There
is no doubt that the low point of the 2003 GP series was the first attempt to
run the Scandinavian GP in Gothenburg that was called off after 3 “races” due
to the unsatisfactory nature of the temporary track at the Ullevi
stadium.
At the
time the GP organizers made various comments that steps would be taken to
prevent such a situation happening again and so I decided to check out the 2004
GP rulebook (www.fim.ch) to see if they had
kept their promise and what exactly these changes were and their effect on
British Speedway.
Following
the Ullevi fiasco much was made of the fact that the
organizers were not aware of any problems with the track until it was too late
to save the situation.
“The real crime was that those in charge… just a collection of
Swedish club workers, did not put their hands up early in the week, concede
that that the foundation of the track was wrong and at least give Olsen, who
was in Gothenburg, or BSI a fighting chance of getting it right.”
So it
appears from the above that BSI were paying somebody to lay a track yet neither
the Race Director or anyone from BSI thought it wise or prudent to visit the
stadium to check on progress or standard of work. Can you imagine having some
building work carried out on your house/office prior to an important occasion
and not checking daily on progress and workmanship? It is clear from the 2004
rulebook that BSI/FIM couldn’t believe they were so naïve as rule 077.4.1
states
“The FIM has the right to inspect any track intended for the
Individual Speedway World Championship GP at any time it considers such an
inspection to be necessary and may order the taking of any measures needed to
comply with all FIM requirements and safety matters for riders, officials and
spectators.”
To avoid another “Ullevi”
situation occurring with a temporary track rule 077.4.1 goes on describe in
some detail the procedure, which must be followed when a non-permanent track is
used. Three months before the GP the SGP Race Director must receive from the
promoters a file containing drawings and descriptions of
Complete track measurements and layout
How it will be built up
Time schedule for its construction
Amount and type of equipment to be used
Composition and type of track material to be used
Construction of fences, inner kerbs,
drainage etc.
Once this file has been evaluated preliminary approval will
be issued but the International Jury, before official practice, will take the
final decision if a FIM track licence can be issued.
The above seems comprehensive enough to prevent an “Ullevi” track occurring again.
No doubt you will remember that further problems were
caused when the FIM/BSI decided in their wisdom to restage the Scandinavian GP
a week later. At the time the BSPA chairman Mr Chris Van Straaten
was quoted in the Speedway Star dated 30 August 2003:
“ We accept there are contingency
dates to restage the event but are not aware of seven days later being one of
them. This restaging will have a detrimental effect on British speedway….
Contracting GP riders into British speedway is a fine balancing act and
occurrences such as this will raise question marks over their future
employment”
No doubt Mr Van Straaten was
basing his comments on the then rule 077.1.3 which in simple terms say that two
restaging dates had to be declared for each GP, the two days following the
original date, and if the meeting still couldn’t be staged on these dates then
it wouldn’t be restaged. So one is bound to ask where did the 7-day restaging
date come from? At the time the Speedway Star said
that:
“ However the FIM Jury (I assume they
meant International Jury, the term FIM Jury is not used in rulebook) have the
power to overrule that (i.e. rule 077.1.3) and have done so in this case.”
Nowhere in the 2003 GP rulebook did it say this and the
2004 FIM Sporting Code, 50.1.3, defines the terms of reference of the
International Jury as:
“ entitled either on its own
initiative or on request of the organiser or the Race Director or Clerk of the
Course, to delay the start of a meeting, to have the circuit, track or venue
improved, to stop or cancel the meeting for reasons of safety or “force majeure”
There is no indication that this wording has been changed
in 2004, and whilst I am not a lawyer I would argue that the words “delay the
start of the meeting” can only mean by hours not days and if this delay does
not then the meeting must be restaged on one of the “official” restaging dates.
So one is bound to ask where the organizers of the GP got the idea that the
International Jury had the power to delay the meeting by 7 days. Were they
i)
Using the unwritten FIM rulebook
ii)
Granted the famous speedway term “special dispensation “
iii)
Quoting the rules they believed were in the rulebook rather
than what actually was as per the 2002 World Team Cup race-off (see The Voice
Edition 13)
In 2004 there will be no cause for argument as rule 077.1.3
now reads:
“ Nevertheless, in exceptional circumstances,
the International Jury of the Meeting will have the possibility to postpone the
meeting to a maximum of 7 days from the original date”
Of course being
Rule 077.3.7 requires riders to sign on by 15.00 on race
day and
“When a rider signs on he is deemed to have entered the meeting and
is not permitted to take part in any motorcycle meeting until the completion of
the GP meeting”
So if you read rules 077.1.3 and 077.3.7 together does this
really mean that if “exceptional circumstances “ occur and the meeting is
delayed by up to 7 days after the riders have signed in then they will be
stopped from earning a living by riding throughout Europe? If so will the GP
organisers make up for loss of earnings, pay compensation to their club sides
in
Also if a meeting was delayed for the maximum 7 days and
the “non riding” rule was not enforced would they be paid expenses for the fact
that one GP involved two sets of travel/hotel/wage costs ? Rule 077.10.1 states that travel/hotel
expenses are included in the prize money and 077.10.5 states that if meeting is
staged on one of the “standard” restaging dates, i.e. two days following
original staging date, then the prize money remains the same but other about
what happens if “exceptional circumstances” occur. Following the no doubt
heated discussions that took place between the riders and the GP organizers
over out of pocket expenses following “Ullevi” part 1
why are the rules not crystal clear or are the organizers hoping that
“exceptional circumstances” never happen and if they do they will argue the
point with the riders?
Talking of money one thing that has not changed in 2004, in
fact the last change was in 2002, is the prize money. This would be bad enough
if the riders were only losing out by the rate of inflation over the last 3
years, say 9%, but the fact that all prize money is based on the US dollars
makes a bad situation into a financial disaster. The US dollar is sinking
against most European currencies faster than the Titanic (in 2002 £1 = $1.5 in
2004 many experts think it will be £1 =$2). Based on these figures a GP
winner’s prize of $10250 in 2002 was worth £6833 but in 2004 this could be only
worth £5125 whilst if you finish 24th then your $1600 was worth £1066 in 2002
but this could reduce to only £800 in 2004. I am not an accountant or a
financial wizard but if the PR/spin put out by BSI and their friends and GP
supporters is correct and the GP is such a success then why do the riders
appear to be the only people not to be sharing, in financial terms at least, in
this success shouldn’t the organizers and riders remember the words of Abraham
Lincoln
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of
the people some of the time: but you can’t fool all of the people all of the
time”
Charles Mckay – The Star of