|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 19, 2003 21:09:22 GMT 1
8 months ban from Monday 12th January and £50,000 fine
|
|
|
Post by d00bie on Dec 19, 2003 21:10:59 GMT 1
He'll miss Euro 2004 then a bit harsh that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2003 21:11:55 GMT 1
bl00dy hell!
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Dec 19, 2003 21:14:06 GMT 1
Down to Sepp Blater this, this wouldnt happen to Zidane. The decision was made before he got there I reckon.
All the best Rio lad
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Dec 19, 2003 21:19:11 GMT 1
Lot of debate coming up here me thinks............ Better than I thought................. I thought he'd get 3 months and 100k fine.......... Football has to be seen to be making a strong stance on drugs,there is no in between position. FA got my full backing on this one for a change,not the way the case was handled,that was all pollocks,but this decision I'm all for it,right wing fascist that I am................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2003 21:20:33 GMT 1
I think I agree with you Ed.
Ferdinand missed the test and has broken the rules - to be honest he could have got a much longer ban.
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Dec 19, 2003 21:27:38 GMT 1
You should always agree with me mate...................... As Mrs Thatcher said,bless her..............there is no alternative...........
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 19, 2003 21:32:12 GMT 1
Man Ure have (not surprisingly) announced that they will appeal
Their spokesman called the ruling "savage and unprecedented"
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Dec 19, 2003 21:34:25 GMT 1
Im not surprised. If he's failed to turn up its not a fair suspension.
If he's taken drugs then two years to life ban I say.
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Dec 19, 2003 21:38:04 GMT 1
He's shown total disregard for the enforcement procedures,nothing to do with whether he anything or not,thats a completely seperate issue..........................
Ferguson should have got an 8 month touch line ban as well..................cos I hate the muppet..........
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Dec 19, 2003 21:40:30 GMT 1
I agree about Ferguson.
But its harsh on Rio
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorPatPending on Dec 19, 2003 21:45:22 GMT 1
There was some bloke from UEFA on TV just now questioning why he's only received a third of the penalty he could have got
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Dec 19, 2003 21:49:13 GMT 1
Top blokes at UEFA.................. I'm just trying to get out of The Reserves and into the First Team
|
|
|
Post by ROGER on Dec 19, 2003 21:54:28 GMT 1
Picture the scene-you are sober and driving home. Plod stops you and asks for a breath sample-you refuse. In court you are banned for twelve months and fined heavily Whats the difference between that and what Ferdinand has done? He has got off far too lightly
|
|
|
Post by warbiesbread on Dec 19, 2003 22:55:04 GMT 1
not surprised united will appeal, but in total agreement with the stance taken. The guy knew what he was doing? I am disappointed that a club like utd have taken the stance they have, in essence they have condoned the players action. They were in postion with the FA to make a clear statement to all players and clubs. This may appear to be harsh and utd had invested 30million but what is more important the state of the game or man utd.
|
|
|
Post by skipwithrob on Dec 19, 2003 22:55:44 GMT 1
Itis a land mark decision, obviously promted due To Blatters' influence and the fact that the government are/were threatening to withold funding foor grass-rootes football if the FA didnt take drug abuse seriously. Rio missed his test, he was warned, he missed it anyway. If it were athletics he'd be banned for 2years, not 8months and he'd probably be banned from the olympic games.
The 8month ban is sufficient to send a message throughout the football world, whilst allowing Manchester United to ppeal and get it reduced to something approaching 2 months. Thus everyone is appeased.
|
|
Shakey252
Midland League Division Two
Member
Look that's 'two goals at Old Trafford" Juninho with his mate Shakey.
Posts: 172
|
Post by Shakey252 on Dec 19, 2003 23:06:41 GMT 1
JP what is up with this defence of Ferdinand? He broke the rules and has been rightly punished, lightly according to some. The FA have made a stance on this and again rightly so. Why did he miss the test? Why do Man Utd make it awkward for testers to notify and escort players to be notified and once they have been told, at their training ground. Who has actually dragged out this procedure? Not the FA but they are the ones taking the flak for it. Would Ferdinand have missed the test if the club could have been charged for one of their players failing to attend a test? The comparison with failing to supply a sample of breath is an excellent one. I rest my case
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Dec 19, 2003 23:17:58 GMT 1
Well of course you know more about it than me!
If its proved that he missed it because he drugs then like I said he should be banned for life, but because Blatter has stuck his nose in the punishment is longer.
But it shows how good the FA are about making decisions when Joe Cole is suspended 6 months after the event.
Your case gone for a lie down has it?
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Dec 19, 2003 23:59:08 GMT 1
He's got off lightly, this is about arrogant millionaires and their overpowerful employers thinking that the rules don't apply to them.
