Richie Worrall statement

[LagutaRacingFan]

Following the Anti-Doping tests that took place at Plymouth Speedway on the 5th September the SCB have received the results from the Laboratory of the tests from both Mr Richie Worrall and Mr Steve Boxall.

Both tests have proved positive for a banned substance therefore breaching SCB Regulation –

018.2 Breach of Rules

k) An Anti-Doping Offence, that is the occurrence of the anti-doping rule violation –

1. the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in the body
   Mr Worrall and Mr Boxall SCB Registrations have been suspended for a period of 30 days with immediate effect pending a SCB Disciplinary Court Hearing.

Mr Worrall clubs Leicester and Plymouth have now completed their 2023 fixtures.

Mr Boxall Championship club Berwick Bandits have now completed their 2023 fixtures, however, Mr Boxall National League Club Berwick Bullets will be entitled to a facility during this suspension period.

https://britishspeedway.co.uk/miscellaneous/scb-statement-plymouth-v-berwick-3/

[Mike0310]

Before we hang them both let’s just wait and see what the substances were. If it is drugs non prescription then they get what they deserve but we don’t no the mitigation yet.

[40-38]

1 hour ago, Mike0310 said:

Before we hang them both let’s just wait and see what the substances were. If it is drugs non prescription then they get what they deserve but we don’t no the mitigation yet.

I’m assuming that given the amount of injuries sustained in a speedway year there is a list of allowable substances and or ability to declare what might be present. Given that Richie was adamant there was nothing at all I’ve not got much sympathy at present. I can only see two outcomes - lying or stupidity/ignorance.

[TTT]

Richie can really get stuck into those Bowen Pies now considering a ban is imminent.

[screm]

So Worrall is banned for thirty days even though his clubs have finished racing.

 

[Wee Eck]

7 minutes ago, screm said:

So Worrall is banned for thirty days even though his clubs have finished racing.

 

He’d not have been short of guest bookings though

[mikebv]

5 minutes ago, screm said:

So Worrall is banned for thirty days even though his clubs have finished racing.

 

Come on now, let's be fair...

It is UK Speedway...

All bans November to March...

(Unless your season has finished earlier)....

[noaksey]

13 hours ago, Mike0310 said:

Before we hang them both let’s just wait and see what the substances were. If it is drugs non prescription then they get what they deserve but we don’t no the mitigation yet.

They don't announce what the substances are, see Ben Barker SCB statements 

[bloom89]

You do have to wonder what goes through riders minds at times, pretty hot on the heels of another rider being banned for a positive test and with cardiff just gone which is let’s face it a big pi55 up for most people, you’d think the drug/alcohol testers would be determined to catch others. I mean it’s not like they have to do a 9-5 365 days of the year they ride for 6/7 tops and then do nothing for the remainder of the year, do what you want in the off season but be as professional as you can during the season.

[Bojangles]

1 hour ago, noaksey said:

They don't announce what the substances are, see Ben Barker SCB statements 

They don't, but you can probably get a good idea from the length of the ban. If it's not intentional and for something like painkillers, they'll probably just get something like an 8-month ban (like Ben Barker) and they'll be able to ride next season. If they end up getting a two-year ban, then you know it's more serious.

[Bojangles]

9 minutes ago, Bojangles said:

They don't, but you can probably get a good idea from the length of the ban. If it's not intentional and for something like painkillers, they'll probably just get something like an 8-month ban (like Ben Barker) and they'll be able to ride next season. If they end up getting a two-year ban, then you know it's more serious.

That said..... maybe the length of the ban isn't relevant to what was taken. I've just found this article from Ellis Jones Solicitors, who handled Ben's case, and it looks like he got a reduced ban because the testing procedure wasn't followed correctly.... https://www.ellisjones.co.uk/news/anti-doping-case-success/

[Fromafar]

15 hours ago, Mike0310 said:

Before we hang them both let’s just wait and see what the substances were. If it is drugs non prescription then they get what they deserve but we don’t no the mitigation yet.

They failed a drugs test. End off.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Fromafar

[IainB]

18 minutes ago, Bojangles said:

That said..... maybe the length of the ban isn't relevant to what was taken. I've just found this article from Ellis Jones Solicitors, who handled Ben's case, and it looks like he got a reduced ban because the testing procedure wasn't followed correctly.... https://www.ellisjones.co.uk/news/anti-doping-case-success/

Good find!

May have got off on a technicality that the "Jubilee League" was the "Summer Trophy" and then was never completed 

Edited September 12, 2023 by iainb

[wtf]

28 minutes ago, Bojangles said:

That said..... maybe the length of the ban isn't relevant to what was taken. I've just found this article from Ellis Jones Solicitors, who handled Ben's case, and it looks like he got a reduced ban because the testing procedure wasn't followed correctly.... https://www.ellisjones.co.uk/news/anti-doping-case-success/

It would certainly seem from their statement that the ban length was a compromise to cover up the fact that the procedures were not followed to the letter in a quid pro quo.

[noaksey]

1 hour ago, Bojangles said:

They don't, but you can probably get a good idea from the length of the ban. If it's not intentional and for something like painkillers, they'll probably just get something like an 8-month ban (like Ben Barker) and they'll be able to ride next season. If they end up getting a two-year ban, then you know it's more serious.

Yes fair comment 

[Sings4Speedway]

Does the 2 year suspension just apply to first offences? If Boxall has failed to provide a negative specimen for a second time is there a possibility he will face a lengthier ban?  

[FromBendThree]

1 hour ago, wtf said:

It would certainly seem from their statement that the ban length was a compromise to cover up the fact that the procedures were not followed to the letter in a quid pro quo.

From the solicitors website: Evidence for both parties was put forward and the SCB failed to call the person who carried out the drug test. This denied us the opportunity to cross-examine her on the procedures followed that day.‘

i find it strange that SCB did not call the tester as a witness. Why would that happen?

[Racin Jason 72]

5 minutes ago, FromBendThree said:

From the solicitors website: Evidence for both parties was put forward and the SCB failed to call the person who carried out the drug test. This denied us the opportunity to cross-examine her on the procedures followed that day.‘

i find it strange that SCB did not call the tester as a witness. Why would that happen?

Because they are incompetent???

[hammer1969]

Out of interest who actually carries out the test, is it the medical people in attendance or the referee or an independent person employed solely to do the test.  Also how do they choose who to test, anyone know?

[FromBendThree]

1 hour ago, hammer1969 said:

Out of interest who actually carries out the test, is it the medical people in attendance or the referee or an independent person employed solely to do the test.  Also how do they choose who to test, anyone know?

Somebody independent. Not sure of selection process.