Jump to content
British Speedway Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. compost

    S.C.B. Track Licences

    Dave, have you looked at the DM yearbook for '77 ? I am sure (but don't have access to the book to check) that they included licence numbers for a couple of the seasons covered.
  2. compost

    Wimbledon stadium

    Apologies for my misunderstanding. Case of mistaken name association.
  3. compost

    Wimbledon stadium

    Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Michanek Cradley Heath website - http://www.cradleyspeedway.co.uk/riders/amichanek.htm A site called 'how old' - https://howold.co/anders-michanek (which says he is 75 is 69 days time - so it is definitely not saying deceased). Can't see anywhere that says he has passed away. If I got it wrong then apols but hopefully your report is wrong and he is still with us.
  4. compost

    Wimbledon stadium

    Anders is still with us according to the Internet
  5. compost

    Rider Lists

    I can probably come up with something covering the period 1965 to 2009, although the '80s will be patchy. Is is just a list of riders per season you want or do you need it by team too (what about non league and international sides - do you need those too) ? Please PM me by way of reply (will take a day or two to do though).
  6. compost

    Promoter's Agm!

    No one has mentioned it yet that I've seen but the bspa website statement so no promotion/relegation next year.
  7. compost

    Alan Hunt Question Yarmouth V Cradley 1950

    At first sight it is difficult to work out whether Cradley gained an advantage for having Hunt at reserve when he shouldn't have been there. After all his form was such that 4-12 was not unreasonable. However, in his next away match, on the 10th June a Edinburgh, he rode at number 2 (a not unusual riding position for him at this time). At Yarmouth had he ridden at number 2 he would have met the opposition numbers 1&2, 5&6, 3&4 and 2&6 in his heats. He actually rode against the Yarmouth 4&7, 3&8, 5&6 and 7&8 (note : these are the actual riding positions in his heats not the programmed ones). As he rode half his races against the opposite reserves, when he should have met none of them at number 2, then I would say that he definitely gained an advantage (and bearing in mind Exeter losing, possibly, the Southern League title to Rayleigh in 1953 on a similar issue - someone riding at reserve that shouldn't have which led to the annullment of the match [i hope I have remembered this correctly]). It is sad that we will probaby never know why the match was either not annulled or ordered re-run. Many thanks BL65 for the added info.
  8. compost

    Alan Hunt Question Yarmouth V Cradley 1950

    Thanks BL65 (apols for the wrong month no idea why I wrote May !) So it looks like an unexplained mystery why he rode at reserve for the one meeting (scoring 4-12). I suspect that it didn't make any real difference as had he been in the 1-6 he would still have scored 4-12, reserves at the time only being able to take a max of 4 rides in 14 heat matches.
  9. Real long shot but has anyone any idea why Cradley's number 1, Alan Hunt, rode in the number 7 reserve berth for the Southern Shield match against, and at, Yarmouth on the 6th May 1950 ? Hunt was averaging around 10.5 (including BP's and all competitions) at the time and there is no way I can see why he would be at reserve !! The riding number is confirmed on both the Cradley and the Yarmouth files on the researcher website. BTW I thought that at this time any reserve scoring more than 50% of the points possible had to move out of reserve. Thanks
  10. compost

    A Question For The Hardcore Stattos...

    It looks to me that the crux of the matter is whether or not the rider is under the 2 minute warning. A rider excluded under the 2 minutes limit would normally have a 1 for the match and a 0 for that ride. If a rider is excluded from ALL of their heats (or a number 8 entered in a heat but excluded under 2 minutes) how would you indicate that stats wise ? The way I would show it would 0 rides etc – but by entering a 0 here would mean that the rider was ‘at the match’ so the match total would be increased by 1 (this reasoning allows a rider injured in their first race and unable to take part in the rest of meeting to be shown, for stats purposes, that they were in the match i.e. 1 match, 0 rides etc). The alternative would be to show a DNR for the match, which whilst it would be literally correct, would not convey what happened – that the rider made a bona-fide attempt to ride but was unable to. In Dave’s case it is unclear whether the rider was under the 2 minute warning so a reasonable treatment would be to not allow him the match. But ... you could argue that there was an implied 2 minute warning and that he should have the match – he was on the track and there may have been other competitiors in that heat also out on the track at the same time so you could argue that they were all, so to speak, under starters orders. Added : I presume it is not known if other heat riders were also out on the track at the time or if the pits gate had been closed ? The real issue is the reporting of the incident. If there is enough detail to make an informed decision then the result is usually obvious but in this instance there doesn’t appear to be though from what Dave has added I would probably give him the match. In the Reidar Eide case strictly speaking there should be no difference between him failing to meet the 2 minutes than in the case of any other rider failing to meet the time limit. The issue then becomes one of did he really try to meet the time limit ? So maybe he should be credited with the match ? Maybe the reason why failing to meet the time limit results in basically a null ride for the rider needs to be reviewed after all why are such rides not counted (is it to do with the way riders are paid – excluded under 2 minutes and they don’t get heat money) ? Actually I’ve realised I should apologies to Norbold as this was along the lines of his treatment stated earlier.
  11. compost

    A Question For The Hardcore Stattos...

