Darcy Ward

[norbold 7,145]

Surely whether he was an on duty or an off duty cop has no bearing at all on the matter. What matters is whether he was officially appointed by the F.I.M. to carry out the test. I can't imagine he was just some off duty cop who happened to wander into the stadium with his breath test kit and decide to take breath tests at random! And, even if he was, where was the official tester?

 

P.S. Great minds, Arnie. We were posting at the same time!

Edited January 12, 2015 by norbold

[John Leslie 3,213]

This is just silly. I wouldn't expect an on-duty policeman to be doing the testing. Are you seriously suggesting that as taxpayers we pay for the British police to do drug testing at sporting events?

 

Surely under the Governing body rules somebody is responsible for ensuring that an appropriately qualified person does the testing - and who could be more appropriate than an off-duty policeman.

 

I have sat on dozens of quasi-judicial tribunals and this sounds exactly like the kind of nonsense that someone without a leg to stand on comes up with.

Exactly.

i wouldn't expect an on-duty police officer to be moonlighting at a speedway meeting when he's being paid by the taxpayer to be out and about upholding the law. But employing an off-duty police officer to do the tests seems perfectly sensible.

 

Surely it's only the same as an off-duty doctor being paid to attend speedway meetings as the medical officer. You wouldn't expect an on-duty NHS doctor to be moonlighting at a speedway meeting while he's being paid to be at hospital treating the sick.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

But surely that is only one bit of evidence. The fact Darcy said on tele when interviewed he'd done it and Middlo has said in the press twice now that Darcy knows he was wrong is enough.

 

You know the old, "anything you say can and will be used against you...." thing. If the police can't prove it was me that broke into a house they have no case. If I admit it, then they don't need CCTV and finger prints proving I was there.

BUT that only applies after an official caution. Without it even a confession bears no weight presumably.

 

In essence, the only thing that Ward admitted to was having drunk alcohol the night before and that he had failed the test as carried out on the day. None of which, I would imagine (no lawyer) would be deemed irrelevant or inadmissible should the procedure be found to be flawed.

[Grand Central 2,654]

BUT you wouldn't expect an off duty policeman to conduct a roadside breath test at the scene of an accident for example.

 

I can confirm that the test was, indeed, carried out by a local policeman and that in itself isn't unusual. Quite often they are traffic cops.

 

Does it matter whether he was off duty or not? Probably... it would only require a chink in the procedural chain for Ward's lawyers to mount a challenge to the validity of the test. The fact that two other riders tested negative would have no bearing surely?

That has to be one of the oddest replies you have ever made.

 

Just re read it and think how daft it really sounds.

[pugwash 3,208]

Surely whether he was an on duty or an off duty cop has no bearing at all on the matter. What matters is whether he was officially appointed by the F.I.M. to carry out the test. I can't imagine he was just some off duty cop who happened to wander into the stadium with his breath test kit and decide to take breath tests at random! And, even if he was, where was the official tester?

 

Good question.

Maybe due to the confusion of the GP being urgently rescheduled the official FIM tester was not present and this guy was drafted in at short notice as he had some experience.

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

Exactly.

i wouldn't expect an on-duty police officer to be moonlighting at a speedway meeting when he's being paid by the taxpayer to be out and about upholding the law. But employing an off-duty police officer to do the tests seems perfectly sensible.

 

Surely it's only the same as an off-duty doctor being paid to attend speedway meetings as the medical officer. You wouldn't expect an on-duty NHS doctor to be moonlighting at a speedway meeting while he's being paid to be at hospital treating the sick.

WHAT you say may be perfectly sensible but, lawyers being lawyers, it's not hard to see some flaws. Let's not forget that much of what happened that day, after the Riga fiasco, was rushed and hastily arranged. Was the breath machine properly calibrated and certificated prior to use especially if it was in the hands of an off-duty policeman who wasn't there in an official capacity?

 

As previously said, the fact that this as dragged on and been repeatedly postponed does suggest it isn't cut and dried.

That has to be one of the oddest replies you have ever made.

 

Just re read it and think how daft it really sounds.

HAVE re read it and stand by what I say.

Exactly.

i wouldn't expect an on-duty police officer to be moonlighting at a speedway meeting when he's being paid by the taxpayer to be out and about upholding the law. But employing an off-duty police officer to do the tests seems perfectly sensible.

 

Surely it's only the same as an off-duty doctor being paid to attend speedway meetings as the medical officer. You wouldn't expect an on-duty NHS doctor to be moonlighting at a speedway meeting while he's being paid to be at hospital treating the sick.

POLICE officers who do carry out alcohol tests at GP rounds are not moonlighting. They are there as part of the requesite police presence and their participation in the testing is pre-arranged, as it would be with a doctor, and as stated in the regulations. They cannot be carried out by any Tom, Dick or Harry...

