Drugs - Just Say No!

[noaksey]

17 hours ago, Technik said:

I read in the Speedway Star that the hearing is on November 01. So a while to wait yet.

I wonder if anyone would use either rider as a guest as their 30 day suspension is now expired?

Their suspension is automatically extended to the date of the hearing 

[Technik]

5 hours ago, noaksey said:

Their suspension is automatically extended to the date of the hearing 

I'm not so sure, A smart brief could argue that the suspension was for 30 days, It goes on to say pending an SCB hearing. That hearing is to be arranged by the SCB & one would assume that if they have failed to do that within the 30 day period then why should the riders be punished further. If these things have a time scale then it must be followed. I know the Morris issue was extended but that was at the request of the rider here it appears in both cases that the SCB are at fault.

[noaksey]

9 minutes ago, Technik said:

I'm not so sure, A smart brief could argue that the suspension was for 30 days, It goes on to say pending an SCB hearing. That hearing is to be arranged by the SCB & one would assume that if they have failed to do that within the 30 day period then why should the riders be punished further. If these things have a time scale then it must be followed. I know the Morris issue was extended but that was at the request of the rider here it appears in both cases that the SCB are at fault.

How does it appear that the SCB are at fault?

[Wee Eck]

http://www.scbgb.co.uk/news.php?extend.165.1

So Nick Morris gets banned for two years despite pleading guilty, Worrall gets less though he seems to have pled not guilty and Boxall only gets an extra year for a second offence. 
Are SCB getting soft or is there more to this?

[40-38]

So Worrall is a lying coke head after all.

[Wee Eck]

3 minutes ago, 40-38 said:

So Worrall is a lying coke head after all.

Perhaps not how I’d have phrased it but you have to wonder why he didn’t employ a defence solicitor - which seemed to work for Barker.

[40-38]

14 minutes ago, Wee Eck said:

Perhaps not how I’d have phrased it but you have to wonder why he didn’t employ a defence solicitor - which seemed to work for Barker.

Not quite sure how you can explain away cocaine and its metabolite through any painkiller use as far as I'm aware. Not sure what use the defence solicitor would have been, it's his sample and it tested positive. I don't ever want to see him in a Lions race jacket again.

[tonyd]

I would say Boxall is finished in speedway and he knows it, to not attend the hearing and with no representative there he has no interest in the sport now (and I cannot see the fine being paid). I am surprised though that he only got a 2 year ban, for a second offence for the same thing I would have expected a 10 year ban at least if not a life ban.

Worrall only getting a 18 month ban which is effectively 9 months with the suspended bit sound fishy to me. Normally a failed  drug test always has a 2 year ban and fine so either we are not being told something or one has to assume there is a lot of brown envelopes floating around. 

What's the betting Worrall signs for a team but as he cannot start riding until June the team are given a dispensation for his absence at the start of the season. 

 

[crescent girl]

31 minutes ago, tonyd said:

I would say Boxall is finished in speedway and he knows it, to not attend the hearing and with no representative there he has no interest in the sport now (and I cannot see the fine being paid). I am surprised though that he only got a 2 year ban, for a second offence for the same thing I would have expected a 10 year ban at least if not a life ban.

Worrall only getting a 18 month ban which is effectively 9 months with the suspended bit sound fishy to me. Normally a failed  drug test always has a 2 year ban and fine so either we are not being told something or one has to assume there is a lot of brown envelopes floating around. 

What's the betting Worrall signs for a team but as he cannot start riding until June the team are given a dispensation for his absence at the start of the season. 

 

He may well sign agreements for a couple of clubs, ready to start in June, but there is no way there would be a facility granted in his absence. 

[Sings4Speedway]

43 minutes ago, tonyd said:

I would say Boxall is finished in speedway and he knows it, to not attend the hearing and with no representative there he has no interest in the sport now (and I cannot see the fine being paid). I am surprised though that he only got a 2 year ban, for a second offence for the same thing I would have expected a 10 year ban at least if not a life ban.

Worrall only getting a 18 month ban which is effectively 9 months with the suspended bit sound fishy to me. Normally a failed  drug test always has a 2 year ban and fine so either we are not being told something or one has to assume there is a lot of brown envelopes floating around. 

