Star Fever

Yes we all agree on that, but apparently no-one is allowed to defend him at all. This is purely an anti-Ward thread

Yeah sorry SL - its all my fault apparently for having an opinion

Hang on a minute... you're saying its ok for people to react to my comments....BUT I'm not supposed to respond to theirs? So I AM right yes? This ISN'T a discussion thread at all - its purely for anti-Ward comments and if I don't agree, then I'm not supposed to comment. So sorry - I got it now

Thats a laugh - I'd have not commented after my first post if there hadn't been reaction to it. Of course I didn't realise at the time this was a 'closed' thread 'reserved ONLY for anti-Ward comments' so apologies for butting in.

I agree ofc .. but it makes you wonder how many others haven't been tested but got away with it doesn't it? Just think of all the accidents that 'just might've been caused' because of it! There must be a whole new thread of pointless argument there. Then why don't the anti-Ward mob also shut-up? It works both ways - point is they're entitled to their opinions as much as I am and this is a discussion forum - yes? And of course I'm a bl**dy fan!! Majority of Poole and Lynn fans are after years of watching him ride!I However, I've never defended what he's actually done in any of my posts (but most people on here have failed to notice that ofc). I'm just not one of the lynch mob happy to throw the book at him. Yes he was a pillock, and he got caught, but I doubt that banning him for a long period will help matters - that is my opinion and I'm entitled to think it as much as the lynch mob can think theirs. No doubt there'll be a reply to this comment too, but I'll happily not comment anymore after this as it seems that only Ward-haters etc are allowed to!!

Oh dear how sad - you fail to see that I (and others defending him) are entitled to our opinions! How nice this forum was if everyone had the same opinion as you huh? And football? no lol - i have no interest at all in football. In fact the comparison you gave with Saurez is totally irrelevant anyway - he is obviously mentally disturbed and has actually injured fellow players DURING a match. Ward of course HAS NOT!!

Not the deed obviously - but the way people on this forum have reacted to it.

Its a shame you're disappointed but tbh I don't care a damn how you feel. If a supporter can't try to defend someone they feel is being unfairly targeted then what is the point of this or any discussion forum, or court of law for that matter?

If 'the facts are that even a small amount can affect the brain' then why isn't the drink/drive limit at zero also? It may well be in the future but it hasn't been for years and I've never read anywhere of an accident caused by, say, a glass of wine or half a lager. And your alliteration to a burglar is pointless - I've already said that yes he was in the wrong, I just don't agree that he should be hung drawn and quartered.

No just guessing - but there were rumours (on here probably) that he was getting fed-up with speedway anyway so its possibly an inspired guess? Don't suppose they would condone it no (nor do they condone dangerous riding but there's a few that do it and seem to get away with it with minimal punishment) and I'd be highly surprised if Darcy Ward was remotely 'drunk' at the time of the test - he just didn't meet the test requirements and was unlucky enough to be tested. So its highly contentious to presume that he would have endangered another rider whereas there were riders in today's GP that are regularly 'rougher' than others even without alcohol! And Steve said 'something illegal' which I assume doesn't mean alcohol.

Really? So hes banned for next season...you think he'll be counting the days till he can resume his speedway career? Of course he won't - he'll probably be lost to the sport. What he needs is PROPER guidance from his peers and ex-riders like Crumpy . I'm assuming you enjoy watching him ride, as a lot of people do - whether they're his fans or not - so from a speedway point of view it would surely be better if he was able to continue? Unless of course you're one of those strange people* who delights in seeing someone talented fall flat on their face? * Oh look - there's one! Thank you for the information - makes a change to see FACTS on here.

Yes no doubt Ward and plenty of others all get away with it regularly - not disputing that. And yes HE knew he'd made a mistake and admitted it and has faced the consequences with the ban today. With a longer ban tho' how will it help him to curb his drinking before meetings if he has no meetings? If his state of mind is as suspect as people suggest it would probably make him drink even more - what he needs is guidance - NOT to be made an example of. Don't disagree, but it has yet to be shown that he was 'drunk' or only exceeded the FIM's limit, so any ban should reflect that I would hope .. and not be a moral judgement based on whatever he has done in the past (for which, as far as I know, he has been acquitted).

