robert72 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 NO. I don't think the timescale is acceptable and SCB also agrees, along with many others including some who have no sympathy for Ward. I have no idea what the BSPA think of the timescales, try asking them. Your attempt to have a go, and try to implicate the SS and BSPA was pathetic and irrelevant Why are people worrying about the 45 day wait ? If the FIM do the right thing then darcy will have a 2 year wait to ride again and rightly so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 You and Starry related then pugwash? Interbred us Pirates fans. 6 digits the lot. Middlo is our mother. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwatcher Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 So it now appears that a number of other clubs have to wait around for another 45 days in which to here the fate of Darcy Ward before they can name the remaining riders in their teams all because Poole are waiting to see if they can sign him or not before those riders that are also waiting on the desision, are waiting to see if they can get a place in Pooles team. We are getting very close to the start of the new season and teams are being help up by this stuppid desision of who will get the nod to ride for them. If I was one of those riders I would have left and found a club that really wants me to ride for them not be a last minute choice. Because Superman decided to go and have a few few pints the night before a GP. Lets just ban him for 2 years and hope that it will do him some good and if and when he does come back he will have learnt his leason. To become a top class rider, that we all know he is but off the track he is a first class idiot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Why are people worrying about the 45 day wait ? If the FIM do the right thing then darcy will have a 2 year wait to ride again and rightly so. Gavan take note! Here comes another 2 year banner. So it now appears that a number of other clubs have to wait around for another 45 days in which to here the fate of Darcy Ward before they can name the remaining riders in their teams all because Poole are waiting to see if they can sign him or not before those riders that are also waiting on the desision, are waiting to see if they can get a place in Pooles team. We are getting very close to the start of the new season and teams are being help up by this stuppid desision of who will get the nod to ride for them. If I was one of those riders I would have left and found a club that really wants me to ride for them not be a last minute choice. Because Superman decided to go and have a few few pints the night before a GP. Lets just ban him for 2 years and hope that it will do him some good and if and when he does come back he will have learnt his leason. To become a top class rider, that we all know he is but off the track he is a first class idiot. And another. They're coming in thick and fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReturn Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 NO. I don't think the timescale is acceptable and SCB also agrees, along with many others including some who have no sympathy for Ward. It doesn't matter if the time scales are appropriate or not. All could have been avoided by Mr Ward not drinking the day before a World Championship racing event. End of. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I think you are confusing the issue. The timescale IS acceptable as that is the timescale laid down by the rules. I'm afraid that's one of those facts that some seem to want to overlook. Now, whether the rules governing the timescale are reasonable is another matter.. but they are the rules as it stands now and are therefore the rules by which Ward must comply. Excuse me, but I was asked if I thought if the timescale was acceptable and I said no. Nowt to do with overlooking something, an opinion, OK. Your missing the point. Anything in the legal world takes to long we all know that. This case has took no longer than any other similar case. I agree its to long but that is always the case. The fim rules state up to 45 days. So what is daft is all the idiots saying its taking to long should be resolved sooner. I agree 45 days is to long but they are within their rights so why people keep banging on about length of time its taken is beyond me. See my response to BWitcher above, and you will see I have NOT missed the point. Probably you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YerRopes Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I don't think the timescale is acceptable either and I have absolutely no sympathy for Darcy Ward. I don't think the timescale is reasonable either but as the 45 day ruling appears to be the norm in such matters, Darcy (or any of his camp) have no grounds at all for complaining about it. As for any ban for the offence committed, I think a 12 month ban (from the date of offence) followed by a 12 month suspended sentence should suffice for anyone found guilty, that includes Darcy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 It doesn't matter if the time scales are appropriate or not. All could have been avoided by Mr Ward not drinking the day before a World Championship racing event. End of. Another one. See my answer to BWitcher above. I was asked a question and I replied. Talk about missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Gavan take note! Here comes another 2 year banner. And another. They're coming in thick and fast. As stated im no fan of Middlo or Ford And Darcy is a plank off the track But a 2 year ban is to excessive ive always said that. 1 year backdated to August would suffice 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Excuse me, but I was asked if I thought if the timescale was acceptable and I said no. Nowt to do with overlooking something, an opinion, OK. See my response to BWitcher above, and you will see I have NOT missed the point. Probably you have. Then you are talking rubbish again. The timescale in the Ward case is within 45 days. Therefore anything within that time frame is acceptable. As I said, whether the regulation itself giving 45 days is acceptable is another matter. That would be something to look at and be changed for future cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 As stated im no fan of Middlo or Ford And Darcy is a plank off the track But a 2 year ban is to excessive ive always said that. 1 year backdated to August would suffice With 6 months suspended maybe. Don't forget it's his first offence as far as FIM are concerned. His 'previous' is nothing to do with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star Lady Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Then you are talking rubbish again. The timescale in the Ward case is within 45 days. Therefore anything within that time frame is acceptable. As I said, whether the regulation itself giving 45 days is acceptable is another matter. That would be something to look at and be changed for future cases. Just to make my stance clear, I think the timescale is unacceptable in all cases not specifically the Ward case. I understand an instant decision is not possible or maybe even desirable but even allowing for consultation and/or clarification of points of law/rules 45 days is excessive, but as others said once lawyers are involved you expect it! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 With 6 months suspended maybe. Don't forget it's his first offence as far as FIM are concerned. His 'previous' is nothing to do with them. Maybe, But I think he would have had more chance of that if he had come clean straight away. And not contested the charge. A 'not guilty' plea on the basis of blaming the FIM procedures may not be so good for him if/when found guilty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Just to make my stance clear, I think the timescale is unacceptable in all cases not specifically the Ward case. I understand an instant decision is not possible or maybe even desirable but even allowing for consultation and/or clarification of points of law/rules 45 days is excessive, but as others said once lawyers are involved you expect it! I agree with that, but those are the regulations, so its acceptable to take 45 days until those are changed.. which perhaps (there maybe reasons we are unaware of) they should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Then you are talking rubbish again. The timescale in the Ward case is within 45 days. Therefore anything within that time frame is acceptable. As I said, whether the regulation itself giving 45 days is acceptable is another matter. That would be something to look at and be changed for future cases. Now deliberately missing the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Studland Bee Posted February 11, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 The hearing as we know lasted one day. The FIM would surely present their case and Darcy Ward would be asked to respond. If he were to have accepted the evidence, and in effect plead guilty to the offence under FIM rules and regulations, I think this would have been fairly straightforward and the FIM could probably have dealt with things on the day, or within a few days based on previous sentences for like offences. It seems to me from what has been reported, that Darcy Ward is in fact challenging the evidence and not accepting the alcohol test procedures and therefore pleading not guilty. Why else would he employ a Legal Team, other than to present some form of mitigation. The FIM would have to receive the defence evidence presuming there has been no previous disclosure or defence statement from Ward. From here the FIM would clearly need to seek Legal Advice and examine the evidence presented to them; what is the basis of the challenge ? The FIM or in fact Darcy Ward's team may need to seek advice from an expert witness, or refer to case law. These are some of the reasons why procedures in the Criminal Courts take so long. There is so much at stake here for Darcy Ward and for the FIM. This needs to be handled properly by the FIM and the relevant Legal representatives for both sides. I feel that 45 days is not unreasonable should this time frame be required. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Just to make my stance clear, I think the timescale is unacceptable in all cases not specifically the Ward case. I understand an instant decision is not possible or maybe even desirable but even allowing for consultation and/or clarification of points of law/rules 45 days is excessive, but as others said once lawyers are involved you expect it! In an ideal world of course the decision should be given immediately but we don't live in an ideal world. Those who pompously tell us it's taking too long don't know why it is taking this long or why the rules allow up to 45 days. I doubt that it is just a figure they plucked from the air. At one end of the scale it could simply be that they are totally incompetent , which is what some are happy to believe. At the other extreme we don't know what issues have been raised, or what other material has to be researched to ensure the decision in consistent with similar cases in other motor sports or sport generally. The truth may lie somewhere between the two but the point is we simply do not know the reason for the delay and those who speculate are merely guessing. Similarly we don't know why it took so long to get to the tribunal. For all anyone on here knows it could be that it was Darcy's side that wanted it put back. Again people are simply guessing when they don't have all the facts. I wish some people would take a deep breath before they sound off without the information. It's bad enough hearing Muddlo's rantings with forum members doing the same. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 So it now appears that a number of other clubs have to wait around for another 45 days in which to here the fate of Darcy Ward before they can name the remaining riders in their teams Which teams would they be? Aside from Poole, only Leicester haven't named a full team. They're still missing a 6 point rider who I believe is being announced soon, and I don't think that's anything to do with Ward. Many teams were announced before Christmas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hannahrack Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Roll on 23 March..... Roll on 23 March..... http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=11&m1=2&y1=2015&d2=23&m2=March&y2=2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdmc82 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) So it now appears that a number of other clubs have to wait around for another 45 days in which to here the fate of Darcy Ward before they can name the remaining riders in their teams all because Poole are waiting to see if they can sign him or not before those riders that are also waiting on the desision, are waiting to see if they can get a place in Pooles team. We are getting very close to the start of the new season and teams are being help up by this stuppid desision of who will get the nod to ride for them. If I was one of those riders I would have left and found a club that really wants me to ride for them not be a last minute choice. Because Superman decided to go and have a few few pints the night before a GP. Lets just ban him for 2 years and hope that it will do him some good and if and when he does come back he will have learnt his leason. To become a top class rider, that we all know he is but off the track he is a first class idiot. Which teams are waiting?Only Leicester have a rider still to announce. Only Poole are waiting and if they are silly enough to build their team around one rider who let them down big time then that's their own fault. Edited February 11, 2015 by mdmc82 2 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.