The Heat Leader List....

[Aces51]

I agree with everything said by Halifaxtiger.

 

My point about the SCB is that I cannot see the BSPA agreeing to an independent individual or body to ensure compliance with the rules and to make binding rulings. I put forward the SCB as a realistic viable option which they may accept. It would be up to the SCB to ensure that those members dealing with breaches or interpretations of the rules did not have any conflict of interest, at the very least were not connected to any team involved and that the BSPA representatives were always in a minority.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Aces51

[E I Addio]

I agree with everything said by Halifaxtiger.

My point about the SCB is that I cannot see the BSPA agreeing to an independent individual or body to ensure compliance with the rules and to make binding rulings. I put forward the SCB as a realistic viable option which they may accept. It would be up to the SCB to ensure that those members dealing with breaches or interpretations of the rules did not have any conflict of interest, at the very least were not connected to any team involved and that the BSPA representatives were always in a minority.

Your point about the SCB is more than a viable option, it is to my mind by far the most sensible option, and indeed the only sensible and workable option.

 

Speedwáy, comes under the general authority of the ACU . The ACU delegate management of the sport to the SCB who in turn delegate the day to day running to the BSPA. To add another body with a say in how the sport is run is adding another level of management to a sport that already has more lavels of management than any other discipline of motor cycle sport in this country. It would be a recipe for disaster, as things invariably are when there are too many fingers in the pie. The whole problem stems from weakness at the SCB as you point out. There should be a "Chinese wall" between the SCB and the BSPA and that would avoid a whole lot of problems.

Edited January 2, 2016 by E I Addio

[bigcatdiary]

The problem is the SCB are not in control of the relevant sections of the rule book that cause all the problems, the BSPA control the sections applicable to the EL and PL a point the SCB manager Graham Reeve has pointed out to me several times.

 

In addition two members of the SCB management are BSPA promoters (Alex Harkess & Gordon Pairman) so are hardly Impartial.

[E I Addio]

The problem is the SCB are not in control of the relevant sections of the rule book that cause all the problems, the BSPA control the sections applicable to the EL and PL a point the SCB manager Graham Reeve has pointed out to me several times.

In addition two members of the SCB management are BSPA promoters (Alex Harkess & Gordon Pairman) so are hardly Impartial.

Can you clarify what you mean by the BSPA having "control " of the relevant sections of the rule book? Do you simply mean they have control of the interpretation of the rules (i.e. the MC ) or is there more to it than that ? It certainly suggests the tail is wagging the dog but it would be interesting to know to what extent.

[baba]

Does this mean that by the end of 2016 season each rider in the EL will have a real time c.m.a?

 

Is the Permier heading for the same problem next year?

 

Does all this confusion lead to a combined league for 2017.

 

Should SCB(the poster) contact the other scb to work out the averages for them and save them all this embarrassment?

[Daytripper]

I don't think anyone is more disadvantaged by it than the points limit rule, for example..........but that's not my beef.

 

Reading the pages of this thread, the heat leader list was 'mysterious' until Speedway Star published it (apparently without BSPA permission). Belatedly, it was then made available for all to see.

 

It would be easy to draw the conclusion that the BSPA's hand was forced by Speedway Star's action, so the intention was to cover it up for as long as possible. Further, no explanation has been made for those that are included and those that are not. To some, it appears to be entirely arbitrary and based upon 'feeling and opinion'.

 

Is it to much to ask for an explanation as to why this has been chosen and why certain riders are on it and certain ones are not ?

 

I'd say not, but Jon Cook clearly disagrees.

 

I suppose that post shows just how thin and relatively petty the argument has now become.

 

After two weeks someone eventually manages to answer to question posed by Skidder 1 and when the answer eventually does arrive it seems we are all agreed that actually nobody is disadvantaged by the heatleader list, at least not as far as team announcements are concerned so far. If nobody has been disadvantaged by it the surely it doesn't really matter whether the list was reached by logarithms, quadratic equations or levitating over the Lake of Tranquility, the net result is the same, a list that doesn't disadvantage anybody so therefore by definition is a fair and reasonable one. Certainly no promoters have been complaining that they have been hard done by because of the list.

The only beef seems to be exactly how the list was reached but that seems to be a relatively minor point once it is accepted that nobody is at a disadvantage.