Yep I'm definitely for real - just viewing THIS incident only and not letting anything else cloud my judgement. Yes I agree if he 'failed the breathlyser' he was rightly banned from the meeting. If it was well over even a legal limit to drive then YES he should be banned for longer. It is not yet law however to drink and drive if you only have a small quantity of alcohol in your bloodstream. It hasn't been proven yet either that he was 'drunk' - just that he had alcohol in his bloodstream. I'm not a drinker so I'm certainly not defending it, but if I had a couple of shandies and then was deemed 'over the limit' I'd think I was hard done by. None of us yet know EXACTLY how much he exceeded the FIMs legal limit, and YES I agree it should be zero, but he obviously exceeded it so it today's ban was correct, but to ban him for any longer would be pointless. Make a point of testing him every meeting yes - that would certainly make him think twice and indeed might encourage the others who drink the night before to restrain themselves too. He was probably only tested because of his reputation but I wonder how many of the others would've also failed? Oh and once again you refer to 'all these incidents' - this incident should be treated SOLELY in isolation.

I'm referring SOLELY to this incident. Whatever else he's done should have NO BEARING on this incident. You obviously bear him some sort of grudge, or maybe you're just so perfect that any transgressor should be punished?

Hope so - he's probably the most talented speedway rider on the planet atm whatever else he might get up to - his mistake and ban has hurt his GP standing this year and it'd be churlish to carry it over to next year.

Has it ever been proved however that ANY amount of alcohol 'puts themselves and others at risk' ? IF the FIM's limit is an absolute zero amount then its a bit harsh as that means he couldn't even have a shandy!! No doubt Darcy had had a few but it's unknown whether he'd reached any significant limit. Maybe any other day he'd have been fine if it had been an evening GP as normal because it'd have worn off but he certainly spoke quite lucidly when interviewed and indeed was man enough to admit he'd made a mistake. Whilst not condoning his actions as he was obviously aware of the consequences, I agree that YES if he'd exceeded the FIM limit the ban from this GP is correct, but to ban him from the rest of the GPs or anything else would be an over the top reaction imo. IF however, he does this regularly then maybe missing this GP will make him think twice before doing it again.

Best wishes to Matty Wethers and Aaron Fox after a horrific ht 14 crash - hopefully not as serious as it looked.

As Hampel (correctly) said last night, it was Poland's own fault for not getting far enough ahead to negate any benefit of a joker. Lets face it, if Protasiewicz hadn't overdone it and fallen, Poland would've probably have won, so joker wouldn't have mattered a jot. Whilst agreeing somewhat that the joker is a bit 'mickey mouse' there's no denying that it can make a potentially dull match a lot closer, and therefore excites the punters. Whilst in a perfect world it may be preferable to scrap jokers and tacsubs or whatever, and to let 'the best team win' its no good having a 'serious and fair' sport that nobody wants to see because the result is a foregone conclusion!

Well if they are they'd probably be a better 4th than this year's was!

Brilliant meeting and sensational last gasp win for the Danes courtesy NKI - awesome ride I'm not mad on the joker but it sure made a helluva meeting, and if you're going to scrap the joker you may as well scrap the tac subs too - theyre both there to keep the meeting alive and tonight was a prime example of it. Yes GB did well to even get in the final but honestly, Harris should've helped Tai a bit more surely? Didn't expect much from the others tbh, but nobody else to pick really. Hopefully Rosco's 5 year plan isn't the same one that Rob Lyon had or the position could be vacant again.... Just allowing GB riders to compete in the Euro Championships would be a start

I'm sure signs have been posted outside the stadium for several years now. My family has ALWAYS taken a flask of coffee and/or cans of drink to speedway, but we have NEVER EVER been asked to open our bags so I'm convinced these bouncers must've been BSI staff.

Nope he didn't ruin the event - Australia were on fire in the last 8 heats and Sweden were struggling - the loss of 2pts made no difference whatsoever to the outcome. Nope Krcmar did not do the same move -Nilsson was behind him and Krcmar simply rode defensely across his path. However Nilsson was next to Krcmar and intentionally rode him wide and kept on riding him wide into the home straight fence, thus was riding aggressively. As for throttling off its somewhat easier to do it on the straight (Nilsson) as opposed to sliding round a bend. We all know surely that if you throttle off on a bend the bike straightens up and you in fact accelerate? So Krcmar was indeed using his brain so as not to possibly cause a worse accident.

lol apols to both um...55?

Great meeting and the best team won. Swedes just fizzled out in latter stages (9pts from last 8 races) whereas Aussies hit top gear (22pts in last 8) so Nilsson's exclusion had little or no bearing on the outcome. Brave of Lawrence to exclude him imo, might make riders more conscious of not fencing others if refs did it more often (and Krcmar didn't touch Nilsson in the earlier lap btw, but Nilsson on the other hand was pushing Krcmar out for most of the 4th bend). Hancock was unbelievable but like Mungo said isn't my sort of rider - he's admirable yes but not very exciting to watch.