Leicester Lions 2016

[Steve Shovlar]

A 5.40 average could make him a decent signing for someone later in the season if/when his form improves abroad?!

If his average is now 5.4 he will be able to ride PL which is good for him.

 

Is he getting any rides abroad?

[Star Lady]

If his average is now 5.4 he will be able to ride PL which is good for him.

Is he getting any rides abroad?

I've been told he cannot ride PL until next season as his average at the start of 2016 was over 6.

 

I assume, if the rules stay the same should he want to ride PL next season he won't want to add much to his current average

Edited June 13, 2016 by Star Lady

[SCB]

You really think replacing someone that's been as weak as watts been for us is getting weaker? Only weaker in reputation (and our reputation isn't exactly sky high)

Watt as a heat leader has been tripe but Watt on a 5.4 average and down to second string would be fairly decent. What you have now is Lindgren jnr at second string and I can't see him scoring much more than 5 or 6 which Watt would have done at second string and some more.

 

I'd not have gone near Watt when Leicester did personally but having signed him, got his average down so he's in his rightful place as a second string(BTW someone, can't think who suggested all winter Watt was a second string and shouldn't be on the heat leader list!).

 

The issue for Leicester is basically, Hougaard aside, they don't have a heat leader. They have the odd rider who can score a few in reserve or at second string intermittently but not as heat leader. When you signed Summers I laughed as he was quite clearly not a heat leader and his 3.59 average for 2016 proves that, it's only fractionally higher than Watts!

[Big Al]

So the revolving door at Leicester is unlocked again and back in use let's see which riders come through it this time.

 

I had doubts over the last two signings as in my view are not presently up to EL standards and I have unfortunately been proved correct.

 

The next move is crucial as there was a better crowd last night and need to get some more home wins

Well.........what do you think??

[stevebrum]

I've been told he cannot ride PL until next season as his average at the start of 2016 was over 6.

I assume, if the rules stay the same should he want to ride PL next season he won't want to add much to his current average

They must have changed the rules since Joe (cheating) Screen was allowed to use Wolves to get his average low enough to drop into the PL in the same season.

[bigcatdiary]

They must have changed the rules since Joe (cheating) Screen was allowed to use Wolves to get his average low enough to drop into the PL in the same season.

Correct, don't you remember Peterborough being stopped from signing Thorsell last year on exactly that point.

[beckettlion]

Watt as a heat leader has been tripe but Watt on a 5.4 average and down to second string would be fairly decent. What you have now is Lindgren jnr at second string and I can't see him scoring much more than 5 or 6 which Watt would have done at second string and some more.

 

I'd not have gone near Watt when Leicester did personally but having signed him, got his average down so he's in his rightful place as a second string(BTW someone, can't think who suggested all winter Watt was a second string and shouldn't be on the heat leader list!).

 

The issue for Leicester is basically, Hougaard aside, they don't have a heat leader. They have the odd rider who can score a few in reserve or at second string intermittently but not as heat leader. When you signed Summers I laughed as he was quite clearly not a heat leader and his 3.59 average for 2016 proves that, it's only fractionally higher than Watts!

I think at best houggard should be a third heat leader, that's the reason we struggle. We've essentially got 1 heat leader, 4 second strings and two (albeit very good) reserves. Watt wasn't scoring well at heat leader, but it was more the manner (like ulamek and walasek before him) of seemingly giving up when at the back that frustrated us as fans. I'd sooner see a team of riders that want to represent our club. Watt didn't seem to want to represent Leicester speedway, it was a marriage of convenience

[Big Al]

I think at best houggard should be a third heat leader, that's the reason we struggle. We've essentially got 1 heat leader, 4 second strings and two (albeit very good) reserves. Watt wasn't scoring well at heat leader, but it was more the manner (like ulamek and walasek before him) of seemingly giving up when at the back that frustrated us as fans. I'd sooner see a team of riders that want to represent our club. Watt didn't seem to want to represent Leicester speedway, it was a marriage of convenience

There isn't such a thing as a third heat leader now, and in some cases no such thing as a second heat leader, just a revolving door of riders who happen to have the no.3 and no.5 positions in a team at any given time, who may even come up from and then return back to no.6 or 7. May as well just go to 15 heats of nominated riders and have done with it.

[Mr Bump]

I think at best houggard should be a third heat leader, that's the reason we struggle. We've essentially got 1 heat leader, 4 second strings and two (albeit very good) reserves. Watt wasn't scoring well at heat leader, but it was more the manner (like ulamek and walasek before him) of seemingly giving up when at the back that frustrated us as fans. I'd sooner see a team of riders that want to represent our club. Watt didn't seem to want to represent Leicester speedway, it was a marriage of convenience

Absolutely. Was happy to give him time, but in 3 home meetings I watched him in he could not get it round turns 1 & 2 at all. Would be 30 yards behind after half a lap. Clearly doesn't like the track. Shame because he seems a decent bloke who can obviously perform better.