You say that Jon Cook disagrees that there should be an explanation why certain ideas have been left off but that's not what he said. He gave an interview apparently on behalf of the BSPA that had to be edited on to one column of SS so did necessarily was an overview of that particular point.

Are you going to actually ask any promoter for the further explanation you want ? Jon Cook is on record as saying that if any fan approaches him in the Speedwáy office before about 7pm on race night he will try to answer any questions. Personally, I have never found him unwilling to answer sensible questions but you have to pick your moment. It's no good wading in with your size 12's when he is about to meet with sponsors or 5 minutes before the meeting starts. I don't think that's unreasonable. I have no doubt Stevebrum and a few others will be putting queries to CVS at the next Wolves forum.

 

But the bottom line is we have a list that you agree doesn't disadvantage anyone in practical terms and the only remaining thing is the ins and outs of a ducks posterior which is findoutable if you are that bothered but I am not sure where that takes anything in practical terms. Skidders last post was about right I would say.

[June01]

They should have done rider gradings for the whole top five.

Denmark do rider grading. They're always worth a chuckle, if nothing else. Even the Danes think they're mad.

[bigcatdiary]

Can you clarify what you mean by the BSPA having "control " of the relevant sections of the rule book? Do you simply mean they have control of the interpretation of the rules (i.e. the MC ) or is there more to it than that ? It certainly suggests the tail is wagging the dog but it would be interesting to know to what extent.

A quick look at the current rulebook shows all changes from the previous year in bold print.

[Humphrey Appleby]

Can you clarify what you mean by the BSPA having "control " of the relevant sections of the rule book?

Would imagine the rules relating to track standards, equipment, officials, running of meetings, disciplinary and general organisational stuff falls within the remit of the SCB. The stuff relating to league format, team composition, guest facilities and averages is likely what the BSPA can edit with impunity.

[Humphrey Appleby]

To add another body with a say in how the sport is run is adding another level of management to a sport that already has more lavels of management than any other discipline of motor cycle sport in this country.

Well not that many years ago the RAC actually used to delegate motorcycle sport to the ACU, and appointed two members of the SCB. The BSPA had no direct involvement in the SCB at all, but when the RAC divested its motor sport arm to form the MSA, the BSPA saw the opportunity to kick out them out of the SCB and appoint their own members.

 

There's nothing especially wrong with having BSPA nominees on the SCB, but they shouldn't be active promoters. That defeats the purpose of having a third party to deal with disciplinary procedures and appeals.

 

Also not really sure what the ACU adds to all of it. Maybe provides independent safety and technical advice, but speedway is fairly removed from most other forms of motorcycling and so difficult to see the added value.

[bigcatdiary]

Would imagine the rules relating to track standards, equipment, officials, running of meetings, disciplinary and general organisational stuff falls within the remit of the SCB. The stuff relating to league format, team composition, guest facilities and averages is likely what the BSPA can edit with impunity.

Certainly my interpretation.

[E I Addio]

There's nothing especially wrong with having BSPA nominees on the SCB, but they shouldn't be active promoters. That defeats the purpose of having a third party to deal with disciplinary procedures and appeals.Also not really sure what the ACU adds to all of it. Maybe provides independent safety and technical advice, but speedway is fairly removed from most other forms of motorcycling and so difficult to see the added value.

The ACU probably don't add anything in practical terms, it's just that they are the governing body of the sport in this country, affiliated to the FIM and to that extent give some authority to licensing of riders and sorting out really serious disputes.

 

It's sensible that the running of Speedwáy is delegated to the SCB because Speedwáy is not only unique in its team/league structure but also unique in the way it is promoted. It's probably sensible that the day to day running is delegated to the BSPA because they are (in theory at least ) the ones with "hands on " involvement with riders and fans. The whole thing seems to break down when it comes to compliance with and enforcement of the rules. Personally I don't think there is a lot wrong with the rules themselves, it's more the lack of enforcement and sometimes changing on a whim that causes problems.

 

The point I was trying to get from bigcatdiary was why Graham Reeve thinks the problem is because the BSPA control the ELand PL rules. In other words if Reeve and the SCB had total control what would does Reeve think they would be doing that is not being done by the BSPA? It makes one wonder why Reeve stays in the job if the BSPA are doing things he doesn't approve of, unless there is more to it than meets the eye.

