Richie Worrall statement

[noaksey]

1 minute ago, Bald Bloke said:

There used to have to be a track doctor at every meeting. I don't know if there still is. Or maybe the home club pays for one for 2 hours a meeting to do/ over see the tests the tests. I dunno, like i say  i ain't got a clue about drug testing. 

Anti doping is carried out by a 3rd party agency, you don't get the track Doctor or Neil Vatcher with a chemistry kit that's why it's expensive 

[1 valve]

1 hour ago, iainb said:

That's because that is the procedure... no matter how much he dislikes it. He could have p1ssed out any contaminants in his first test, that's the point of having a single test, he could be continuously p1ssing into a bottle until midnight, that is not the procedure and for very good reason

 No "substance" capable of being detected in a random drugs test can be totally  p**s out " (as you put it) overnight  just by continuously drinking water. this is because  the substance is also carried in the blood which is cleared via the normal kidney function. Differing substances take different length's of time to clear based on their type, strength and whether taken orally or intravenously.   
The exception to this scenario are psychedelic drugs which are extremely difficult to if not impossible to detect. However, conversely  they are not included in instant drug tests. 
  

[1 valve]

25 minutes ago, Robbee said:

Just for clarification purposes if nothing else ....

My understanding when Nick Morris got banned he took an initial test on the night which came back non-negative and then refused to take a second test??

Richie Worrall suffered a non-negative test on the night at Plymouth and was then refused a second test on the night if he is to be believed?

So exactly what is the protocol?

 

 

A very good observation and worthy question.
The difference lies between the two originally submitted samples.
One was rejected because the fluid did not conform to normal urine composition and thus a further sample was requested which was refused by the rider in question.
In the other instance, the official was happy with the sample provided and so didn't require anything further.  
 

Edited September 7, 2023 by 1 valve

[IainB]

16 minutes ago, 1 valve said:

 No "substance" capable of being detected in a random drugs test can be totally  p**s out " (as you put it) overnight  just by continuously drinking water. this is because  the substance is also carried in the blood which is cleared via the normal kidney function. Differing substances take different length's of time to clear based on their type, strength and whether taken orally or intravenously.   
The exception to this scenario are psychedelic drugs which are extremely difficult to if not impossible to detect. However, conversely  they are not included in instant drug tests. 
  

There will come a point where any detectable trace is finally expelled from the body though

[1 valve]

1 minute ago, iainb said:

There will come a point where any detectable trace is finally expelled from the body though

Absolutely. However,  it is worth considering that if SW managed to completely flush out his system in the time between the two tests, then more than likely, what was detected on Tuesday would have been residual from something substantial in his system when he rode at Wolverhampton the previous evening. 

[40-38]

41 minutes ago, 1 valve said:

Absolutely. However,  it is worth considering that if SW managed to completely flush out his system in the time between the two tests, then more than likely, what was detected on Tuesday would have been residual from something substantial in his system when he rode at Wolverhampton the previous evening. 

I think it’s quite likely if his test on Wednesday was negative but Tuesday wasn’t  he’d have been unfit to ride on Monday. 

[SPEEDY69]

1 hour ago, Robbee said:

Just for clarification purposes if nothing else ....

My understanding when Nick Morris got banned he took an initial test on the night which came back non-negative and then refused to take a second test??

Richie Worrall suffered a non-negative test on the night at Plymouth and was then refused a second test on the night if he is to be believed?

So exactly what is the protocol?

 

 

I thought Morris refused the test full stop, which means it's treated the same as a positive one.

[noaksey]

15 minutes ago, SPEEDY69 said:

I thought Morris refused the test full stop, which means it's treated the same as a positive one.

See I valve's post on page 3

[bigcatdiary]

3 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

I know cost has been mentioned but it’s crazy in a sport as dangerous as this that not everyone is tested before every meeting. It’s one thing testing in a sport like athletics where nobody can possibly get hurt, but in a sport where riders can and sometimes are, paralysed or killed it beggars belief that there’s not compulsory testing for every rider before meetings. 

It’s quite expensive and clearly the SCB have a budget, sounds like it was done thoroughly and correctly, if he hasn’t taken anything illegal he has nothing to worry about.

