500cc

True. But you missed the bit where Matt Ford will fire him instantly ... even if for example, it is the day before an important match.

Can see these State Championships turning into pre-ordained meetings. Decide the Top 4 beforehand and throw in a competitive final to determine the winner. Determine who is in need of a work permit qualification criteria each year, a build the meetings around them. Memories of Bruce Penhall in the Overseas Final in the early 80's (White City?) cruising around at the back of his last race to let his fellow Americans qualify.

His lawyers !!! They get to practice their international law with the potential for trips to Geneva, Australia and the UK. Seriously though, the number of altercations he now has with various legal authorities is worrying. They all involve him putting himself in positions that leave him open to 'dangers'. Middleditch gets a lot of stick on here. However, his comments just comments fail to recognise the severity of the issues Ward is getting himself into. But like many I just realise he doesn't have a clue. Ford is more interesting. He effectively stated Ward had a last chance. In terms of supporting Ward I don't have an issue. But if he is found guilty, will he still give him another chance (i.e. guilty but available for March). I would have no confidence this is the last issue Ward will be involved in. Remember these are serious legal altercations. However contrite he appears, he continues to make these major mistakes. If Ward is cleared, then the worst thing he and his advisors can do is treat it as a non-issue. It is fact that he has put himself in this position, even if he were proven innocent of the charges. He must truly learn this time, and the first thing to do would be to accept he has let himself and others down, and be grateful that he avoided being found guilty. Innoncence or Guilt are black and white in this case. The fact he consumed alcohol to put himself at risk of being caught is not. He must recognise the impact of his actions.

You can never trust the press !!! Just blame the Bournemouth Echo for saying he was convicted.

I agree. I only put it out there as there are some similarities (and differences of course) with the situation with Josh Gordon in the NFL. I believe like Ward, they both have a single criminal conviction relating to a motor vehicle under the influence. Both have been linked to marijuana use. It is interesting to see how the two sports have addressed these issues. Gordon failed a drug test as a student (marijuana) and was indefinitely suspended (effectively kicked out of college) - he had a previous suspension for the same offence. He entered the NFL with effectively one strike next to his name for that offence. He subsequently failed a test in the NFL and was suspended for two games. A second failure and he was suspended for a year. The NFL don't specifically identify the type of substance abuse (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine etc). But from what Gordon has chosen to say, they are all marijuana. He was then stopped driving under the influence whilst his one year ban was being confirmed. Perversely due to some changes in the regulations, this was reduced to 10 games (the season is 16 games - max 19 with the play-offs). And this is then the bit I'm linking to with Ward. As part of his re-instatement he was required to entirely abstain from alcohol during the remainder of the season and be subject to regular testing. After his teams final game of the season he boarded a private jet with some team mates. He drank two beers and two further alcoholic drinks. He was subsequently tested and failed - i.e. he drank alcohol, the quantity being irrelevant. He fell foul of the fact that the NFL season was/is still in progress, even though his season was over - he was on holiday. He now faces a potential year ban for those drinks and potentially the end of his career. On the face of it, he has a string of offences. However, all but two are marijuana use and one of those two was a few social drinks with ZERO criminal implications. So one serious offence, driving under influence. Then look at Ward. He has a similar public criminal offence with a vehicle. In fairness it's not known if he was over the limit, but he was reported as using both marijuana and alcohol. As Middleditch said “It is what most young people do these days isn't it? He wasn't racing or putting anyone else's life at risk on the track. It is just another silly mistake from Darcy - hopefully it won't have an effect on his riding.” Speedway chose to ignore this offence. Ward now stands accused of failing an alcohol test prior to a meeting. It would be nice if Middleditch better recognised the significance of his second sentence in relation to the current situation. Offering him support is fine. Making his own decision that he's served his time is not something he should be involved in as effectively a manager of the accused. In terms of delays, by the way. His employee, Cleveland Browns, were kept waiting a large amount of time for a decision on the one year ban, to the extent it was too late to get a partially suitable replacement. So no different to Speedway there. Now I don't agree Ward should be punished in the way Gordon has / will be. I'm actually critical of the NFL on their drug policy. It is far to lenient on those who are drug abusers. And the NFL are a law to themselves anyway. But it is still an interesting comparison. Absolutely agree 100%. The NFL is different because there are agreements with the Player's Union on what is and isn't allowed. And I totally disagree with the idea I put forward anyway. The only bit that makes sense is it would probably do Ward an awful lot of good to abstain voluntarily.