 

A lot of the problem is the appalling lack of clear statements from the BSPA . I am not one of those that jumps to criticise and fault-find at every opportunity but I do think it's dreadful when the BSPA can't even issue a post-AGM statement in clear, plain English without it being contradictory and ambiguous. Issuing a simple statement is not a difficult thing to get right. In the context of the heatleader list, its very poor PR to put forward a promoter to explain it in a SS interview . If an announcement is to be made it should be issued by the BSPA chairman and checked for accuracy before being put on website not in a magazine . It is daft to simply put the list out in one place and the explanation somewhere else. This in my view is a major problem with the sport. It's not so much what is done but the way it is poorly explained. The infamous Poole v Lakeside postponement for example The BSPA give a public directive to run with a certain team, Ford doesn't do it, it gets referred to the SCB then we hear nothing, and apparently no action is taken. Since the BSPA had given a public directive then surely it needs a public statement explaining what action was taken as a result, or if none why not. As it is the whole thing goes quiet and the keyboard warriors come up with their own explanations. This sort of thing does a lot of damage to the sport and if is a frequent occurrence. Things could be so much better if there was some joined up thinking between the BSPA and the SCB on PR It wouldn't cost much apart from a bit of care and effort and would make a massive difference to the public perception of what is basically still a great sport.

Edited January 4, 2016 by E I Addio

[Gordon Pairman]

I have been following this topic with interest and am only jumping in now to try to correct some misunderstandings about the infamous list and the role of the Speedway Control Bureau.

 

My normal rule for BSF is that my rare posts have to be factual, and not opinion as, for every opinion I have, there is likely to be a contrary one. For today only, I am going to partly ignore my rule!

 

Firstly, a couple of points about who is supposed to do what: the BSPA is the body responsible for promoting speedway throughout England, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It has been delegated this authority from the Speedway Control Bureau which has been authorised by the Auto Cycle Union, which has a legally enshrined authority given to it by the UK Government in relation to all motorcycle sport in the country. In turn, the ACU has been authorised by the FIM, the world body of motorcycle sport.

 

I fundamentally disagree with “Humphrey Appleby’s” comment that “There's nothing especially wrong with having BSPA nominees on the Speedway Control Bureau, but they shouldn't be active promoters. That defeats the purpose of having a third party to deal with disciplinary procedures and appeals.”

 

In my view, it is essential that two – out of five – members of the Speedway Control Bureau must be active promoters. How else will they bring a current perspective to decision making? We have two top notch delegates from ACU who are invaluable in guiding the Bureau members through overall disciplinary regulations, but they need the input of speedway officials to keep them up to date on the day to day operation of the sport. Disciplinary matters are a very small part of our duties – overall consideration of the safety of competitors, officials and supporters take up far more of our time.

 

When I put my name forward for consideration for the Speedway Control Bureau. It was partly because, at that time, both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the BSPA were the Bureau members and I believed that it was wrong, in disciplinary matters appealed from BSPA to the Bureau that the same people who passed judgement should also hear the appeal. In 12 months, of course, the whole picture has changed with neither of BSPA’s delegates being on the Management Committee. In other matters that fall within the Bureau’s jurisdiction, current experience is far more important than past theory. At present therefore, it can be argued that there is the necessary independence required to allow the Bureau members to carry out their duties.

That’s the Bureau out of the way, what of the BSPA? The members of the BSPA pass responsibility for the day to day management of the promotion of the sport to an elected Management Committee. This then takes me to the infamous heat leader list – I was not aware that it was ever a big secret, it was simply something that was not released. That was a decision for the Management Committee. It should probably have been published earlier than it was, but that is simply my opinion. It was a shame that an incomplete list was leaked to the Star, the reasons for which I can only guess.

 

Jon Cook’s article in the Star – which was simply his views, and not an official release - explained the process for creating the list which comprised 38 riders, not the 23 shown in the Star which only included riders who had ridden in UK in 2015, nor the 37 released by the BSPA press office which missed out Linus Sundstrom. This list was agreed by all of the Elite League promotions and confirmed on 2 November. The list that the BSPA forum member, SCB, produced might have been useful to our discussions – I will return to that in a moment – but it didn’t appear until 18 November, by which time the decisions had been made. By the way, I gather that the “thick or biased or both” quote from Jon Cook was aimed at a fellow promoter who tried to reopen the discussions on the list, not any supporter.

