Berwick v Glasgow , BSN thingy , 6/4/24 @7pm

[Technik]

I understand the frustration about the testing procedure but what if the rider be allowed to participate in the meeting after providing a non-negative result & then is involved in a track crash with the other rider receiving injuries that mean he must miss a few events. How then would the insurers look at our procedure if we knowingly allow a test failure to race in the event. how would the 13 other riders feel about taking to the track with a possible drug user. i understand that as a paying spectator you expect the perfect event each time but what of the others involved within the sport that work hard to produce the product you come to watch. The rules may not be perfect but if we are call bound by the same rules then it must work.

[secsy1]

4 hours ago, Cast1rn said:

Just did a wee bit of maths, to test the entire team every meeting it would cost £78.40, in the super grand scheme of things that isn't a lot.

To lab test a sample costs £120 (off Googley search £60 if done on mass) 

So simply charge every rider £5.60 a meeting to ensure a 100% clean sport.

If you get a "non negative" result the rider forks out the £120/£60 to prove their clean or not.

Don't ban the rider on the night but upon return of the lab test. Teams aren't affected, fans get a proper meeting.

 

 

1 hour ago, Technik said:

I understand the frustration about the testing procedure but what if the rider be allowed to participate in the meeting after providing a non-negative result & then is involved in a track crash with the other rider receiving injuries that mean he must miss a few events. How then would the insurers look at our procedure if we knowingly allow a test failure to race in the event. how would the 13 other riders feel about taking to the track with a possible drug user. i understand that as a paying spectator you expect the perfect event each time but what of the others involved within the sport that work hard to produce the product you come to watch. The rules may not be perfect but if we are call bound by the same rules then it must work.

A superb answer to silly question, it just shows how divided and how silly some people are.

Do not think anyone has answered a question on how to ensure 4 riders in each race after imposing a ban.

Well the offending team should be punished due to one of their riders failing the drug test.

They are employing each rider and are accountable for everyone of them and should randomly do drug testing of the team to ensure compliance.

Rider contracts should include details of random drug testing and a caveat that if they are banned then all testing and appeals are at the riders expense.

 

Plan B 

If any test from the randomly chosen riders is non negative then the offending team has to comply with the new regulations.

1. A heat leader can replace any drug test related banned rider once during the course of the meeting, going off 30 metre distance behind the tapes.

2. A second string rider can replace any drug test related banned rider once during the course of the meeting, going off 20 metre distance behind the tapes.

3. A reserve rider can replace any drug test related banned rider twice during the course of the meeting, going off 10 metre distance behind the tapes.

Maybe this is not the best answer but at least a start.

 

[mikebv]

1 hour ago, Technik said:

I understand the frustration about the testing procedure but what if the rider be allowed to participate in the meeting after providing a non-negative result & then is involved in a track crash with the other rider receiving injuries that mean he must miss a few events. How then would the insurers look at our procedure if we knowingly allow a test failure to race in the event. how would the 13 other riders feel about taking to the track with a possible drug user. i understand that as a paying spectator you expect the perfect event each time but what of the others involved within the sport that work hard to produce the product you come to watch. The rules may not be perfect but if we are call bound by the same rules then it must work.

100%...

Litigation would be enormous if anything happened which COULD be attributed to someone who has just not passed a drugs or alcohol test..

The ref and the clubs complicit in letting him ride, could face prosecution, as could the governing body...

Even the rider himself could sue if he got injured as "you let me ride"...

You don't pass, you don't ride...

Edited April 8 by mikebv

[foreverblue]

6 minutes ago, mikebv said:

100%...

Litigation would be enormous if anything happened which COULD be attributed to someone who has just not passed a drugs or alcohol test..

The ref and the clubs complicit in letting him ride, could face prosecution, as could the governing body...

Even the rider himself could sue if he got injured as "you let me ride"...

You don't pass, you don't ride...

Agree there completely, crazy to let a rider compete not having passed the test.  I know its not great for fans to go to a meeting expecting teams as advertised only to find out you are a rider down but I cant see any other acceptable way.

[Gazc]

18 pages and probably around 2 pages is actually about the meeting.

I know it is a huge debating point but surely it’s been done to death now , let’s see what happens now  and get the facts.

I notice Lees wife has posted on FB about what he had taken.

[Fromafar]

4 minutes ago, Gazc said:

18 pages and probably around 2 pages is actually about the meeting.

I know it is a huge debating point but surely it’s been done to death now , let’s see what happens now  and get the facts.

I notice Lees wife has posted on FB about what he had taken.

Have to agree,it happened ,the rules of the sport were applied.Glasgow just awaiting outcome.

ps

very enjoyable meeting.