What's the betting Worrall signs for a team but as he cannot start riding until June the team are given a dispensation for his absence at the start of the season. 

 

Boxall got 4 years (still seems light for a 2nd offence), Richie somehow gets off with 9 months and will be welcomed back with open arms just like Boxall was after a few lairy amateur meetings. Fines and bans aside a bigger punishment would be sticking two points on their averages for each league to make them a much tougher prospect to sign in the future, potentially actual average plus two for the next two seasons to avoid the inevitable manipulation. 

[kitten2502]

I find it really strange that the identical "substances" were found in 2 individuals samples. I also think the bans should be reworded to be "seasons" rather than years so that there is no benefit gained by being banned outside of the racing window. 

[Fromafar]

1 hour ago, Sings4Speedway said:

Boxall got 4 years (still seems light for a 2nd offence), Richie somehow gets off with 9 months and will be welcomed back with open arms just like Boxall was after a few lairy amateur meetings. Fines and bans aside a bigger punishment would be sticking two points on their averages for each league to make them a much tougher prospect to sign in the future, potentially actual average plus two for the next two seasons to avoid the inevitable manipulation. 

Richie is one of the Team GB boys though.

[tonyd]

Following the tests that have been failed by riders in recent seasons I feel the time has come for EVERY rider to pee in a pot and be tested at EVERY meeting. Before anyone starts talking about the costs of testing I say the costs does not come into it, the health and safety of every other rider, spectator and official far out weighs any cost involved. The cost of a test is nothing compared to the value of someone's life.

  

[Sir Sidney]

55 minutes ago, tonyd said:

Following the tests that have been failed by riders in recent seasons I feel the time has come for EVERY rider to pee in a pot and be tested at EVERY meeting. Before anyone starts talking about the costs of testing I say the costs does not come into it, the health and safety of every other rider, spectator and official far out weighs any cost involved. The cost of a test is nothing compared to the value of someone's life.

  

Unfortunately costs do come into it. How would you propose it be paid for? A levy on every ticket to fund it? 

[The Dog]

2 minutes ago, Sir Sidney said:

Unfortunately costs do come into it. How would you propose it be paid for? A levy on every ticket to fund it? 

How about take a small percent out of riders earnings to cover the cost? If they can afford cocaine, I'm sure they can afford the test... 

[orion]

Maybe its time to call Zamo from Grange Hill in. Maybe the riders could  get together and make a remake of his song.

[1 valve]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

How about take a small percent out of riders earnings to cover the cost? If they can afford cocaine, I'm sure they can afford the test... 

So your proposal is that all riders pay for their own  drugs test at all meetings. The reserves and similar lower end earners are going to love that suggestion, especially  those that cant afford or do drugs! 

[noaksey]

1 hour ago, tonyd said:

Following the tests that have been failed by riders in recent seasons I feel the time has come for EVERY rider to pee in a pot and be tested at EVERY meeting. Before anyone starts talking about the costs of testing I say the costs does not come into it, the health and safety of every other rider, spectator and official far out weighs any cost involved. The cost of a test is nothing compared to the value of someone's life.

  

Having multiple testers at every single meeting staged in the UK would be a huge commitment by the sport. This would be administered by a 3rd party agency as presumably it is now but the costs would be eye watering. You could attempt to place a levy on riders contracts but I'm not sure that would stand up, is there any other professional sport that requires it's participants to pay for testing at every event?

[The Dog]

13 minutes ago, 1 valve said:

So your proposal is that all riders pay for their own  drugs test at all meetings. The reserves and similar lower end earners are going to love that suggestion, especially  those that cant afford or do drugs! 

Well I can't see the BSPA helping out, most of the clubs are bordering skint and it's only the riders that seem to do OK out of the sport, so why not? If I was a rider I'd be happy to pay a small amount to prove I was clean and to know others were too 

[Ben91]

Given the increase in failed tests in recent times maybe testing has become more stringent than it previously was around the tracks. 

With the dangerous nature inherent in the sport I’d say all drugs bans handed out in my memory have been too lenient. Zero tolerance is the answer. Fail a test and don’t bother coming back ever.