Grand Central

There is no European court issue here at all. The FIM issued a totally legal WORLDWIDE motorcycling suspension. As is their jurisdiction. You may equate this to some contrived Euro issue. But as I say. You are quite the comic.

Sometimes it's the posts that are written in all seriousness, with heavy handed gravity and import, that are just plain hilarious. To prick your balloon. No he won't.

Thank god you inserted the remark in parenthesis to disassociate yourself from the 'thought'. Whoever came up with it is clearly an idiot. And was, no doubt, 'insufficiently hydrated' at the time. .

Yes, everything here is hypothetical at the moment. But is the idea of Ward getting a series wildcard for 2015 really on the table, at all? No matter who else is in the frame. Last year the wild cards for 2014 were announced at the end of October 2013; and Ward isn't even due to have his hearing until November this year. Even if he gets off completely scot-free it will all be too late, won't it? Or are the timings being changed for this year? Even allowing for some contrivance where the wildcard selection was delayed until after his hearing it is surely inconceivable that he would be selected if found guilty, isn't it? If we take your scenario of a six month ban being imposed. Of course it would start from the day he was suspended which means he is actually banned from all motorcycling worldwide until the end of February 2015. Is it really feasible that he could be considered by BSI and the wild card 'committee' for selection; or have that sanctioned by the FIM in the immediate aftermath of that ban being announced, by the FIM themselves? Surely not.

The guy knowing the difference between right and wrong would suffice.

They don't allocate wildcards. No one said they did. The FIM have to sanction the list that BSI put to them. I imagine that the FIM are talking this long just because they see no urgency whatsoever in this. We might think this whole matter is really, really vital and urgent. In Geneva, they don't.

All spot on. As he has been suspended by the FIM he WILL get a ban. And that ban will start on the very same day as his suspension started. That is is the reason the FIM used the time after the incident to convene with its lawyers on the correct protocol. The only question will be the be the length of the ban they deem appropriate at the tribunal. It may turn out to be exactly the same as the suspension period already served or, hopefully, longer. The FIM will not consider him for wildcard selection at all during the period of suspension for ban. They just can't. The FIM will not care one jot about any 'club' in this matter. .

Quite right. I do not remember Braun going public with anything about his parents splitting up and explaining that bad news had led him to overdo things, though. He just denied it. Full stop. Darcy seems to gave got himself into a very different position with any hopes of blaming the protocols. Best fess up and hope that it would be taken as a very positive sign by the tribunal.

I do not believe that the correct outcome in this case is the one that is tailored to suit the learning ability of Darcy Ward. He should grow and develop as a human being in his own time and no one should expect the FIM to take it on 'in loco parentis'. He should get exactly the same treatment as any other rider who found himself in this position. Be it Greg Hancock or Darcy Ward. The speedway-wide, and indeed motorcycle sport-wide, thing of most importance is that the FIM carry of their judicial role here scrupulously and fairly. Nothing more. The case against Ward was substantial enough to convene a hearing and as an anti doping offence carries a likely ban their worldwide suspension was totally appropriate. If a ban were to be imposed it would doubtless start from the date of the suspension. If Ward chooses to use the defence that the testing had not being done properly then his advocates would need to tread carefully. He has openly admitted imbibing the night before - and even offered mitigation as to why this may have been to excess. So the coincidence of having a 'faulty' test twelve hours later be the cause if his' positive blow' seems to stretch credulity a trifle too far. To lose his case after claiming that as his defence may only lengthen the ban the hearing would impose. That would not be a wise move at all. The last thing we need is to find that the anti doping procedures are poorly carried out at GPs. We need to know that they are robust and trustworthy. Let us hope that the hearing gives us that confidence, at least. If Darcy knows he had 'one too many' perhaps the next step on his learning curve would be to plead guilty, offer his mitigating circumstances, give a thousand words on his lessons learned, make earnest promises on future conduct. And then, this time, actually follow through. .

Yes it's the old 'I must have taken it unwittingly' defence. Always comes up when someone is caught. Just about every single time. And all those negative tests that get taken time after time, meeting after meeting. I wonder if some people think they were just 'unwittingly' clean? No they were clean. Full stop.