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Dec 20, 2003 0:43:43 GMT 1
Whilst Man U may complain about the severity of the judgement, the question has to be asked why they allowed one of their players to leave the ground knowing that he was required to be tested. Don't think that Rio had anything to hide but rules are rules. The club are as much to blame as he is. In a case such as this, shouldn't the club also be charged, as they can be for failing to control their players in the event of a punch-up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2003 1:15:28 GMT 1
JP, not sure about the Joe cCole incident,However there was no ambiguity about the ferdinand case, there was no question, he missed the test simple as, no question about is he guilty, weather he anything or not is not applicable here, the fact is simple he did not turn up for somthing he knew 24 hrs earlier, in any profession there are things you do not just forget, in mine it is interview with the commanding officer, my job depends on it, for footballers and athletes it is drug testing mate, was the Cole case so cut and dry?? or is there a possibility he is innocent. As for how the case was handled, remember it was Man Utd who leaked the story to the tabloieds, not the FA. the FA was dammed if it did and dammed if it did not, the PFA are the muppets here along with a certain Mr Ferdinand
|
|
|
Post by mattsnapper 201203 on Dec 20, 2003 3:25:22 GMT 1
hold on hold on..
firstly ANY athlete who takes drugs should have the book thrown at them, but I strongly feel the FA are to blame as UK Sports who they hired to do the tests didnt properly stay with him and if I am correct left before the test deadline was up.
Forget about if u love or loath Man U, forget about Rio playing for England ( can he join us on loan..or is he totally banned and not just from the league !) but there are two sides to this...Uncle Sepp is a top man and immensley mis-understood, I effectively worked for him in 2000 and I must say he is one of the most honest approable people I have ever dealt with. I totally agree with his stance and agree that if ANY player uses drugs then the team they play for must be relegated, HOWEVER, this case is floored because the FA through UK sport didnt properly do their side of the bargin.
Im glad the FA have or will sort out the issues of drug testing at hand, but I do feel for Rio.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Dec 20, 2003 8:52:46 GMT 1
A hypothetical situation.
Historically the FA set a precidence when Bosnich was found guilty of taking cocaine and banned for 9 months. Imagine a player is called for a test and knows that something will show (I am NOT saying this is the case). He tells his manager. The club try and make it difficult for the testers to have access to the player while they consult lawyers. A decision is made that on the evidence of the Bosnich Case that at least a 9 month ban would occur for a positive test - and possibly more given the high profile drugs cases inother sports. If the test is not taken and there is a reasonable explaination put forward as to why it was missed, then the player may get a 3 month ban.
That player is vital to the team and a decision is made, by all the parties concerned that may know something, that the player should miss the test and take a chance.
Could a team do that in the interests of the club as a whole? Should the responsibility of delivering the player to the testers immediately be put onto the club? If the player is not then made available to complete the test should they have a hefty POINTS deduction rather than fine (the latter would be chicken feed to certain clubs, but the former would really hurt).
Personally, I believe that if you miss the test it is the same as being found guilty and and you should face the SAME punishment. What point having tests if this wasn't the case? The club knew he should be tested and let him leave - irrespective of whether testers were there right to the bitter end. Perhaps they were told he would not be coming? Are there subtances that can clear through the body with an extra 24 hours before a clear test is given? - I don't know - please tell me if anyone does.
We shall never know the whole truth on this I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Dec 20, 2003 9:56:51 GMT 1
Down to Sepp Blater this, this wouldnt happen to Zidane. The decision was made before he got there I reckon. You are right it wouldn't happen to Zidane. He's got enough brain cells to ensure he would turn up for the test.
|
|
|
Post by MartinB on Dec 20, 2003 10:05:55 GMT 1
I have no sympathy for Ferdinand and I don't like the way the drug testers are being blamed when they are not allowed to comment on the case.
I know a bit about this as I used to act as a drug tester for athletics during the mid 80's, this included at International meetings.
The procedure then was you identified yourself to the athlete and advised them they had been selected for a test. You would inform them where the testing station was and that they should report there and give them a time limit to attend, failure to attend would count as a positive test. They would then sign to say they had been notified of the requirement to provide a test.
If anything the requirements can only have grown so I don't see Ferdinand has a leg to stand on.
On another issue if your boss said to you "Before you leave I must see you or you might be out of a job" would you forget if it was a job you loved doing? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Dec 20, 2003 11:08:25 GMT 1
Talk about being victimised for sticking up for someone I still say 8 months is too long, 4 months would have been ample.
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on Dec 20, 2003 11:29:09 GMT 1
JP _ I think most are just putting their position on this forward like I did. That's the interesting bit.
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Dec 20, 2003 11:29:39 GMT 1
Spot on Martin excellent stuff................
People go on about about him being hard done as he hasnt been shown to have taken anything,puzzles me that...............
Difficult to prove he anything when he doesnt show for the test isnt it or am I missing something....
I'll have a small wager,cos it is Man Ure we are talking about, that they dont appeal in the end as surely there must be some adults around the place who realise if you are responsible then you ARE responsible,there are no half measures.
Ferdinand had a responsibility and behaved totally irresponsibly..........
Accused.................judged...............found guilty..........................punished..........
As others have said we dont know all the facts and never will and quite right it is not for us to judge him.... that was for his tribunal.
They listened,they decided................we,Man Ure,Ferdinand,everyone have to have faith in that due process(got that from Judge John Deed),or otherwise change the system.........not just bleat like a load of spoilt kiddies cos we dont agree with the outcome...........
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Dec 20, 2003 11:37:31 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by shrewforever on Dec 20, 2003 11:41:52 GMT 1
Thats just life mate.........hope it makes Ferdinand laugh as well cos he aint playing footie for a while...................
|
|