 

And now to the detail of the list: I have looked at SCB’s list and the underlying detail which I don’t really follow. What I do know, however, from many years of statistical sampling in my professional career is that statistics are a great guide, but sometimes, you also need to add a bit of common sense. Peter Oakes produces statistics on all riders, and we use these to aid our discussions. What we have found, however, is there is no simple arithmetic answer to the anomalous averages thrown up by the Elite League race format, so we have to apply knowledge and experience to the simple numbers to get to a reasoned answer.

 

The BSPA list consists of 38 riders and all but 11 appear on SCB’s list. I have looked at SCB’s 11 and those of the BSPA’s and these are as follows:

 

SCB

 

Korneliussen

Karlsson

Ward

Walasek

North

Kennett

Michelsen

Wells

Swiderski

Milik

Bridger

 

BSPA

 

Hancock

Dudek

Przedpelski

Zmarzlik

Sayfutdinov

Lindback

Kasprzak

Hampel

Vaculik

Smolinski

Sundstrom

 

In addition, Watt, Michael Jepsen Jensen, Zengota and Miedzinski were in the BSPA’s top 38, but were ranked 39^, 41, 45 and 51 respectively in SCB’s list.

 

Taking in turns SCB’s 11, my thoughts, and these are simply thoughts, are as follows:

 

Korneliussen – border line, but he performed poorly for Leicester

Karlsson – no longer a heat leader

Ward – should not have been on the list

Walasek – another border line but a 5.91 average is not impressive

North – not a heat leader

Kennett – likewise

Michelsen – same again

Wells – and again

Swiderski – another border line

Milik – definitely not a heat leader

Bridger – not a heat leader

 

As I said, these are my opinions – others will have a different view, but we reached agreement by discussion and consensus using our knowledge, and perhaps, bias both for and against. But I would certainly argue that the BSPA 11 riders are all stronger than SCB’s.

 

The inclusion of Watt and King on the list could be debated until the end of time, as could the exclusions of Korneliussen, Walasek, Swiderski and Buczkowski, but the list has been produced and we all have to work with it.

 

As a final point about this, I have no beef against SCB – I have never met the man so can have no direct opinion of him, even though he has attacked me on this forum. That is his perogative – if you are in the public eye, you have to expect and accept that people will not always agree with you. His being forcibly rested from the BSF left me in two minds – partly, I was disappointed as he can add flavour and intelligent debate to the forum, partly I was pleased because I really feel that offensive remarks and gay sexual slang should have no place on this forum. It looked to me, opinion again, that he was doing it to try to be smart and outflank the moderators, which I feel was just a little silly. I gather his absence is temporary, and look forward to his return.

 

Right, that's me finished with posting opinions - for now anyway!

[E I Addio]

Gordon, I won't copy the whole of your post to save bandwidth, but speaking as someone who has been critical of you in the past I think on this occasion, to be fair, you have put out an informative and helpful post.

 

I think you make a fair point in saying that whatever format you take to compile the list there will always be anomalies and borderline cases, but coming back to Skidder 1's post of a couple of weeks ago, when one stands back from the situation it doesn't seem that anyone has been disadvantaged by the list.

 

It is a pity that an explanation like that was not given some time ago by your fellow promoters but having got the explanation I woukd say it certainly clears the air.

Edited January 4, 2016 by E I Addio

[g13webb]

Gordon Pairman: I too would like to thank you for your time and the explanations as you have explained. I found them all most enlighten. As an outspoken poster against the said list, my problem wasn't related to how the list was created, more to the reasons of why it was required. I get the concept of needing additional clarification when building team equality, of which the list offers some form of help, but once the season has started the list is of no help at all.

Since the introduction of the draft riders and the protected heats. The validity of CMA has disappeared. The reserves riders score points far easier than 2nd strings or heat leaders and as such, the points limits bear little to the reality of the strength that the points indicate... So rather than a simple list to assist the team builders, surely it would have been better to target the problem of the variable averages.

 

If the CMA doesn't relate to the riders ability, what's the points of using them ??????

[Humphrey Appleby]

In turn, the ACU has been authorised by the FIM, the world body of motorcycle sport.

