Coventry V Poole 1/6/15

[SCB]

At first I didn't agree with re-running it but if it's decided the track wasn't fit to run heats 9 and 10 then yes, it should be re-run as that's what the rules say.

[BWitcher]

I repeat my post from the Go Speed thread (I hadn't realised the difference):

 

I have some sympathy with Horton having missed out on a big payday that undoubtedly was built into this season's business plan. I also think its right to issue a reply to the GSI statement and request an enquiry into that aspect of 'who calls the shots on Sky meetings?'

 

However if they do get a meeting with BSPA/SCB and 'all concerned' and they do produce all the relevant statements of fact, how are they going to explain away both Horton and Havelock stating on TV, Podcast and in print that there was absolutely no fault on the part of Poole!! So any attempt to deduct Poole's points and restage the meeting should rightly be ignored.

 

Maybe if Mick/Havvy ask Matt/Middlo nicely, both clubs can stage a home leg of a Challenge meeting for the 2015 version of the 'Hokey Cokey Cup' , previously competed for by the Bees and Panthers some years ago?!

 

Promote it as a real grudge match - throw in some mud-wrestling for the Brandon leg - watch the crowds flood in @ a tenner per head - everyone's a winner!!

 

The decision to re-run a meeting has nothing to do with whether or not it was Pooles fault, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

An excellent point. I don't believe in changing results/declaring meetings void etc off the track. Whatever the rights or wrongs bikes went round the track so the result should stand.

 

I do believe Coventry are right to ask for an enquiry into the event, 48 hours before the event (who and how did Go Speed attempt to contact, and the conduct of certain officials at and during the meeting.

 

This should be done as a matter of urgency not just for Coventry but for the whole sport. Certain aspects have left a very nasty taste and have done Speedway no good at all. At the very least a call for an enquiry should focus all promoters minds towards avoiding such issues in the future.

 

As above, not an excellent point at all.

 

A completely irrelevant point.

 

If after an investigation it is deemed that heat 9 or 10 should not have been run then quite simply the match has to be restaged as per the rules.

 

If it deems that it was the right decision to run those heats, then the pts stay as they are.

[foreverblue]

 

The decision to re-run a meeting has nothing to do with whether or not it was Pooles fault, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

 

As above, not an excellent point at all.

 

A completely irrelevant point.

 

If after an investigation it is deemed that heat 9 or 10 should not have been run then quite simply the match has to be restaged as per the rules.

 

If it deems that it was the right decision to run those heats, then the pts stay as they are.

Surely any investigation would have to include the opinion of Watt and Holder and Harris who by their actions thought that the track was raceable in heat 10,

[Woz01]

Surely any investigation would have to include the opinion of Watt and Holder and Harris who by their actions thought that the track was raceable in heat 10,

I've read on more that one occasion on different sites that Watt didn't want to ride heat 10 either and was threatened with a fine, that obviously could just be hearsay. As for Holder he has already said it shouldn't have started as it was raining in heat 1.

At first I didn't agree with re-running it but if it's decided the track wasn't fit to run heats 9 and 10 then yes, it should be re-run as that's what the rules say.

Didn't think of it like that.

[stevebrum]

At first I didn't agree with re-running it but if it's decided the track wasn't fit to run heats 9 and 10 then yes, it should be re-run as that's what the rules say.

The track was declared ok to ride heat 9 and 10. Not to produce the best speedway ever seen.

Case would appear closed.

[Woz01]

The track was declared ok to ride heat 9 and 10. Not to produce the best speedway ever seen.

Case would appear closed.

There was no inspection of the track after heat 9 as promised. We all heard it on the Sky broadcast. Not doing that leaves them open. Edited June 5, 2015 by woz01

[stevebrum]

There was no inspection of the track after heat 9 as promised. We all heard it on the Sky broadcast. Case open.

And it was heard saying if it's ok for heat 9 it's ok for heat 10. Closed again.

[Woz01]

And it was heard saying if it's ok for heat 9 it's ok for heat 10. Closed again.

But the meeting coordinator who decides said an inspection after heat 9, he never delivered!

 

He even had the gall to think rider safety wasn't his concern. All he was bothered about was getting to Heat 10. Disgusting attitude to not even look at the track!

Edited June 5, 2015 by woz01

[stevebrum]

But the meeting coordinator who decides said an inspection after heat 9, he never delivered!

