speedwayondisc

I'd ask the same question, as well. I have re-read that review several times to try and understand. We all know that David East was a pseudonym used by Shawn Moran at the end of 1979, But is it being said that he later masqueraded as Steve Columbo as well! I'd like to hear an explanation of that particular story. Columbo rode a few unsuccessful matches at Birmingham towards the end of 1979 and had similarly poor returns for Eastbourne in the Gold Cup at the start of 1980. Interestingly on the same night as I, myself, first saw Shawn Moran ride (at The Shay) and score a good 7 points Mr Columbo was having his last two pointless rides for Eastbourne at Swindon, probably 120 miles away! Actually, Both Columbo and 'David East' rode in the same team at Hull on October 24, 1979 ... or did they? ... is that the story? I suppose we will have to pay our money and buy the DVD!

There is a little bit of cinefilm from this meeting on YouTube

The 'Sunday Pictorial' did present the winged wheel trophy in 1958 as part of it's sponsorship of the World Final but the 'Sunday Pictorial' ceased to exist in 1963 being replaced by the new title 'Sunday Mirror' and it was under this sponsorship umbrella that all subsequent Wembley staged World Finals were supported by Mirror Group. I presume at some stage, probably around 1963, that the small name plate on the front was changed to indicate this change of name. Mauger's triple win in 1968-1970 was, I believe, the reason for him being given the trohy in perpetuity, but for reasons unknown to me this was not actually carried out until the Sunday Mirror staged a presentation lunch at the Cafe Royal in London in 1978 at which they handed over the trophy. That year's Golden Jubilee World Final at Wembley did indeed have a one-off elaborate cup that was given to Ole Olsen, that was also given by the Sunday Mirror. The trophy that appeared at the 1979 World Final was a little suprise as I don't think there had been any advance publicity on a new perpetual trophy being created. However, lo and behold, it was of course Mr Mauger who took that home as well.

I think you will find that the Sunday Mirror Winged Wheel Trophy has been part of a magnificent display in Christchurch, New Zealand celebrating Mr Mauger's glorious career. As can be clearly seen in the photographs on HERE it neither looks to be in distress or being used to perform any menial household task. I find it hard to believe that a man that dedicated his life to winning the Sport's top honour, like no other man alive or dead, would have ever treated that particular trophy with anything other that the supreme respect in deserves. To suggest anything else seems frankly ludicrous. Mauger was, of course, presented with that particular trophy in 1978, not on a whim, but in acknowledgement of his unique achievement of winning the title three years in sucession. The Sunday Mirror bestowed this singular honour on him just in the same way as occurs in all other major sports in the world when a competitior or team win s a hat trick of wins. Of course, it is always unfortunate when the facts get in the way of colourful, but ultimately erroneous story, isn't it?

That is a young actress who delighted in the very 1950s name of PEGGY CUMMINS - please do not make your own jokes - who was, in 1952, starring in a Shepperton Studios comedy 'Who Goes There?' which also starred Nigel Patrick and George Cole.

I have news that clarifies things quite a bit. In the Speedway Star and News from October 16, 1964 there is an article regarding the trophy being used for the National League winners of the early sixties. Clearly this is the trophy as presented to Southampton, Belle Vue and then Oxford in the period 1962-1964. The Photograph also shows that it is engraved for that purpose specifically. It seems that Oxford were not presented with this trophy at the meeting that clinched the league title in late September 64 and had not received it even by the National Trophy Final a couple of weeks later. It must have been presented some time later and it is this disconnect between the competition/event at which it was won and the presentation that has probably led to people mis-labelled the reasoning! So this trophy NEVER was used for the National Trophy AT ALL! As this is obviously the same trophy as that used for British Finals later it must have been re-polished and re-engraved for that purpose. This must have been for the 1969 British Final when it was definitely presented to Barry Briggs, I believe for the first year.

That would seem about right Rob. The only thing I do not know for certain in that timeline is if the 1964 Oxford Trophy really was for the National Trophy. Perhaps that is not strictly accurate. Would it not make more sense that it was for the league win not the Trophy win and that fact has got mistaken over the years? Have you got a photo to show for sure?