[RoundTheBoards]

2 hours ago, Robbee said:

Just for clarification purposes if nothing else ....

My understanding when Nick Morris got banned he took an initial test on the night which came back non-negative and then refused to take a second test??

Richie Worrall suffered a non-negative test on the night at Plymouth and was then refused a second test on the night if he is to be believed?

So exactly what is the protocol?

AFAIK, when you give a sample, they first test the specific gravity to make sure it is genuine pee, not appletise or a mix of 10% pee 90% water.   If you have tampered with the sample (given them appletise or water) then you get a second chance to give a genuine sample. 

Having given a genuine sample, it gets tested by a basic "dip test".   If this is negative, the procedure is over.   

If it's non-negative, a sample goes away for the proper testing.  The sample is split into two vials "A" and "B".  The "A" sample is tested.  If it is negative the procedure is over.  If it is positive, the rider can pay to have the "B" sample tested.

 

If I was guessing, from the little information we have, I'd guess that Morris tried to give a fake sample, and then refused when given a second chance to give a real sample.  Hence he never gave a sample and was banned accordingly.

Richie Worrall gave a sample which was non-negative.  There's no option to do a second sample.  The sample taken will be sent off to be analysed fully. 

If I were Richie Worrall, and I was convinced I was clean, I would do exactly what he's done.  I'd get a private test done just to make sure I hadn't had food or drink spiked without my knowledge.   If my private test was clear, I'd at least have peace of mind to believe that the SCB full test will be clear. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by RoundTheBoards

[Triple.H.]

6 hours ago, 1 valve said:

Absolutely. However,  it is worth considering that if SW managed to completely flush out his system in the time between the two tests, then more than likely, what was detected on Tuesday would have been residual from something substantial in his system when he rode at Wolverhampton the previous evening. 

What's it got to do with SW ?

From what I know about drug testing.

You pee into a sterilised container while being watched. The sample is divided into two.

Sample A and Sample B

In the Olympics etc samples are sent to the lab for testing.

If A is positive the competitor can choose to have B tested( maybe in a different lab ?)

Obviously at Speedway when they have sample they do a diptest of A if it comes up non negative then Sample B is sent to a lab for testing. 

Some drugs both medical and recreational can leave detectable traces in your system for weeks never mind days.

As an example when we had paper banknotes if you did a finger swab of anyone who worked in an environment where lots of notes were handled. Most would show traces of Cocaine.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Triple.H.

[neb]

just a thought if a rider fails a drug/alcohol test which deems him not fit to ride a bike  how is he allowed to drive away in his van, surely that cant be legal ?

Edited September 10, 2023 by neb

[DazS]

the risks we take as human beings is off the charts. 

[Lord Skid]

Should have saved his money, the test on the night is all that matters, there is no arguing with their findings.

[Bald Bloke]

6 hours ago, neb said:

just a thought if a rider fails a drug/alcohol test which deems him not fit to ride a bike  how is he allowed to drive away in his van, surely that cant be legal ?

Theres a limit to how much you have in your system on the road. I'd imagine a trace would be enough to fail a sports test.

Edited September 10, 2023 by Bald Bloke

[False dawn]

I'd just like to know the results and the SCB's decision. All this hyperthetical discussion gets us nowhere.

[Fromafar]

On 9/7/2023 at 1:07 PM, SPEEDY69 said:

I thought Morris refused the test full stop, which means it's treated the same as a positive one.

Think he did refuse the Test

[Fromafar]

6 hours ago, neb said:

just a thought if a rider fails a drug/alcohol test which deems him not fit to ride a bike  how is he allowed to drive away in his van, surely that cant be legal ?

Who said he drove away in his van.Even if he did he would have to been pulled over by police .

[DSC67]

7 hours ago, neb said:

just a thought if a rider fails a drug/alcohol test which deems him not fit to ride a bike  how is he allowed to drive away in his van, surely that cant be legal ?

Depending on what shows up in the test , it's not illegal to drive if you have taken a lemsip or cough mixture 

[pleasureboy60]

The only illegal substances Worrall was on at Peterborough were anti- depressants. Watching him ride,so too were much of the crowd !