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!

The Tribunal has yet to held. The actual facts have yet to be determined independently. One, would assume from his public statements, that he is to plead guilty and offer mitigating circumstances. At the moment the only facts that we can be sure of are those that have already been admitted by Mr Kennett. His statement makes it clear that he admits to the offence on one occasion and that he has ascertained the culprit and ended his employment. So I presume he will be able to offer much more detailed information to the tribunal when that is held. He will, no doubt, be closely questioned as to the sequence of events that may have led to the tampering (as that is HIS OWN mitigation) and in doing so will - if he is to offer full disclosure - be in a position to enlighten the tribunal WHEN it may have taken place. For instance, this mechanic had unfettered access to the silencer on X or Y date. It may be entirely possible from the facts presented by Mr Kennett in an attempt to reduce his punishment just for how long the tampering had been in effect and just who else may have been in the know. That COULD certainly lead to the result of other matches having their results amended accordingly, could it not? Anyone who was faced with the prospect of two year ban would be well advised to make a totally clean breast of matters at the hearing and hope for as much leniancy as possible.

Again, I agree. It is always up to the general public (ie Supporters) to do whatever their own conscience dictates when faced with cheating, dishonesty or whatever. But Track Officials and holders of Officials licences HAVE to do more. They have to live within the letter of the regulations as well. I'm not sure that ANY form of words similiar to what the version reported said is at all consitent with doing so, do you?

I totally agree. But it is reported that he has said publicly that he thinks they are, didn't he? I have to say , what a rider says on twitter is one thing BUT what a SCB Lisensed Official says over a tannoy at a meeting (and/or does in his Official Capacity at a meeting) are two very different things, are they not?

Can I just clarify, perhaps with other people who were at Peterborough. Is this truly what he said? Did Mr Rossiter, a current holder of an SCB Track Official's Licence, really say publicly that he was genuine belief that other Speedway Riders are, or have been, using illegal silencers? It is my understanding that as a Team Manager he has to sign the Meeting Certificate prior to the start of each match and confirm that all his riders' equipment conforms to the SCB regulations and that he undertakes to inform the Clerk of the Course if this changes during the meeting. The meeting Certificate is a legal document that would be produced at say a coronor's inquest to show that all matters relating to the conduct of a meeting have been done in a proper manner. It is difficult to see how anyone could sign such a certificate if he had not taken some reasonable steps to make himself pretty sure that his riders were conforming, isn't it? And it is surely incredible, is it not, that a reasonable man would have some knowledge of the opponent team's trangression but not have protested to the referee or at least spoken to the opposing Team Manager to make him aware, just so that HE did not sign the meeting certificate with a false declaration. I just find it extraordinary that he has felt able to make the public statement reported; and not have landed himself in a very tricky legal position.

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.