Gavan Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 A very sad day why should he get involved? this is a bloke who has got away with murder on a bike over the years with his thuggish antics on a bike. hard sometimes dirty yes professional with his routine .............totally Ward isnt fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Nicki with regards to attitude 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Never was good on anything cryptic...what the devil are you talking about In that case I will give you another clue-he`s worth his weight in Gold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 What you don't seem to understand is this isn't criminal law. Its the rules and regulations of the sport and Ward has FAILED the test. It is really very simple. Even in criminal law your argument would be flawed. Not true, there are different tariffs of punishment, depending on whether something was premeditated or not. I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I do not believe there should be a set tariff of punishment irrespective of the circumstances or the degree of over the limit. All circumstances should be taken into consideration and should reflect the level of punishment. From the little that we know and basing it on what we know, I would suggest the punishment should be towards the lower end of the punishment tariff. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioness Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Methylhexanamine is the substance that had been claimed to have been found in Dudek's first sample by the Polish press. The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racers and royals Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day Dudek`s case was/is 3 weeks ago 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Not true, there are different tariffs of punishment, depending on whether something was premeditated or not. I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I do not believe there should be a set tariff of punishment irrespective of the circumstances or the degree of over the limit. All circumstances should be taken into consideration and should reflect the level of punishment. From the little that we know and basing it on what we know, I would suggest the punishment should be towards the lower end of the punishment tariff. Bull. You don't get away with drink driving by claiming, well I wasn't intending on driving when I was having those drinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribbler Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day The Dudek case happened 8th August 2014 - if that's the one in the Speedway News and Discussions section... Going by your explanations Dudek possibly took it innocently because he was taking dietary supplements to try and keep his weight down. Ward knows what alcohol is and does. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ancient mariner Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Not true, there are different tariffs of punishment, depending on whether something was premeditated or not. I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I do not believe there should be a set tariff of punishment irrespective of the circumstances or the degree of over the limit. All circumstances should be taken into consideration and should reflect the level of punishment. From the little that we know and basing it on what we know, I would suggest the punishment should be towards the lower end of the punishment tariff. Sorry officer, I only murdered him a little bit The words 'hole', 'digging' and 'stop' spring to mind 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevePark Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day I think you are confusing Dudek to Stefan Danno, which has also been mentioned on this thread. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioness Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Dudek`s case was/is 3 weeks ago The Dudek case happened 8th August 2014 - if that's the one in the Speedway News and Discussions section... Going by your explanations Dudek possibly took it innocently because he was taking dietary supplements to try and keep his weight down. Ward knows what alcohol is and does. I think you are confusing Dudek to Stefan Danno, which has also been mentioned on this thread. I am indeed guys - thanks for putting me right on that one. Dopey here got muddled lol The risks of methylhexanamine have been well documented by sports bodies for a few years now so anyone caught found foul of it now really has no excuse so ignore my misinformed post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Bull. You don't get away with drink driving by claiming, well I wasn't intending on driving when I was having those drinks. Bull to you too! The length of ban and fine will depend on how much you are over the limit! And whether anyone was injured! I don't think you understand justice mate! I am indeed guys - thanks for putting me right on that one. Dopey here got muddled lol The risks of methylhexanamine have been well documented by sports bodies for a few years now so anyone caught found foul of it now really has no excuse so ignore my misinformed post! Be glad that you have been politely put straight Lioness, the usual correction on here is punctuated with some kind of sarcastic or unpleasant addition. Could it be because you are a Mod? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Be glad that you have been politely put straight Lioness, the usual correction on here is punctuated with some kind of sarcastic or unpleasant addition. Could it be because you are a Mod? No it is because there is a difference between the simple mistake Lioness made and the talking total sh!t that you do 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioness Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Bull to you too! The length of ban and fine will depend on how much you are over the limit! And whether anyone was injured! I don't think you understand justice mate! Be glad that you have been politely put straight Lioness, the usual correction on here is punctuated with some kind of sarcastic or unpleasant addition. Could it be because you are a Mod? perhaps its because I try not to be aggressive when people point out I am wrong or disagree with me? Or that I appreciate it when they tell me the correct information? Not quite sure why I suddenly am being dragged into your disagreement as an example nor do I particularly appreciate it but I'll stick to my own discussion thanks 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Stadia Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 No it is because there is a difference between the simple mistake Lioness made and the talking total sh!t that you do You really are a nasty little man aren't you Oldace. A bitter and twisted nobody with a huge chip on his shoulder. Well, I will leave this thread now, as it appears even the Moderator is part of this little Clique of 'put downers'! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevebrum Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 You really are a nasty little man aren't you Oldace. A bitter and twisted nobody with a huge chip on his shoulder. Well, I will leave this thread now, as it appears even the Moderator is part of this little Clique of 'put downers'! At least you said something of remote interest. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioness Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 You really are a nasty little man aren't you Oldace. A bitter and twisted nobody with a huge chip on his shoulder. Well, I will leave this thread now, as it appears even the Moderator is part of this little Clique of 'put downers'! Firstly I am not 'the Moderator' I am an individual in my own right Secondly YOU brought me into your argument, not vice versa Thirdly you have just proved a lot of people's points by not only choosing to bring me into an argument that was nothing to do with me but also then have a go at me for pointing that out! Fourthly I belong to no 'cliques', come on you should know now that us females are well capable of having a mind of their own All my own work ps am I right in thinking this topic used to be about Darcy Ward? lol 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Bull to you too! The length of ban and fine will depend on how much you are over the limit! And whether anyone was injured! I don't think you understand justice mate! Which has nothing to do with your claims of 'intent' which you have been pushing forward. Edited August 20, 2014 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buttons Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 I can see it now, Ward will get banned for 6 months from November after the seasons finished, and back in time for the start of the season, I do hope I'm wrong as he certainly needs punishing for what he has done. Time will tell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 Darcy Ward certainly must have some influence. He's even causing trouble on this Thread............................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFCB Wildcat Posted August 20, 2014 Report Share Posted August 20, 2014 The body gets rid of alcohol at roughly 1 unit per hour. A pint is approx 2.5 units. It also takes an amount of time to enter your system. If you drink 5 pints between 8PM and midnight then it will be mid day before that alcohol has left your system. Does it work like that? I understood that you started losing the unit an hour 1 hour after your first drink so in your example 3 of those 12.5 units would have been gone by midnight. If I drunk 12 pints between midday and midnight it wouldn't take a day and a half to clear my system would it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.