I think it's really that, or should be that the ACU and other national federations authorise the FIM, given the FIM is a membership organisation.

 

In my view, it is essential that two – out of five – members of the Speedway Control Bureau must be active promoters. How else will they bring a current perspective to decision making?

Active promoters will inevitably have conflicts of interest (or at least accusations of such) which is problematic for a body that needs to be impartial. Bringing a promoters' perspective could be solved by nominating former promoters.

 

There's generally been move in other sports towards having independent directors, even if they're actually nominated/elected by the teams. It's a sensible policy, doesn't preclude experienced people being involved, and improves the credibility of decision making - something speedway seriously lacks.

 

What I do know, however, from many years of statistical sampling in my professional career is that statistics are a great guide, but sometimes, you also need to add a bit of common sense.

And yet averages with all their anomalies have been religiously used for team building for many years. The other issue is one man's common sense is not always another man's, and when the assessments are not being made by an impartial body then question marks will always be raised.

 

You could quite easily come up with fairly reflective rider 'averages' by weighting heats in different ways - I played with this years ago. Anomalies could be ironed out by factoring averages between the previous and current season, with the current season gaining increasing weight as more matches were ridden.

 

I'd accept it would take a bit of work to calculate and wouldn't be entirely fathomable to the average spectator (and possibly promoter either), but is the methodology behind the heat leader list any more fathomable?

[Gordon Pairman]

I apologise for my lack of ability to multi quote. You'll just have to bear with my attempts to respond to Humphrey Appleby's points, though, as I said, my comments were personal opinion, so wide open to being contradicted by the opinion of others.

On the first point, does it matter if ACU exists because of FIM or FIM exists because of ACU? FIM is the ultimate rule setter and delegates its authority via the national governing bodies. It would still be around if there was no ACU.

On the topic of former promoters, your suggestions as to who would be suitable would be interesting. You need to take account, though, that, under ACU rules, members have to be under 70. To be honest, I can't think of any former promoters who are under 70 who would able to bring a better insight than the current members, but I stand to be corrected.

I think that we are in total agreement on averages. They have been used religiously for team building for many years, and continue to be so. It is my view that trying to find a weighting to adjust for the different race format that is fair to everyone, riders, promoters and supporters, is exceptionally complicated if not in face impossible, so I disagree with your second paragraph on this rather. And your comments rather contradict the idea that averages are the correct basis for team building.

The heat leader list does not take away the use of averages. Nothing has changed in that respect. What has changed is the methodology for the fair distribution of riders.

[Woz01]

We are going to have similar chats about the same issues next winter as it seems the format is staying the same. Even the BSPA notices the imbalance hence the heatleader list. I just dont understand why we cannot now go back to the old format now one reserve can move up and vice versa.

[damosuzuki]

Thanks to Gordon though for posting that explanation. Whether you agree or not it's nice to see it out there. A bit of argy bargy does forums no harm though.. it's when they go quiet they die a death.

 

Speaking of which where's Statman!?

[bigcatdiary]

I apologise for my lack of ability to multi quote. You'll just have to bear with my attempts to respond to Humphrey Appleby's points, though, as I said, my comments were personal opinion, so wide open to being contradicted by the opinion of others.

On the first point, does it matter if ACU exists because of FIM or FIM exists because of ACU? FIM is the ultimate rule setter and delegates its authority via the national governing bodies. It would still be around if there was no ACU.

On the topic of former promoters, your suggestions as to who would be suitable would be interesting. You need to take account, though, that, under ACU rules, members have to be under 70. To be honest, I can't think of any former promoters who are under 70 who would able to bring a better insight than the current members, but I stand to be corrected.

I think that we are in total agreement on averages. They have been used religiously for team building for many years, and continue to be so. It is my view that trying to find a weighting to adjust for the different race format that is fair to everyone, riders, promoters and supporters, is exceptionally complicated if not in face impossible, so I disagree with your second paragraph on this rather. And your comments rather contradict the idea that averages are the correct basis for team building.

The heat leader list does not take away the use of averages. Nothing has changed in that respect. What has changed is the methodology for the fair distribution of riders.

Many thanks for your replies which are appeciated we'll certainly by me.

 

One quick question, bearing in mind the whole topic came about because of a flawed race format wouldn't it have been common sense to scrap it and go back to a race format that provided accurate averages which were fair to all concerned.