Speedway Star Article : 'lindback Adds Up'

[PHILIPRISING]

Because every decision is based on who is asking the question, their never has been any consistency or common sense applied to any decisions.

 

They initially stopped Cook from riding for Peterborough because of "supposedly same race nights for his EL and PL teams" but of course Bewley riding for Belle Vue and Edinburgh was fine.

THAT isn't strictly true. I know of one adjudicator who makes assessments at the request of the BSPA but isn't told who the track requiring the information is.

[Aces51]

Emil rather than g laguta. A 6 not a 7 as he is not a GP rider. Poole fans have said lindback should be a 4.15 and Ellis a 3, so would suggest s worrall should also be a 3 and we take lindback on the 4.15 from his time at the aces.

So tai,emil, zmarzlik,dudek, g laguta, lindback and s worrall should come in a shade under 40.5. Sorted.

Still a worry though without a genuine number 1. Strength in depth is OK but you need someone to go out and win heats 13 and 15 and 7 point riders can't be relied on to do it.

 

Doesn't this show just how ludicrous the Lindback assessment is.

THAT isn't strictly true. I know of one adjudicator who makes assessments at the request of the BSPA but isn't told who the track requiring the information is.

 

More often than not it's not too difficult to work out who it is though. Certainly they would have known who was enquiring about Lindback.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Aces51

[g13webb]

THAT isn't strictly true. I know of one adjudicator who makes assessments at the request of the BSPA but isn't told who the track requiring the information is.

 

Are you saying that these adjudicators making the assessments at the request of the BSPA know so little about the sport. I have always been of the impression these decisions were made by a committee, but not so it seems.....

So if these adjudicators have to be asked for their assessments, then surely they can be approached, instructed or bribed on what is the right thing to do.....

 

How interesting..

[Vincent Blachshadow]

THAT isn't strictly true. I know of one adjudicator who makes assessments at the request of the BSPA but isn't told who the track requiring the information is.

 

Yeah, but wouldn't the 'professionally presented evidence' have a clue or two in there somewhere?

[Aces51]

As others have suggested the way forward to ensure transparency and a level playing field is to create a formula to convert current averages achieved in Poland, Sweden etc.

[PHILIPRISING]

 

Are you saying that these adjudicators making the assessments at the request of the BSPA know so little about the sport. I have always been of the impression these decisions were made by a committee, but not so it seems.....

So if these adjudicators have to be asked for their assessments, then surely they can be approached, instructed or bribed on what is the right thing to do.....

 

How interesting..

PRESUMABLY they are asked because they have a format that covers all the bases. And even if they had a pretty good idea who the team was it doesn't that they chang.

 

What we do need is absolute transparency for every such decision. How it was arrived at and who sanctioned their findings.

Edited September 24, 2016 by PHILIPRISING

[Star Lady]

THAT isn't strictly true. I know of one adjudicator who makes assessments at the request of the BSPA but isn't told who the track requiring the information is.

Doesn't take Einstein to work out which club wanted Lindback.

 

Here's a clue it wasn't Lynn, Coventry, Leicester, Swindon,

Now of those left only one possibly had an injured heat leader.

 

Gonna rest my brain cells now.

[stevebrum]

Well with all these re-assessments of SGP riders Rosco will be applying for the new world champion Jason Doyle to be re-assessed for next season as the precedence has been set. If not approved then loyal EL riders would be getting penalised while other SGP and ex SGP riders have an advantage. You know it makes sense!

Correct, the precedence was set when Woffy came back on his valid 2014 average!

But of course you have a valid point if it's okay for Poole at the end of the season then every club have a valid reason!

[Humphrey Appleby]

THAT isn't strictly true. I know of one adjudicator who makes assessments at the request of the BSPA but isn't told who the track requiring the information is.

If you're referring to a certain journalist, I think some of his assertions have been questionable in the past.

[Steve0]

Correct, the precedence was set when Woffy came back on his valid 2014 average!

But of course you have a valid point if it's okay for Poole at the end of the season then every club have a valid reason!

I have no problem with Woffy on his average but Lindback on a 7 is my issue - so Jason to be re-assessed down to level the playing field.

[g13webb]

PRESUMABLY they are asked because they have a format that covers all the bases. And even if they had a pretty good idea who the team was it doesn't that they chang.

 

What we do need is absolute transparency for every such decision. How it was arrived at and who sanctioned their findings.

 

For our sport to have a chance of survival, your second comment is absolutely essential

[Crazy robin]

 

For our sport to have a chance of survival, your second comment is absolutely essential

It will never happen as even The Speedway Star don't ask the right questions & let the answers be fudged & accept it.

 

Never mind though as crowds are up in Britain & the sport is thriving with so many young fans coming to watch the sport!!

[Steve Shovlar]

.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Steve Shovlar

[stevebrum]

I have no problem with Woffy on his average but Lindback on a 7 is my issue - so Jason to be re-assessed down to level the playing field.

7 was and is pathetic. And the logic that Vaculik and Dudek as well would be also 7 is just ridiculous.

No idea how they come up with such crazy logic.

