Coventry V Poole 1/6/15

[stevebrum]

 

This match should never have started, but now we need to move on. .....

 

Heat 1 proved different.

[Game On]

Heat 1 proved different.

The track was fine for the first four heats, I was one of the mugs who got ripped off.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Game On

[SteveLyric2]

This whole episode stinks of conspiracies. The BSPA; The Sky contract, The stupid rules, The integrity of the sport. Nobody has come out of this with any credit..... All it does is dig a deeper hole for the sport to get out of..

 

So many questions and no answers......What good will come from the decision to fine Coventry £3000.00?. Who will benefit from this money?. What damage will it do for the sport? What damage it will do for the survival of the Bees? to name but a few.......

 

Of cause Coventry made mistakes, but so did the other organising powers as well. The situation arose because these organisations have different priorities, where the sport and the fans comes last. Sky don't give a damn about the sport, other than filling in a spot of their busy schedule. and it is wrong for them to have the powers to override safety and common sense..

 

This match should never have started, but now we need to move on. ..... The powers of the SCB and the BSPA should learn from this and see that situations like this, won't happen again. Dishing out heavy fines for petty issues, (failing to come to the tapes) is not the way forward.

 

We should be looking at the positives from dire situations like this, and instigate new rules and guidelines to illuminate any possible chance of this happening again. If that cant be implemented, one has to question the behaviour of the powers in charge............

So breaking the rules and punishing the culprit is now a 'petty issue'?!

 

As far as any attempt to overturn the decision and match result is concerned, I just think its foolish. As I've said before why would the ACU overturn a decision made by a panel including 2 ACU members?

 

What I have every sympathy with Coventry for - as it will affect all clubs - is their attempt to have clarified and confirmed whose responsibility it is and when, if a Sky meeting is to be called off for bad weather?! I hope the answer to that is made fully public so that we all know once and for all!

[Gemini]

I await with bated breath for the outcome. I had to google that saying as I wasn't sure if it was bated or baited or even what on earth it means. But apparently.......Breathing that is subdued because of some emotion or difficulty.

Origin

Which is it - bated or baited? We have baited hooks and baited traps, but bated - what's that? Bated doesn't even seem to be a real word, where else do you hear it? Having said that, 'baited breath' makes little sense either. How can breath be baited? With worms?

There seems little guidance in contemporary texts. Search in Google and you'll find about the same number of hits for 'baited breath' as 'bated breath'. In one of the best selling books of all time, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (whose publisher could surely have afforded the services of a proof-reader), we have:

"The whole common room listened with baited breath."

[g13webb]

I don't think refusing to race is petty and if they didn't get fined it would open up a whole new can of worms, the amount of the fine another question.

 

The fan always seem to come last unless clubs give discounts for sky meetings and give value for money, perhaps they could discount the programme too as it is rarely good value for money.

 

 

 

Petty, yes in the sense of important issues in the running of that meeting.

 

Looking at the whole situation in regards to the sport, when electing to run a meeting in those conditions is always a gamble. A gamble as to whether it will financially pay or not. A gamble as to whether the meeting can run to its 15 ht conclusion. The one thing that is not a gamble, and is fact, is that meeting like this will never induce new fans and the spectacle will be non existent....... That introduction of the ten heat rule is a joke and immediately the weather becomes a problem then the public is ripped off with ten heats get out clause. Even before this meeting had started, T and P were highlighting the fact there will be a result once we get to heat 10.

 

PETTY, in the sense that the Coventry riders refused to ride in Ht 9 because it was considered unsafe, yet one heat later, the meeting is called to a halt, because it was considered unsafe to ride????? ..... if nothing else, that's hypocrisy.

 

There are other Posters on here, who say the track was fine, fair enough that's your opinion, but I was taking on board comments from riders from each side posted on Twitter, saying the meeting shouldn't have been started, and to me they are the ones who ought to know.....after all they are the ones who have to ride it ......

 

I'm trying to look at this as a neutral, thinking only of the sport and the damage being done to it. So many supporters from Poole are only looking at it from a points aspect and how it affects their team. Probably if you were to take those blue tints off you might see things differently. If those points were that important, I feel sorry for you.....This match has done so much damage to the sport and no-one concerned has come out with any credit. Not even POOLE

 

 

[foreverblue]

 

Petty, yes in the sense of important issues in the running of that meeting.