He even had the gall to think rider safety wasn't his concern. All he was bothered about was getting to Heat 10. Disgusting attitude to not even look at the track!

He was asked to inspect and the comment that if heat 9 runs so should heat 10 also made.

The SKY cameras expect 10 heats , so we should make a exception because it's Coventry?

The worst farce that could have happened was to get the match called off after 9 heats, cheating the public and trying to affect the result when you are losing.

Now that would be a huge farce!

[SteveLyric2]

Thought the rules stated that the losing team could only request a track inspection after heat 10?! Something that Middlo has quoted in his post-meeting interviews.(Probably thinking back to that BV meeting which was their call ). So I guess Mr Clark rechecked his rule book and ruled accordingly!

 

Any decision to re-run a meeting based on what some members of one team said would immeadiately challenge the decision of the Meeting Steward and/or Referee. Can't see that happening - it could potentially make every meeting farcical.

 

 

PS. all this additional controversy simply adds to the pre-promotion of the next Poole home meeting on 17th - v Coventry! I expect a big crowd and lots of 'atmosphere'!!

Edited June 5, 2015 by Skidder1

[weatherwatcher]

As for heat 10 that was an absolut farce. If all 4 rider had been out ther on the track, it would have looked like a game of skittles down the local pubs alley. From the start Holder was all over the place and he almost took out Watt. Or where not people watching heat 10 at the time.

Heat 10 could have and would hav ended up with a big crash, with riders maybe injured. We don't need any more riders going out this year due to injury. If we lose many more, the whole EL & PL will be so short of riders, they will be asking the MDl and other lower leagues for riders.

 

Just seen today that young Josh Auty, has had to uner go surgery on his hand and will be out for another 8 weeks, so the fact of that is as a Lions reserve they will only have him back for the last 7 meeting much the same as Grezegorz Walasek. That is just the Lions team, there are other teams in the same boat, so no we should not put riders health & saftey solely into the hands of officals, who are not the ones having to ride on the tracks. They should be listened to and if they think it is dangerous, be it any meeting in front of Sky or not it should be called off. For saffty's sake..

Are not a lot of meetings these days a meaning less farce. We are seeing EL meeting with some of the teams using guests that are not even top PL riders against other teams that have no injury probles fielding a full team.

At the end of the day, the paying public should be able to go and watch a meeting that is Elite not a load of un elite. Clap trap. How many meetings have there been this year where a team have fielded their full time bar the first couple of meeting. Maybe SCB can answer this one, and how many teams are missing riders through injury this year.

Edited June 5, 2015 by weatherwatcher

[From PC to KC.]

All this boils down to is gamesmanship from both sides, depending on what the score was at the time in question. Neither team can quote rider safety as both would have done the exact opposite, if the scores were reversed. It's no different to the old trick of slipping off at the back when the opposition have a 5-1, not clearing the track and hoping for better luck in the rerun. Maybe a result should not be declared if the lead is not large enough to withstand a potential comeback, if the remaining races had been run. That would stop all the sudden change of opinions on whether to ride or quit with a vested interest lurking under the surface. Surely a result should only be achievable on track and not in the pits.

Does this sport exist for its fans enjoyment ?, or does it exist to be shown on television for the benefit of a few , and how much power should the sport giveaway to tv ?.

Does anyone remember Peter Ravn setting the Coventry track record in an England vs Denmark test match, run in far worse conditions back in the 80,s.

[robert72]

As for heat 10 that was an absolut farce. If all 4 rider had been out ther on the track, it would have looked like a game of skittles down the local pubs alley. From the start Holder was all over the place and he almost took out Watt. Or where not people watching heat 10 at the time.

Heat 10 could have and would hav ended up with a big crash, with riders maybe injured. We don't need any more riders going out this year due to injury. If we lose many more, the whole EL & PL will be so short of riders, they will be asking the MDl and other lower leagues for riders.

 

Just seen today that young Josh Auty, has had to uner go surgery on his hand and will be out for another 8 weeks, so the fact of that is as a Lions reserve they will only have him back for the last 7 meeting much the same as Grezegorz Walasek. That is just the Lions team, there are other teams in the same boat, so no we should not put riders health & saftey solely into the hands of officals, who are not the ones having to ride on the tracks. They should be listened to and if they think it is dangerous, be it any meeting in front of Sky or not it should be called off. For saffty's sake..