If Ward were to be found guilty (and I accept that remains an open issue), what would everyone think of this. a) Either a suspension for a period as determined by the FIM OR An earlier re-instatement but with stringent conditions for the period between re-instatement and the expiry of the full suspension. Those conditions would be an agreement for zero consumption of alcohol and regular testing during this restricted period. This includes no alcohol in his personal time, even if he isn't riding that week for example. It would also include the period where his personal bookings for the European season had finished but the restrictive period was in place (i.e. he was on holiday). Failure to adhere would result in the immediate activation of the full suspension, with the potential (and probability) of an actual increase in that suspension. Not advocating this, just wondering people's thoughts. The bit that does resonate with me, is that Ward's "problems" do appear entrenched with alcohol. Not necessarily what we'd perceive as drunk, but just being around it.

I think the article is clouding the waters uneccessarily. There are two separate issues. 1. Not following the black and white rules that the BSPA themselves basically created with the Border Agency 2. The recent red tape that has made the process more complex. The BSPA and the clubs shouldn't hide behind point 2, where point 1 is where they have been unacceptably lax.

Will he be allowed back whatever the result. You know what immigration officials are like. "Sorry Mr. Ward, you don't have a current Work Permit, you can't even come into the UK just because yours mates with Mr. Ford and Mr. Middleditch"

Apparently Ward as requested multiple breaks in order to allow himself to re-hydrate.

And there we have the case for the defence. He was only following guidelines !!!

I think your views on potential outcomes are correct; although I admire your confidence that he won't put a foot wrong going forward. I thought legal controversy was an annual event for Ward, something you could pencil in like your tax return. Ward's lawyers need to focus on clearing their client. Any attempts to push it beyond that will negatively impact both Ward and the sport. The danger for Ward if his lawyers were to be threatening the FIM with compensation claims, is that if he were not cleared, the FIM are likely to respond with a ban to the limit of their powers. You'd assume the lawyers are sensible enough not to have raised this in any form at this stage. The FIM will be very awkward going forward if they themselves were 'threatened'. You only have to look at the current Visa situation, but the FIM's response would involve retribution.

Not a problem, the riders are permanent assets of their clubs, so where is the problem? You can just imagine the conversation with V&I "You can't apply for Visa's longer than the contract offered" "It's ok, we operate the asset system" "What's that then" "Basically after a few meetings a rider becomes our asset for their career or until we sell them" "Oh I see, it's a contract really, you just call it as asset, a tradition of the sport I assume" "That's right" "A long term commitment then. With some of the other sports I deal with, they don't offer anything like that level of certainty to their employees. It must be expensive" "Not really. Most of our assets never ride for us. Some rode for me one year and haven't returned for 10 years. Great thing is, if one of our opponents sign him, we get a loan fee. And it gets even better, there's no cost to sign the asset, and no ongoing costs if he's not in our team. I'm a successful businessman you know" "Hold on there. Your telling me you own riders and make money from them without paying them an ongoing wage? Does that include Australians?" "Why yes, they are great as they are so committed to the UK. I can sign lots, more than I can include in my team. Then when other teams want them, I just charge them. Made loads of money that way; and nobody can stop me !!!" "Want to bet, your little cartel stops NOW. Can I have details of your other businesses too"

Now we know why there is talk of delaying the start of the Elite League season. The viewing figures would be too badly hit by the clash with Monday night Netball !!