 

Looking at the whole situation in regards to the sport, when electing to run a meeting in those conditions is always a gamble. A gamble as to whether it will financially pay or not. A gamble as to whether the meeting can run to its 15 ht conclusion. The one thing that is not a gamble, and is fact, is that meeting like this will never induce new fans and the spectacle will be non existent....... That introduction of the ten heat rule is a joke and immediately the weather becomes a problem then the public is ripped off with ten heats get out clause. Even before this meeting had started, T and P were highlighting the fact there will be a result once we get to heat 10.

 

PETTY, in the sense that the Coventry riders refused to ride in Ht 9 because it was considered unsafe, yet one heat later, the meeting is called to a halt, because it was considered unsafe to ride????? ..... if nothing else, that's hypocrisy.

 

There are other Posters on here, who say the track was fine, fair enough that's your opinion, but I was taking on board comments from riders from each side posted on Twitter, saying the meeting shouldn't have been started, and to me they are the ones who ought to know.....after all they are the ones who have to ride it ......

 

I'm trying to look at this as a neutral, thinking only of the sport and the damage being done to it. So many supporters from Poole are only looking at it from a points aspect and how it affects their team. Probably if you were to take those blue tints off you might see things differently. If those points were that important, I feel sorry for you.....This match has done so much damage to the sport and no-one concerned has come out with any credit. Not even POOLE

 

 

I have always maintained it probably shouldn't have started but in fairness they had done a great job on the track and it was in a raceable condition. How do you think Coventry were looking at it considering they were losing. Coventry riders did not refuse to race heat 9 only heat 10. Everyone knew it would only get to heat 10, as always your trying to make out in some way it was Poole's fault which it wasn't. How does it discredit Poole?

[SteveLyric2]

 

Petty, yes in the sense of important issues in the running of that meeting.

 

Looking at the whole situation in regards to the sport, when electing to run a meeting in those conditions is always a gamble. A gamble as to whether it will financially pay or not. A gamble as to whether the meeting can run to its 15 ht conclusion. The one thing that is not a gamble, and is fact, is that meeting like this will never induce new fans and the spectacle will be non existent....... That introduction of the ten heat rule is a joke and immediately the weather becomes a problem then the public is ripped off with ten heats get out clause. Even before this meeting had started, T and P were highlighting the fact there will be a result once we get to heat 10.

 

PETTY, in the sense that the Coventry riders refused to ride in Ht 9 because it was considered unsafe, yet one heat later, the meeting is called to a halt, because it was considered unsafe to ride????? ..... if nothing else, that's hypocrisy.

 

There are other Posters on here, who say the track was fine, fair enough that's your opinion, but I was taking on board comments from riders from each side posted on Twitter, saying the meeting shouldn't have been started, and to me they are the ones who ought to know.....after all they are the ones who have to ride it ......

 

I'm trying to look at this as a neutral, thinking only of the sport and the damage being done to it. So many supporters from Poole are only looking at it from a points aspect and how it affects their team. Probably if you were to take those blue tints off you might see things differently. If those points were that important, I feel sorry for you.....This match has done so much damage to the sport and no-one concerned has come out with any credit. Not even POOLE

 

 

Of course it discredits the sport - breaking the rules always runs the risk of discrediting a sport. The issue of whether the meeting should have started and whose responsibility that falls to for Sky meetings, is why I have support for Coventry's stance on that matter (see my post).

 

Once both teams had agreed to start the meeting then other rules come into play, including a result standing once heat 10 is reached if conditions are deemed unsafe/waterlogged/ whatever.

 

Mick Horton was clearly seen on Sky saying that if an inspection was going to be held after heat 9 then 'we might as well go on to heat 10'!! Chris Harris was clearly ready to go out for heat 10 but was instructed by the management not to - thereby breaking the rule for which the SCB hearing was held.

 

Poole did absolutely nothing wrong in those circumstances - something that Havvy and Horton both stated subsequently. Its not Poole that have publicly prolonged this sorry episode - its the Coventry management. In fact when their appeal to the ACU fails, I wonder if there could be a further fine for bringing the sport into further disrepute?!

 

Just to repeat myself again, I fully support Coventry's attempt to get clarification of where the responsibility lies in calling off a Sky meeting - assuming of course that they and all other clubs don't already know the answer - because I find it very difficult to accept that this situation would not have been discussed and procedures agreed when the Sky contract began or was renewed - but that's just my opinion?!

[heathen chemistry]

the hearing sounds like it was a whitewash

 

nothing about the track conditions , weather, rider safety.. seem to of been on the agenda

 

or even the role of the meeting official and or the referee, also ronnie russell involvement in track prep and deciding if the match goes ahead or continues etc

\

whats needed is a clear statement of who is / was in charge who decided to continue and why? if not for coventry but for future sky meetings as clarification....simple really

 

but we wont get any answers.......

