Drug testing

[steve roberts]

13 hours ago, DazS said:

have we ever had a incident on track where it was proved later the cause was drink or drug related.??

I recall at Eastbourne Kelly Moran falling off at the first bend against Wimbledon (1981?) after arriving back from the States that same morning and it was thought that he had "over indulged" with the duty frees on the plane? Malcolm Simmons talked candidly about the incident in his most excellent book.

[DazS]

1 hour ago, steve roberts said:

I recall at Eastbourne Kelly Moran falling off at the first bend against Wimbledon (1981?) after arriving back from the States that same morning and it was thought that he had "over indulged" with the duty frees on the plane? Malcolm Simmons talked candidly about the incident in his most excellent book.

funny you should mention Kelly i used to do second half's at belle vue , and when i met him i thought he looks a very happy person.

Edited July 30, 2023 by DazS

[arnieg]

2 hours ago, DazS said:

funny you should mention Kelly i used to do second half's at belle vue , and when i met him i thought he looks a very happy person.

He was just pleased to see you 

[DazS]

1 hour ago, arnieg said:

He was just pleased to see you 

he wouldn't share it out though.

[szkocjasid]

On 7/18/2023 at 8:04 PM, Ben91 said:

The possibility of being tested should be enough to discourage athletes from taking drugs (performance enhancing or otherwise) or drinking.

The point of testing isn’t to catch as many people as possible. It is to keep the sport clean and deter competitors from cheating, which in turn can put other competitors in danger and hurt the reputation of the sport. 

100% agree, couldn't have put it any better

[tonyd]

I cannot see why every rider cannot be tested before a meeting and not just the odd one now and again.

I used to work on very large construction sites and EVERY person on site was D&A tested before they could start on said site. When the site was up and running EVERY new starter was tested before they went out onto the site, if they refused they didn't start end of story. Before being tested they were asked 1) when did they last have alcohol  2) have they taken anything that might not allow them to pass the test and 3) a list of any prescribed medication they are taking. Also there was a computer that gave out random names each day for routine  testing and these could be anyone on site from machine operator, to a receptionist to the site manager

They then peed in a special test pot which was then sealed, snapped into the crystals below and shook up and depending on the colour it turned showed a positive or negative reading.

Negative reading ........ carry on working

Positive reading ...... you were sent home to wait for further testing of the sample to be carried out. This involved pouring the sample into two sample jars that were labelled A and B and the person was offered either of the jars to take away and have tested themselves if they wished. The sample was then sent away to the labs for more vigorous tests with the results normally back within 48 hours of test giving what the failure was or the fact that the person was taking a combination of prescribed medicines that gave a failed test result so was ok. 

Mind you most people who failed expected to and just said ok bye.

What I am saying is that basic D&A testing kits are relatively inexpensive and could be carried out by the stadium doctor / paramedic so riders would know and expect to be tested prior to a match. If a rider has nothing to hide then they have nothing to worry about.

 

[racers and royals]

Nick Morris banned for 2 years.

[tonyd]

51 minutes ago, racers and royals said:

Nick Morris banned for 2 years.

And so he should be I believe, shame they have not also stated what the reason for the failure was. One has to assume it was some sort of drugs because if it was alcohol I believe the ban and fine would have been less.  

He is a silly man instead of refusing the test he should have stated that he was going to fail it before taking it and still took it, I believe he will still have been banned but for a lesser time, and if it was due to prescribed drugs again I believe the  ban would have been shorter.

Once again this is a lesson to ALL riders and officials (do they test race officials?) that a refusal is an automatic guilty verdict that results in a longer ban everytime.

[IainB]

2-year suspension of his ACU Licence

Does this mean UK ban or worldwide?

[racers and royals]

6 minutes ago, iainb said:

2-year suspension of his ACU Licence

Does this mean UK ban or worldwide?

Worldwide

[Fromafar]

1 hour ago, tonyd said:

And so he should be I believe, shame they have not also stated what the reason for the failure was. One has to assume it was some sort of drugs because if it was alcohol I believe the ban and fine would have been less.  

He is a silly man instead of refusing the test he should have stated that he was going to fail it before taking it and still took it, I believe he will still have been banned but for a lesser time, and if it was due to prescribed drugs again I believe the  ban would have been shorter.

Once again this is a lesson to ALL riders and officials (do they test race officials?) that a refusal is an automatic guilty verdict that results in a longer ban everytime.

Well deserved ban .IMO.

 

[Gr8scot]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:59 PM, Fromafar said:

I agree some could be caught out by “ over the counter” prescription medication,but like Kyle Howarth situation if you declare what you have taken and it tally’s with test outcome you will be exonerated.Pharmacist’s can’t be expected to know everything regarding banned drugs in sport,he just reads the label.Rider confidentiality seems to stop SCB explaining different reasons for length of bans.