Perhaps it would help to remove the confusion if we saw a few pictures! The impressive National Trophy presented by and still owned by the Daily Mail was a (bronze, I believe) statue of a Dirt Track Rider in full broadslide and is shown here being presented to Jeff Lloyd of Harringay in 1952 This trophy has never been used for any other purpose that for the winners of the National Trophy when it was sponsored by the Daily Mail; I presume it was not used for the years after they did not sponsor it and another trophy had to be found. Below is the iconic British Championship Trophy that we have seen held aloft every year at Coventry during the seventies, eighties, niineties and even later (Here by Malcolm Simmons in 1976). This is clearly the same trophy as that used for the winners of the first three world Finals (1936 Lionel Van Praag, 1937 Jack Milne and 1938 Bluey Wilkinson). It was never used for post war World Finals I presume that it was this trophy that acted as substiutute in 1964 and was presented to Oxford, although I have no photos to confirm this. However, just to muddy the waters more I did find that this same trophy had already been used in 1962 for the presentations to Southampton when they won the National League!

I have a filled programme here that shows that Chris Pusey was second in both heats 4 and 9; with Norman Hunter being third in heat 4 and first in heat 9 ... does that help?

I think your facts are wrong on this. To the best of my knowledge Len Silver had absolutely nothing to do with preparation of the 1975 World Final track ... nor, as far as I know did he prepare any Wembley tracks before this date either. That was the whole point as to why the track was crap. Up until the 75 World Final the track was the responsibility of the ACU/SCB, which in those days were very seperate indeed from the BSPA, and they employed numpties who had no idea (shades of BSI). I think you will find that Uncle Len was actually brought in to sort out the tracks after the 1975 debacle .... I think apologies may be in order.

This is not really a true reflection of what happened at the time, though. Whilst it's true that Belle Vue Hyde Road would have fallen foul of Health and Safety regarding wooden stands, eventually, it hadn't at the time when Bammy sold out for BCA's millions. I don't think it was a case of Bamforth looking into costings for a revamp, and was put off by a high quote, before taking the thirty pieces of silver, at all. I don't believe he ever even considered for a moment any changes to the stands at all. He just got a big offer and took it! It was only in the years afterwards that it became apparant just how difficult it would have been to keep the Stadium going without major rebuilding.

I think everyone is making a little too much of looking for any reason that caused the promotion to leave Halifax. Reg Fearman hold sold out his share the previous year to the Ham Brothers (and Chris Dunkley) who are Bradford people through and through. The lease on The Shay was up for renewal. Odsal were offering a ridiculously good deal to have a league team using the newly refurbished stadium regularly. And every one really beleived that there could be a real upsurge in support at a new venue. It was simply a no brainer on the part of the promotion. To come up with any reasons beyond this is using speculative hindsight that is pretty unrewarding as it just tends to re-write history. Being around the town at the time I don't honestly believe that there are any realistic chances of Speedway contuning at The Shay under any cicumstances come the end of 1985, whether track changes had been necessary or not, they were going to Odsal, no matter what!

Spot On. Just why did they scrap the GP Challenge, where the lower scorers in the GP met with the qualifiers from that year's round ... it seems to make more sense. You could still have a couple of BSI wildcards as well. Why did they shift to a Grand Final where the qualifiers don't meet those GP flops?

Actually, I wouldn't speak too soon .... we could well be faced with the final race on Saturday being decided by private arrangement, couldn't we?

I want to start by saying that this is NOT meant to be a general rant against Speedway Star. It may be a vain hope but I would not like this thread to degenerate into a generalised gripe about 'The Star'. Instead I would appreciate it if the debate could be restricted to their coverage of this week's Gelsenkirchen debacle in particular and perhaps a little wider at the reporting of the GPs overall. My particular disgust is aimed at the hideously poor journalistic integrity of those writers covering the German GP. On page two and three of this week's edition we have the 'News Report' by a writer who, rightly prefers to remain nameless. This features unchallenged quotes from all the major players but with not one single probing question of any journalistic merit. On page twenty-four and twenty five we are presented with two pages of "What Happened", an hour by hour report of the week of disaster. This is described as a "Report by Philip Rising". But as the aforementioned Managing Editor is also the Assistant Race Director of the GP perhaps it would have been more accurate to describe it as "Ole's unchallenged version of events by Ole's best friend". I find it amazing that he decides not mention, at any point, his own position within the meeting management. Any man with a shred of decency would have openly declared his vested interest, at the very least. Most reputable men would have absented themselves from being in the 'storyteller' position, altogether, if they had such an intimate position within the organisation. His position COULD have enabled him to get the right questions put to the right people on the spot; but having done that it would have been so difficult to take an impartial view that it would still have been more professional to have handed over to an independent journalist. But my anger at this week's Star coverage is much broader. On page 24 a minor headline mentions the word 'disaster', yet at no point in the text anywhere in the magazine is any appreciation, discussion, debate, investigation or comment on a 'disaster'. You would be forgiven for thinking that all that had happened was a slight and minor inconvenience, a small cuffuffle, perhaps ... Not a gold plated, copper bottomed monumental cock up, at all! And I have left my worse criticism till last .... Not one single, solitary, mention of the fans who had travelled to Germany and wasted all their money. This really is the worst indictment of all for those men from Pinegen. Disgusting! I know that "journalistic integrity" may be a laughable concept today in the press; but I would have thought it only right and proper that any writer working on 'The Star' who carries his 'National Union of JOURNALISTS' card proudly in his wallett will now be returning it in shame.

