Gavan 5,062 Posted August 20, 2014 A very sad day why should he get involved? this is a bloke who has got away with murder on a bike over the years with his thuggish antics on a bike. hard sometimes dirty yes professional with his routine .............totally Ward isnt fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as Nicki with regards to attitude 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,771 Posted August 20, 2014 Never was good on anything cryptic...what the devil are you talking about In that case I will give you another clue-he`s worth his weight in Gold Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Stadia 1,071 Posted August 20, 2014 What you don't seem to understand is this isn't criminal law. Its the rules and regulations of the sport and Ward has FAILED the test. It is really very simple. Even in criminal law your argument would be flawed. Not true, there are different tariffs of punishment, depending on whether something was premeditated or not. I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I do not believe there should be a set tariff of punishment irrespective of the circumstances or the degree of over the limit. All circumstances should be taken into consideration and should reflect the level of punishment. From the little that we know and basing it on what we know, I would suggest the punishment should be towards the lower end of the punishment tariff. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lioness 1,475 Posted August 20, 2014 Methylhexanamine is the substance that had been claimed to have been found in Dudek's first sample by the Polish press. The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racers and royals 8,771 Posted August 20, 2014 The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day Dudek`s case was/is 3 weeks ago 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BWitcher 12,453 Posted August 20, 2014 Not true, there are different tariffs of punishment, depending on whether something was premeditated or not. I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I do not believe there should be a set tariff of punishment irrespective of the circumstances or the degree of over the limit. All circumstances should be taken into consideration and should reflect the level of punishment. From the little that we know and basing it on what we know, I would suggest the punishment should be towards the lower end of the punishment tariff. Bull. You don't get away with drink driving by claiming, well I wasn't intending on driving when I was having those drinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ancient mariner 540 Posted August 20, 2014 Not true, there are different tariffs of punishment, depending on whether something was premeditated or not. I am not saying he shouldn't be punished, but I do not believe there should be a set tariff of punishment irrespective of the circumstances or the degree of over the limit. All circumstances should be taken into consideration and should reflect the level of punishment. From the little that we know and basing it on what we know, I would suggest the punishment should be towards the lower end of the punishment tariff. Sorry officer, I only murdered him a little bit The words 'hole', 'digging' and 'stop' spring to mind 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scribbler 213 Posted August 20, 2014 The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day The Dudek case happened 8th August 2014 - if that's the one in the Speedway News and Discussions section... Going by your explanations Dudek possibly took it innocently because he was taking dietary supplements to try and keep his weight down. Ward knows what alcohol is and does. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StevePark 2,801 Posted August 20, 2014 The Dudek case is from before my time but that is a substance in those days it was probably very easy to take without knowing as it used to be in many nasal decongestants, I think even the popular ones like Vicks had it at one time but probably the 80's and 90's. Its partly diuretic (that'll make you 'go' quicker! lol) and in a lot of faddy dietry supplements although medical opinion suggests it could damage kidneys and liver and is a definite NO NO for people with irregular heartbeat (AF). Here endeth the preaching for the day I think you are confusing Dudek to Stefan Danno, which has also been mentioned on this thread. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lioness 1,475 Posted August 20, 2014 Dudek`s case was/is 3 weeks ago The Dudek case happened 8th August 2014 - if that's the one in the Speedway News and Discussions section... Going by your explanations Dudek possibly took it innocently because he was taking dietary supplements to try and keep his weight down. Ward knows what alcohol is and does. I think you are confusing Dudek to Stefan Danno, which has also been mentioned on this thread. I am indeed guys - thanks for putting me right on that one. Dopey here got muddled lol The risks of methylhexanamine have been well documented by sports bodies for a few years now so anyone caught found foul of it now really has no excuse so ignore my misinformed post! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Stadia 1,071 Posted August 20, 2014 Bull. You don't get away with drink driving by claiming, well I wasn't intending on driving when I was having those drinks. Bull to you too! The length of ban and fine will depend on how much you are over the limit! And whether anyone was injured! I don't think you understand justice mate! I am indeed guys - thanks for putting me right on that one. Dopey here got muddled lol The risks of methylhexanamine have been well documented by sports bodies for a few years now so anyone caught found foul of it now really has no excuse so ignore my misinformed post! Be glad that you have been politely put straight Lioness, the usual correction on here is punctuated with some kind of sarcastic or unpleasant addition. Could it be because you are a Mod? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldace 1,678 Posted August 20, 2014 Be glad that you have been politely put straight Lioness, the usual correction on here is punctuated with some kind of sarcastic or unpleasant addition. Could it be because you are a Mod? No it is because there is a difference between the simple mistake Lioness made and the talking total sh!t that you do 7 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lioness 1,475 Posted August 20, 2014 Bull to you too! The length of ban and fine will depend on how much you are over the limit! And whether anyone was injured! I don't think you understand justice mate! Be glad that you have been politely put straight Lioness, the usual correction on here is punctuated with some kind of sarcastic or unpleasant addition. Could it be because you are a Mod? perhaps its because I try not to be aggressive when people point out I am wrong or disagree with me? Or that I appreciate it when they tell me the correct information? Not quite sure why I suddenly am being dragged into your disagreement as an example nor do I particularly appreciate it but I'll stick to my own discussion thanks 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Stadia 1,071 Posted August 20, 2014 No it is because there is a difference between the simple mistake Lioness made and the talking total sh!t that you do You really are a nasty little man aren't you Oldace. A bitter and twisted nobody with a huge chip on his shoulder. Well, I will leave this thread now, as it appears even the Moderator is part of this little Clique of 'put downers'! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevebrum 6,831 Posted August 20, 2014 You really are a nasty little man aren't you Oldace. A bitter and twisted nobody with a huge chip on his shoulder. Well, I will leave this thread now, as it appears even the Moderator is part of this little Clique of 'put downers'! At least you said something of remote interest. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