 

Do feel the Lions will once again end the season with the most out-going riders on the averages chart and still achieve very little.

 

Ho-hum

[beckettlion]

Absolutely. Was happy to give him time, but in 3 home meetings I watched him in he could not get it round turns 1 & 2 at all. Would be 30 yards behind after half a lap. Clearly doesn't like the track. Shame because he seems a decent bloke who can obviously perform better.

 

Do feel the Lions will once again end the season with the most out-going riders on the averages chart and still achieve very little.

 

Ho-hum

 

People complain about the lack of teams meaning you 'see the same riders week in week out'. If thats a problem for them, they should be a Lions fan!

[Big Al]

A very good appeal letter in my opinion. He has raised a number of issues but in my opinion the one which has the potential to cause the SCB the biggest headache is explaining for the benefit of rider and public safety, what if any ongoing training and assessments ALL referees receive.

 

I believe the insurance company who provide indemnities for British speedway will take a great interest in this and one would hope it will lead to an improvement in the quality of refereeing over coming years.

 

From previous dealings with Gary Thompson, I am confident Mr Hemsley will get a fair appeals hearing.... which I for one will not question the outcome of.

Not having any personal experience of course in SCB/ACU disciplinary processes, but from my laymans viewpoint I'm surprised that DH seems to be attempting to turn the process into an investigation into the competency of officials and, by implication, a wider issue about competency of the SCB/ACU in the training and on-going professional development of officials.

However, the disciplinary hearing and subsequent fine and other sanctions was brought about due to DH's own personal CONDUCT in relation to the rules which he as a promoter, was subject to abiding by.

Surely the appeal needs to likewise focus on those areas, e.g. whether or not the comments made by DH (whatever they were), really were "fraudulent"?

If he has issues with the official and his conduct and competency (including the competency of the SCB/ACU, and they may welll be valid concerns), shouldn't they be raised by DH separately. It does look as if he is trying to turn this around into putting SCB/ACU on trial, including the claim for damages, but is this the right way to be going about it?

[justathought]

Not having any personal experience of course in SCB/ACU disciplinary processes, but from my laymans viewpoint I'm surprised that DH seems to be attempting to turn the process into an investigation into the competency of officials and, by implication, a wider issue about competency of the SCB/ACU in the training and on-going professional development of officials.

However, the disciplinary hearing and subsequent fine and other sanctions was brought about due to DH's own personal CONDUCT in relation to the rules which he as a promoter, was subject to abiding by.

Surely the appeal needs to likewise focus on those areas, e.g. whether or not the comments made by DH (whatever they were), really were "fraudulent"?

If he has issues with the official and his conduct and competency (including the competency of the SCB/ACU, and they may welll be valid concerns), shouldn't they be raised by DH separately. It does look as if he is trying to turn this around into putting SCB/ACU on trial, including the claim for damages, but is this the right way to be going about it?

No because whatever the official did or didn't do is not the issue.

What DH is accused of is.

[bigcatdiary]

No because whatever the official did or didn't do is not the issue.

What DH is accused of is.

 

Correct, Hemsley is just trying to muddy the waters.

[LionsDen]

Not having any personal experience of course in SCB/ACU disciplinary processes, but from my laymans viewpoint I'm surprised that DH seems to be attempting to turn the process into an investigation into the competency of officials and, by implication, a wider issue about competency of the SCB/ACU in the training and on-going professional development of officials.

However, the disciplinary hearing and subsequent fine and other sanctions was brought about due to DH's own personal CONDUCT in relation to the rules which he as a promoter, was subject to abiding by.

Surely the appeal needs to likewise focus on those areas, e.g. whether or not the comments made by DH (whatever they were), really were "fraudulent"?

If he has issues with the official and his conduct and competency (including the competency of the SCB/ACU, and they may welll be valid concerns), shouldn't they be raised by DH separately. It does look as if he is trying to turn this around into putting SCB/ACU on trial, including the claim for damages, but is this the right way to be going about it?

 

Spot on. It's his own personal conduct that is the issue here, and what the subsequent charges relate to, not regulations and practices to which he was already abiding as promoter of Leicester Speedway. As an appeal letter I think it's a crock of the brown stuff and the SCB should treat it as such.

[1 valve]

Spot on. It's his own personal conduct that is the issue here, and what the subsequent charges relate to, not regulations and practices to which he was already abiding as promoter of Leicester Speedway. As an appeal letter I think it's a crock of the brown stuff and the SCB should treat it as such.

I think the point(s) DH is making and the tack he is taking is based on a)rightful provocation b)Vindicated anger and c) failure of the SCB to take into account mitigating circumstances.

Although rightful provocation can only be used as a partial defense, he supports his vindication by demonstrating forces beyond his control were not properly executed and he further questions that given the length of time the SCB and or officers have been in situ the SCB could be considered to be delinquent in their duties to ensure such matters had been addressed well before the date of the incident(s) in question.