Whilst appreciated you have taken the time to post this, it does raise as many questions as it asks. I'm struggling to understand how the unavailability of five riders in a sport where changing riders is so common (the unfortunate result of injuries, under performing riders replaced, and perversely. over performing riders replaced to upgrade to a higher tier of rider) should result in an overhaul of this season's team building regulations. At a stage where all but 5 (coincidentally) positions remain unfilled - and that would be significantly less if a certain rider wasn't once again making a hit off the track. If the structure of the Elite League (despite a 20% reduction) is so unable to support the potential loss of 5 riders, then I suggest the BSPA need to re-evaluate their strategy. If it is felt that teams will be so unequal at this stage, why is it fine for the points differential between teams to be so great in September, especially where the in balance is caused by differences between actual averages and assessed/unrealistic starting averages? So the points limit drops as suggested. Two teams have to drop at least one (no affected) rider, or more to "re-balance" their teams. So will those teams with a space take on those riders unconditionally. The likes of Porsing and Nilsson will likely lose out. With the the spaces and asset base; I'd assume Poole will agree to take at least one of these "dropped" riders? The unaffected teams will of course keep their signed riders? Doubt it. Because they will see opportunities to take advantage of the situation. It's hard to understand whether the initial sentence is from a Poole or BSPA viewpoint (unfortunately this underpins a lot of what's happening in British Speedway), but this "unwilling to ride" position, however good its intentions, is to pervasive in the sport whether its promotions or riders. Dangerous conditions is a reasonable reason. But with the way speedway suffers from weather it does the sport no favours to find other ways not to run (and I'm sorry to say the current situation is entirely of the sports own doing). Really? I would suggest the multiple use of "We" followed by 'hope that the BSPA body recognise" and "We will be calling on our fellow BSPA members" suggests otherwise. I'm sure Darcy's lawyers can clarify this whilst they (once again) study the small print !!!

The PL were the first (in modern times) to try a British reserve scheme. There was no interest in the slightest shown by the EL. The EL introduced a Fast Track system (a good idea), but make no mistake it was driven by financial issues. Financially the PL don't have the same issue, but are now the bad guys for not supporting it The comment I've quoted was the EL two years ago. And they haven't changed due to a sudden conversion telling them to train young Brits and give them a chance. Any blame lies entirely with the BSPA. A comical organisation who show absolutely no leadership or direction. That is the umbrella organisation that should have developing a successful and sustainable sport in the UK. But it is entirely run by self interest. And as a result we are where we are. An organisation who claimed it was illegal to limit non-Brits in their teams even in the Elite League (total poppycock). Yet the same organisation that has been asleep on their watch when abusing the Visa system. The level of incompetence amazes me. But view it from self interest, and you see why this has happened. People can argue all day that the BSPA aren't responsible for the Visa issues. Same people different hats. If such an organisations wants to abdicate all responsibility to its members, the fine. Just illustrates how weak its influence is. The introduction of Fast Tracking is great. The concept of a clear progression from NL through PL to EL is exactly what should be there. But lets not make the PL the fall guys. The EL is guilty for years of not supporting British opportunities. The number of full-time Brits in the EL has been basically embarrassing for some time. Then suddenly the EL hits hard times (well finally recognises it to be exact), drops its snobbery and invites a huge batch of riders into its league (including riders signed by teams who's promoters know nothing about them) and expects the PL to play ball. Trouble is the sport is still run through self interest. The EL, PL and NL should work in harmony with a single strategy. But it doesn't. You'd hope the BSPA would make this happen. But it doesn't. The PL should support Fast Tracking as part of a single strategy. But if they did, would you trust the EL to support the strategy as a whole. I wouldn't. They'd happily shaft the PL in their own interests. And who believes the EL would continue to support Fast Tracking if they suddenly came into big money? Until the sport is run from the top by a single organisation (without self interest) from juniors to Elite, then we'll never get a coherent structure. And that isn't going to happen, because promoters will never release that level of control.

Why do we have a thread for Darcy Ward on the Speedway Grand Prix and Speedway World Cup forum as he is not a GP rider and the World Cup is a team event ? It won't get much interest, could never see many people posting to such a thread !!!

