home you'll see how hard they find it to maintain any grass on their pitch along its whole southern goal-line (left end as the tv-coverage shows it) ever since White Hart Lane became all-seater and fully-enclosed because that area misses any sunlight ... if they can't do any better with all-year-round access to that area of their pitch, it's no wonder any temporary speedway track is going to struggle to bed-in properly in just a few days !!

 

If Ole Olsen or BSI or anyone else involved in SGP meetings is always going to ignore this crucial aspect of the pitch-level climate of most major stadiums, then you're inevitably going to get more fiascos in the future to add to Gelsenkirchen, Warsaw, etc.

[Rico]

 

See HenryW's post.

 

Work was done to the track, not that the riders even took a look.

 

 

Just a little clarification on this BW.

 

Yes, they did bring out the equipment stated, however the remedial work only went on for 10/15 minutes - I guess the expected interval length after heat 12. Given there was a delay of around an hour at this point it was somewhat disappointing that the work wasn't carried on for a longer period in order to attempt to improve the state of the track.

 

None of the riders then came back out to check the state of the track after the limited remedial work.

 

Rico

[New Science]

Just to be safe, for certain.

Let's stop altogether.

Shut the whole sport down as it far, far too dangerous.

 

Then have a laugh at how easy those 18 would find a real job that paid them half as well.

 

.

I take it you don't see a need for an inquiry then ?