|
|
1997 Archive of International Speedway
Message Section
October Part 3 - 1997
From: John-Lowe@classic.msn.com
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Points limit
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 01:03:49 UT
Nick wrote:
> I have even been told 42 is on the cards for the Premier!
Presumably for a seven rider team!
John McEnroe said
> You cannot be serious!!!
It all sounds like a Dave Pavitt plot to make every PL team as crap as Oxford
aided and abetted by the EL types attempting to asset strip the best PL
riders.
I just can't see the PL teams going along with this. How do you fit another
rider in for 2 additional points. I agree with Nick that 45 points is nearer
the mark although still quite tight. Reading would struggle to get their
current six man line up within 45 points.
Remember that Alex Harkess is on the management committee so I would expect he
to stand up for the interests of the PL clubs, especially Edinburgh! If the EL
representatives vote such a proposal through, there is always the possibility
of a breakaway.
I also agree with Nick that a 1.5 conversion factor from EL to PL is not
realistic. Sean Tacey was on 3.23 in the EL and about 8 in the PL suggesting 2
to 2.5 is more appropriate for the lower end of EL riders.
I must disagree with his suggestion for Alfonso. Since Stefano has never raced
in the EL, and his average of 5.51 was in the old PL, the 1.5 conversion
factor must surely apply. This conversion factor from the old PL to the
current PL worked remarkably well.
That would give Alfonso a corrected average of 5.51 x 1.5 x 0.8 = 6.61. That
would give 38.32 for the six riders I suggested for Edinburgh next season.
This would leave room for a good junior on 42 points or 6.68 points to play
with on a 45 point limit. James Grieves would fit in on a 1.5 conversion
factor! Now that team would take some beating.
John Lowe
PS: Congratulations to Exeter for winning the play-off semi-final. Best wishes
for the final against the Long Eaton SA!
From: K.Meynell@terena.nl
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Re: Points limit
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 09:52:34 +0100
>> I have even been told 42 is on the cards for the Premier!
>> You cannot be serious!!!
A 42 point limit for a seven man team would be reasonable if bonus points
are not included in the calculations. This equates to a draw (7 x 6pts).
Kevin Meynell
From: MARIAN@ksinet.univ.gda.pl
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: WWW updates
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 10:05:51 +0100
Speedway Home Page has new section:
1998 Speedway World Championship calendar
1998 Ice Racing Home Page
and new 1997 Electronic Speedway Yearbook:
Slovenia and Czech Republik
Browse from http://www.amg.gda.pl/speedway/
Please send me Your comments, updates etc.
Marcin Babnis
From: brettg@gil.com.au
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Leg Trailing
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 07:51:02 +0000
It is with interest I read on the list the other day about Mark
Loram's leg-trailing style. He doesn't seem to do this all the time,
but it is generally most apparent when he's out wide
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: I: II test message
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 21:45:59 +0100
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Andrea Geatti
A: speedway-l@ksinet.univ.gda.pl
Data: marted=EC 28 ottobre 1997 16.36
Oggetto: II test message
>Just a second test with this new computer.
>Now it seems working right.
>Regards.
>Andrea Geatti
>
>
>
>PS: I was just reading the message about a speedway fan directory.
>I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to put a small picture of each of the
>members so to have an idea of whom you are speaking to.
>
From: K.Meynell@terena.nl
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Dyer Heat Formats
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 14:04:23 +0100
Nick wrote:
>Webbo and the others who have commented on this have such short
>memories!
>Two races in a heat?
>Was it any different in 96?
>Why would we be exempt from two races in a heat if seven man teams
>were reintroduced?
I think the point is not that the 16-heat format will totally eliminate the
'two races in one syndrome', but that it provides some easier races for
lower order riders, specifically in Heats 2, 8 and 14. I actually don't
think it's desirable that lower-order riders are never programmed against
heat leaders. How are they expected to improve? I think it's more a
question of striking a balance (i.e. not meeting a heat leader in every heat).
The 16-heat format has a number of weaknesses, but it's a damn sight better
than the current BEL/BPL format. Yes, we're changing again (for the sixth
time in ten years), but is there any point keeping a (really) crap format
just for continuity purposes. I still say it was a tragedy the BL didn't
persevere with the 8-man, 18-heat format.
Cheers,
Kevin Meynell
From: metent@globalnet.co.uk
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Points Limits, Drugs and Reading
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 17:20:44 -0000
John wrote:
> On the stramash with the Evening News after the Newcastle home defeat,
John
> Campbell, as ever, is blaming the Press! In this case David Kinvig of the
> Edinburgh Evening News is public enemy No 1.
Why don't Speedway Promoters like people who tell the truth? Does it hurt
or something?
> If the seven rider teams return, as most seem to suggest, I would hope
that
> the bulk of the 1997 side could be retained. Reserves would be Blair
Scott and
> Barry Campbell.
