f-s-p Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 (edited) Polish media are reporting the following 'update' today as per Google translate:- From the beginning, it was emphasized that the punishment for an Australian can be harsh, because alcohol is treated as doping, and for its use may even threaten the suspension of two years. Fans KS Torun, and above all, the player himself waiting for information on the amount of the penalty. The decision in this case, however, was postponed. First, it was suggested that collapses January 8, then moved it about a week, until the final date indicated on 30 January. So long waits upset not only the player and his associates, but also the fans who signed the petition massively on the Ward's acquittal. In the meantime, in case there is a new thread. Questioned whether the persons conducting breathalyzer test, were entitled to do so. These discrepancies were to be the subject of "scuffles" lawyers FIM and player. Today we know that this is not the main reason for the problems with the term of punishment for possession. Everything in connection with the provisions of the FIM Anti-Doping Code. A key on Darcy Ward is a record of alcohol, which reads: P1. ALCOHOL Alcohol (ethanol) is prohibited In-Competition only, in the Help Us sports. Detection will be and conducted by analysis of breath and / or blood. The doping violation threshold is equivalent to a blood alcohol concentration of 0.10 g / L. Australian irrelevant is the record of a blood alcohol concentration. The problem is that in Daugavpils ... there was no blood. The whole thing is based on a breath test. Here, the issue is not whether the person carrying out this study have the appropriate permissions, but the fact that the breathalyzer test can only serve as auxiliary information. It should be confirmed through a blood test, which was not and it is this topic lawyers argue Darcy Ward. Soon, we need to know the outcome in this case. The most likely solution will be such that the player is acquitted (it will be difficult to convict him on the basis of the breath test) and withdraws from the compensation. Compensation that Ward would happen if it was found that it can not be punished. Recall that on August 28 by a decision of the FIM, he could not compete in the competition and for this reason could be entitled to compensation. Very likely, therefore, seems to be an agreement under which the FIM does not punish Ward, a player withdraws from the compensation and will be able to compete in the slag from the beginning of the season Even when this is quoted from a Polish source (almost realiable), now we seem to be getting somewhere... Edited January 21, 2015 by f-s-p 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 So as suspected, Ward is looking to weasel his way off on a technicality. He'll now become a wanted man that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 So as suspected, Ward is looking to weasel his way off on a technicality. He'll now become a wanted man that's for sure. And of course, as we all know, getting off on a technicality is not the same as establishing ones innocence 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lioness Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 especially when you have already publicly admitted your guilt! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Even when this is quoted from a Polish source (almost realiable), now we seem to be getting somewhere... Sadly, not. The last 2 paragraphs are pure fiction. P1 as quoted kills the "no blood" argument stone dead. "Breath and/or blood" means one of (1)breath, (2) blood, or (3) both. With respect to the last paragraph, clause 7.5.8 of the regs includes the statement "nor will any such Provisional Suspension or decision give rise under any circumstances to any claim (from the Rider or any other affected party), should such violation not be upheld at a later stage in the procedure." For those that would suggest that the FIM then be taken to court, Appendix 2 reproduces the Acknowledgement & Agreement form signed by all riders in which point 5 states "I acknowledge and agree that the decisions of the arbitral appellate body referenced above shall be final and enforceable, and that I will not bring any claim, arbitration, lawsuit or litigation in any other court or tribunal." 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostwalker Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Sadly, not. The last 2 paragraphs are pure fiction. P1 as quoted kills the "no blood" argument stone dead. "Breath and/or blood" means one of (1)breath, (2) blood, or (3) both. With respect to the last paragraph, clause 7.5.8 of the regs includes the statement "nor will any such Provisional Suspension or decision give rise under any circumstances to any claim (from the Rider or any other affected party), should such violation not be upheld at a later stage in the procedure." For those that would suggest that the FIM then be taken to court, Appendix 2 reproduces the Acknowledgement & Agreement form signed by all riders in which point 5 states "I acknowledge and agree that the decisions of the arbitral appellate body referenced above shall be final and enforceable, and that I will not bring any claim, arbitration, lawsuit or litigation in any other court or tribunal." Do you have a link to this rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 Do you have a link to this rule? http://www.fim-live.com/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/CMI/FIM_ANTI-DOPING_CODE__updated_as_from_July_2014_.pdf It's a 70 page pdf. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 especially when you have already publicly admitted your guilt!people keep saying this, but no he hasn't. He admitted drinking the night before and failing a test. If the tesr was faulty, his admission of guilt was based on a false premise.similarly, if u "confess" to a crime but police have not followed procedure, your confession may be deemed invalid. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted January 21, 2015 Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 people keep saying this, but no he hasn't. He admitted drinking the night before and failing a test. If the tesr was faulty, his admission of guilt was based on a false premise. similarly, if u "confess" to a crime but police have not followed procedure, your confession may be deemed invalid. Muddlo said in Speedway Star that Darcy "knows he has done wrong and knows he should be punished" Either Darcy has admitted guilt or Muddlo, not for the first time has made himself look a complete idiot blurting out something that is not strictly true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jacques Posted January 21, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 21, 2015 people keep saying this, but no he hasn't. He admitted drinking the night before and failing a test. If the tesr was faulty, his admission of guilt was based on a false premise. similarly, if u "confess" to a crime but police have not followed procedure, your confession may be deemed invalid. It might be a false premise. I very much doubt it. I fully expect. despite the hilarious attempts, not only here, to minimise the situation. The FIM will deal with Ward, as they would anyone else.. You can kiss his arse, set up petitions, tell us that they'll listen to pleas from Ford as much as you want....... Tell them that Fords business will suffer (that's my fave) It won't make a difference... The boy will get his conviction .... 