Drugs - Just Say No!

[ovalfan 14]

Must be paid too much if they can waste money on that.

Kick the filthy crackheads out and ban for life.

[highside 118]

Can anyone explain how a ban starts when the season has finished 

[1 valve 558]

14 hours ago, The Dog said:

Well I can't see the BSPA helping out, most of the clubs are bordering skint and it's only the riders that seem to do OK out of the sport, so why not? If I was a rider I'd be happy to pay a small amount to prove I was clean and to know others were too 

Circa £350.00 plus vat for each test is not to most people a “small” amount. 
 

[tonyd 165]

10 hours ago, Petecc said:

Unfortunately the cost of a test is very high. I was told upto £500 per test. When the testers turn up they choose 4 riders at "random".  They know who they want to test but, it's just catching them. 

The cost comes into it if someone  fails a test and the sample is sent to the laboratory. The actual test kits are reasonably  inexpensive  I believe. Also a reasonably  competent person can be trained up to carry out the testing and fill out the relevant forms. 

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

2 hours ago, highside said:

Can anyone explain how a ban starts when the season has finished 

Any ban they receive, is back dated to the day of the offence. So it depends on when they were caught. A 10 month ban, would still only work in part,  if your caught in March. Needs changing .

Edited November 3, 2023 by Bald Bloke

[TINYS 292]

A ban should be for a season or 2 seasons or a part thereof, what good is a ban when they,re not riding anyway, it's not a ban wake up those in charge.

[noaksey 345]

3 hours ago, tonyd said:

The cost comes into it if someone  fails a test and the sample is sent to the laboratory. The actual test kits are reasonably  inexpensive  I believe. Also a reasonably  competent person can be trained up to carry out the testing and fill out the relevant forms. 

1 person to test 14 riders? That'd be fun, you keeping them in a locked room? You'd need several people all accredited drug testers then the ability to log and deal with all the samples. Multiply that by every single meeting held in the UK and it's a huge expense 

[Bald Bloke 3,287]

54 minutes ago, noaksey said:

1 person to test 14 riders? That'd be fun, you keeping them in a locked room? You'd need several people all accredited drug testers then the ability to log and deal with all the samples. Multiply that by every single meeting held in the UK and it's a huge expense 

Does there still need to be a track Doctor? I know there used to be years ago. If so, 2  random riders from each team at every meeting would be a bigger deterrent. The initial pee test can't be very expensive. Use the riders that fail (£1500 fine) to pay for the expensive lab test. Could that work?

Edited November 3, 2023 by Bald Bloke

[noaksey 345]

3 hours ago, Bald Bloke said:

Does there still need to be a track Doctor? I know there used to be years ago. If so, 2  random riders from each team at every meeting would be a bigger deterrent. The initial pee test can't be very expensive. Use the riders that fail (£1500 fine) to pay for the expensive lab test. Could that work?

I'd imagine that the issue is that the testing has to be carried out by a company that is accredited to one of the doping agencies (whichever one speedway uses or decides to use) so that's probably charged out at commercial rates rather than being able to use the track doc/Bert on the pit gate etc

Your suggestion is much better than testing every single rider in every meeting but I'd say random testing at every meeting is probably still out of reach cost wise but certainly worth the BSPL investigating 

[fatface 2,554]

There's some well intentioned posts here, but most suggestions are not workable. To suggest testing every rider at every meeting is not only unaffordable and impractical, it defeats the whole object. These riders got busted not because they knew they would get tested, it's because they didn't know they would be tested.

That's why it has to be random, so riders know it could happen at any time. Plus, just testing at meetings/competitions in sport is not enough. There is obviously wholesale testing at the Olympics, but anyone who turns up the Games with drugs in their system is not only a cheat, but a complete idiot too. The real cheating is done beforehand away from the testers, months ahead in training. That's why out-of-competition random testing is key.

Yes, random testing at meetings should be part of it, but better to have random tests away from meetings for those with bad intentions.

