|
Post by tom_leather on Dec 20, 2003 12:38:13 GMT 1
I think that the FA have made the correct decision. I know that they are never consistent, but that is a different issue, judging this case on its own, Ferdinand is one of the bigget role models to young people in England and he cant be seen to get away with aviding drugs test, also the FA has to take a harsh line on drugs.
|
|
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 20, 2003 20:36:39 GMT 1
I'm like Martin and to know a thing about the procedure. At the bottom of the sportsmans test sheet are two lines that are crossed out once the test is complete. *refused to provide a sample *failed to provide a sample Ferdinand failed to provide a sample. He was notified by "someone at the club"? why because Man Utd do not give testing or supervising officers access, as they should to certain areas of their training ground. The correct procedure is to notify the player, complete the personal details on the sheet and then follow the player everywhere until he is ready to and provides a sample. As i have said from day one, you can bet that if the club with also accountable for a players failure to show for a test, Ferdinand would not have missed it Why have the FA and UK Sport been slaughtered by Man Utd and The PFA? Back Ferdinand but to constantly defend him is condoning his actions. So Matt can i ask how the FA and the testers haven't kept to their side of the bargain? Peoples opinions are being very much influence by the rubbish being spouted by the media and 99% of them are also just guessing and passing their opinions. He broke the rules and has been rightly punished
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on Dec 20, 2003 20:45:59 GMT 1
If clubs were docked points for the actions of there players we might get some respect for the FA, UK Sport ect.
|
|
stfcfan
Midland League Division One
DDAS Member Number 17!!! Darby = A Legend!
Posts: 458
|
Post by stfcfan on Dec 20, 2003 20:46:13 GMT 1
So id someone has taken drugs then alll they need to do is miss the test and they will end up with 8 month ban instead of 2 years!! Sound quite simple to me!!
But if he hasnt then i think it is quite harsh!!!
Guttin about him missing the euro 2004! Will he be the same player when he returns??
|
|
|
Post by Sol Campbell on Dec 20, 2003 23:09:23 GMT 1
So me mate Rio gets 8 months for not taking a test, but Edgar Davids (as JP said) gets 5 months for being PROVED of having nandrolene.
there's no sense in that - 1 law for one etc.
Plus who am I gonna play wiv in Euro 2004? not that muppet Terry, please Sven!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Edgar Davids on Dec 21, 2003 0:13:29 GMT 1
Listen will you people get off my case. Me and a few of my team mates were away on international duty when the Dutch team Doctor gives us these suppliments which contain this banned substance that you mention. I, Jaap or any of us knew what we was taking, just advice from our medical experts. We have taken our punishment and done our time thanks, afterall we are all innocent all of us. Rio didn't show up so he is guilty to, great for us at the Euro Champs. England without Rio, don'y know how you'll cope ;D
|
|
|
Post by theoldcodger on Dec 21, 2003 1:40:47 GMT 1
Read that a team including Lord (Seb) Coe are to investigate drug testing procedures etc and make recommendations to the FA. If a player were to test positive or refuse a test then fair enough, he deserves it. If a club knew he had to take a test yet allowed him to leave the ground then I think they should be in the dock instead. The threat of an automatic points deduction might help ensure something like this never happens again......
|
|