I think there were a lot of similar conversations going on last night. Can't for the life of me think what the cause may have been !!!

Says the man with approaching 12,000 posts on this site !!! Pointless trivia. There are less than 11,000 days in 30 years.

I'm not sure I've ever come across a debate when one person so entirely misses the point. It's all about the legalities of employment in the UK. Speedway has finally been pulled into the real world. It's why footballers struggle to get work permits if they don't play enough international football, how ever brilliant they may be. It's why American Basketball players can get refused work permits because there recent experience hasn't been in a recognised level of the game, even if they are far superior to the alternative EU player available in the same salary range. The BSPA is totally confused in this area. On one hand they've failed to follow the restrictions related to work permit riders. Yet on the other they've failed to understand that they can set restrictions on the number of non-British riders in a team. European Basketball Leagues limit the number of (non-domestic) EU players. The second tier (equivalent to the Speedway Premier League) of British Ice Hockey restricts the number of non-British players, to the extent that players who have qualified via residency and have participated for GB in the World Championship are counted in the four non-British category. So if the team selected four other EU players, then that GB international is ineligible to play. Holder could be potentially the greatest rider of all time, but its all about meeting the requirements of employment in the UK. The 7 point figure is simply what the BSPA negotiated with the authorities, primarily to ensure the quality of rider arriving in the UK. In Holder's case he firstly has to meet the qualification requirements to be employed in the UK (that may be in doubt anyway), and if he does he's available on a 7.

Never a good idea to mix your personal life with your professional life !!!

BSI always quick to respond when their chosen wild card is at risk (Harris, Ward)

You can't do that though. You can't relate a ban to where it has the most 'negative' impact. Any ban (if guilty) should be a fixed amount regardless of when it is. Even the length of the ban shouldn't be swayed by whether its a fit "punishment" based on competition missed. Otherwise it opens open huge future (or previous) issues with consistency. It does illustrate though the big difference between a 6 (or 3) month and 1 year ban to any sportsman. A full year ban not only covers any off season, it is almost guaranteed to hit two different seasons. The effect of a shorter ban varies depending on timing. In the end any ban (if applicable) length should be based on fact and procedure. If its deemed lower end then the ban is short and the impact could be "relatively" minimal. Not trying to put words into your mouth, but the severity you think is correct is more mapped to a 1 year ban. The decision can't be made that way, but the offence itself could link to a 1 year ban. By suspending Ward immediately, I think that hits him quite hard anyway. Quite possibly cost him becoming World Champion and hit his pocket with no prior warning. A six month ban in the European off-season running into the start of the next season would have been less harsh. Still ruled out of the 2015 GP's, but could probably just delay the start of his European season.

But that's the point. Poole aren't going to get very far complaining to the FIM or any legal system on the basis that they may (probably) want to employ him in March for eight months. That's not a Poole bash, it's an asset system bash. To be honest the situation is not clear to me. Is Ward simply suspended awaiting a hearing? Or has Ward challenged the findings and the hearing is effectively an appeal? Or has Ward challenged the current suspension? Or something else? I get the impression that Poole and the British Speedway authorities and media have clouded the waters. The impression (that I've picked up) is that he is challenging the findings. As I've said before, if the readings are deemed invalid, then he should be unconditionally cleared (although he should personally consider his relationship with alcohol as it is appears related to a number of issues he has had). The FIM are then in sticky water as they choose to suspend him whilst he was appealing. If the an appeal is simply an attempt to find a loophole with substance and it fails, then I suspect the punishment will be very harsh. And that's why I'm confused. My impression is he will be challenging the findings. If that's the case, you'd hope is advisors were basing it on a true concern with the procedures/findings rather than a shot in the dark to get off the offence. Quite a few in his career. On occasion though his team mate has mitigated the issue by winning the heat and gaining a 3-3 shared heat !!!

Is he actually employed by anybody though?

Shared Number 1's !!! Can't teams sign their own Number 1 instead of borrowing somebody elses? !!!