INSIDE LINES

SUTTON CHARTS THE WAY FORWARD – posted 13 January 2014

 

One of cycle speedway most experienced and respected administrators has presented a discussion paper to the Cycle Speedway Commission aimed at improving relationships between rank-and-file cycle speedway and its governing body.

 

Poole chairman Graham Sutton wrote the paper ahead of the recent announcement about rider levies and asked that it be considered at the last Commission meeting.  In order to progress matters, Sutton suggests that a high-power forum, comprising Commission members and experienced regional officials be set up to address some of the problem areas.

 

The paper is reproduced in full here.

 

DISCUSSION PAPER

 

Purpose

To address the growing ‘perceived disaffection’ towards British Cycling in general and the CS Commission in particular from grassroots levels within the sport as reflected in conversations at tracks, online comments, social media and most recently at all four of the regional AGM’s.

 

This paper does not seek to identify a perfect set of solutions but to encourage a dialogue which put our ship back on a more harmonious and even keel. The outcome should be to identify a package of measures which should be put in place over a period of 12 months.

 

Problem Areas

Most frequently mentioned topics in critical discussions are competition arrangements, finances, PR/Publicity, meetings, discipline, communication and what may loosely be referred to as customer service. Closer analysis will reveal that many comments are based on a misconception whilst others undoubtedly have substance.

 

The Way Forward

A forum should be established to create an action plan charged with the responsibility of maximising the resources of British Cycling to better serve and promote the sport of cycle speedway. In addition to serving Commission members, the forum should be comprised of a selected individual from each of the four regions with a proven track record of excellence in club administration.

 

Cycle Speedway Commission

The current structure of four voting Commissioners elected by, and representing each of the regions and three additional (voting) BC appointees supplemented by a team of (non-voting) competition managers does not require any early amendment until such time as the 12 month review by the “Forum” is completed.

 

However, there is a need to improve the management overview of the

CSC an early stage to ensure that the outputs are of the required standard both collectively and individually. Traditionally, this was always achieved in the sport by a chairman who had a long term wealth of experience in the sport and could trouble shoot and adjust the administrative arrangements as necessary. Currently, the CSC is chaired by a frequently rotated BC official with – at best – a basic understanding of the sport.

 

An alternative arrangement needs to be considered in order to rectify this shortcoming perhaps by identifying an experienced Commissioner who can work closely alongside the chairperson. This should help to address the currently problems whereby the CS Coordinator is being drawn into executive decision making situations for which responsibility lays elsewhere.

 

The roles of the three BC appointed commissioners should reflect overall priorities within the CSC’s remit with the emphasis placed more firmly on Coaching, Rules/Refereeing and Competitions. These areas of responsibility should be reviewed and adjusted and appointments confirmed on a suitability basis. A degree of “refreshment” is always desirable in a change environment and is a healthy feature of any organisation and should be considered sooner rather than later.

 

The regionally elected commissioners provide an effective conduit to and from the CSC but there is potential to make better use of their expertise and play an active role in relation to their region. To illustrate this and to attempt to address one of the most frequently aired complaints about the lack of coverage of the sport from within BC PR/publicity resources, the regional officers are best placed to identify the most appropriate method of obtaining reports, whether from staging clubs or other options.

 

There is no reason why the regional officers should not hold a basket of similar ‘key responsibilities’ which are more effectively dealt with locally rather than centrally. A greater potential exists for improving the interface between the clubs within each region and BC regional managers who have knowledge of, and access to significant resources which could benefit clubs.

 

This short paper does not pretend to solve all the problems which have caused the decline in regard for British Cycling by the grass roots of cycle speedway but to constructively assist the process whereby the potential of the sport we love is realised. I hope it will be received in that manner.

CLOTHING – THE GREAT DEBATE – posted 12 October 2013

 

One noticeable development this year has been the relaxed approach cycle speedway administrators and referees are taking to race clothing.

 

In the past, teams and individuals have been uniformly dressed but today, as cycle speedway tries to shake off its staid regimented image, more and more ‘individualism’ and colour is being introduced. 

An increasing number of clubs and riders are ditching the old traditional corporate image in favour of brightly coloured bottoms, often emblazoned with their sponsor’s names or that of their secondary club.