Not if a proposal for every team to have a 3.00 man is approved they won't.
The heat leaders would be Peter Carr, Kenny McKinna, plus one
> other. That would leave Gould + one other as second strings. Stephano
Alfonso
> and James Grieves would be popular choices to fill the gaps. It all
depends on
> the points limit.
And the averages. As I've hinted earlier, I understand there is also a
proposal to change the multiplying factor for conversion of riders changing
leagues. James Grieves' average would clearly be affected by this, and
there is no guarantee Alfonso's average wouldn't be either as he didn't
compete this year.
>
> When is the format and points limit likely to be announced for next year?
These will doubtless be discussed further at the BSPA Conference next
month. Even if
agreement is reached, there's no guarantee any announcement will be made.
Rememer 1996-7's "Secrecy"?
Ruth wrote:
I am surprised to see people "suggesting" that we return to the 1996
formula
> - not because I don't agree but because it was my understanding that it
had
> already been agreed! Certainly I was under the impression that it was
> definite (I'm not sure where I got that impression from but my brother
has
> spoken to a lot of people in speedway in the last month or so and
somewhere
> along the line I was told 7 man teams were definitely back for next year
> (thank you God)
Nothing has been formally agreed yet, only discussed (see above).
Nick wrote:
> Race Formula?
>
> Webbo and the others who have commented on this have such short
> memories!
> Two races in a heat?
> Was it any different in 96?
Yes, it certainly was.
All the changes in 1997 did was to exaggerate the problem. The 1996 formula
wasn't perfect, but a darn sight better than the 1997 one. Only an idiot
could have dreamed up the present formula as a counter to accusations of
"two races in one".
> Why would we be exempt from two races in a heat if seven man teams
> were reintroduced?
> It would be worse! (Depending on the points limit of course)
The re-introduction of 7 man teams has little to do with this (who ever
said it had?), more to reduce the number of 3 man races and also to allow
more flexibility with reserves.
> The only reason SOME tracks (notably a certain Scottish track) had two
> races was because they tracked two half teams - heat leaders and the
> other ones. Similarly Sheffield who (on their good days) had three heat
> leaders who flew around their home track and three comparative duffers.
You too have a short memory Nick.
At the start of the season Sheffield's strategy too was built around four
heat leaders (two established, two emerging) - Kessler, Smith, Wolter and
Aas. This was just starting to work well for us when Aas got injured (his
actual average before he got hurt was around 8.00) and lost form, defeating
the ploy completely as by then we couldn't get a suitable replacement. We
were thus forced to abandon the strategy and field two half-teams, just
like virtually everyone else (Reading excepted), whose similar strategy
paid off well for them. Also, the reason why you didn't see two races in
one a lot a Reading (here I go with that old chestnut again) was because
the track made ANY racing impossible on more occasions than we will ever
get you to admit!!
> I am not convinced of the merits of the six man formula but I am
frustrated
> that I will have to explain to people that speedway is going to change
the
> number of riders in a team and race formulas AGAIN!
So's everyone else. But the 1997 changes were ill thought out (as ever),
and you don't have to be frightened of change when it is obviously
necessary, as in this case.
>
> I have even been told 42 is on the cards for the Premier!
> They can't be serious......?
I haven't calculated just what I think it should be yet. But i won't be
making my calculations to suit any team, just basing them on logic. Why not
42 - would Reading be stuffed by this?
>
> John's Edinburgh side:
> Carr (10.15) McKinna (9.84) Alfonso (80%x 5.51 x2?= 8.82) Scott (3.76)
> Campbell (3.49) Gould (4.47) + 1.47 = 42.00
> They would be looking for 45 at least.
Yes, they would be, but they won't get it. Self interest is no reason for
rule changing.
Also, why should Alfonso's average be reduced when he was out through
disciplinary reasons? Averages are only normally reduced for riders who
sustain injuries (Oops, sorry I forgot - Edinburgh are represented on the
Management Committee and therefore should be able to do as they please!!)
> Webbo's bit on Lee Richardson ?
>
> I held my peace whilst others defended Lee (thanks to them) as I thought
> it was a blatant wind up by Webbo - but it appears he may be serious.
Obviously you missed my posting admitting it was all a wind up? Otherwise
it would have spared us all an unwanted free copy of the LR Fan Club
magazine (editor: N. Dyer)!
>
> What twisted logic.
> Just because others have had outrageous bans placed on them so should
> Alfonso......
It's called consistency, something which we should strive for when
enforcing the law.
> Laws are supposed to be equitable - but a rider can fail an alcohol test
> and
> get a match or two ban -yet fail a dope test and you get the book thrown
> out you!
> Neither is cheating yet both are wrong so cannot go unpunished but the
total
> hypocrisy involved in beer swilling pontificators pronouncing that
alcohol
> is
> ok yet cannabis is evil makes my blood boil.