If (big if) he got a six month ban then clearly he would be back in action next season but the crucial time when the four series wild cards are decided is during the winter; during his ban. I doubt it possible that the FIM could sanction a wildcard who is actually serving a ban at the time the decision is made.

Even the thread that carries his name has spent the last two pages talking about something completely unconnected to our little miscreant. Poor Darcy, none of his misdeeds can compete for comment when there is the opportunity for having a wrangle over Pearson.

I fully understand the FIM making every effort to ensure that they have 'the law on their side' before taking further action. No one would expect any competent organisation to do any other. Actually I find the fact that they have completed this within two weeks and done it silently in Geneva quite laudable. Albert Einstein, were he ever to have found himself banged to rights on a charge of this nature, may well revert to employing lawyers to fight every legal point to get him off. But then he never had to. And Darcy is no Einstein, is he?

It seems interesting that you have mentioned, more than once, that Ward may feel it worth ploughing the line of 'poor procedures'. Is there anything that one could learn from being in the pits on GP nights that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a slip-shod operation is being run on these matters?

Absolutely right. No one is really saying that they think he didn't really 'blow' a true positive here are they? What we are talking about is that the procedures that need to be followed in order for the test to be so watertight that it will not be taken apart by some high flying lawyer in Geneva may not quite be adequate. Or that is what they are endeavouring to check out. The truth is that the guy, by his own admission, had too much to drink the night before. And he got caught out the following lunchtime. The serial D!ckhead is the one at fault here. Any only him.

No, I think you slightly misunderstand. The Mildenhall case did not make the legal precedence here. That had already been established by other cases in the past. Not Motorsport cases but ones involving unreasonable noise nuisance being complained about by 'newcomers' who could have 'known before they bought'. The defence may have been presented poorly in this case. But then it would appear that they did not have much of a case if the noise really was being created unreasonably and at ridiculous times of the night.

She made two very valid points. But only for us chatting about it here, I'm afraid. Not in law. According to the judgement in this case the Supreme Court ruled that legal precedent has been set. And that any legal case along these lines could well end up being settled in favour of the nimbys. We can moan and whinge all we like. But it will make no difference to that. What we could do is learn from it. It would seem that one of the major reasons why these people got judgement on their favour was specifically because of the noise nuisance occurring at such an unreasonable time, in the early hours of the morning. Without such an obvious cause for complaint they may have lost. Surely the main thing for all track/promotions/track curators/stadium owners is to make sure they never give these people that sort of ammunition at other venues. Concerted efforts to reduce and eliminate noise nuisance; and a demonstrable commitment to prevent it at unsociable hours will not only help foster better relations with neighbours. It will also form a very robust defence at Court if tested.

Yes, a little known incident that provided amusement to up to 1000 people who were at Owlerton that night. No one else knew, or cared. But this is Tai. At the British Final. On TV. And the professional moaners can have a field day. What are the chances that the knee-jerk responders in Rugby will take the opportunity to add in a subsection to the regs? Given half a chance.

In sport, as in most areas of life, we tend to only make rules to deal with matters that we have seen occur before and need attention. As far as I can remember I have never seen a Speedway rider use a shovel to remove dirt from another gate position and use it to improve his own. Now this most unlikely of events HAS happened, it will need a 'rule' to be introduced. Such is life..

Classic. You never disappoint. Keep on taking the tablets!

That'll be a 'double Woooosh', then Any more?

Paul ... dear, dear Paul. Gemini was trying to help you out by drawing your attention to the fact that Paulco's contribution had been one of pure sarcasm. I don't want to say 'lighten-up, for God's sake, Paul!' But you do seem to take others' posts a little bit too earnestly, to say the least.

Thanks for that clarification. For those of us who hold no negative feelings for the man or his family it is just this sort of detail that we need to fully understand this thread. I don't think anyone needs to have any animosity to those of us who have not kept up to date with all the facts of this case before. Perhaps just a simple clear statement as to the exact circumstances may have been helpful. .

Oh right. So, had he 'won' his case he wouldn't have had enough money left to get them over anyway?

I'm just not clear on this... If his family had been allowed to return to the UK as 'normal' who would have paid for the fares? Why are the flights to Poland an 'extra' expense that need to be paid for by public donation? Surely the flights to Poland are a similar cost to the ones they were expecting/wanting to take to the UK, but haven't? .