Edited July 23, 2015 by heathen chemistry

[stevebrum]

The track was fine for the first four heats, I was one of the mugs who got ripped off.

To be honest any of us who go when the weather is iffy should expect to only see 10 heats, Sweden can call it after 8 heats!

[orion]

There are other Posters on here, who say the track was fine, fair enough that's your opinion, but I was taking on board comments from riders from each side posted on Twitter, saying the meeting shouldn't have been started, and to me they are the ones who ought to know.....after all they are the ones who have to ride it ......

 

 

 

 

And there were riders as well as Havy who were more than happy that the track was fine at the start of the meeting as we saw by the good standard of racing they were the ones who were correct ...as have been said many times if had not rained when it did there would have been 15 heats

[mdmc82]

Tuesday September 29, 2015

BELOW is an SCB statement regarding the abandoned Coventry v Poole fixture and subsequent hearing and ACU appeal.

 

Further to the Press Release issued on 16th July 2015 the SCB wish to advise the following.

 

The Coventry Promotion, as was their right lodged an Appeal to the Auto-Cycle Union.

 

Whilst preparing for the Appeal Hearing, the SCB realised that at the SCB Courts Disciplinary Hearing, a flaw was spotted concerning the composition of the SCB Court in that it did not fully comply with the 2015 Speedway Regulations.

 

Following internal discussions the SCB agreed with the ACU, that the Appeal Hearing should not take place and that the Appeal Fee paid by Coventry should be returned.

 

Regarding the £3000 fine imposed by the SCB Court, at the Hearing held on Thursday 9th July should be quashed, although the fines imposed by the Meeting Referee would stand as these had been correctly imposed; the Court had merely endorsed their agreement of the Meeting Referees actions.

[Rob VDS]

Tuesday September 29, 2015

BELOW is an SCB statement regarding the abandoned Coventry v Poole fixture and subsequent hearing and ACU appeal.

 

Further to the Press Release issued on 16th July 2015 the SCB wish to advise the following.

 

The Coventry Promotion, as was their right lodged an Appeal to the Auto-Cycle Union.

 

Whilst preparing for the Appeal Hearing, the SCB realised that at the SCB Courts Disciplinary Hearing, a flaw was spotted concerning the composition of the SCB Court in that it did not fully comply with the 2015 Speedway Regulations.

 

Following internal discussions the SCB agreed with the ACU, that the Appeal Hearing should not take place and that the Appeal Fee paid by Coventry should be returned.

 

Regarding the £3000 fine imposed by the SCB Court, at the Hearing held on Thursday 9th July should be quashed, although the fines imposed by the Meeting Referee would stand as these had been correctly imposed; the Court had merely endorsed their agreement of the Meeting Referees actions.

Some common sense at last albeit a bit late

[SCB]

Some common sense at last albeit a bit late

Common sense? Not really. This is a case of "sweep it under the carpet, Coventry will be happy to have got their 3 grand back (plus anything off the fans) and everyone will forget about it so we can carry on as normal"

[wealdstone]

Abrogation more like!!!!

[Rob VDS]

Common sense? Not really. This is a case of "sweep it under the carpet, Coventry will be happy to have got their 3 grand back (plus anything off the fans) and everyone will forget about it so we can carry on as normal"

Forget about what? Not the meeting surely? Surely it's time to forget it, it was a horrible night for speedway, but it's gone.

[SCB]

Forget about what? Not the meeting surely? Surely it's time to forget it, it was a horrible night for speedway, but it's gone.

Forget that the rules for Sky meetings are a joke. And the fact that Sky meeting have different rules is a joke.

[wealdstone]

Forget about what? Not the meeting surely? Surely it's time to forget it, it was a horrible night for speedway, but it's gone.

There have been so many horrible nights for Speedway . A fudge and it will all go away?Perhaps the incident does but the damage is permanent.

[Rob VDS]

Forget that the rules for Sky meetings are a joke. And the fact that Sky meeting have different rules is a joke.

Sky is a necessary evil. I agree that they're too involved in the meetings they show but for me, as someone who doesn't get a chance to get to many meetings I'm just grateful we have speedway on tv. Until someone else comes up with the goods I'm just going to try and enjoy it

[Starman2006]

Forget that the rules for Sky meetings are a joke. And the fact that Sky meeting have different rules is a joke.

The only joke on here is you..

[SCB]

The only joke on here is you..

From you that means a lot