> Cannabis is illegal so it obviously warrants a stiffer punishment - but
this
> is out
> of all proportion both to the crime and to other sports' sanctions.
I didn't say the laws were equitable.
But before taking either alcohol or drugs, any rider knows what the
potential consequences are.
Taking whatever substance runs the risk of being caught and facing the
(pre-determined) penalties for the offence.
Whether or not I agree is irrelevant. The rules are there for all to follow
or flout as they see fit. If you don't agree with a particular rule, then
the way forward is to do as I do and lobby for change. (BTW: I won't be
lobbying for any change in the doping control rules)
> I wonder how many riders take "e" on their nights out...
Drugs are more socially acceptable in some areas of the country than
others. A recent survey in one of the broadsheet newspapers showed the
areas where they are most accepted to be in London and the South East, and
least acceptable in the North East & Yorkshire. So, what's OK in some
places is frowned upon in others - that's life.
Time for tea.
WEBBO
From: marcman@argonet.co.uk
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Fan Directory
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 97 19:32:47
Hi all, Passing this on for Tim (Shale-Shifter Speedway Fan Directory) Wilde.
Regards Marc.
***************************
Marc, could you please post this on Speedway-l?
Thanks, mate!
Message:
Before I forget, could anyone with comments or photos for the Fan Directory
please e-mail me at rovers@direct.ca from now on. There's a link to this
address on the website.
Response to the Speedway Fan Directory has been brisk indeed. Several fan
photos are already entered into the guestbook, but this is only a temporary
guestbook which will be replaced by the actual Directory once I have more
feedback from you fans on what kinds of fan information you want to
register/view. It doesn't necessarily have to totally relate to speedway (e.g.
favourite food, drink, movie) - anything to give the other fans a better idea
of WHO you are.
The Directory will have the same appearance as the guestbook, but with
different information fields than at present.
I NEED IDEAS, AND I NEED THEM FAST!!
I want to get the Directory up and running as soon as possible, and not have to
transfer too many of the growing pile of photos from the current guestbook to
the future Directory.
Cheers and all the best,
Tim (Shale-Shifter Speedway Fan Directory)
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/3675/
********************************************
From: Chris_Brown#UNIPART@unipart.co.uk
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Re: Points limit
Date: 29 Oct 97 20:10:06 GMT
I've been doing a bit of catching up
John wrote
>>It all sounds like a Dave Pavitt plot to make every PL team as crap as Oxford
>>aided and abetted by the EL types attempting to asset strip the best PL
>>riders.
John I would expect better from you. You are believing a journalists view of
what DP has said, I am sure Leon will support me in saying this is not what
Oxford want. Dave is right, the step from AL to PL is vast. Many have struggled
and very few top AL performers have really come through. The Edinburgh riders
and David Meldrum have probably faired better than most. Even Krister Marsh who
hardly rode in a losing team for two thirds of the season really excelled. A
few examples
G Lobb 3.15 mainly at home
P Lee 4.45
D Felton 2.35
K Marsh 2.32
A Barlow 2.78
Dazza 1.65
J Birkinshaw 2.32
M Lowrie 3.04
B Eldridge 2.00
Is really isn't that good is it. I wonder if maybe the jump is just too great.
We will no doubt see next year with the stepping up of the likes of David Howe
and who ??? Where are all these 3 pointers coming from ???
Anyway you struggled just a little to turn us over in the cup. does this make
Edinburgh semi crap ?? No of course is doesn't.
>>That would give Alfonso a corrected average of 5.51 x 1.5 x 0.8 = 6.61. That
>>would give 38.32 for the six riders I suggested for Edinburgh next season.
That's a cracking idea, allow a man whose banned for using drugs to have his
average reduced. Some justice. Yes I know that's what the rules says but here
is a case for changing them. But of course Edinburgh are on the Mismanagement
Committee
Malcolm's report of Exeter/Reading talked about Reading complaining about the
track. Lets examine Reading's last two defeats, IOW, down to the track and
Exeter, what track again.Come on Racers you of all teams shouls be used to crap
tracks, you've been riding one for bleeding years
From: staek@globalnet.co.uk
To: "Internet Speedway Fan Club List"
Subject: Re: Start delays / gardening
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 20:35:40 +0000
Hi guys,
Sorry but the messages from Steve Magro and Phil White really riled me!
Sure everything is relative - but I honestly expected more from Mr.
White - what with his experience and knowledge of the sport.
I will try to keep it simple: It's our job!
Especially in the GP's there is so much at stake in every single heat -
so much depends on that single start - so naturally everyone wants to
make sure that they get the best start possible for them at that given
gate.
I know some go a bit ott with this (and I don't mean Bobby!), but
everyone is just trying do do their best - which I thought is what the
fans want to see?
I have had this discussion with Frank Ebdon - and even he agreed with me
- albeit reluctantly!
Like I said - it's simple.
Best Wishes
Jan St=E6chmann.
|
