Birmingham Brummies 2023

[HGould]

24 minutes ago, heathen52 said:

I am told from a very reliable source, or should I say from someone that should know what went on, Nick apparently could not pee to take the second test, and yes the first test allegedly showed positive.

It may be testing has changed but in the past you gave 1 sample. 

That was split in to 2 recepticles. 

The first was tested and if positive the second sample was retained for further tests. 

I've not heard of a process where you give a sample and are then asked to give another one. 

If he could not pee he would have been asked to drink water and to remain in the presence of an examiner until he could give a sample however long it took. 

These samples don't require a massive amount of urine to be compliant. 

If he's had a strop and refused to give a sample or tried to influence the tester or verbally abused the tester it may explain the issue of the withdrawn charge. 

Bottom line is that at some point he has not met the guidelines and got a just punishment. 

He has been a shadow of the rider he was for a few years in my opinion and we probably won't see him in the UK again even on his most recent inflated average. 

[Fromafar]

34 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

If that was the case, when he was ready to take a pee, he should've provided one that could've cleared things up. I have actually heard a rider saying the same thing (about not being able to pee) but, surely drinking a gallon of water might've speeded things up?

Correct having been involved in athletics,the drug Testers just with you till your Athlete provides a sample,like you  saya bottle of water soon does the trick.

ps

its a small sample you have to provide.

 

 

[Sings4Speedway]

3 hours ago, MD said:

Would be 31 at that point. Who knows what state UK speedway will be in by then, there is usually always someone looking for riders.

Probably get a reduction like Boxall for time away 

[Gazc]

1 hour ago, screm said:

Morris hasn't been found guilty of failing a drug test though, he has pleaded guilty of refusing to provide one, there will be some who see that as an admission of a failed one had he chosen to take of course.

One question though, do we know the reason why he refused to take a test.

Probably because he was out his ti*ts.

Only reason to refuse it.

[ruffdiamond]

24 minutes ago, Fromafar said:

Correct having been involved in athletics,the drug Testers just with you till your Athlete provides a sample,like you  saya bottle of water soon does the trick.

ps

its a small sample you have to provide.

 

 

Yeah, usually 2 to 3 pints until a breach!!! 

Edited August 17, 2023 by ruffdiamond

[ruffdiamond]

5 minutes ago, Gazc said:

Probably because he was out his ti*ts.

Only reason to refuse it.

You mean 't!ts'?

[Gazc]

15 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

You mean 't!ts'?

Something like that.

[szkocjasid]

13 hours ago, uk_martin said:

A question I asked a few weeks ago. Is there a time limit on these "facilities"? Can the Brummies do what they've done for the past year and a half, just run with a guest til the end of the season?  I'd have thought that they'd have had enough time to find an alternative permanent signing by now, but maybe guests are cheaper? I dunno.  But then again with only 4 meetings until their season is over, is it worth signing someone just for those? No properly satisfactory solution, I fear.

The problem is the timing of the ban, if Birmingham get a 28 day facility, that would run out after the transfer cut-off date. I assume they'd get a facility for the season, is that what happened to Plymouth with Barker last year?

[SteveLyric2]

3 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

The problem is the timing of the ban, if Birmingham get a 28 day facility, that would run out after the transfer cut-off date. I assume they'd get a facility for the season, is that what happened to Plymouth with Barker last year?

Yes, ALL year!!!

[SSL84]

33 minutes ago, Skidder1 said:

Yes, ALL year!!!

Skidder1 think you're getting mixed-up with Eddie Kennett 

[gazzac]

16 hours ago, Gazc said:

Probably because he was out his ti*ts.

Only reason to refuse it.

Isn't it 'off his t*ts' ? Although I'm no expert on such things, perhaps one could confirm.....

[SteveLyric2]

2 hours ago, SSL84 said:

Skidder1 think you're getting mixed-up with Eddie Kennett 

Yes - senior moment - it still annoys!!

[Gazc]

3 hours ago, gazzac said:

Isn't it 'off his t*ts' ? Although I'm no expert on such things, perhaps one could confirm.....

Out or Off no difference.

[mac101]

14 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

The problem is the timing of the ban, if Birmingham get a 28 day facility, that would run out after the transfer cut-off date. I assume they'd get a facility for the season, is that what happened to Plymouth with Barker last year?

think there maybe  a few changes coming very soon 

[szkocjasid]

1 hour ago, mac101 said:

think there maybe  a few changes coming very soon 

With Edinburgh losing at home to Oxford, there's still a chance for the Brummies, especially as Monarchs still have to race Poole at home.

[szkocjasid]

Drop Morris & Nielsen & Birmingham could run with this squad lol!

Robert Lambert 11.72
Troy Batchelor 7.45
Justin Sedgmen 6.94
Alfie Bowtell 4.93
Paul Starke 4.55
Sam Hagon 2.00
Luke Killeen 2.00

Maybe Niels K Iversen, or Jaimon Lidsey would be more realistic though?

 

[mac101]

they will be Russian to get a team like that 

[uk_martin]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:34 AM, szkocjasid said:

With Edinburgh losing at home to Oxford, there's still a chance for the Brummies, especially as Monarchs still have to race Poole at home.

Should make Friday's away match at Edinburgh's trick track interesting then 

[cyclone]

5 hours ago, uk_martin said:

Should make Friday's away match at Edinburgh's trick track interesting then 

Especially as the Edinburgh Promotion agreed to Poole being first on, despite the fixture being announced originally as Birmingham as the sole vistors, who you would expect to be the opener for this rearranged double header.

No doubt the Pirates will ragdoll  the home team in the opener, & will probably also supply Lawson as the Brum guest  for the second match.

Considering the Monarchs have persisted with the lowest 2 pointer in the CL since 9th June & show no signs of altering this, despite their reserves recording one point between them in last Friday's gubbing, Birmingham should be able to also win here.

There's quiet a few home fans disenchanted with how our Promotion appear to have given up in trying to improve both the team & the track latterly.

With the matchday admission prices for Friday being £35 for Adults, £33 for Seniors, & £31.50 for Students, think quite a few of the non-diehards will give this meeting a body swerve

 

[Petecc]

5 hours ago, cyclone said:

Especially as the Edinburgh Promotion agreed to Poole being first on, despite the fixture being announced originally as Birmingham as the sole vistors, who you would expect to be the opener for this rearranged double header.

No doubt the Pirates will ragdoll  the home team in the opener, & will probably also supply Lawson as the Brum guest  for the second match.

Considering the Monarchs have persisted with the lowest 2 pointer in the CL since 9th June & show no signs of altering this, despite their reserves recording one point between them in last Friday's gubbing, Birmingham should be able to also win here.

There's quiet a few home fans disenchanted with how our Promotion appear to have given up in trying to improve both the team & the track latterly.

With the matchday admission prices for Friday being £35 for Adults, £33 for Seniors, & £31.50 for Students, think quite a few of the non-diehards will give this meeting a body swerve