I note DH does not deny wrong doing and says the fine that is ultimately decreed to be following the appeal process will be paid.

Finally his letter appears to set out a clear set of questions that the SCB needs to carefully consider as it will reflect on their own conduct both in terms of their culpability and fair play. Both of which our law courts observe.

Edited June 15, 2016 by 1 valve

[Gemini]

Nothing worse than a rider who does that.

[hagonshocker]

I do wonder if a certain someone at Swindon doesn't crack the knack of getting around his home track may lead to the last stand of Davey Watt?.....

[Daniel Smith]

I do wonder if a certain someone at Swindon doesn't crack the knack of getting around his home track may lead to the last stand of Davey Watt?.....

 

None of the current Swindon side is worth dropping for Davey Watt, jeez man!!!!

 

Watt is on worse form than any of the Swindon side + Watt wants a PL side next season so it's not likely he'll be looking to improve his form. Any side that takes him on have no ambition imo

[Halifaxtiger]

The first point I would make is that fairness and consistency are not necessarily the same thing. Because on person gets an unduly lenient punishment for something it doesn't mean everyone else should get away with it.

 

I think we can discount Len Silvers behaviour in the past because times change, and no doubt Johnny Hoskins may (and probably did ) something similar to whip up the crowd but times move on. I can't remember any of the present crop of EL promoters doing anything similar, apart from the Keith Chapman incident I mentioned previously. To the best of my knowledge Chapman suffered no disciplinary penalty for his behaviour. I stand to be corrected if someone else knows differently but if my understanding is correct then I agree that it is unacceptable that someone in a management position should be allowed to behave that way without reprimand, but that doesn't make the Hemsley case wrong, it makes the Chapman case wrong.

 

The sport is riddled with inconsistencies but two wrongs don't make a right. It's ridiculously inconsistent that Craig Cook should be allowed to ride in the PL but Lewis Bridger on a much lower average isn't. That doesn't make the Craig Cook decision wrong it makes the Bridger decision wrong.

 

Now, as far as Hemsley is concerned, in any sport any attempt to intimidate the referee or umpire should be severely dealt with otherwise you are on the road to chaos. If Hemsly was guilty then it's right that he got a fine that will hurt, so he doesn't repeat the behaviour. The fact that someone else got away with it is an indictment of the sport but it doesn't excuse Hemsley.

 

If as you say self interest is at the root of Hemslys fine that is a serious claim and needs a bit of substance to support it. Personally I think Hemsleys fine is a bit steep but if guilty it still needs to be substantial. I am more surprised that people on here are so concerned about Hemsley and hardly give a peep when others seem to get away with similar behaviour. That is where the real wrong really

 

At the risk of being pedantic, I'd say that if a decision is not consistent with past rulings dealing with the same issue (or substantially the same issue) it is wrong even if there is a cast iron case that punishment is deserved. Without consistency, there is no credibility.

 

I'd agree completely that you cannot have the sort of intimidation that Hemsley supposedly showed. However, you cannot justify any form of action in any way, though, if someone has done something similar and got away scot free. Given what you have said that Chapman did and referring to what Rob Godfrey did as well, the fine etc given to Hemsley isn't inconsistent so much as bloody outrageous.

 

I have no idea whether self interest is a determining factor in the judgement that has been handed out and only the gentlemen concerned know the truth of that. The problem for me, though, is that we cannot be reasonably certain - based upon the inconsistency in terms of both punishment and the publication of the circumstances, past rulings and the undoubted fact that those judging the case cannot be seen to be entirely impartial - that it is not.

 

Not having any personal experience of course in SCB/ACU disciplinary processes, but from my laymans viewpoint I'm surprised that DH seems to be attempting to turn the process into an investigation into the competency of officials and, by implication, a wider issue about competency of the SCB/ACU in the training and on-going professional development of officials.

However, the disciplinary hearing and subsequent fine and other sanctions was brought about due to DH's own personal CONDUCT in relation to the rules which he as a promoter, was subject to abiding by.

Surely the appeal needs to likewise focus on those areas, e.g. whether or not the comments made by DH (whatever they were), really were "fraudulent"?

If he has issues with the official and his conduct and competency (including the competency of the SCB/ACU, and they may welll be valid concerns), shouldn't they be raised by DH separately. It does look as if he is trying to turn this around into putting SCB/ACU on trial, including the claim for damages, but is this the right way to be going about it?

 

I think you are absolutely right.

 

That response isn't so much about putting up a defence of his own actions as making counter allegations about the conduct of others and to me in terms of appealing against a decision its a very poor rebuttal indeed.

 

I suspect, though, that he realises that the allegations made against him are substantially the truth and he needs another way of avoiding the punishment handed out. Making comments about the ability and knowledge of those in charge of speedway meetings in terms of safety seems to me to suggest he's decided on something not far from blackmail.

[SteveLyric2]

I don't think you can compare past incidents and penalties. The rules and regs and penalties have probably been updated since then!!