Berwick v Glasgow , BSN thingy , 6/4/24 @7pm

[crescent girl 1,908]

11 hours ago, speedwaysliders said:

The bottom line is, the tests at the start of the meeting are great and im sure everyone welcomes randam testing, there a few posters on here that get what im trying to say.      PRE MATCH testing is quite new, and we are going to have the same problems again when the next rider fails a test. All im trying to explain and maybe not too well, is that this is a new practice, and sooner or later its going to happen again.    100% punish the rider, BUT NOT THE FANS. I havnt got the answer but the people who are carrrying out the tests ,must have thought this through and come up with a solution surely.

ie GREAT TESTING

     RIDER OR RIDERS FOUND GUILTY AND BANNED TO RIDE ON THE NIGHT

PLAN B PUT INTO OPERATION FOR THE TEAM WITH BANNED RIDER OR RIDERS SO THE MEETING CAN TAKE PLACE WITH 4 RIDER RACES.THAT PLAN B AT THE MOMENT IS ...........................?!!!!!!!

The difference this time is that it was a reserve rider who returned the non-negative result.

Last year (and the year before, when Ben Barker was snagged) it was riders in their team proper who had their licences temporarily suspended (rightly and properly, rules is rules) on the night, in which case the programmed races could be covered by the team's reserves.    Eliminating the problem of a three-rider race, which seems to be the main factor in getting people's knickers twisted.

So, if it happens again -- and it will, sure as God made little apples -- if it's a rider in the team's 1-5, no problem, no 3-man races.    If it's a reserve, Heat 2 has to go with three riders -- hardly "cheating the public" and certainly a fair price to pay to keep the sport free of banned substances, no?

 

Edited April 8 by crescent girl

[StevePark 2,794]

6 minutes ago, crescent girl said:

The difference this time is that it was a reserve rider who returned the non-negative result.

Last year (and the year before, when Ben Barker was snagged) it was riders in their team proper who had their licences temporarily suspended (rightly and properly, rules is rules) on the night, in which case the programmed races could be covered by the team's reserves.    Eliminating the problem of a three-rider race, which seems to be the main factor in getting people's knickers twisted.

So, if it happens again -- and it will, sure as God made little apples -- if it's a rider in the team's 1-5, no 3-man races.  If it's a reserve, Heat 2 has to go with three riders -- hardly "cheating the public" and certainly a fair price to pay to keep the sport free of banned substances, no?

 

That's all well and good, but if one of the 1-5 are excluded (sorry, disqualified) for a tapes offence or for failing the two minutes, they have to go off 15metres, otherwise you would still have at least one more race with only three riders in it, as the other reserve would have to have his own 4 programmed rides and has to cover the banned reserves other 3 rides, so couldn't replace the disqualified rider.  And God forbid if the other reserve got injured in heat 2 and had to withdraw from the meeting.

[Neila 1,171]

Non negative or failed drug test both the same, so banned from meeting,  IF its down to medication would show up on 2nd test, then the people in charge can decide what happens next,  why we have 15 pages of debate god only knows, 

[MumsieCulpepper 558]

2 minutes ago, StevePark said:

That's all well and good, but if one of the 1-5 are excluded (sorry, disqualified) for a tapes offence or for failing the two minutes, they have to go off 15metres, otherwise you would still have at least one more race with only three riders in it, as the other reserve would have to have his own 4 programmed rides and has to cover the banned reserves other 3 rides, so couldn't replace the disqualified rider.  And God forbid if the other reserve got injured in heat 2 and had to withdraw from the meeting.

Don't commit a tapes offence or fail to beat the two minutes then. 

[secsy1 215]

3 hours ago, iainb said:

I'm not sure if it does now, but didn't R/R allow 1 rider above the rider it's replacing to take a ride? For a reserve, It's not rocket science, you just allow the next highest rider to take a ride, if that is a reserve in heat 2 and obviously the other rider is already involved, use the next highest, maybe at the expense of being able to use a TS in the riders ride later in the meeting. It is entirely possible to write rules to cover such an eventuality. There seems to be a rather large hole in the rules as it currently stands.

As for Plan B, why are you continuing to punish the team with all the handicap starts?

Plan B allows 4 riders in each race and the punishment is for the team as one of them, knowingly or unfortunately has caused the problem.

If you do not punish the rider and the team then their is no accountability.

I sincerely hope that all becomes clear and the laboratory tests clear the rider.

[iainb 5,068]

24 minutes ago, secsy1 said:

Plan B allows 4 riders in each race and the punishment is for the team as one of them, knowingly or unfortunately has caused the problem.

If you do not punish the rider and the team then their is no accountability.

I sincerely hope that all becomes clear and the laboratory tests clear the rider.

