Richie Worrall statement

[iainb 5,017]

2 hours ago, 40-38 said:

I hope that the test from his original sample comes back negative. However, and aware I’ll get flak for this, the test he paid for doesn’t alter that from Tuesday night. We don’t know yet what they found or even what amount, it’s perfectly possible a trace would be undetected the following day. Also it is unlikely to be admissible because there’s no proof the sample was even his second time around. Whether there’s a flaw in the testing procedure before a match will come out when the report on the original test comes back. Until then nothing has changed from Tuesday night.

Already the Lions FB pages are convinced he’s the innocent and woe betide anyone who isn’t sure! 

Absolutely spot on, I've just had a quick look on socials this morning and the amount of people blaming everybody and anybody but Worrall is quite unbelievable. The SCB/BSPL may have their faults but this has absolutely nothing to do with them and they'll be running their drug testing using a 3rd party adhering to tried and tested methods that will stand up to legal scrutiny. The whole point of the test is that it's done without warning... he took a test the next day... he may as well take the test in a few weeks, his test may as well test a thousand different categories, unfortunately for him it means absolutely nothing.

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by iainb

[crazyb 156]

1 hour ago, Grachan said:

Is it possible there could be some sort of lookalike around who could have posed as Richie and taken the other test on his behalf? I'm sure there isn't, but I have to admit the idea of it is slightly amusing.

He's got a twin brother. But your suggestion isn't even slightly amusing

[Endeavour 681]

9 minutes ago, Aries said:

It makes Zero difference. Two tests taken days apart can have different results. The only test that matters is the one taken at Plymouth. 

I am well aware of that. Have been involved in past with drug testing in another sport.

[RBThirdbend 9]

1 hour ago, 40-38 said:

I hope that the test from his original sample comes back negative. However, and aware I’ll get flak for this, the test he paid for doesn’t alter that from Tuesday night. We don’t know yet what they found or even what amount, it’s perfectly possible a trace would be undetected the following day. Also it is unlikely to be admissible because there’s no proof the sample was even his second time around. Whether there’s a flaw in the testing procedure before a match will come out when the report on the original test comes back. Until then nothing has changed from Tuesday night.

Already the Lions FB pages are convinced he’s the innocent and woe betide anyone who isn’t sure! 

Spot on!

It's not about a flaw though and they won't know what amount. That's what the lab test is for.

The "onsite test" uses a litmus paper type of dipper. It changes colour if something's detected.

The lab test will show the amounts and whether it's consistent with declared pain killer use for example or was a "false positive."

The unfortunate thing is their names are out there now and everyone can jump to their own conclusions before really knowing the outcome

[Aries 440]

1 minute ago, Endeavour said:

I am well aware of that. Have been involved in past with drug testing in another sport.

Well if you’re fully aware you wouldn’t have just made that post as it makes no sense and is pointless. People can scream “I’m innocent” all they like and take as many different tests as they like, it matters not! If the “B” sample comes back negative then he’ll have all the clearance and evidence he needs to clear his name and crack on racing. Let’s hope that’s the case. 

[iainb 5,017]

2 minutes ago, RBThirdbend said:

The unfortunate thing is their names are out there now and everyone can jump to their own conclusions before really knowing the outcome

Innocent until named in the media

Edited September 7, 2023 by iainb

[40-38 307]

13 minutes ago, iainb said:

Innocent until named in the media

Trouble is it wasn’t difficult to work out. They didn’t name them but we knew before the meeting was even finished. 

[iainb 5,017]

2 minutes ago, 40-38 said:

Trouble is it wasn’t difficult to work out. They didn’t name them but we knew before the meeting was even finished. 

I'd pretty much worked it out before the meeting had started because neither team were allowed a facility and that seems to be the only circumstances where this is the case... which is also something that needs looking at. Crazy that no facility is allowed, but the very next day one is. It not only short changes the fans but if a facility had been allowed you could conceivably believe that the rider(s) had fallen ill shortly before the meeting, anonymity preserved... possibly

[Hamish McRaker 601]

I just wonder how genuinely random the selection of riders, really is? Both Morris and Worrall were riding soon after sustaining and suffering from injuries which had recently prevented them from riding for a short time. Making them prime targets.

[Arch Stanton 2,255]

I know cost has been mentioned but it’s crazy in a sport as dangerous as this that not everyone is tested before every meeting. It’s one thing testing in a sport like athletics where nobody can possibly get hurt, but in a sport where riders can and sometimes are, paralysed or killed it beggars belief that there’s not compulsory testing for every rider before meetings. 

[Mr Blobby 2,662]

Worrall offered to take a second test at Plymouth on Tuesday as he was in that much disbelief that it didn’t come back clear. They refused to let him take one as the first one came back inconclusive.

[iainb 5,017]

5 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

Worrall offered to take a second test at Plymouth on Tuesday as he was in that much disbelief that it didn’t come back clear. They refused to let him take one as the first one came back inconclusive.

That's because that is the procedure... no matter how much he dislikes it. He could have p1ssed out any contaminants in his first test, that's the point of having a single test, he could be continuously p1ssing into a bottle until midnight, that is not the procedure and for very good reason

Edited September 7, 2023 by iainb

[TheWellBehavedWorrall 289]

That’s a weak statement from Worrall, I’m afraid. Of course his own test produced a different result; that’s biology and taking such irrelevant action is purely for his own benefit.

Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but this doesn’t look great.

I by no means know the full script, but I do know that non-negative result is the consequence of a banned substance being detected and awaiting confirmation from the guys with the gloves and beakers.

[Racin Jason 72 1,283]

Was it ever made public what Ben Barker had in his test results which caused his ban ? 
im guessing painkillers of some sort as it was a 6 month ban. 

[noaksey 345]

54 minutes ago, Arch Stanton said:

I know cost has been mentioned but it’s crazy in a sport as dangerous as this that not everyone is tested before every meeting. It’s one thing testing in a sport like athletics where nobody can possibly get hurt, but in a sport where riders can and sometimes are, paralysed or killed it beggars belief that there’s not compulsory testing for every rider before meetings. 

There's not mandatory testing in boxing either, Matchroom are currently considering it for their fighters/shows, apparently the costs are absolutely astronomical though albeit these are blood tests not just urine.

Mandatory testing is beyond the scope of speedway currently, who would pay?