You are completely correct, of course. But I have taken the trouble of highlighting the one word that makes the whole statement totally redundant, as it will never happen.

My previous post on this topic was devoted to the short term aftermath of the Gelsenkirchen farce, particularly taking into account the massive losses that must have been suffered by all who made the ill-fated trip. I still feel that continuing to offer a $200,000 windfall bonus to meaningless Super Prix race winner whilst leaving so many people uncompensated looks disgraceful and seems to be yet another PR disaster in the making. Can IMG really afford another? Having now had the time to read the first hand accounts of Saturday's events from various fans' viewpoint I am even more certain that the money from the Super Prix should be directed towards a compesation fund. It is the human decent thing to do, surely. The longer-term impact is rather less clear. It would seem that the immediate response of some on this forum is to reignite the pro Gp v Pro World Final debate, yet again ... and alongside that, the pro BSI v anti BSI argument has flared once again. Realtistically this is just arguing over the deckchairs on the Titanic isn't it. Totally futile as the GP is here to stay and IMG/BSI have the franchise for just about as long as they want it. So we have to live with it, no matter what. Personally I have enjoyed some tremendous nights at World Finals of the past and have also yet to be disappointed by any GP I have attended ... So I feel pretty neutral. I'm also aware of some of the advances that have been made - especially regarding live TV - during BSI's stewardship but I'm equally well aware that the plaudits are probably due to many other people rather than Posselthwaite, Bellamy et al. Surely, the one advance that BSI are definitely responsible for, and the one for which we are most grateful, is Cardiff. Isn't this just a little less certain for the future now? I would fear that one real, possible consequence of the Gelsenkirchen postponement must be an end to any future one day tracks, whether indoor or outdoor. It's all very well for people to talk about BSI being able to claim on the insurance for last weekend. But surely the insurance was taken out at a reasonable premium only because the likelihood of an indoor rain-off was so, so low. What is the chance that any insurance company will ever again offer a price that anyone could afford when they know it so easily can happen!

Well what an awful weekend to cap a pretty terrible week! I am increasingly infuriated by the fact that despite all the happenings of the last week in the financial markets we still see the bank's TV adverts being transmitted without even a pause for decency. We have shareholders who have lost millions, all of us with pension money evaporating overnight and millions just scared stiff of how the whole thing is going to affect us ... and that ridiculous nerd from the Halifax continues to dance and sing in a tropical beach location!. Have they no shame! But aren't we, in Speedway, going to face something even more perverse next week? IMG/BSI, and following on Sky TV and their talking heads, are all going to be talking up a giveaway bonanza of $200,000 on the Super Prix Final as if nothing has changed after the Gelsenkirchen debacle. How is that really going to be possible? Can you really estimate just what the level of un-compensated losses will have been suffered by many, many people? The numbers must be massive. There is not just the thousands of travelling fans with all their costs of flights, car hire, hotels etc, there are the riders whose combined costs for a GP weekend must be huge, but there will be many others including TV companies, journalists and photographers. Just how many enemies of influence have IMG/BSI just made? How can anyone, even within IMG/BSI, seriously contemplate marketing the $200,000 race in the face of the costs that are not being compensated? Next weekend in Bydgoszcz the World Championship is still to be decided, and although Nicki should do it easily, the title still actually has to be raced for and won. So the meeting has genuine purpose. But surely the so called 'Super Prix' element is a different matter. It has no history or relevence except that the concept was dreamed up by IMG to make sure that the final round still had something to race for. It is surely the first thing to go in a crisis. And this is surely a crisis. Wouldn't it be the right thing to do, the decent thing, even, to put that $200,000 into a 'rescue fund' that could compensate people who have been so heinously treated this dark weekend?

As requested I have uploaded a copy of the 1977 Inter Continental Final ... It can be seen in four parts at YouTube or downloaded in much better quality from rapidshare at the following blog page 1977 Inter Continental Final Video

Thanks for those kind words ... Yes, I have got the 1977 Inter Continental Final I uploaded one copy of this to be downloaded as a Windows Media File and you will find the links on this page 1977 Inter Continental Final However, I think I now have a better copy that I can put up for download ... over the weekend I shal perhaps put that one on YouTube if people prefer.

I know that quite a lot of the old Speedway Videos that had been available on YouTube seem to have disappeared recently so I have started to re-upload some of these ... I have started with the 1973 International Tournament Final which I have uploaded in five parts, so the whole TV recording is there not just the odd race. All five parts can be viewed on the following page of my blogsite ... Wembley 1973

I uploaded the fantastic last race from the Sheffield England v Sweden meeting to Youtube some time ago and embedded the link on my blogsite You can see it again by going to ... England v Sweden (Sheffield) Final Race at SpeedwayOnDisc.Blogspot.com

Come off it! Nobody denies the supremely obvious fact that the booing of Nicki P got to fever pitch by the end of the meeting last Saturday. But you cannot be serious in believing that there were not many people already doing so at the start; the family of Swedes sat next to me were certinly relishing the chance of his name check on parade to stand and boo ... cheerfully, gleefully almost. We have all been at too many meetings to count over the last eight to ten years where the booing of Mr Pedersen has been widespread... and funnily enough it should not come as any surprise that where it has happened the boos tend to get greater in number as the night goes on. Interestingly talking about the Swedish family who were all so happy to boo Nicki at the start - and throughout - theye were totally shocked to find that Hans Andersen was being booed so much on parade. Amazingly they had no idea why!

Please can we nail this matter once and for all. It has been the bane of my speedway watching life that people have always trotted out the total misconception surrounding the 30m or in the past 30 yard marker. We can go back to the SCB regulations of 1948 Reg 123 b " A rider whose engine stops shall, after the gate is up, receive assistance from two pushers as far as the forward foul line. If at that point , the rider's engine is not running he shall be excluded from the race." The Forward Foul Line is previously defined as being 90 feet beyond the start line (the 30 yard marker, effectively). No where else in the regulations is this line mentioned as having any other significance whatsoever. This rule remains in similar guise throughout the fifties. All regulations from the 1960s and 1970s that I have available show Regulation 202 as stating Rule 202 b " After the green light has been displayed no time allowance will be granted and no out side assistance shall be given to any rider except that a rider who falls or whose machine stops thereafter shall, after the gate is up, receive assistance from two pushers for a distance of 30 yards ...." It is in 1980 that, specifically to avoid the confusion that is still being debated here 28 years later, an extra line is added " The 30 yard marker indicates only the limit to which a rider may be pushed at the start, and has no other significance" In 1985 the yards were changed to metres but the rest of the regulations were untouched and remained exactly as I previously quoted from 1985 until 1996 when, I think it was Graham Reeve, gave the rulebook a comprehensive new look. From 1996 onwards you will not be able to find ANY reference to any 30m marker AT ALL or for provision of pushers at the start, and there is certainly no mention in any regulations of any 'stay straight for 30m' rule that so many people think. The truth is, and please can this be the end of it, it NEVER existed at any stage in the whole history of (post-war) Speedway PS (Don't get me looking into the thirties!!) Edited for spelling

In response to where I have seen this written I could quote from almost any rulebook going back years and years but taking one at random, the SCB rules for 1988 states Rule 202 b " After the green light has been displayed no time allowance will be granted and no out side assistance shall be given to any rider except that a rider who falls or whose machine stops thereafter shall, after the gate is up, receive assistance from two pushers for a distance of 30m .... ... The 30 m marker indicates only the limit to which a rider may be pushed at the start, and has no other significance ... " The use of bold is mine to emphasise how the rule makers had, at some point, recognised the need to explain to everyone just exactly what they meant as people have consistently misunderstood this for my entire life watching speedway. Edited because an inappropriate smily appeared!