Edited April 8 by Fromafar

[IainB]

2 hours ago, secsy1 said:

Do not think anyone has answered a question on how to ensure 4 riders in each race after imposing a ban.

I'm not sure if it does now, but didn't R/R allow 1 rider above the rider it's replacing to take a ride? For a reserve, It's not rocket science, you just allow the next highest rider to take a ride, if that is a reserve in heat 2 and obviously the other rider is already involved, use the next highest, maybe at the expense of being able to use a TS in the riders ride later in the meeting. It is entirely possible to write rules to cover such an eventuality. There seems to be a rather large hole in the rules as it currently stands.

As for Plan B, why are you continuing to punish the team with all the handicap starts?

Edited April 8 by iainb

[Cast1rn]

2 hours ago, secsy1 said:

 

A superb answer to silly question, it just shows how divided and how silly some people are.

 

It was written at 3 o'clock in the morning and intended to open up debate. 

The "Silly People" would be the ones that have the current procedure in force.

Why are we waiting until 1 HR before the potential dangerous rider is at the tapes to test them?

Why are we using a testing procedure that can only supply us a "non negative" which could be false instead of proving 100% wether the rider is safe or not.

Why are we only testing 28% of the riders at a meeting?

 

Edited April 8 by Cast1rn

[LisaColette]

1 hour ago, Gazc said:

18 pages and probably around 2 pages is actually about the meeting.

I know it is a huge debating point but surely it’s been done to death now , let’s see what happens now  and get the facts.

I notice Lees wife has posted on FB about what he had taken.

I'm assuming that means it was some kind of medicine. 

[Gazc]

1 minute ago, lisa-colette said:

I'm assuming that means it was some kind of medicine. 

Medication for an abscess in his mouth apparently, 

[crescent girl]

11 hours ago, speedwaysliders said:

The bottom line is, the tests at the start of the meeting are great and im sure everyone welcomes randam testing, there a few posters on here that get what im trying to say.      PRE MATCH testing is quite new, and we are going to have the same problems again when the next rider fails a test. All im trying to explain and maybe not too well, is that this is a new practice, and sooner or later its going to happen again.    100% punish the rider, BUT NOT THE FANS. I havnt got the answer but the people who are carrrying out the tests ,must have thought this through and come up with a solution surely.

ie GREAT TESTING

     RIDER OR RIDERS FOUND GUILTY AND BANNED TO RIDE ON THE NIGHT

PLAN B PUT INTO OPERATION FOR THE TEAM WITH BANNED RIDER OR RIDERS SO THE MEETING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH 4 RIDER RACES.THAT PLAN B AT THE MOMENT IS ...........................?!!!!!!!

The difference this time is that it was a reserve rider who returned the non-negative result.

Last year (and the year before, when Ben Barker was snagged) it was riders in their team proper who had their licences temporarily suspended (rightly and properly, rules is rules) on the night, in which case the programmed races could be covered by the team's reserves.    Eliminating the problem of a three-rider race, which seems to be the main factor in getting people's knickers twisted.

So, if it happens again -- and it will, sure as God made little apples -- if it's a rider in the team's 1-5, no problem, no 3-man races.    If it's a reserve, Heat 2 has to go with three riders -- hardly "cheating the public" and certainly a fair price to pay to keep the sport free of banned substances, no?

 

Edited April 8 by crescent girl

[StevePark]

6 minutes ago, crescent girl said:

The difference this time is that it was a reserve rider who returned the non-negative result.

Last year (and the year before, when Ben Barker was snagged) it was riders in their team proper who had their licences temporarily suspended (rightly and properly, rules is rules) on the night, in which case the programmed races could be covered by the team's reserves.    Eliminating the problem of a three-rider race, which seems to be the main factor in getting people's knickers twisted.

So, if it happens again -- and it will, sure as God made little apples -- if it's a rider in the team's 1-5, no 3-man races.  If it's a reserve, Heat 2 has to go with three riders -- hardly "cheating the public" and certainly a fair price to pay to keep the sport free of banned substances, no?

 

That's all well and good, but if one of the 1-5 are excluded (sorry, disqualified) for a tapes offence or for failing the two minutes, they have to go off 15metres, otherwise you would still have at least one more race with only three riders in it, as the other reserve would have to have his own 4 programmed rides and has to cover the banned reserves other 3 rides, so couldn't replace the disqualified rider.  And God forbid if the other reserve got injured in heat 2 and had to withdraw from the meeting.