I'm sorry, I just don't get why we're punishing the team and the paying fans for something a rider has done and only on that 1 single night. A club can't be responsible for what a rider does, much in the same way that they're not responsible if a rider gets injured riding for a different club and sometimes in a different country. Take Charles Wright getting injured riding for Wroclaw last year, should Redcar have had a facility? Of course they should, I fail to see the difference. What if a rider had drugs in his system from "partying" with a different club? Should Poole not have had a facility for 1 match when Darcy Ward got busted at a GP a few years back?

I agree with your last point, can't see it myself though

Edited April 8 by iainb

[secsy1 215]

4 minutes ago, iainb said:

I'm sorry, I just don't get why we're punishing the team and the paying fans for something a rider has done and only on that 1 single night. A club can't be responsible for what a rider does, much in the same way that they're not responsible if a rider gets injured riding for a different club and sometimes in a different country. Take Charles Wright getting injured riding for Wroclaw last year, should Redcar have had a facility? Of course they should, I fail to see the difference. What if a rider had drugs in his system from "partying" with a different club? Should Poole not have had a facility for 1 match when Darcy Ward got busted at a GP a few years back?

I agree with your last point, can't see it myself though

 

By law, employers can be held vicariously liable for certain acts of their employees. This means even where the employer has itself done no wrong, it can still be found responsible for employees actions and made to financially compensate the victim/victims of the wrong doing.

 

[screm 8,060]

For those who are only reading this thread and didn't attend the meeting, it hard to believe but there was an actual meeting with racing and with bikes on track. 

Crazy.

[speedwaysliders 176]

1 hour ago, crescent girl said:

The difference this time is that it was a reserve rider who returned the non-negative result.

Last year (and the year before, when Ben Barker was snagged) it was riders in their team proper who had their licences temporarily suspended (rightly and properly, rules is rules) on the night, in which case the programmed races could be covered by the team's reserves.    Eliminating the problem of a three-rider race, which seems to be the main factor in getting people's knickers twisted.

So, if it happens again -- and it will, sure as God made little apples -- if it's a rider in the team's 1-5, no problem, no 3-man races.    If it's a reserve, Heat 2 has to go with three riders -- hardly "cheating the public" and certainly a fair price to pay to keep the sport free of banned substances, no?

 

OK you just dont get it. Its gonna happen to you what with tech advances,so you turn up at a race meeting and find out 2 riders this time are banned from the meeting,and the team is using R/R. yes i KNOW its the worst case scenario,but i want you to understand not only the meeting will be a shambles,fans will not be happy,and they are the ones paying for it.If you are bringing in tests BEFORE the meeting there has to be a plan B for the fans.

[iainb 5,068]

15 minutes ago, secsy1 said:

 

By law, employers can be held vicariously liable for certain acts of their employees. This means even where the employer has itself done no wrong, it can still be found responsible for employees actions and made to financially compensate the victim/victims of the wrong doing.

 

Riders are self employed are they not? If they're a limited company they are employees of the company they are a director of... nothing to do with the club

[Weeyin 1,022]

24 minutes ago, screm said:

For those who are only reading this thread and didn't attend the meeting, it hard to believe but there was an actual meeting with racing and with bikes on track. 

Crazy.

And it was a very good meeting 

[Endeavour 683]

12 hours ago, Cast1rn said:

Just did a wee bit of maths, to test the entire team every meeting it would cost £78.40, in the super grand scheme of things that isn't a lot.

To lab test a sample costs £120 (off Googley search £60 if done on mass) 

So simply charge every rider £5.60 a meeting to ensure a 100% clean sport.

If you get a "non negative" result the rider forks out the £120/£60 to prove their clean or not.

Don't ban the rider on the night but upon return of the lab test. Teams aren't affected, fans get a proper meeting.

 

So a team of 7 ‘clean’ riders could be beaten by a potentially positive tested rider after the lab sample is processed. Would you retrospectively award the opposing team the points from the match ?

[Hodgy 976]

6 hours ago, Gazc said:

18 pages and probably around 2 pages is actually about the meeting.

I know it is a huge debating point but surely it’s been done to death now , let’s see what happens now  and get the facts.

I notice Lees wife has posted on FB about what he had taken.

Brilliant! That’s got to be right up there with the most hypocritical posts ever. Done to death, then add more conspiracy. 

[DJC 252]

1 hour ago, screm said:

For those who are only reading this thread and didn't attend the meeting, it hard to believe but there was an actual meeting with racing and with bikes on track. 

Crazy.

As much as I loath his approach, appears Woffinden was right that people are more interested in the drama behind the sport than the actual racing these days! 

[Gazc 7,127]

24 minutes ago, Hodgy said:

Brilliant! That’s got to be right up there with the most hypocritical posts ever. Done to death, then add more conspiracy. 

More conspiracy that’s got to be up there as one of the stupidest posts.

Brilliant.