 

Race numbers are becoming a rarity, allowing spectators and match officials to literally identify more closely with the riders by noticeably marking what they look like, what helmets they are wearing, the colour of their shoes or the make of their bike.

 

There has been a seachange too in the clothing worn by officials.  British Cycling started the trend earlier this year with the introduction of modernised shades of grey attire complete with the cosmopolitan title ‘Commissaire’.  Some referees have been reluctant to change preferring the old fashion black and white striped tops with the ‘referee’ titling.

 

Support staff, including starters and flag marshals, have also been quick to up their image, stylish shorts and trendy hoodies replacing what some people see as outdated red club polo shorts and black sports trousers favoured by some clubs.

 

The new relaxed style may not meet the approval of the ‘old school’ but does it really matter?  Other than the occasional Sky TV coverage screened to millions of homes across the globe, most matches are watched by one man and his dog.  So does image really matter?

 

Editor’s Note – What do you think?  We’d love to hear your thoughts on riders’ and officials’ clothing.

 

EDITORIAL SELF-INDULGENCE – posted 21 June 2013

 

Perhaps on this occasion I could be forgiven for a bit of editorial self-indulgence.

 

While rooting through my cycle speedway archive, I came across this grainy black and white picture taken fifty years ago on a Kodak Brownie camera.  The picture, taken in June 1963, shows the newly formed Mousehold Aces cycle speedway team at their home track, St James's Hollow, Norwich.

 

The picture features Martin Read, Glen Read, Micky Gill, Dennis Brumstead, Ray Balls, Terry Hood, Richard Wells, Another, Malcolm Blackburn and yours truly leaning over on the right.

 

Who would have thought back in those carefree days that cycle speedway would become such a key part of my life. Now 50 years on, I still enjoy the sport as much as I did in those far off days of summer, half a century ago.

 

Wonderful memories!

DISCIPLINARY PROCESS RE-VISITED – posted 20 May 2013

 

Much has been written on Spokesman and Facebook in recent days about British Cycling’s disciplinary process.

 

We thought it worth reminding readers of the correct process by re-publishing part of an interview which appeared on Spokesman last Autumn.  Answering the questions as part of our Question Time feature was British Cycling’s Disciplinary Officer Dr George Gilbert.  Here’s what Dr Gilbert had to say:

 

Can you give Spokesman a brief summary?

 

When the Disciplinary Officer receives a report of misconduct, they ask the British Cycling staff to investigate further to build up an initial picture of what happened from multiple sources.  That is then passed back to the Disciplinary Officer to decide if the report is credible or not.  It's important to stress that no judgement is made over guilt at this point, merely whether or not the allegation is credible; if it isn't, the case is either dropped, or more usually resolved through informal

discussion with the parties as there's often some underlying grievance where getting people together and talking can help.

 

If there is a credible allegation of misconduct, then that is written up as a formal Disciplinary Complaint and, after discussion with British Cycling's legal and compliance teams, a Specified Sanction is suggested and sent to the accused individual or club.  The Specified Sanction is merely an opportunity for the individual / club to admit liability early and take a fixed penalty rather than having to go through a formal hearing.

 

A bit like a parking ticket or speeding fine?

 

Yes, exactly.  Again, it's important to stress that receiving notice of a Specified Sanction doesn't mean the individual or club is definitely guilty, it's just an early opportunity for them to admit guilt if they are.  If they feel they are not guilty, or the Specified Sanction is not appropriate due to mitigating circumstances etc, then they should reject it and the case will proceed to a full formal investigation and a hearing.

 

What happens at the hearing?

 

To avoid one person being both the prosecutor and the judge / jury, hearings are handled by a completely different person - the Head of the Disciplinary Panel.  They select a panel of three independent people and all the evidence is put before them; that panel then makes a decision over guilt and, if found guilty, imposes a Sanction. 

 

If the accused is unhappy with that, then they also have the right to appeal that decision, and the Head of the Disciplinary Panel will convene another panel of three different independent people and they will look at the case again.  In practice, if someone doesn't accept the allegations made against them, a minimum of nine, and often 15 to 20, different people will have reviewed the case before a sanction is imposed.