Studland Bee

The hearing as we know lasted one day. The FIM would surely present their case and Darcy Ward would be asked to respond. If he were to have accepted the evidence, and in effect plead guilty to the offence under FIM rules and regulations, I think this would have been fairly straightforward and the FIM could probably have dealt with things on the day, or within a few days based on previous sentences for like offences. It seems to me from what has been reported, that Darcy Ward is in fact challenging the evidence and not accepting the alcohol test procedures and therefore pleading not guilty. Why else would he employ a Legal Team, other than to present some form of mitigation. The FIM would have to receive the defence evidence presuming there has been no previous disclosure or defence statement from Ward. From here the FIM would clearly need to seek Legal Advice and examine the evidence presented to them; what is the basis of the challenge ? The FIM or in fact Darcy Ward's team may need to seek advice from an expert witness, or refer to case law. These are some of the reasons why procedures in the Criminal Courts take so long. There is so much at stake here for Darcy Ward and for the FIM. This needs to be handled properly by the FIM and the relevant Legal representatives for both sides. I feel that 45 days is not unreasonable should this time frame be required.

I bet Ned Payne the speedway correspondent of the Bournemouth Echo has a right laugh dealing with Middleditch; the quote: PIRATES team boss Neil Middleditch says troubled star Darcy Ward could “take a couple of years out” of speedway – depending on his hearing result. At least that bit is accurate. I think Matt Ford should shut Middleditch up, he is making a complete fool of himself and not helping Darcy by his negativity towards the FIM.

This really is a tense situation in what should be a straightforward procedure, the outcome based on previous cases involving the FIM should be a ban from competition. So what has actually occurred here and why as it appears, is there some form of legal challenge. Why do the Poole promotion feel that Darcy Ward has been punished enough, when in fact he is merely suspended and no judgement has been made and no sentence imposed. I am interested to see what procedures the FIM have actually followed and importantly how the evidence has been gathered in this case. I would find it astonishing if there have been errors as their regulations are very detailed and comprehensive. Reading some posts on the forum, and with comments from Matt Ford, it appears the challenge is over some form of procedural failure. In the UK in respect of road traffic matters the procedures are straightforward. The first procedure is a screening breath test with a simple pass or fail based on the legal limit of 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. Although part of the evidence chain, and determining an arrest, this reading is not stand alone evidence for conviction. Following this procedure the person is arrested and when in custody given two further tests on a self calibrating machine which is the evidential sample for Court purposes. Two samples are taken and the lower figure counts. Interestingly, if a person gives readings between 40 and 50 he can elect to provide a sample of blood for analysis. I would expect that Ward has been asked to provide a sample of breath at the stadium and failed this procedure. So what has happened from here. Has Ward provided a blood or urine sample ? Has he had an option to do so ? These are the two recognised methods where a further specimen can be obtained for evidential purposes, and where the accused can have the so called 'B' sample for independent analysis . I suspect the challenge may be around these issues. I believe the FIM regulations have a no alcohol present standard and thus they may have simply taken the breath sample as evidence. Is it the case that Ward's advisors have employed a Legal Team to challenge on this basis. It is indeed a sad situation in many ways. I genuinely hope whatever the outcome that Darcy Ward does learn from this and hopefully finally mature and progress in our sport. I apologise for the lengthy post.

Interesting to see Tom Perry's name mentioned by Whiteliner. I met Tom as a 15 year old when he was winning everything on the grass. I believe there is much more to come from Tom with the right guidance. I think having Tom in the team with Robbo, who knows Tom could be a good move. Stuart as we know has years of experience and could help Tom take it to the next level.

I think you will find 'Robbo' is an excellent signing for Redcar. Stuart is an out and out racer, never gives up and often has to come from the back which makes for exciting racing. If you look back at his career he rode as a number 2 with Greg Hancock at Coventry which helped him become the team rider he is today. At Rye House, Stuart was instrumental in helping young riders like Eddie Kennett, Danny King, Tai Woffinden and others. He is a true professional with top equipment and will do really well I am sure. I hope he also has the opportunity to double up for Coventry.

I would like to help Charlie with her interview technique, I think I have the required skills and experience

I have followed Coventry Storm all season and am very disappointed with this situation. What should have been an end of season final at our home track has now resulted in a complete farce, I certainly will not be travelling to Leicester which in my opinion is a poor speedway track. Coventry have ridden regularly on a Friday night for a number of years and preparing the track / fencing for stock cars on a Saturday has never been a problem. There have been other comments on this forum about the Coventry track and inconsistent preparation, I am beginning to think there is more to this. Are the stadium owners / management making things difficult for the speedway promotion I wonder. Perhaps Neil Watson could provide more of an explanation about the current position, and for the future which I have previously asked on another thread. Good luck to the Storm lads tomorrow.

In my opinion this decision is fair considering the age of the riders involved. I was there and witnessed the on track events and subsequent disorder on the Rugby bend, although from a distance as I was in the upper stand bar. I had a clear view of the start line. I believe the start marshall should have been stronger and not allowed Greaves to stay in the position where he infringed on gate one. The referee was also weak and should not have allowed the start when all was not right and tensions were high. These young riders were ultimately let down by some of those around them who as elders should have known better and defused the situation rather than get involved as aggressors. Yes its easy to say, but I have experience in this area and have seen similar situations before. Like others have said, I hope these young riders learn from this which I am sure they will. I have the utmost respect for Tony Gillias a man who is best placed with life experience and a speedway background to oversee these proceedings.

The track looked a little tricky in the first 3 races but then after grading improved. There was a training day at Coventry prior to this meeting and this may have played a part in late preparation / watering. I agree with comments on the programme, £2.00 for 2 x A4 sheets, absolute rip off in my opinion, Mick Horton should sort this out as this does put supporters off and was certainly subject of conversation in my group of 7 supporters. I thought James Sarjeant was in a class of his own tonight backed up by an impressive showing by Dan Greenwood. A agree with ABBO in his post. I look forward to Monday!

I was in the upper stand bar and had an excellent view of the whole on track incident. It all started on the start line as others have said, the start marshal tried to put some distance between Sarjeant and Greaves and both riders had words. Greaves did not move and infringed on gate one. The referee allowed the race to start and there were elbows into the first corner. Greaves clearly turned left on Sarjeant on the home straight resulting in the race being stopped at the time when Sarjeant pulled up. Greaves was excluded for DANGEROUS riding. Both riders had words and Greaves clearly attacked Sarjeant throwing punches. Sarjeant rides off, turns and rides at Greaves and kicks his bike over. Greaves chases Sarjeant on foot off the track, Sarjeant knocks an official over. Others get involved on the Rugby bend, and to be honest, I could not see exactly what happened from where I was standing, but it looked very ugly with a number of people getting involved. I was stood with Coventry and Cradley supporters in the bar, and there were no problems whatsoever. I spoke with Cradley supporters and there was no friction or ill feeling between fans. This was simply a situation that got out of hand. I do agree with others that the referee could have acted earlier and perhaps this would not have happened.