Warsaw Gp Saturday 18th April

[BWitcher]

Do you have proof of that BW?

 

In a way yes.

 

Polish League Play off Final 2nd Leg. Beautiful day. Sell out crowd. Both teams in pits raring to go.

 

Wait! Torun's owner (the man behind OneSport) is refusing to let his team ride as Gollob is injured. He wants the meeting postponed and re-arranged when Gollob is fit!

 

So he pulls his team completely out of the meeting, leaving a stadium full of unhappy people, simply because he couldn't get his own way.

Its been a while since this statement was made but in the passing 3 weeks the indefensible has been tried to be defended by all parties involved and it looks very much like if we can get to Tampere then no heads will roll and it will be business as usual

 

If lasts nights meeting hasn't highlighted where the true blame lies for the Warsaw debacle then I'm afraid nothing will.

[PHILIPRISING]

HAVE been told today that the material used for the Warsaw track was transported from the quarry in King's Lynn via Gdansk in February and kept in storage in Poland before being laid at the track on the Monday/Tuesday prior to the event ... which is the usual timescale.

 

Also that the malfunctioning starting gate remains a mystery. Was tested several times on the day before the meeting and has since been taken apart and thoroughly checked with no apparent faults. The lack of a second gate, which was the responsibility of the organisers (PZM) and not enforced by the FIM has been noted.

 

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

[oldace]

HAVE been told today that the material used for the Warsaw track was transported from the quarry in King's Lynn via Gdansk in February and kept in storage in Poland before being laid at the track on the Monday/Tuesday prior to the event ... which is the usual timescale.

 

Also that the malfunctioning starting gate remains a mystery. Was tested several times on the day before the meeting and has since been taken apart and thoroughly checked with no apparent faults. The lack of a second gate, which was the responsibility of the organisers (PZM) and not enforced by the FIM has been noted.

 

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

 

 

It was apparent to some of us from the outset Phil

 

It would be interesting to hear from the likes of Nicki Pedersen why they deemed Warsaw unfit to ride on yet found no fault in the ploughed field at Esbjerg

Edited May 11, 2015 by Oldace

[BWitcher]

 

 

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

 

The truth is of course now beginning to surface.

 

The events in the Pairs merely highlighted it even more so.

 

The riders should hang their heads in shame.. it does make me wonder if any of them had anything to .. ahem.. 'gain' from this.

[Grand Central]

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

As Cilla would say

'Surprise, surprise!'

 

Sometimes it really does need an extensive enquiry.

Across many countries, taking written and verbal evidence, and costing a pretty penny.

Looked over by the finest minds in the land.

 

Just to arrive at the patently, bloody obvious.

 

Well done to all concerned.

.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Grand Central

[SCB]

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

Well the "arm chair experts" pretty much all called that one 3 weeks ago!

 

 

thinking about officialdom were never going to blame themselves were they? So it has to be the riders!

Edited May 11, 2015 by SCB

[PHILIPRISING]

DON'T think it is a case of blaming the riders. General consensus amongst the various parties involved is that a whole series of factors, none of which should have happened, conspired to bring the matter to a head after Heat 12.

 

Lots of ifs and buts of course ... and the riders certainly had legitimate complaints about the condition of the track (although not as bad as they perhaps made out), the starting procedures, etc. If there had just been one problem the meeting would most likely have run its course but it was a succession of mishaps, ultimately the starting gate, that brought the house tumbling down.

 

While green light starts are the defined alternative, as one rider pointed out it requires a very different technique to what they are used to. Looking back at TV replays Jason Doyle, who was excluded of course, can be seen looking to his side as he would normally do, then realising that he had to look at the green light ahead of him, probably panicked and let the clutch go.

 

Serious consideration is once more being given to transponders but, again, the riders would need to have to adjust their starting techniques for just one meeting at a time, and the most important one at that, so perhaps not quite as straightforward as we think.

[Sotonian]

The opportunity should be grasped to implement green light starts and transponders asap. Starting gates and tapes are an aspect of the sport that makes it look too last century.

[Humphrey Appleby]

Serious consideration is once more being given to transponders but, again, the riders would need to have to adjust their starting techniques for just one meeting at a time, and the most important one at that, so perhaps not quite as straightforward as we think.

 

Why just do it for the GPs? Transponder systems are not particularly expensive and available off the shelf, and would probably work out cheaper than bespoke starting gates over time. It therefore wouldn't be impractical to do away with starting gates at all meetings.

 

Riders would soon adjust. I remember all the fuss about the tape touching rules in the 80s, but most riders got the hang of it quite quickly.

[theflyingkiwi]

The issue of the starting gate is laughable. Enough riders would have gone off 15m in their time and these are meant to be the 15 best riders in the world surely they can adjust? . It took away the advantage at the tapes and that for some was enough to get the meeting called off.

[Grand Central]

Just for the purposes of balance.

 

I do think the riders are to blame.

 

We shall see in the developing future whether the resistance of others to that notion ends up solving problems.

Or just creating bigger ones.

[HenryW]

All the various parties involved (FIM, PZM, BSI, Ole Olsen) are still providing answers to the underlying questions but it is becoming more apparent that the condition of the track certainly should not have caused the meeting to be abandoned when it was.

