Grand Central

Oh, dear. That sounds as if the 'official' word from Eurosport is going to be unreliable. I do not think Pearson and Tatum are actually doing the world feed this time. Can someone email them.

I agree as well.

Dong away with the stale studio presentation entirely would be better.

This topic was asking the question 'How to make Speedway more appealing to Younger fans?' And we haven't really come up with much, have we? Just restating how exciting WE think a Speedway can be is not the same as offering anything new to the youngsters, is it? More promotion is always vaunted; as if that was the answer on it's own. Surely we are fooling ourselves to think that. The truth is that standing outside watching Live Sport (with the exception of football) is not a popular activity for many teenagers. And it is not going to increase in popularity in the future either, is it?

I could not agree more. Thankfully you have managed to produce a post that unites pretty much all of us. Thank You.

You mention logic in your second post here, and I am intrigued about your's. Your first post makes plain that you believe that ONLY people who have NOT committed Darcy's offences are qualified to contribute. Your second post infers that those very people cannot have a valid opinion. I am unsure how one is supposed to debate any matter if these are the rules.

Bless you, my son. But I don't think Priests are the ones with an unblemished reputation, are they?

Time and again in this debate someone or another has trotted out this ridiculous line. Usually in an attempt to molify the outrage at Darcy and sometimes just to stifle the discussion. You may, yourself have been a drug user OR you may hold the perperse view of the world is that everyone else has been. But they haven't. And I haven't. Not that any of us need to meet YOUR qualification requirements to contribute, thanks all the same. Methinks more of us 'qualify' that you thinks.

For someone who is forever waxing lyrical about the HD productions why are you, and sky, so wedded to such 2D presentation ideas. Just about every GP for years has been churned out using the same formula. Five bursts of four races bookended by inane chat from Isleworth from boring presenter to same-old 'regular guest'. And then we have EXACTLY the same chit-chat from the studio about the semis/Finals as we had just two weeks earlier. It is always the same. Sky were doing that back in the mid-nineties when the whole thing started. Lets hope for some new ideas from whoever the new people are. And PS NO MORE ERMOLENKO! He just talks drivel.

Middleditch's latest, rational, comments just published in the Star seemed to have moved us a little beyond the discussion of him being misquoted or not in the Poole Echo. But your post here seems to muddy the waters further. This entire thread was discussing the Echo's publication of an interview they did with Middleditch after the incident had been reported in Australia. The Queensland paper has never, to my knowledge, been implicated as the source of that quote.

Life is going on fine for me, but thanks for your general advice. If you are wondering why people keep returning to offer their thoughts, it is because of statements like yours. I hope it helps your rehabilitation to have confessed misdemeanours that are worse than Darcy's. I am unsure as to whether he will appreciate it, or not. But whenever a poster makes claims along the lines that 'Many of us have done similar' it always demands my response. NO I HAVE NOT! If that makes me an Angel in your eyes, then so be it.

This is certainly the most sensible post of the last few hours. I can fully understand why those people who would class themselves as 'No Friends of Darcy' would want to keep pointing out every detail of his offences. But can none of his supporters actually see how their varied defences of his actions are looking less and less helpful. If Darcy had someone to look after his interests, right now he would be shouting 'shut up' to all the people wearing 'I Love Darcy' badges.

First time poster ... Please use the search facility and you will find several very long threads that have discussed this to death this winter.

One of the most ridiculous posts I have read.

I'm on tenterhooks for the next instalment ...

And he doesn't just visit the UK as a 'once-off' (as he likes to put it). He's backwards and forwards from Poland, Sweden and the rest of Europe all year long. Every one of those border crossings offers the potential for a zealous Border Officer to give him trouble.

Not strictly true. The Sentancing Act under which his lawyers were able to ask for 'no convictions to be recorded' is a totally Aussie thing. The outcome of the case is still held on file. The UK Border Agency or the Border Control of any other country are still able to ask whatever questions they like of a person entering their country, passport/visa or not. And to make whatever determinations they deem correct.

I'll happily chuck a stone in your direction just to register my lack of drug taking. If it helps.

This question of legal semantics may interest you greatly but it is of very little help to Mr Ward by perpetuating the discussion. He pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (plus other offences). He had admitted to having smoked cannabis when questioned by Police at the scene. He has since admitted in his own statement to same. He was convicted at Magistrates Court of driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (plus other offences). That conviction is entered as 'not recorded against your name' as is allowed under Australian Law. Under this law you are still guilty, you have still been convicted. That conviction will still appear on things like Police computers and it will still be held against you if you are convicted of other offences in the future. You just don't have it against our name in situations like applying for a job. It remains to be seen how it will affect Mr Ward. At places like border control it will all depend on exactly the question he is asked. If asked 'Have you any convictions recorded against your name?' ... He will be able to say 'No' and go on his way. But if asked 'Have you been found guilty, or been convicted, of an offence?' ... He will have to give a full disclosure. Then it may very well matter a great deal about what those authorities judge to be the semantics of his guilty plea.

I agree entirely. Perhaps I should have indicated my sarcasm a little more obviously in my previous post.

Did you, by any chance, serve on the Vicky Pryce Jury? You must be equally scathing on Matt Ford who thought the matter to be rather serious. If you do a little searching around online you will be able to better understand the Australian Law whereby you can admit guilt in a case but not have any convictions RECORDED. Apparently this is something the defence can ask to be done in cases where the guilty person is fined not imprisoned so that their future job prospects are not harmed. But it does not change their guilt!

Having read Darcy's heartfelt apology, I feel I must take every word at face value and trust that HE has not been misquoted in any way, unlike poor Mr Middleditch. Now I know what Darcy's version of event is, precisely, I am more confused than ever. As he says, he did just about nothing wrong at all and has no problems left to address as he has already moved on with a new attitude. It was all a 'once-off'. So why on earth is Matt ready to book him into Betty Ford's clinic, or wherever, for professional help. You could be forgiven for thinking that Matt had his doubts about the voracity of Darcy's own words.

SELL Darcy Ward at $8 SELL Chris Holder at $2

Good. Now we have someone with access to facts. The journo who interviewed Middleditch but botched up the quote should be named and shamed, at the least.

I think this is all spot on. I know it is always said that before people with 'a problem' can deal with it, they first have to acknowledge that they have one. But this will prove very very difficult with a headstrong man who is having a great time. I just don't think that anything that has happened so far will have penetrated one inch. A court case, or two, a visa problem, some bad publicity.... they will all be overcome and I bet he goes back to feeling fireproof again. Last year's 'wake up call' seems to have been slept through. I fear that this young man will have to suffer a damn sight more real pain himself before he genuinely takes the true steps needed to sort himself out. As Mr Rising said, Matt Ford only has limited influence as the UK is just a small part of Darcy's life .... But is there someone who'll help him get to the straight and narrow?