[Neila]

Non negative or failed drug test both the same, so banned from meeting,  IF its down to medication would show up on 2nd test, then the people in charge can decide what happens next,  why we have 15 pages of debate god only knows, 

[Mumsie]

2 minutes ago, StevePark said:

That's all well and good, but if one of the 1-5 are excluded (sorry, disqualified) for a tapes offence or for failing the two minutes, they have to go off 15metres, otherwise you would still have at least one more race with only three riders in it, as the other reserve would have to have his own 4 programmed rides and has to cover the banned reserves other 3 rides, so couldn't replace the disqualified rider.  And God forbid if the other reserve got injured in heat 2 and had to withdraw from the meeting.

Don't commit a tapes offence or fail to beat the two minutes then. 

[secsy1]

3 hours ago, iainb said:

I'm not sure if it does now, but didn't R/R allow 1 rider above the rider it's replacing to take a ride? For a reserve, It's not rocket science, you just allow the next highest rider to take a ride, if that is a reserve in heat 2 and obviously the other rider is already involved, use the next highest, maybe at the expense of being able to use a TS in the riders ride later in the meeting. It is entirely possible to write rules to cover such an eventuality. There seems to be a rather large hole in the rules as it currently stands.

As for Plan B, why are you continuing to punish the team with all the handicap starts?

Plan B allows 4 riders in each race and the punishment is for the team as one of them, knowingly or unfortunately has caused the problem.

If you do not punish the rider and the team then their is no accountability.

I sincerely hope that all becomes clear and the laboratory tests clear the rider.

[IainB]

24 minutes ago, secsy1 said:

Plan B allows 4 riders in each race and the punishment is for the team as one of them, knowingly or unfortunately has caused the problem.

If you do not punish the rider and the team then their is no accountability.

I sincerely hope that all becomes clear and the laboratory tests clear the rider.

I'm sorry, I just don't get why we're punishing the team and the paying fans for something a rider has done and only on that 1 single night. A club can't be responsible for what a rider does, much in the same way that they're not responsible if a rider gets injured riding for a different club and sometimes in a different country. Take Charles Wright getting injured riding for Wroclaw last year, should Redcar have had a facility? Of course they should, I fail to see the difference. What if a rider had drugs in his system from "partying" with a different club? Should Poole not have had a facility for 1 match when Darcy Ward got busted at a GP a few years back?

I agree with your last point, can't see it myself though

Edited April 8 by iainb

[secsy1]

4 minutes ago, iainb said:

I'm sorry, I just don't get why we're punishing the team and the paying fans for something a rider has done and only on that 1 single night. A club can't be responsible for what a rider does, much in the same way that they're not responsible if a rider gets injured riding for a different club and sometimes in a different country. Take Charles Wright getting injured riding for Wroclaw last year, should Redcar have had a facility? Of course they should, I fail to see the difference. What if a rider had drugs in his system from "partying" with a different club? Should Poole not have had a facility for 1 match when Darcy Ward got busted at a GP a few years back?

I agree with your last point, can't see it myself though

 

By law, employers can be held vicariously liable for certain acts of their employees. This means even where the employer has itself done no wrong, it can still be found responsible for employees actions and made to financially compensate the victim/victims of the wrong doing.

 

[screm]

For those who are only reading this thread and didn't attend the meeting, it hard to believe but there was an actual meeting with racing and with bikes on track. 

Crazy.

[speedwaysliders]

1 hour ago, crescent girl said:

The difference this time is that it was a reserve rider who returned the non-negative result.

Last year (and the year before, when Ben Barker was snagged) it was riders in their team proper who had their licences temporarily suspended (rightly and properly, rules is rules) on the night, in which case the programmed races could be covered by the team's reserves.    Eliminating the problem of a three-rider race, which seems to be the main factor in getting people's knickers twisted.

So, if it happens again -- and it will, sure as God made little apples -- if it's a rider in the team's 1-5, no problem, no 3-man races.    If it's a reserve, Heat 2 has to go with three riders -- hardly "cheating the public" and certainly a fair price to pay to keep the sport free of banned substances, no?

 

OK you just dont get it. Its gonna happen to you what with tech advances,so you turn up at a race meeting and find out 2 riders this time are banned from the meeting,and the team is using R/R. yes i KNOW its the worst case scenario,but i want you to understand not only the meeting will be a shambles,fans will not be happy,and they are the ones paying for it.If you are bringing in tests BEFORE the meeting there has to be a plan B for the fans.

[IainB]

15 minutes ago, secsy1 said:

 

By law, employers can be held vicariously liable for certain acts of their employees. This means even where the employer has itself done no wrong, it can still be found responsible for employees actions and made to financially compensate the victim/victims of the wrong doing.

 

Riders are self employed are they not? If they're a limited company they are employees of the company they are a director of... nothing to do with the club