If the track condition should not have caused the abandonment then the responsibility for it surely lies squarely on the shoulders of Jim Lawrence, Tony Steele and Andrzej Grodzki as they are the ones that decided it was unfit to continue.

Edited May 11, 2015 by HenryW

[baldinhio]

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree?

BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify?

You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough?

If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?

[iris123]

If the track condition should not have caused the abandonment then the responsibility for it surely lies squarely on the shoulders of Jim Lawrence, Tony Steele and Andrzej Grodzki as they are the ones that decided it was unfit to continue.

Which is pretty much what was said here within hours and without the need for a jolly in Geneva or a meeting with any officials on or off duty.............

[baldinhio]

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree?

BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify?

You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough?

If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?

[Trees]

The riders had all got used to the green light starts surely?

Are you sure it wasn't the track, heat 8 it really starts to show up as rutty and dangerous. The riders were all riding gingerly through the bends trying to miss the ruts, they couldn't race properly. Troy's second fall was too far for some I think.

[oldace]

The riders had all got used to the green light starts surely?

Are you sure it wasn't the track, heat 8 it really starts to show up as rutty and dangerous. The riders were all riding gingerly through the bends trying to miss the ruts, they couldn't race properly. Troy's second fall was too far for some I think.

 

None so blind as though that cannot see, very true in your case

 

And why were they happy to race a Mickey Mouse challenge on Saturday on a far more rutted track?

Edited May 11, 2015 by Oldace

[The White Knight]

I CAN say with absolute certainty that the SGP riders are very happy with the manner in which the series is run and organised by BSI staff.

There is a huge volume of work that takes place behind the scenes, much of which makes the life of the riders far easier than it otherwise would be. They fully appreciate the level of professionalism that goes into staging these events.

I have been attending speedway meetings for over 50 years, including just about every World Final since 1961, and it is chalk and cheese these days.

And I don’t know of any rider who doesn’t relish riding in the big venues.

The issue they have is when tracks, temporary or otherwise, are not up to scratch and they are quite justified in asking for the proper stage on which to strut their stuff.

And, of course, sub-standard tracks are not just in the SGP domain (Rye House yesterday, Poole this season according to their own Chris Holder)

And this is the key issue. Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach. The problems arise with the work that they ‘contract out’ which, of course, happens to be the most important component of the event.

Imagine hiring a builder to construct a drive at your house and he sub-contracts the work out which proves to be inferior. The sub-contractors are at fault but, of course, the contractor is responsible.

Also, many on here do not seem to appreciate that responsibility for much of what goes on at a SGP remains in the province of the FIM though their appointed Jury President, referee and FMNR representative and is not within the authority of BSI or any other of the various organisers throughout staging the season.

i) Well they are hardly likely to say anything else are they? You don't bite the hand that feeds you. :nono:

 

ii) Yeah right!!! That is self evident. :rolleyes:

[Trees]

None so blind as though that cannot see, very true in your case

 

And why were they happy to race a Mickey Mouse challenge on Saturday on a far more rutted track?

Perhaps u r the blind one .....

[PHILIPRISING]

 

Why just do it for the GPs? Transponder systems are not particularly expensive and available off the shelf, and would probably work out cheaper than bespoke starting gates over time. It therefore wouldn't be impractical to do away with starting gates at all meetings.

 

Riders would soon adjust. I remember all the fuss about the tape touching rules in the 80s, but most riders got the hang of it quite quickly.

DON'T think cost of transponders is an issue as far as GPs are concerned but certainly would be across domestic speedway. I'm no expert (perhaps you are) but who pays for the people to operate them? And as I say, riders not convinced that it would be right just to have them at GPs when they would be required to change their starting rituals of a lifetime.

 

Whilst the riders may be happy with the BSI's role in raising the profile of GP speedway I believe they are less than happy with the financial reward. BSI's last published accounts showed a net profit in excess of £2m after allowing for the deduction of staff and directors salaries. For someone with the time to act collectively for the riders there is perhaps a fairer share of the spoils to be distributed. Do you agree?

BSI are the main "Contractor" and as such they in my opinion liable. From your statement you appear to somewhat reluctantly accept this point. Can you please clarify?

You state, "Everything BSI handle and control themselves is almost invariably beyond reproach". I beg to differ. As one of the unfortunate people who paid to travel to Poland, my hand written letter received a non personal standard email response referencing PZM as liable. In your opinion is that good enough?

If the BSI have issues with the quality of the officials or control of the FIM they could consider breaking away and installing their own panel(s). Would you support such a move if it improved the quality of the panel(s)?

 

IT is the FIM who determine prize money but only this week all the permanent SGP riders received a fairly substantial 'bonus' payment from BSI. Of course everyone would like to see the riders earn more but right from the outset of the involvement of BSI, initially through John Postlethwaite, he said that he would provide the TV coverage on which they could build sponsorship deals which would probably not otherwise be available. Works for some, maybe not all.

 

BSI liable for what? Clearly the PZM were the organisers of the Warsaw event and it is they that are liable for any refunds, etc. BSI/IMG's lawyers would obviously not want them admitting liability for something which they consider they are not liable for.

 

Whether or not I would support a breakaway from the FIM is immaterial but it just wouldn't work unless all other forms of speedway did the same and that is never going to happen.