Are not a lot of meetings these days a meaning less farce. We are seeing EL meeting with some of the teams using guests that are not even top PL riders against other teams that have no injury probles fielding a full team.

At the end of the day, the paying public should be able to go and watch a meeting that is Elite not a load of un elite. Clap trap. How many meetings have there been this year where a team have fielded their full time bar the first couple of meeting. Maybe SCB can answer this one, and how many teams are missing riders through injury this year.

Whose to say holder would of made the start ahead of Joonas & bomber ?

[BWitcher]

 

Well as at very least 8 out of the 14 riders wanted to ride (probably more) it is a very valid point.

 

It won't be deemed that heat 9 or 10 should not have run, the meeting won't be invalidated and the points will stand as they are.

 

Let's hope common sense prevails and we quickly hear the end of this sour grapes restaging nonsense.

 

No, the point is completely irrelevant.

 

He stated that as Poole had done nothing wrong they shouldn't lose points.

 

Irrelevant. Who was winning shouldn't come into it.. that's what causes the problems in the first place and shouldn't be used at all. The winning team will say its fine, the losing team its not.. that's always going to happen.

 

The match won't be rerun, we all know that so Poole have nothing to worry about on that score.

[Alan_Jones]

Thought the rules stated that the losing team could only request a track inspection after heat 10?!

 

Not quite. After heat 10 only the losing team can ask for a track inspection or abandonment, prior to heat 10 there's no restriction. The ref or meeting steward can consult on track conditions at any time.

[foreverblue]

I've read on more that one occasion on different sites that Watt didn't want to ride heat 10 either and was threatened with a fine, that obviously could just be hearsay. As for Holder he has already said it shouldn't have started as it was raining in heat 1.

 

Didn't think of it like that.

I have already said i agree with Holder the meeting shouldnt have started as it was raining and more rain forecast

[Pirate Baz]

The fact is, as has been stated many times, that whoever is losing is going to make the protest, while whoever is winning is going to accept the situation.

That's what it's all about (no offence to Clive Fisher intended ).

 

Can you imagine the furore had the situation been reversed and Poole were asking for a restaging.

 

This forum would have gone into apoplexy with comments about cheatin' Pirates, whinging Poole, Matt Ford to be executed ........ et al.

[Aces51]

I think you're exaggerating! Most fans would only want him incarcerated for life.

 

The match was yet another farce with this determination to get to heat 10 regardless of rider safety. It does seem ridiculous that a track fit for racing in heat 10 becomes immediately unfit after that race despite virtually no difference in the conditions. However you look at it, it is ripping off the fans to appease Sky/Go Speed.

 

The fault here lies with the SCB Steward who lacked the courage to make an obvious decision. So far as I know, he was the only person with the authority to call it off. His comment that it was unfair to raise the issue of rider safety and to point out his responsibilities speaks volumes.

 

Poole simply took advantage of the situation, as would any other team.

[Dave Jones]

I think you're exaggerating! Most fans would only want him incarcerated for life.

 

The match was yet another farce with this determination to get to heat 10 regardless of rider safety. It does seem ridiculous that a track fit for racing in heat 10 becomes immediately unfit after that race despite virtually no difference in the conditions. However you look at it, it is ripping off the fans to appease Sky/Go Speed.

 

The fault here lies with the SCB Steward who lacked the courage to make an obvious decision. So far as I know, he was the only person with the authority to call it off. His comment that it was unfair to raise the issue of rider safety and to point out his responsibilities speaks volumes.

 

Poole simply took advantage of the situation, as would any other team.

That's quite interesting. I was only chatting to a couple of speedway friends last night about Mondays debacle,and I said to them that given what was happening at FIFA , we might have to re-introduce the death penalty in this country in order to suitably punish the administrators of british speedway if ever they got brought to book

[SteveLyric2]

 

Not quite. After heat 10 only the losing team can ask for a track inspection or abandonment, prior to heat 10 there's no restriction. The ref or meeting steward can consult on track conditions at any time.

Fair enough, I wasn't sure although that's not what Middlo was saying at the time, but hey?!

 

We must assume therefore that the Meeting Steward and the Referee DID consult and decided to continue to Heat 10, whereupon I believe the rules say that a result can be declared! That's a SCB/BSPA rule agreed by all, or a majority of, promoters - not a Sky/GSI rule I gather!?