Danny Cipriani arrested on suspicion of drink driving

First topic message reminder :

Ohhh, dear

England rugby star Danny Cipriani was arrested on suspicion of drink driving today after a 5am car crash.

Police breathalysed Cipriani after his £60,000 Mercedes collided with a Toyota in Chelsea, West London.

The 27-year-old World Cup hopeful was taken to a police station in west London before being released on bail.

Cipriani had scored two tries in England’s 73-12 thrashing of the Barbarians just hours earlier.

The fly half put in an impressive performance, scoring 33 of England’s points.

Police confirmed they were called to reports of two cars in a collision at 5.15am. No one was injured.

A Met police spokeswoman: “The driver of the Mercedes, a 27-year-old man, was arrested on suspicion of drink driving.

“He was taken to a west London police station where he was later released on police bail.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/england-rugby-star-danny-cipriani-5805544

HammerofThunor wrote:Tindall had received a blow to his lower back against Wales and damage supposedly slowed his processing of alcohol.

Utter nonsense was that the defence he relied upon? He was caught bang to rights driving when he knew he was peed twice.

Poorfour wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Duncan Bech ‏@DuncanBech  44m44 minutes ago
Met Police say Danny Cipriani must return to police station in early August. Two months of waiting....just what England and Cipriani need

He must have been very, very drunk to need that long to sober up.

Makes Lancaster's decision a bit tougher, though. Still expect him to be dropped.

Nah not at all.

Cips and Slade will both be in the extended squad to cover all eventualities. If Cips gets charged in August or when ever he gets dropped...Slade has trained with the squad no issues.

In all honesty, Slade should go ahead of him anyway. He's the future, the present, and tackles better

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Met has plenty of officers of Welsh, Scottish or Irish heritage - just sayin'

Just saying what? That they've invited him out for a few drinks after the arrest?

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:Met has plenty of officers of Welsh, Scottish or Irish heritage - just sayin'

Any Autralians ?

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Tindall had received a blow to his lower back against Wales and damage supposedly slowed his processing of alcohol.

Utter nonsense  was that the defence he relied upon?  He was caught bang to rights driving when he knew he was peed twice.

wiki says wrote:In February 2008 Tindall was named in England head coach Brian Ashton's squad for the upcoming Six Nations Championship, and thus started for England at outside centre against Wales at Twickenham on 2 February 2008. During the match against Wales, he was accidentally kicked in the chest by winger Mark Jones and had to be stretchered off. He had attempted to win possession just as Jones was kicking the ball away. He was ruled out of the tournament with internal bleeding and a perforated liver.

Nasty... (and the injury)

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Tindall had received a blow to his lower back against Wales and damage supposedly slowed his processing of alcohol.

Utter nonsense  was that the defence he relied upon?  He was caught bang to rights driving when he knew he was peed twice.

Not sure if they relied on it but they failed to provide expert medical opinion as evidence so it was ignored. In this case it took 10 months to convict him (I think because of this 'medical defense').

~As it should have been. IIRC he was driving a couple of hours after drinking a lot. No ones liver would have got him sober in that time

Brian Moore thinks Cipriani failed the breathalyser but registered borderline at the blood test, and so is now bailed while the lab result comes in. He hasn't got any inside line, he's just drawing conclusions from the sequence of events.

No idea if that is an accurate description of his situation.

Rugby Fan wrote:Brian Moore thinks Cipriani failed the breathalyser but registered borderline at the blood test, and so is now bailed while the lab result comes in. He hasn't got any inside line, he's just drawing conclusions from the sequence of events.

No idea if that is an accurate description of his situation.

Seems reasonable to me - its the only way I can see this series of events happening. If you are only just over the limit on the machine a blood test is used and its not immediate

So Cipriani's metabolism is the exact opposite of Tindall's?

A few late night benders with his Aussie mates has speeded up the flow of alcohol through him?

Cips is similar to Hartley in being stupid enough to be in the situation in the first place.

TJ wrote:~As it should have been.  IIRC he was driving a couple of hours after drinking a lot.  No ones liver would have got him sober in that time

It was about 11 hours after he stopped drinking.

Not the report I saw. He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar. He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught. should have gone to jail.

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

He was arrested, then went to the Police station where I'm sure, proper procedure was followed. If the Police consider there is sufficient evidence to gain a prosecution, they'll take him to court. This would be no different to anyone else 'caught' drink driving (repeat offender or not).

Only in very rare cases does a drink driving conviction lead to a custodial sentence.

I think TJ was talking about HRH not cips

TJ wrote:MIke Tindall was done for drink driving twice and it didn't affect his England career.  MInd you he should have gone to jail the second time

he is also a member of one of the UK's most esteemed families……(the Dwarf Throwers of Gloucester)

lostinwales wrote:I think TJ was talking about HRH not cips

Even if he was, as I've said in an edited comment. It is rare for somebody (it is irrelevant who) to serve a custodial sentence for drink driving. Especially where there were no fatalities.