    Slightly off topic but anyone know why a 2 minute exclusion is not counted as a ride ? I've never understood the logic here as tape breaking is a heat exclusion and counts as a ride taken so why should not coming to the tapes be treated differently ? In Dave's original example the injured rider could either; withdraw from the meeting and not be credited with the meeting, or, he could go back to the pits, be excluded under the 2 minutes limit, withdraw from the rest of the meeting but be credited with the meeting. Would there be any benefit for the rider or his team either way ? Cheers
  12. compost

    A Question For The Hardcore Stattos...

    Norbold, I am not quibbling about when a meeting starts but I am disagreeing with you in respect of whether or not a rider pulling out of a heat (under 2 minutes or not) should be counted as a ride (and possibly therefore a meeting). As a statto, who tries to be as accurate as possible, I have always treated the presence of a rider who does not start a heat during a match but who is named as a member of one of the teams as a DNR (did not ride) - which would be a zero match, ride, point, BP. The reason for them not starting a heat is pretty much immaterial - the only exception would be a rider excluded from all their rides under the 2 minute rule which would result in 1 match 0 rides, points etc (though I would not allow them the match if they weren't present at the track as did happen). Equally if they start a heat but the heat is not completed and the rider takes no further part in the match (and has not previously not been involved in a completed heat) then they would be deemed to have participated in the match with a ride, point & BP of zero but a one added to the number of matched ridden. My concern (confusion maybe) comes from what you are saying which is that you consider the 2 minute warning to be the start of a heat AND that a rider withdrawing (though injury ?) from that heat during that 2 minute period should be classed as having taken the ride (and be allowed a one to the number of matches ridden in). This would not be the way I have treated such incidents nor is it the way I have seen others treat them. Under what I think you said then a non-riding number 8 should be 'awarded' a meeting as they will be as much present as would be a rider withdrawing from their first heat under 2 minutes but before tapes up - both riders would be 'named' but neither would (assuming the number 8 doesn't ride) who have ridden in a tapes up heat. But each to their own as none of this is 'official' just a matter of interpretation. Edited to amend last sentence
  13. compost

    A Question For The Hardcore Stattos...

    The way I would treat such an incident (such as daveallen postulates) would depend on how it was reported. By that I mean if you look at pretty much any of the files on the Researcher website all you would see would be the riders name next to 'did not ride'. In that case I would record it as a 'DNR' against the rider which would mean 0 matches 0 everything else. If there was a report of the incident I would still treat it as all 0 as, to my mind, there would be no difference between that rider and a non-riding but named number 8 (for a team using r/r or res/r for instance) - and I have never seen a named non-riding no.8 'awarded' a match just by being named (!) As an aside, you might want to consider the stats treatment of a named rider in a 1-7 who doesn't get a ride i.e. a rider who is withdrawn and replaced in each of his (or her) rides. A rare occurance but one that has happened. In this instance I think the treatment would still be 0 matches etc as the rider wasn't involved in a heat (I seem to recall the History of the British League mentioning a rider from a London team who made his team debut several years after being named in a 1-7 but was withdrawn from all his rides. I recollect that the books treatment was to show the rider in the rider list for that season but with 0 matches etc - I forget the details and don't have access to the book at present hence the uncertainty). In the instance of a rider taking a ride which had to be re-run and the rider not being able to (through injury, rules or team decision) participate in the re-run and who took no further part in the meeting, then I would show 1 match and nil otherwise across the board (assuming it was the riders first race of course). Lacking access to any official documentation on the correct treatment this is how I handle such issues. As far as the rulebook went I would have thought that it would have not been covered as there would have been no reason to cover this type of incident (at least until the advent of Team averages). In any case I would assume the rider who withdrew from the meeting to get attendance pay but nothing else. I hope the above makes sense. I have always taken it that it is only on tapes up that a heat (or the meeting in the case of the first heat) has taken place. Postulate a meeting occurring in light rain (okay one in the past as today the meeting would have been called off hours before). The first 5 heats are run and completed but in increasingly heavy rain. As the riders go to the tapes for heat 6 it monsoons and the ref has to call the match off. in your example as the 2 minute horn has gone the heat could be deemed to have taken place but has it ? I doubt any spectators would be happy for the promoter to say 6 heats run no refund ! So I think in your example it has to be 0 matches etc. I think the question is not has the meeting started but it is at what point in a meeting and in a heat has a riders participation been sufficient to 'officially' be included in it. Don't forget that at any point up to 'tapes-up' a rider could be replaced in a heat - I am sure that I have seen riders at the tapes revving up only for one to pull back and be replaced (and excluded under the 2 minute rule). Rare yes but not an impossibility. So has to be on 'tapes-up'.
  14. compost

    Oldest Rider Still Around

    Is Jack Bibby (the aussie who rode for Sheffield in the late 40's not the Crayford rider) and/or Gil Blake still with us ? Both would be older if the are.
  15. compost

    Longest League Careers Post War

    Apologies for going off thread and causing some angst. Though I was responding to a previous posting and had made other relevant postings.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy