Jump to content
British Speedway Forum

Birmingham Brummies 2023


*JJ

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, screm said:

Morris hasn't been found guilty of failing a drug test though, he has pleaded guilty of refusing to provide one, there will be some who see that as an admission of a failed one had he chosen to take of course.

One question though, do we know the reason why he refused to take a test.

Come on ,maybe not in law .He never got off with his excuse.So if he came back and they pick him again for a test what happens if he refuses just like this time (for no reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, screm said:

Morris hasn't been found guilty of failing a drug test though, he has pleaded guilty of refusing to provide one, there will be some who see that as an admission of a failed one had he chosen to take of course.

One question though, do we know the reason why he refused to take a test.

'No Comment'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, screm said:

Morris hasn't been found guilty of failing a drug test though, he has pleaded guilty of refusing to provide one, there will be some who see that as an admission of a failed one had he chosen to take of course.

One question though, do we know the reason why he refused to take a test.

I am told from a very reliable source, or should I say from someone that should know what went on, Nick apparently could not pee to take the second test, and yes the first test allegedly showed positive.

Edited by heathen52
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fromafar said:

Come on ,maybe not in law .He never got off with his excuse.So if he came back and they pick him again for a test what happens if he refuses just like this time (for no reason)

2 years down the line, either most will have forgotten or, he'll be a victim of harassment. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, heathen52 said:

I am told from a very reliable source, or should I say from someone that should know what went on, Nick apparently could not pee to take the second test.

If that was the case, when he was ready to take a pee, he should've provided one that could've cleared things up. I have actually heard a rider saying the same thing (about not being able to pee) but, surely drinking a gallon of water might've speeded things up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Skidder1 said:

And if so do they get a 'facility'?

A question I asked a few weeks ago. Is there a time limit on these "facilities"? Can the Brummies do what they've done for the past year and a half, just run with a guest til the end of the season?  I'd have thought that they'd have had enough time to find an alternative permanent signing by now, but maybe guests are cheaper? I dunno.  But then again with only 4 meetings until their season is over, is it worth signing someone just for those? No properly satisfactory solution, I fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, heathen52 said:

I am told from a very reliable source, or should I say from someone that should know what went on, Nick apparently could not pee to take the second test, and yes the first test allegedly showed positive.

It may be testing has changed but in the past you gave 1 sample. 

That was split in to 2 recepticles. 

The first was tested and if positive the second sample was retained for further tests. 

I've not heard of a process where you give a sample and are then asked to give another one. 

If he could not pee he would have been asked to drink water and to remain in the presence of an examiner until he could give a sample however long it took. 

These samples don't require a massive amount of urine to be compliant. 

If he's had a strop and refused to give a sample or tried to influence the tester or verbally abused the tester it may explain the issue of the withdrawn charge. 

Bottom line is that at some point he has not met the guidelines and got a just punishment. 

He has been a shadow of the rider he was for a few years in my opinion and we probably won't see him in the UK again even on his most recent inflated average. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ruffdiamond said:

If that was the case, when he was ready to take a pee, he should've provided one that could've cleared things up. I have actually heard a rider saying the same thing (about not being able to pee) but, surely drinking a gallon of water might've speeded things up?

Correct having been involved in athletics,the drug Testers just with you till your Athlete provides a sample,like you  saya bottle of water soon does the trick.

ps

its a small sample you have to provide.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, screm said:

Morris hasn't been found guilty of failing a drug test though, he has pleaded guilty of refusing to provide one, there will be some who see that as an admission of a failed one had he chosen to take of course.

One question though, do we know the reason why he refused to take a test.

Probably because he was out his ti*ts.

Only reason to refuse it.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Fromafar said:

Correct having been involved in athletics,the drug Testers just with you till your Athlete provides a sample,like you  saya bottle of water soon does the trick.

ps

its a small sample you have to provide.

 

 

Yeah, usually 2 to 3 pints until a breach!!! :rolleyes:

Edited by ruffdiamond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, uk_martin said:

A question I asked a few weeks ago. Is there a time limit on these "facilities"? Can the Brummies do what they've done for the past year and a half, just run with a guest til the end of the season?  I'd have thought that they'd have had enough time to find an alternative permanent signing by now, but maybe guests are cheaper? I dunno.  But then again with only 4 meetings until their season is over, is it worth signing someone just for those? No properly satisfactory solution, I fear.

The problem is the timing of the ban, if Birmingham get a 28 day facility, that would run out after the transfer cut-off date. I assume they'd get a facility for the season, is that what happened to Plymouth with Barker last year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, szkocjasid said:

The problem is the timing of the ban, if Birmingham get a 28 day facility, that would run out after the transfer cut-off date. I assume they'd get a facility for the season, is that what happened to Plymouth with Barker last year?

Yes, ALL year!!!:rolleyes:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Privacy Policy