Edited January 12, 2015 by PHILIPRISING

[Grand Central 2,654]

WHAT you say may be perfectly sensible but, lawyers being lawyers, it's not hard to see some flaws. Let's not forget that much of what happened that day, after the Riga fiasco, was rushed and hastily arranged. Was the breath machine properly calibrated and certificated prior to use especially if it was in the hands of an off-duty policeman who wasn't there in an official capacity?

 

As previously said, the fact that this as dragged on and been repeatedly postponed does suggest it isn't cut and dried.

HAVE re read it and stand by what I say.

 

Oh dear, we'll leave it at that then

[John Leslie 3,213]

especially if it was in the hands of an off-duty policeman who wasn't there in an official capacity?

 

So you're saying this off-duty policeman paid at the turnstiles, somehow evaded all security and wandered into the pits unofficially, and said to someone "I've got a breath-test machine which may or may not be properly calibrated, can I have a go at testing some people unofficially?"

 

Doesn't seem likely.

Would seem far more likely that he'd had an official invite to be there and do the testing.

Edited January 12, 2015 by John Leslie

[pugwash 3,208]

 

Would seem far more likely that he'd had an official invite to be there and do the testing.

.....At the eleventh hour due to non apperance of official tester. But didn't use approved equip or was not FIM approved himself.

Seems very likely due to it being a 'Jury Rigged' event.

[Gavan 5,050]

Still cant get my head round the reasoning of some people.

 

FACT - Darcy Ward was over the limit to ride a speedway bike. That is the black and white of it all.

 

Trying to find of some legal loophole or technacaility to get out of it will not teach Ward a lesson at all.

 

So what if it was an off-duty Policeman? You telling me he wandered in to the pits and randomly tested people? Of course not he was supposed to be there.

 

The talk of banning him for 2 or 3 years is to harsh. I said 8 months would suffice.

 

However i cant get my head round people looking for any little flaw in the proceedure to get Darcy off.

If you were true Darcy/speedway/Poole fans you should want the right thing for the sport and for Ward and that would be to ban him for failing a breath test

[Guest]

Problem comes that numerous other people, riders & officials, all passed the test that was administered by the same official with the same equipment whereas Darcy failed on multiple occassions

Is that an actual fact?

[sommelier 1,118]

I hope this doesn't get dragged into Darcy being cleared on some sort of ridiculous technicality.

 

What I hope happens is he gets, say, a three year ban, with the time he's served out already being counted towards the ban and the rest being suspended. Then he can get on with his racing.

 

He's had a long time out now and missed out on 2 cracks at the World title, which he probably deserved to happen. Hopefully it will teach him the lessons needed and it is clear to him he musn't transgress again.

Well said

[Gavan 5,050]

No pal, many on here have stated Darcy was Drunk, so I take it they were their then ? There is a massive, difference between being DRUNK and just over the limit. Even a clown like you should know that...

do yourself a favour and go away mate.

 

you are plainly and simply a troll looking to inflame a situation and get a response.

 

And yes im responding by telling you that you are quite a sad little man who feels he has to do this.

 

NOBODY HAS SAID DARCY WAS DRUNK!!!!!!!!! GET THAT INTO YOUR HEAD!!!!!!!!!

 

If all you can contribute is crap and calling names do us all a favour and shut up

[sommelier 1,118]

Still cant get my head round the reasoning of some people.

 

FACT - Darcy Ward was over the limit to ride a speedway bike. That is the black and white of it all.

 

Trying to find of some legal loophole or technacaility to get out of it will not teach Ward a lesson at all.

 

So what if it was an off-duty Policeman? You telling me he wandered in to the pits and randomly tested people? Of course not he was supposed to be there.

 

The talk of banning him for 2 or 3 years is to harsh. I said 8 months would suffice.

 

However i cant get my head round people looking for any little flaw in the proceedure to get Darcy off.

If you were true Darcy/speedway/Poole fans you should want the right thing for the sport and for Ward and that would be to ban him for failing a breath test

Right or wrong, thats what lawyers are paid to do!

[PHILIPRISING 7,298]

Is that an actual fact?

NO...

 

MANY are still missing the point. Plenty of guilty people 'get off' in all walks of life through technicalities. I am certainly not defending DW, far from it, but the longer this goes on the more likely it is that the FIM case is not water-tight and, whether we like it or not, that could result in him walking away without any ban.

 

As to Gavan's point about the off-duty policeman. No one is suggesting he was randomly walking about testing people but the fact is whoever is charged with carrying out the tests has to have the right credentials and it is possible that this man did not according to the letter of the FIM regulations.

 

As one who was there, the actual metre readings were not publicly disclosed but the informed chatter was that Ward was not dramatically over the limit and may well have passed had the test taken place later. It is not hard to see why a lawyer charged with getting his client off would grasp at anything that he believes nullified the prosecution's evidence.