 

How they can judge these riders (by average) are worse than King, Fricke, Lambert, Masters and Thorssell? ???

 

There is no sensible logic. Not one that has an meaning anyway.

[tellboy]

I have no problem with Woffy on his average but Lindback on a 7 is my issue - so Jason to be re-assessed down to level the playing field.

Don't forget Niels

[BurntFaceMan]

7 was and is pathetic. And the logic that Vaculik and Dudek as well would be also 7 is just ridiculous.

No idea how they come up with such crazy logic.

 

How they can judge these riders (by average) are worse than King, Fricke, Lambert, Masters and Thorssell? ???

 

There is no sensible logic. Not one that has an meaning anyway.

 

There are 10 GP riders in our league at the moment (that's not including Lindback), and only 4 of them have an 8pt average or higher. That means only 40% of GP riders in our league at the moment actually attain an 8 pt average.

 

So how is 8pts a fair assessment? And how would a rule like that encourage any team to sign a GP rider when there is a 60% chance he won't achieve his average?

 

The fact of the matter is 7 pts is a far more appropriate assessment than 8 pts. I think the reason people are upset is because this logic seems to have been applied to Poole and nobody else, not that 7 pts is an unreasonable assessed average, because sensible logic says 7 pts is far more reasonable than 8 pts.

Edited September 24, 2016 by BurntFaceMan

[Aces51]

 

There are 10 GP riders in our league at the moment (that's not including Lindback), and only 4 of them have an 8pt average or higher. That means only 40% of GP riders in our league at the moment actually attain an 8 pt average.

 

So how is 8pts a fair assessment? And how would a rule like that encourage any team to sign a GP rider when there is a 60% chance he won't achieve his average?

 

The fact of the matter is 7 pts is a far more appropriate assessment than 8 pts.

 

There are 8 GP riders in the EL not counting Lindback. Their combined averages total 64.17 which works out at an average of 8.02 per GP rider.

[stevebrum]

There are 10 GP riders in our league at the moment (that's not including Lindback), and only 4 of them have an 8pt average or higher. That means only 40% of GP riders in our league at the moment actually attain an 8 pt average.

 

So how is 8pts a fair assessment? And how would a rule like that encourage any team to sign a GP rider when there is a 60% chance he won't achieve his average?

 

The fact of the matter is 7 pts is a far more appropriate assessment than 8 pts.

Well 7 isn't fair either. Given that the 5 riders I mentioned are nowhere near that standard.

The average makes no difference to the riders. They aren't keen on coming (unless it's short term) under the current regulations otherwise more of them would be here.

The rule WAS 8 for GP standard riders and there was nothing wrong in that.

Our race format can be testing for the big boys, however Niels, AJ and Doyle don't have trouble reaching that 8 point standard.

[BurntFaceMan]

 

There are 8 GP riders in the EL not counting Lindback. Their combined averages total 64.17 which works out at an average of 8.02 per GP rider.

 

My mistake, there are 8.

 

However, there are still only 4 GP riders on an 8pt + average, which means there is a 50% chance that a GP rider will not achieve the 8pt average he has been bought in on, besides actually exceed that average. For a team to win the league they need their riders to exceed their averages. When there is only a 50% chance that a GP rider will even attain that average, there is no incentive to bring the rider into the league.

Based on this years league, each team needs to win at least 46% of their meetings to make it into the play offs. On the assumption that 46pts are required to win a meeting (although obviously this can be higher with tactical rides), you'd need your riders to each increase their average by 0.86pts for 46% of the meetings, just to make the play offs. Let's say this averages out to be 0.4pts per rider, per season.

 

This means that if you were to bring a GP rider into the league, they'd need to achieve an average of approximately 8.4pts to be worth bringing into the league. Currently, only 37.5% of GP riders in the league are actually achieving this average. That means that any promoter who wants to bring a GP rider into the league, on an assessed 8pt average, has a 62.5% chance that their rider will fail to deliver the goods required to warrant that average.

 

Doesn't that logic make sense?

If you were a promoter, would you risk bringing one of the top 15 riders in the world into our league, when there is a 62.5% chance that they will not score enough to warrant their average?

[Aces51]

 

My mistake, there are 8.

 

However, there are still only 4 GP riders on an 8pt + average, which means there is a 50% chance that a GP rider will not achieve the 8pt average he has been bought in on, besides actually exceed that average. For a team to win the league they need their riders to exceed their averages. When there is only a 50% chance that a GP rider will even attain that average, there is no incentive to bring the rider into the league.

 

What has there being an incentive to bring in a GP rider got to do with it. If you want to replace a rider it has to be on a like for like basis. Taking the example of Andersen it had to be someone on 7.15 or less otherwise, it is against the rules and would be unfair on every other team. GP riders have previously been assessed at 8 and lo and behold the current averages for GP riders currently in the EL is almost exactly that figure. If they want to create an incentive to encourage GP riders then the rules have to be changed prior to the beginning of the season so that every team has the opportunity to take advantage of it, not virtually at the end of a season when only one team can bring in a rider on a falsely low assessed average.