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

If you're talking about Cips, then the report isn't accurate - the crash happened at 5.15am. I usually work on the assumption that I can metabolise about 2 units per hour, so if he was not far over the limit it's quite plausible that between the breathalyser and the blood test he could have fallen to a borderline level.

If that's the case, then it's more plausible that he did at least have a few hours' gap between drinking and driving, and may well have thought he'd allowed enough time.

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

If you're talking about Cips, then the report isn't accurate - the crash happened at 5.15am. I usually work on the assumption that I can metabolise about 2 units per hour, so if he was not far over the limit it's quite plausible that between the breathalyser and the blood test he could have fallen to a borderline level.

If that's the case, then it's more plausible that he did at least have a few hours' gap between drinking and driving, and may well have thought he'd allowed enough time.

He was clearly bailed for blood. But the point highlighted above is irrelevant because the Police will back calculate to the time he was driving

Gwlad wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

If you're talking about Cips, then the report isn't accurate - the crash happened at 5.15am. I usually work on the assumption that I can metabolise about 2 units per hour, so if he was not far over the limit it's quite plausible that between the breathalyser and the blood test he could have fallen to a borderline level.

If that's the case, then it's more plausible that he did at least have a few hours' gap between drinking and driving, and may well have thought he'd allowed enough time.

He was clearly bailed for blood. But the point highlighted above is irrelevant because the Police will back calculate to the time he was driving

No they wont because as has been rightly pointed out, everybody metabolises alcohol at different rates. The only evidence the police have are the reading from the breathalyser (which is only an indicator of excess alcohol) and the empirical results of the blood test (which they must now wait for).

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

If you're talking about Cips, then the report isn't accurate - the crash happened at 5.15am. I usually work on the assumption that I can metabolise about 2 units per hour, so if he was not far over the limit it's quite plausible that between the breathalyser and the blood test he could have fallen to a borderline level.

If that's the case, then it's more plausible that he did at least have a few hours' gap between drinking and driving, and may well have thought he'd allowed enough time.

He was clearly bailed for blood. But the point highlighted above is irrelevant because the Police will back calculate to the time he was driving

No they wont because as has been rightly pointed out, everybody metabolises alcohol at different rates. The only evidence the police have are the reading from the breathalyser (which is only an indicator of excess alcohol) and the empirical results of the blood test (which they must now wait for).

You are wrong.

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

If you're talking about Cips, then the report isn't accurate - the crash happened at 5.15am. I usually work on the assumption that I can metabolise about 2 units per hour, so if he was not far over the limit it's quite plausible that between the breathalyser and the blood test he could have fallen to a borderline level.

If that's the case, then it's more plausible that he did at least have a few hours' gap between drinking and driving, and may well have thought he'd allowed enough time.

He was clearly bailed for blood. But the point highlighted above is irrelevant because the Police will back calculate to the time he was driving

No they wont because as has been rightly pointed out, everybody metabolises alcohol at different rates. The only evidence the police have are the reading from the breathalyser (which is only an indicator of excess alcohol) and the empirical results of the blood test (which they must now wait for).

You are wrong.

Prove it.

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

If you're talking about Cips, then the report isn't accurate - the crash happened at 5.15am. I usually work on the assumption that I can metabolise about 2 units per hour, so if he was not far over the limit it's quite plausible that between the breathalyser and the blood test he could have fallen to a borderline level.

If that's the case, then it's more plausible that he did at least have a few hours' gap between drinking and driving, and may well have thought he'd allowed enough time.

He was clearly bailed for blood. But the point highlighted above is irrelevant because the Police will back calculate to the time he was driving

No they wont because as has been rightly pointed out, everybody metabolises alcohol at different rates. The only evidence the police have are the reading from the breathalyser (which is only an indicator of excess alcohol) and the empirical results of the blood test (which they must now wait for).

You are wrong.

Prove it.

http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/the-law/police-station-breath-tests/

do your own study. you always bang on as if you know stuff, now you can actually do so with authority

Gwlad wrote:http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/the-law/police-station-breath-tests/

And where, exactly, in that link does it confirm your assertion that the police work back from the reading to the time of arrest?

TJ wrote:Not the report I saw.  He was drinking until the small hours then drove at 7 am or something similar.  He knew he was drunk, second time he was caught.  should have gone to jail.  

No. The second time he stopped drinking around midnight and was done at 11am.