 

I was once at an away meeting and one of our riders had really bad hay fever. His Mum knew every drug on the banned list. Nothing she knew of was working. I phoned one of the referees, who phoned someone else and in no time we had a reply / solution.  
As with many things in life,  Ignorance is no excuse

[JamesHarris]

Ok everyone is assuming Nick has been a naughty boy. I’m not defending him and it was very foolish of him to refuse the test but has anyone asked if he was on medication or even taking stuff for hay fever and perhaps panicked when he was picked for a random test? If that was so then maybe he could have been cut some slack but even so he could have contested the result if positive I suppose. If he had got something to hide then it’s his own doing I’m afraid. Such a shame really as he’s a nice lad and a good rider.

Edited August 17, 2023 by JamesHarris

[Technik]

5 hours ago, iainb said:

2-year suspension of his ACU Licence

Does this mean UK ban or worldwide?

The SCB/ACU only has the power to ban a rider in this country. However it is seen to be sensible to advise the FIM & the riders own FMN (National federation) & they may impose their own punishments considering the reasons for the ban

[Grand Central]

 

Just now, Technik said:

The SCB/ACU only has the power to ban a rider in this country. However it is seen to be sensible to advise the FIM & the riders own FMN (National federation) & they may impose their own punishments considering the reasons for the ban

It is written into the SCB regulations that they WILL advise Motorcycling Australia (his FMN) of their judication.

[Cerro]

Failure to comply with the testing procedure will always be punished with the maximum penalty, only himself to blame. Any lawyer will always tell you to take the test and argue your case later.

As soon as he decided he wasn’t taking the B test it was over for him. 

[RoundTheBoards]

2 hours ago, Cerro said:

Failure to comply with the testing procedure will always be punished with the maximum penalty, only himself to blame. 

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.    He was always going to get the minimum two years.   He could have got more, but presumably the hearing found no reason to give more than the 2 year minimum.

2 hours ago, Cerro said:

As soon as he decided he wasn’t taking the B test it was over for him. 

There is no "taking the B test".   

You pee in one container.   The pee is then poured into two separate vials.  One is labelled "A" and is used for the test, the other is labelled "B" and is kept.   if the "A" sample tests positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.   But it's highly unlikely to be any different since it is the same pee.

[Bald Bloke]

1 hour ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.    He was always going to get the minimum two years.   He could have got more, but presumably the hearing found no reason to give more than the 2 year minimum.

There is no "taking the B test".   

You pee in one container.   The pee is then poured into two separate vials.  One is labelled "A" and is used for the test, the other is labelled "B" and is kept.   if the "A" sample tests positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.   But it's highly unlikely to be any different since it is the same pee.

Ben Barker?

[RoundTheBoards]

24 minutes ago, Bald Bloke said:

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.   

Everyone in motorcycling has a right to compete in a safe and fair environment with an emphasis on safety in motor sport, and regardless of the level they participate at, have the right to compete knowing that they and their competitors have not taken any banned performance-enhancing drugs.

Led by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is responsible for the collaborative worldwide campaign for clean sport, The ACU works in partnership with UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) and the international governing body FIM to crack down on doping and ensure the integrity of our sport is protected.

Now that we are out of covid restrictions and events are getting back to pre-pandemic levels, we have recommenced drug testing which have and will continue to be carried out at random events throughout the county during the season, and should a test be positive, the minimum penalty for a first offence will be a two-year suspension. 

All involved in motorcycle sport have the right to compete in knowing that they, and others involved in our sport are clean. The use of performance-enhancing drugs and other doping behaviour severely damages the legitimacy of sport and undermines the integrity of those who are clean within our sport.

[Bald Bloke]

1 minute ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Everyone in motorcycling has a right to compete in a safe and fair environment with an emphasis on safety in motor sport, and regardless of the level they participate at, have the right to compete knowing that they and their competitors have not taken any banned performance-enhancing drugs.

Led by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which is responsible for the collaborative worldwide campaign for clean sport, The ACU works in partnership with UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) and the international governing body FIM to crack down on doping and ensure the integrity of our sport is protected.

Now that we are out of covid restrictions and events are getting back to pre-pandemic levels, we have recommenced drug testing which have and will continue to be carried out at random events throughout the county during the season, and should a test be positive, the minimum penalty for a first offence will be a two-year suspension. 

All involved in motorcycle sport have the right to compete in knowing that they, and others involved in our sport are clean. The use of performance-enhancing drugs and other doping behaviour severely damages the legitimacy of sport and undermines the integrity of those who are clean within our sport.

My question was why didn't BB get  2 years

  1 hour ago, RoundTheBoards said:

Two years is the Minimum penalty, not the Maximum.    He was always going to get the minimum two years.   He could have got more, but presumably the hearing found no reason to give more than the 2 year minimum.

There is no "taking the B test".   

You pee in one container.   The pee is then poured into two separate vials.  One is labelled "A" and is used for the test, the other is labelled "B" and is kept.   if the "A" sample tests positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.   But it's highly unlikely to be any different since it is the same pee.

Ben Barker?