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Muddlo said in Speedway Star that Darcy "knows he has done wrong and knows he should be punished" Either Darcy has admitted guilt or Muddlo, not for the first time has made himself look a complete idiot blurting out something that is not strictly true. in the same interview as saying he's been punished enough?Either way seems to be a risky move by darcy's legal team - if all is found to have been done in a legit way, surely running the risk that fim will give him the maximum possible ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Sadly, not. The last 2 paragraphs are pure fiction. P1 as quoted kills the "no blood" argument stone dead. "Breath and/or blood" means one of (1)breath, (2) blood, or (3) both. With respect to the last paragraph, clause 7.5.8 of the regs includes the statement "nor will any such Provisional Suspension or decision give rise under any circumstances to any claim (from the Rider or any other affected party), should such violation not be upheld at a later stage in the procedure." For those that would suggest that the FIM then be taken to court, Appendix 2 reproduces the Acknowledgement & Agreement form signed by all riders in which point 5 states "I acknowledge and agree that the decisions of the arbitral appellate body referenced above shall be final and enforceable, and that I will not bring any claim, arbitration, lawsuit or litigation in any other court or tribunal." Why does it kill it stone dead? The way that reads is you would need a Breath AND blood... or just a blood. If it was one or the other, it would simply say Breath or Blood. Blood clearly being the stronger of the two. It's this sort of wording that legal teams will play on. It doesn't matter what the rule is 'meant' to mean.. it's the way it can be interpreted. Edited January 22, 2015 by BWitcher 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Why does it kill it stone dead? The way that reads is you would need a Breath AND blood... or just a blood. If it was one or the other, it would simply say Breath or Blood. Blood clearly being the stronger of the two. It's this sort of wording that legal teams will play on. It doesn't matter what the rule is 'meant' to mean.. it's the way it can be interpreted. Absolutely. It's that sort of wording that makes lawyers fortunes. "Detection will be and conducted by analysis of breath and / or blood" I would take that to mean that detection could be by just breath alone. But I can see how you could argue that there needs to be a blood test. Frankly though, if he and his legal team argue the toss on this and he gets off on the technical meaning of that phrase it would be a complete disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 The way that reads is you would need a Breath AND blood... or just a blood. Try reading again. They need either (1) breath, (2) blood, or (3) both breath and blood. If it was one or the other, it would simply say Breath or Blood. Yes, if it was one or the other it would say "breath or blood", but it's not one or the other. It's one or the other, or both. i.e. "breath and/or blood" 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveLyric2 Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 If the initial breath test is negative ie 'under the limit', then only that breath test is required. If the initial breath test is positive ie 'above the limit', then a second (blood) test is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 If the initial breath test is negative ie 'under the limit', then only that breath test is required. If the initial breath test is positive ie 'above the limit', then a second (blood) test is required. Wrong. Please quote where you got this from. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Sadly, it could be Sidney is another victim of those sort of Posters! I was a regular at New Cross from April 1946 and, apart from National Service, 1950-52, a fairly regular attender at their meetings. I can hardly remember anyone at New Cross talking about Tom Farndon - it was mainly George Newton who those who had seen pre-war action mentioned. And they were overwhelmed when Newton returned to the sport after a 10 year absence through ill-health at the start of the 1948 season. Well that's put Tom Farndon in his place. Obviously john Chaplin and I were wrong about him. Just remind me again of all the major titles and trophies George Newton won. I made no claim that George Newton was a better rider than Tom Farndon. I said that in the early post-war seasons Newton was more talked about by supporters. This is a PM that I have received on this topic: shaleway6980 Today at 9:59 AM The title of the book was Tom Fardon, 'The Greatest Speedway Rider Of Them All'. With the greatest respect to the Farndon family I think it was an unfortunate title.For sure he was a great rider and maybe as his his career was short he dropped from public recognition. Certainly the response i get as a bookseller is "who was Tom Farndon?' When people think New Cross, it is Johnno, Bill Longley and wee Georgie Newton that come to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Tom Farndon died in 1935. All those riders you mentioned rode after the War. How many people still around do you think actually saw Tom Farndon ride? You think Jack Milne was one of the three greatest riders of all time. You are obviously wrong as people don't remember him either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Try reading again. They need either (1) breath, (2) blood, or (3) both breath and blood. Yes, if it was one or the other it would say "breath or blood", but it's not one or the other. It's one or the other, or both. i.e. "breath and/or blood" I have read it. You've put your own spin onto it, the way you WANT it to read. Ward's lawyers will put their own spin of how they WANT it to read. It's poorly worded and can be interpreted both ways... which is where the FIM could have problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted January 22, 2015 Report Share Posted January 22, 2015 Try reading again. They need either (1) breath, (2) blood, or (3) both breath and blood. Yes, if it was one or the other it would say "breath or blood", but it's not one or the other. It's one or the other, or both. i.e. "breath and/or blood" Breath on Eurosport....Breath and/or blood on Sky. Confused 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.