Daily Mail [shudder] wrote:Tindall, 29, who was forced to retire early from the Six Nations last month when he suffered a bruised liver against Wales, is thought to have been alone in his silver Range Rover when he was pulled over by police at 11am.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-538073/Tindall-arrested-drink-driving-day-Zara-Cheltenham-Festival.html

Guardian wrote:He later went to a restaurant where he drank a further beer and a vodka and Red Bull, finishing drinking at around midnight

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/jan/08/mike-tindall-rugby

LondonTiger wrote:

Gwlad wrote:http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/the-law/police-station-breath-tests/

And where, exactly, in that link does it confirm your assertion that the police work back from the reading to the time of arrest?

The link was to educate the people on here making inaccurate assertions

It explains when and why blood is taken

With regards back tracking, Police can and do use it. I know this because i was one.

Jimpy wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I think TJ was talking about HRH not cips

Even if he was, as I've said in an edited comment. It is rare for somebody (it is irrelevant who) to serve a custodial sentence for drink driving. Especially where there were no fatalities.

I know its rare. I still think ALL drink drivers should do jail time. It kills hundreds of people a year. Just a couple of weeks so they don't lose their job and house. Second offense should be 6 months. Thats my view of what SHOULD happen not what does

Back-calculations on alcohol levels would be done by the forensic service and require a number of factors such as those surrounding food and alcohol consumption to be investigated to provide the relevant data.  They're pretty much only done when there are serious injuries, the driver has previous related convictions or there has been a fairly significant delay in administering the test such as a result of leaving the scene or hospitalisation.

Hawalsh, Gwlad has already us the information we need. We don't need you muddying the waters with more relevant information.

LondonTiger wrote:

Gwlad wrote:http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/the-law/police-station-breath-tests/

And where, exactly, in that link does it confirm your assertion that the police work back from the reading to the time of arrest?

Standard practice to work back to prove they were drunk at the time of the incident. I have seen it done while working with the police

Wether hes found guilty or not he took a big risk driving when knackered and after drinking. And also staying out late drinking is exactly the kind of thing he was supposed to have stopped doing to get his chance at redemption in the first place.

It beggars belief really after all the problems its caused players in recent times that its still considered acceptable and normal for professional sports players to be out on the razz so often. Haskell gets a lot of greif for being such a body tart but at least he generally tries to look after himself and keeps out of the nightclubs. The worst hes been accused of is having a shower.

(says the man who was in the pub at 7am drinking rum and milk on monday )

How long was he out for? I haven't seen anything saying when or what he was drinking. If it is an inconclusive breath test at 5:30 there is no way he was drinking late.

HammerofThunor wrote:How long was he out for? I haven't seen anything saying when or what he was drinking. If it is an inconclusive breath test at 5:30 there is no way he was drinking late.

why not…you have no idea

a) how much he drank
b) when he stopped drinking

You all sound a little too familiar with the science of the pull-over........ methinks the lot of you have at one time spent time walking along the centre line of a road with your fingers on your noses.

I worked alongside the police for a few months - thats my excuse!

I hope if Cipriani doesn't make the squad, it's for playing reasons, not daft ones. Purely because it's painful to watch a talent constantly falling from grace.

I keep reading that the RFU will have a view on Cipriani but I don't think that's the case. It's up to Lancaster to decide what standards he wants to enforce. After all, the RFU appointed Wade Dooley as a citing officer, and he had not only driven drunk, but knocked over a girl while doing so, causing her to fracture her skull.

Gwlad wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Gwlad wrote:http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/the-law/police-station-breath-tests/

And where, exactly, in that link does it confirm your assertion that the police work back from the reading to the time of arrest?

The link was to educate the people on here making inaccurate assertions

It explains when and why blood is taken

With regards back tracking, Police can and do use it. I know this because i was one.

That's right - and armed with your degree in Psychology, you are a tour de force of legal knowledge with a encyclopaedic insight into the human 'psyche' .... You are Walter Mitty, and I claim my £5 winnings.

Inaccurate assertions.....

Your link proves nothing regarding a 'count back' system, therefore you have not proved your own assertion. I have no doubt that the police can and do use a 'count back' system to calculate alcohol intake at the time of an accident, however, it is not an exact science (unlike Psychology) and I would sincerely doubt a conviction could be obtained on the basis of such a calculation. It would only be an indication (as I said earlier) of such a level. The only empirical figure should a blood test be taken (and basis for a conviction) for blood alcohol would be from that blood test, properly analysed, if an intoximeter reading proved border line. N.B. A Intoximeter gives a more accurate indication of alcohol levels than a roadside test, which would be no more conclusive than the 'count back'.

broadlandboy wrote:Cips is similar to Hartley in being stupid enough to be in the situation in the first place.

Exactly! nuff said.

offload wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Cips is similar to Hartley in being stupid enough to be in the situation in the first place.

Exactly!   nuff said.

