SCB Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Then they should have banned him immediately his GP breath test failure came to light, not allowed him to continue riding.While I agree, Darcy didn't appeal the ruling so all points should be removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 It's history, time to move on... I am not a fan of Ward or Poole, but he was not banned when riding for Poole and there was no suggestion he was riding under the influence so why would his points be removed? I didn't want to get involved in a discussion over people's views on the ruling. It's immaterial what you think. The FIM ruling is that his points should be deducted, it's not open to discussion. So I was just wondering what, if anything, has been done to further this ruling in Britain. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E I Addio Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I didn't want to get involved in a discussion over people's views on the ruling. It's immaterial what you think. The FIM ruling is that his points should be deducted, it's not open to discussion. So I was just wondering what, if anything, has been done to further this ruling in Britain. The F.I.M have said they will take urgent steps to discuss the matter with the nearest brick wall and they will abide by its decision. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReturn Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 I didn't want to get involved in a discussion over people's views on the ruling. It's immaterial what you think. The FIM ruling is that his points should be deducted, it's not open to discussion. So I was just wondering what, if anything, has been done to further this ruling in Britain. Ok, I will shut up then because you say so. Let's not debate a ruling, which is frankly ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The White Knight Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ok, I will shut up then because you say so. Let's not debate a ruling, which is frankly ridiculous. That is an opinion to which you are entitled - however - others have the right to differ. To my mind the points should be deducted as that is part of the judgement by the FIM. Regardless of your view that it is a stupid judgement, the sentence has been passed. Knowing British Speedway, I doubt they will do anything - after all - this is Poole we are discussing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted June 11, 2015 Report Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ok, I will shut up then because you say so. Let's not debate a ruling, which is frankly ridiculous. Don't be so childish. The FIM have made a ruling which is mandatory. All I was asking in my original post was what has happened about that ruling in this country. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Don't be so childish. The FIM have made a ruling which is mandatory. All I was asking in my original post was what has happened about that ruling in this country. Looks like it's been dropped in Norbold's Hole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 (edited) You'll be in trouble for that, pugwash! Edited June 13, 2015 by norbold 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsgirl Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 That is an opinion to which you are entitled - however - others have the right to differ. To my mind the points should be deducted as that is part of the judgement by the FIM. Regardless of your view that it is a stupid judgement, the sentence has been passed. Knowing British Speedway, I doubt they will do anything - after all - this is Poole we are discussing. I think that whichever team had won the league championship with this circumstance occurring, British Speedway would do nothing. Very messy scenario and I think it will be dodged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksback Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) That is an opinion to which you are entitled - however - others have the right to differ. To my mind the points should be deducted as that is part of the judgement by the FIM. Regardless of your view that it is a stupid judgement, the sentence has been passed. Knowing British Speedway, I doubt they will do anything - after all - this is Poole we are discussing. According to the FIM the points/prize money deduction only relates to the individual and not the team... Edited June 16, 2015 by jacksback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 According to the FIM the points/prize money deduction only relates to the individual and not the team... No it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksback Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 (edited) In the ruling it states "individual results" not team So for all you Darcy and Poole haters out there...last seasoins results will not change...suck it up Edited June 16, 2015 by jacksback Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I think it is open to interpretation: 110. Article 10.8 CAD states that “In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results), all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (…) or any other anti-doping rule violation occurred, though the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.” 111. In this respect, Mr Ward has pointed out that Article 10.8 CAD shall not be applied in cases where fairness requires otherwise. Besides referring to the fact that he was not told he was suspended until several weeks later, Mr Ward has, however, not specified any reasons for fairness that would apply in this case. 112. CDI finds that, in the light of the clear wording of Article 10.8 CAD, it is not allowed to depart from the wording in other than exceptional circumstances. Mr Ward has not produced evidence in support of his allegation. Therefore, the principle set out in Article 10.8 CAD shall apply, and consequently all the results that Mr Ward obtained in all the Competitions in which he participated from 17 August 2014 until 27 August 2014, are to be cancelled, respectively forfeited. nb My bolding of what appear to be the key phrases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksback Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS 11.1 If a member of a team is found to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules during an event for teams competing with 11.2 If a member of a team is found to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules during an event where a team ranking is based on the addition of individual results, the results of the rider committing the violation will be subtracted from the team result and replaced with the results of the next applicable team member. If by removing the rider’s results from the team results, the number of riders counting for the team is less than the required number, the team shall be eliminated from the ranking Self explanitory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Nick Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 ARTICLE 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS 11.1 If a member of a team is found to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules during an event for teams competing with 11.2 If a member of a team is found to have committed a violation of these Anti-Doping Rules during an event where a team ranking is based on the addition of individual results, the results of the rider committing the violation will be subtracted from the team result and replaced with the results of the next applicable team member. If by removing the riders results from the team results, the number of riders counting for the team is less than the required number, the team shall be eliminated from the ranking Self explanitory Except for the fact that Darcy wasn't competinug in a team event when he failed the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 In the ruling it states "individual results" not team It doesn't as arnieg has shown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksback Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 I think it is open to interpretation: 110. Article 10.8 CAD states that “In addition to the automatic Disqualification of the results in the Competition which produced the positive Sample under Article 9 (Automatic Disqualification of Individual Results), all other competitive results obtained from the date a positive Sample was collected (…) or any other anti-doping rule violation occurred, though the commencement of any Provisional Suspension or Ineligibility period, shall, unless fairness requires otherwise, be Disqualified, with all of the resulting consequences including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.” 111. In this respect, Mr Ward has pointed out that Article 10.8 CAD shall not be applied in cases where fairness requires otherwise. Besides referring to the fact that he was not told he was suspended until several weeks later, Mr Ward has, however, not specified any reasons for fairness that would apply in this case. 112. CDI finds that, in the light of the clear wording of Article 10.8 CAD, it is not allowed to depart from the wording in other than exceptional circumstances. Mr Ward has not produced evidence in support of his allegation. Therefore, the principle set out in Article 10.8 CAD shall apply, and consequently all the results that Mr Ward obtained in all the Competitions in which he participated from 17 August 2014 until 27 August 2014, are to be cancelled, respectively forfeited. nb My bolding of what appear to be the key phrases It states Mr Ward and not the team. See post above...sorry you live in hope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Leslie Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 You can read the CDI decision here http://www.fim-live.com/en/article/cdi-decision-on-darcy-ward/ It's pretty clear. "Moreover, the CDI ruled that the results obtained by Mr Ward in all the Competitions in which he participated subsequent to the positive test, from 17 August 2014 until 27 August 2014, are cancelled, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any points and prizes." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_Jones Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It states Mr Ward and not the team. See post above...sorry you live in hope If Mr. Ward's points are cancelled then a resulting consequence is that his team no longer have those points, they are cancelled, they no longer exist, they are ex-points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnieg Posted June 16, 2015 Report Share Posted June 16, 2015 It states Mr Ward and not the team. See post above...sorry you live in hope I don't understand this comment - nowhere do I express any opinion. I hope for nothing other than a reasoned discussion of the matter in hand, which your posting of article 11.2 furthers but your subsequent posting does not. 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.