I have to say, I also don't think drugs in speedway is a big a problem as some are making out. I don't think there's any clear evidence that drug taking is widespread nor is it clear it even improves or impairs performance in the sport.  There's been a handful of cases. But that's it. If folk are looking for a time when drugs were more common in the sport, probably the 80s when the Morans, Bobby Schwartz, Gary Guglielmi, Steve Payne, Michael Lee, Gary Havelock, Mitch Shirra all got into trouble.

I think their cases, just like these, were a case of young men doing something daft with social drugs. Just like they do in wider society. Of course they should all be sanctioned because sport only works when its a level playing field, but let's not get too carried away.

[1 valve 558]

12 hours ago, tonyd said:

The cost comes into it if someone  fails a test and the sample is sent to the laboratory. The actual test kits are reasonably  inexpensive  I believe. Also a reasonably  competent person can be trained up to carry out the testing and fill out the relevant forms. 

No. The cost of testing is not the cost of the kits but the infrastructure required to run an accredited testing agency to include but not limited to, staff, travel, buildings, testing materials and equipment not forgetting the need to make profit to be reinvested in developing improvements of testing technology to make it easier to catch the drug cheats. 

[Gemini 4,894]

On 9/11/2023 at 8:13 PM, fatface said:

I also think Bruce Penhall was on it. I think they did quite well too. Again, shows that fitness is a real factor in speedway. 
 

Really liked Superstars and what a theme tune! But like a lot of older shows, when you watch them back on YouTube, they are never as good as you remember them.

Yes I have got a few photos of Bruce with Geoff Capes, George Best etc. in one of my Speedway albums on Facebook. I think I won them in a Speedway Star competition but no idea now what it was. 

 

[iainb 5,017]

14 hours ago, fatface said:

I have to say, I also don't think drugs in speedway is a big a problem as some are making out. I don't think there's any clear evidence that drug taking is widespread

That's the question isn't it. Somebody earlier posted the number of tests that had been done this season and it wasn't many, meaning that the number of failed tests in percentage terms was alarmingly high! If you've only done a handful of tests throughout the season and 30 odd percent of them have come back positive nobody really knows if there is a problem or not. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by iainb

[Technik 491]

I was stopped in Australia at a roadside police test point. The officer had a stick like device to test for alcohol all I had to do was count back from 10 then a small lolly stick I had to scrape my tounge this tested for certain drugs. It took only a couple of minutes & I was on my way. But again it comes down to cost>

[secsy1 213]

17 hours ago, fatface said:

There's some well intentioned posts here, but most suggestions are not workable. To suggest testing every rider at every meeting is not only unaffordable and impractical, it defeats the whole object. These riders got busted not because they knew they would get tested, it's because they didn't know they would be tested.

That's why it has to be random, so riders know it could happen at any time. Plus, just testing at meetings/competitions in sport is not enough. There is obviously wholesale testing at the Olympics, but anyone who turns up the Games with drugs in their system is not only a cheat, but a complete idiot too. The real cheating is done beforehand away from the testers, months ahead in training. That's why out-of-competition random testing is key.

Yes, random testing at meetings should be part of it, but better to have random tests away from meetings for those with bad intentions.

I have to say, I also don't think drugs in speedway is a big a problem as some are making out. I don't think there's any clear evidence that drug taking is widespread nor is it clear it even improves or impairs performance in the sport.  There's been a handful of cases. But that's it. If folk are looking for a time when drugs were more common in the sport, probably the 80s when the Morans, Bobby Schwartz, Gary Guglielmi, Steve Payne, Michael Lee, Gary Havelock, Mitch Shirra all got into trouble.

I think their cases, just like these, were a case of young men doing something daft with social drugs. Just like they do in wider society. Of course they should all be sanctioned because sport only works when its a level playing field, but let's not get too carried away.

 

2 hours ago, iainb said:

That's the question isn't it. Somebody earlier posted the number of tests that had been done this season and it wasn't many, meaning that the number of failed tests in percentage terms was alarmingly high! If you've only done a handful of tests throughout the season and 30 odd percent of them have come back positive nobody really knows if there is a problem or not. 

Think there is some very naïve people on here who are out of touch with the sport and general society regarding the prevalence of drugs everywhere.

Stop kidding yourselves as mentioned by iainb fact that 30% of tests have come back positive. 

Maybe they cannot afford to do more tests as there would be no riders left