[Football] Mutu given 7 months on the sidelines

[Sunday8pm]

He can probably do that, but I'd like to see moves and amendments made that players who screw the club aren't permitted to perform for another employer in the same competition fields as their previous employer.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Rids

Cocaine is a recreational drug, not a performance enhancing one.

Rio could have been taking anything, thus his skipping of the test is a more serious matter than somebody sticking a bit of charlie up their nose.

Do you want Mutu at Arsenal?

Arsene says he will take him.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

He can probably do that, but I'd like to see moves and amendments made that players who screw the club aren't permitted to perform for another employer in the same competition fields as their previous employer.

Winston Bogarde

How do you do something about that?

[JC]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Arsene says he will take him.

I think he went back on that today, but i'm not sure.

Anyway it was all blown out of proportion. He said if he proved himself clean, and got back to his best he would take a look at him.

[SYMM]

Cocaine is on the WADA-list of performance enhancing drugs, as it increases your alertness, endurance, stamina and lessens pain.
However, Mutu's test was an "out-of-competition" one, and as cocaine doesn't in anyway help you recover (from injury, or just generally), it is only on the "in-competition" list, and so he avoided the mandatory 2-year ban.
The FA guidelines for recreational drugs tend towards rehab and counselling for the taker, with suspension only taken as an option when counselling/rehab is "innapropriate". Mutu admitted his guilt, in contrast to Bosnich's repeated denials, and so it seems right that he should be punished less severely.
With regards to Rio, there is no option for the FA to do anything but treat him as if he had taken drugs, anything less would just make sure that no drug-taker ever took a test again. He got off extremely lightly in my opinion, as WADA (to whose regulations the FA subscribe) reccomend a two-year ban for a missed test.

[Rids]

What do we need Mutu for? In all seriousness, he failed to impress me at all during his time at Chelsea, although that might be because he was coked off his nut everytime he played.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Rids

Cocaine is a recreational drug, not a performance enhancing one.

Rio could have been taking anything, thus his skipping of the test is a more serious matter than somebody sticking a bit of charlie up their nose.

Whilst i agree that Rio should've been punished for missing his test, i think his ban was a big harsh. He offered to do the test the following day i think it was, but they rejected that offer. Fair enough, his ban's over with and there's no point arguing about it now. The FA, and indeed FIFA, are trying to stamp out ALL drugs within football, whether they be performance enhancing or recreational. By giving Mutu a lesser punishment than Ferdinand, the FA have basically said that you'll get off lighter by actually taking the drugs than missing the test, accidentally or not, which i think is wrong.

In my opinion Mutu should've gotten at least the same as Rio, and even perhaps use him as an example too in their effort to stamp out ALL drugs from football.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Rids

What do we need Mutu for? In all seriousness, he failed to impress me at all during his time at Chelsea, although that might be because he was coked off his nut everytime he played.

He impressed me greatly most of the time. Simply because a player isnt scoring goals doesnt mean hes not working his arse off for the team. For the first 5-6 months of his Chelsea career, he played some excellent football , his pace was electric and he made several top defenders look like Frank Sinclair.

Yeh , he slowly but surely collapsed in terms of form, as Chelseas season ground to a halt, but a lot of players suffered that.

[SYMM]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Whilst i agree that Rio should've been punished for missing his test, i think his ban was a big harsh. He offered to do the test the following day i think it was, but they rejected that offer. Fair enough, his ban's over with and there's no point arguing about it now. The FA, and indeed FIFA, are trying to stamp out ALL drugs within football, whether they be performance enhancing or recreational. By giving Mutu a lesser punishment than Ferdinand, the FA have basically said that you'll get off lighter by actually taking the drugs than missing the test, accidentally or not, which i think is wrong.

In my opinion Mutu should've gotten at least the same as Rio, and even perhaps use him as an example too in their effort to stamp out ALL drugs from football.

The logic isn't hard to follow:
If there was a precedent set that missing a test got you banned for much less than taking the drugs, then who would ever take a drugs test? Rio taking the test 36hrs later is probably what knocked 16months or so off his ban, so it's hardly unfair.
Comparing someone who got banned for taking recreational drugs (which can be performance-enhancing, if in-competition...) to someone who got banned for potentially taking the "worst" (most effective) performance enhancing drugs doesn't really work...

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by SYMM

The logic isn't hard to follow:
If there was a precedent set that missing a test got you banned for much less than taking the drugs, then who would ever take a drugs test? Rio taking the test 36hrs later is probably what knocked 16months or so off his ban, so it's hardly unfair.
Comparing someone who got banned for taking recreational drugs (which can be performance-enhancing, if in-competition...) to someone who got banned for potentially taking the "worst" (most effective) performance enhancing drugs doesn't really work...

But when you've got the FA and FIFA trying to ban ALL drugs from football, you've got to set more harsher punishments. And Rio didn't test positive when he did do the test.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

But when you've got the FA and FIFA trying to ban ALL drugs from football, you've got to set more harsher punishments. And Rio didn't test positive when he did do the test.

Which is all irrelevant given some abuses of the system (which include blood doping) may only need an extra day or two before all traces are absolutely gone from the system.

[roadrunner_0]

EPO is still in the system more than a day after its taken FS and blood doping isnt as big a thing in football as it is in some other sports sunday, you are just determined to prove that you are right, even if you have to bury your head in the sand to do so. At the time of rio's ban, i seem to remember pretty much every pundit/columnist etc coming out against it as too harsh, he wasnt actually proven guilty of anything except missing a test, and that is what he got 9 months for, so to give someone else 7 months for actually being proven guilty of something that is considered a crime within the game is ludicrous.


stop trying to be some controversial wonderkid sunday, it doesnt work

[Sunday8pm]

You and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue it's apparrent, but stop trying to force the fact that you think you are right.