There do seem to be a certain number of our players that keep falling foul of the (self) discipline it would seem is required of them. We do not condone their actions, but we should not be so harsh to judge - these are very talented players, and like a lot of talented people, it seems their talent comes at a price.

Gwlad wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:How long was he out for? I haven't seen anything saying when or what he was drinking. If it is an inconclusive breath test at 5:30 there is no way he was drinking late.

why not…you have no idea

a) how much he drank
b) when he stopped drinking

I call drinking late at least until about 2am. There is no way he was drinking a lot until 2am and then has an inconclusive breath test at 5:30am.

I might be wrong but surely if the breath tests were that crap they would be pointless?

Jimpy wrote:

offload wrote:

broadlandboy wrote:Cips is similar to Hartley in being stupid enough to be in the situation in the first place.

Exactly!   nuff said.

There do seem to be a certain number of our players that keep falling foul of the (self) discipline it would seem is required of them. We do not condone their actions, but we should not be so harsh to judge - these are very talented players, and like a lot of talented people, it seems their talent comes at a price.

If there's any night of the year when a professional rugby player should be cut a bit of slack for late night partying (if that is what Cips did), then it's the last night of the season. Not so long ago, it would have been virtually compulsory.

No slack for any drink-driving, though - that's black and white. 1mg over and he's toast, 1mg under and he's in the clear.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
No slack for any drink-driving, though - that's black and white. 1mg over and he's toast, 1mg under and he's in the clear.

And that is why I prefer the systems used by many continental countries. Lower limit, but gradated penaltied depending on how much limit is exceeded.

LondonTiger wrote:

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:
No slack for any drink-driving, though - that's black and white. 1mg over and he's toast, 1mg under and he's in the clear.

And that is why I prefer the systems used by many continental countries. Lower limit, but gradated penaltied depending on how much limit is exceeded.

I don't mind a graded penalty system to really throw the book at high offenders - but I'd have the limit at zero.

Sorry Dub have to disagree, any chance he was near the limit & he shouldn't have put himself in that situation. Have no problem with him partying (could get legless after every game for all I care but wouldn't do his health a lot of good) but why drive after? It's not so much the situation as putting himself in that situation that is stupid.

I think most of us suspect he went to bed before driving, rather than partying then driving.

0 blood alcohol would be ridiculous. But a level compatible with "don't drive within xxx of having a drink" would be reasonable. It would be nice if it was based on scientific evidence rather than tradition like most of our drug laws.

Jimpy wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Gwlad wrote:http://drinkdrivesolicitors.com/the-law/police-station-breath-tests/

And where, exactly, in that link does it confirm your assertion that the police work back from the reading to the time of arrest?

The link was to educate the people on here making inaccurate assertions

It explains when and why blood is taken

With regards back tracking, Police can and do use it. I know this because i was one.

That's right - and armed with your degree in Psychology, you are a tour de force of legal knowledge with a encyclopaedic insight into the human 'psyche' .... You are Walter Mitty, and I claim my £5 winnings.

Inaccurate assertions.....

Your link proves nothing regarding a 'count back' system, therefore you have not proved your own assertion. I have no doubt that the police can and do use a 'count back' system to calculate alcohol intake at the time of an accident, however, it is not an exact science (unlike Psychology) and I would sincerely doubt a conviction could be obtained on the basis of such a calculation. It would only be an indication (as I said earlier) of such a level. The only empirical figure should a blood test be taken (and basis for a conviction) for blood alcohol would be from that blood test, properly analysed, if an intoximeter reading proved border line. N.B. A Intoximeter gives a more accurate indication of alcohol levels than a roadside test, which would be no more conclusive than the 'count back'.

Jimpy you just change your assertions on the hoof. You said the police don't use back tracking, now you admit they do after no doubt feverishly googling. But I am glad to see that you have taken the opportunity to educate yourself and now have a somewhat better grasp of what you are talking about.

You obviously know nothing about psychology though so keep trying.

HammerofThunor wrote:0 blood alcohol would be ridiculous. But a level compatible with "don't drive within xxx of having a drink" would be reasonable.  It would be nice if it was based on scientific evidence rather than tradition like most of our drug laws.

As a start i would love England, Wales and NI to match Scotland and drop to 50. Ultimately would like us to match Norway and drop to 20.

Have I joined a cartel based forum?

I could tell you exactly what I know about drink driving...

If I drink I try not to drive, thats it, that is all I know!

LondonTiger wrote:I think most of us suspect he went to bed before driving, rather than partying then driving.

Right makes sense, I imagine he often gets up at 5am to go for a drive the day after a game and an afternoon drink. Its possible he was crashed at Kelly Brooks house and someone rang his to say his cat was trapped under floor boards so he dashed off home in a panic I guess.