Well Nick by what you say ( the alterations, which WERE manageable, but which became too prolific due to bad race management.) you infer that the old system of alterations had become too prolific , I assume by { prolific } you mean it was no longer very good at what it did because there had become too many needing moving up or down and the system could not cope efficiently and made a mockery of the program , , now I think someone else said that ! wonder who that was ? oh well never mind , as for your derogatory remark as to the management I assume and I have to stress ASSUME for I do not know but as far as I know the same method of calculating the seeding program numbers is still in use apart from the top 20 that I believe to be wrong and its inefficiency is the cause of so many riders being moved up and down the order , and again I say it sit down with the programs and start numbers and do number crunching of how many were moved and by how far to work out how out of tilt the old system needed altering , but if you can come up with a way of achieving that without the boring cry of don't change anything I will be very interested to hear it


.