I'd like to think the majority corrects you otherwise.

As for pundits and media they pretty much tell people what they want to hear not what they always genuinely feel or at least the better spoken more educated pundits aren't in the same position.

The only thing that would work genuinely for you here is proof that Manchester United and staff fought tooth and nail to decry the sentence, which they didn't... if it was wrong, if it was unjust, the FA and FIFA would of been forever tied up in legal cases.

Rio put himself into that situation, SAF and MU accepted the punishment, Rio served his time, at no point did Man United seek recompense for his time out, I had the feeling if they had a sniff of a case that the punishment was unjust they'd of been all over the FA for recompensation in a cinch.

Rio should of got 2 years, I felt and many others at the time that 8 months was rather lenient but still discouraging for anyone else to attempt it.

If the IOC had taken this action with Kentaris after his first missed test it would of saved them from a rather bad publicity bungle during the Athens Olympics...

[roadrunner_0]

fair enough, i know that we are never going to see eye to eye

my main problem with all of this is that rio had no presumption of innocence, which he should have had, to get 9 months for only being suspected of a crime, yet to give someone else 7 months for being guilty of the crime is ridiculous. The FS and FIFA really need to tighten things up so that this wont happen again.
i will say again, the only reason why rio got judged so harshly is that he is a MU player, and that is wrong, the rules should apply to everybody the same no matter who they are and/or what club they are from

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

fair enough, i know that we are never going to see eye to eye

my main problem with all of this is that rio had no presumption of innocence, which he should have had, to get 9 months for only being suspected of a crime, yet to give someone else 7 months for being guilty of the crime is ridiculous. The FS and FIFA really need to tighten things up so that this wont happen again.
i will say again, the only reason why rio got judged so harshly is that he is a MU player, and that is wrong, the rules should apply to everybody the same no matter who they are and/or what club they are from

To be fair, he did commit a crime, in that he missed the test. That he was punished more severely than someone who the authorities had evidence of committing a 'worse' crime (while only conjecture on Rio for the same thing), is more unjust.

And if Sunday thinks that the law can remedy injustice in all cases, and that it would've been easy for MU to prove it was unjust, then Sunday should realise that the law is not always just, and give up any dreams of a legal career

[SYMM]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

fair enough, i know that we are never going to see eye to eye

my main problem with all of this is that rio had no presumption of innocence, which he should have had, to get 9 months for only being suspected of a crime,

That's where you're going wrong then.
Missing a drugs test is a crime, and the reccomended punishment is a two year ban, simple as that.
Making the punishment any less, as I have said, would just mean that no drug-taker ever turned up to a drugs test. As scary as it sounds, I agree wholeheartedly with Sunday on this one (and if it matters, I am a Man Utd fan).

[roadrunner_0]

as i said in the rest of that post, FS and FIFA need to clean up their act and make their rules tighter and less open to interpretation.
if they made a mandatory sentence for missing a test, rather than a reccomended sentence, then i would agree with you, but they didnt, and therefore the punishment did not fit the crime, as no other player would have got that same punishment.
I actually agree that rio should have been punished, i just think that he was made a bit of a scapegoat and thats why im arguing

[Vaio]

Ferdinand and Mutu got away with it. Both bans are a joke. Ferdinand avoided the test for one reason only, because he knew he had a banned substance in his system. There is NO-ONE that can convince me that Ferdinand, his manager and the people at Man Utd could be incompetant enough to forget he had a very important test that had to be done.

Mutu is a drug addict, plain and simple. Cocaine is an illegal substance. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest. His ban could have been a much longer jail sentance if the police could have got their arses in gear.

Unless of course, Cocaine has been made legal and I missed it, in which case, the sentence was unfair and he should get lots of money, be allowed to shag lots of attention whores who will go running off to the shit tabloids, be given some nice new shiney cars and be able to take his place as a rolemodel for impressionable youngsters.

~Vaio~

[roadrunner_0]

what police force would give you 9 months for possession?

also, there is no way that you can convince me that banned substances will leave your body in under a day

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Ferdinand and Mutu got away with it. Both bans are a joke. Ferdinand avoided the test for one reason only, because he knew he had a banned substance in his system. There is NO-ONE that can convince me that Ferdinand, his manager and the people at Man Utd could be incompetant enough to forget he had a very important test that had to be done.

Mutu is a drug addict, plain and simple. Cocaine is an illegal substance. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the rest. His ban could have been a much longer jail sentance if the police could have got their arses in gear.

Unless of course, Cocaine has been made legal and I missed it, in which case, the sentence was unfair and he should get lots of money, be allowed to shag lots of attention whores who will go running off to the shit tabloids, be given some nice new shiney cars and be able to take his place as a rolemodel for impressionable youngsters.

~Vaio~

Vaio : Spokesman for the older Generation.

(unless youve got a copy of Mutu's drug test in front of you confirming it was Cocaine, your previous statement is invalid. Neither Mutu nor the drug testing bodies have confirmed the exact substance found in his system when I last looked as you can see here ).

[Vaio]

Damn that News of The World and it's dodgy reporting

~Vaio~

[Vaio]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

what police force would give you 9 months for possession?

A decent one ?

also, there is no way that you can convince me that banned substances will leave your body in under a day

unless he had taken said banned substance x days -1 ago

~Vaio~

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by Vaio

Damn that News of The World and it's dodgy reporting

~Vaio~

How dare you put a slur on that bastion of truth and justice , the News of the Screws.