Ferdinand banned for eight months (1 Viewer)

Roverbhoy

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,840
#1
From the BBC:-

Rio Ferdinand has been banned for eight months and fined £50,000 by the Football Association after being found guilty of missing a drugs test.
An independent tribunal found the Manchester United defender guilty of misconduct after he failed to take a test on 23 September.

The ban, which provisionally starts from 12 January, would see him miss the rest of the season and Euro 2004.

United have already indicated they will appeal against the punishment.

The verdict from the three-man disciplinary commission was unanimous despite evidence supporting Ferdinand from his manager Sir Alex Ferguson and other figures within the game.

It came at the end of a two-day hearing at Bolton's Reebok Stadium, which lasted over 18 hours in total, and was swiftly followed by confirmation of United's intention to appeal.

Speaking for the club and with Ferdinand at his side, United director Maurice Watkins said: "We are extremely disappointed by the result in this case. It is a particularly savage and unprecedented sentence which makes an appeal inevitable

"It is a particularly savage and unprecedented sentence which makes an appeal inevitable.

"We can confirm that Rio has the full support of Manchester United and the PFA and there will be no further comment at this stage."

Having requested a personal hearing, the 25-year-old now also has to pay the costs of the hearing.

The judgement comes 86 days after Ferdinand had been ordered to take a test at United's Carrington training headquarters, but left without undergoing the procedure.

Ferdinand claimed he then contacted the club to offer to take the test, but was told it was too late.

He provided a negative urine sample within two days and has never previously tested positive in his entire career.

But his legal team failed to persuade the commission that he simply forgot about the test, or that the drug-testers and their procedures were partly to blame for the mix-up.

At last, sense prevails! There is no argument, Rio WAS GUILTY of missing a drugs test. A very serious offence. He should consider himself lucky that he only got 8 months!

Accepting the verdict of the commission, the FA said: "Clearly the commission regarded not taking a drugs test as a very serious matter and have taken their action accordingly."

But Professional Footballers Association chief executive Gordon Taylor labelled the decision "draconian".

"We knew there had to be a penalty, bearing in mind the world pressure, but he has quite clearly not been given the benefit of the doubt, quite clearly," Taylor told BBC Radio Five Live.

World Anti-Doping Agency president Dick Pound however said he thought Ferdinand should have received a longer suspension.

"The sentence is a third of the theoretical maximum he could have got so he's done pretty well from his perspective," he told BBC News 24.

BANS IN ENGLISH FOOTBALL
Eric Cantona
Nine months and community service for kicking a fan
Mark Bosnich
Nine months after failing a drugs test for cocaine
Rio Ferdinand
Eight months and £50,000 fine for failing to take a drugs test
Vinnie Jones
Six months (suspended for three years) and £20,000 fine for commentary in a video glorifying football violence and dirty tricks
Roy Keane
Five weeks, and £150,000 fine for comments made about Alfie Haaland in his autobiography

Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson was among those who spoke on Ferdinand's behalf on Friday at the hearing.

Ferguson also insisted before giving evidence that Ferdinand would be in the United team to play Spurs at White Hart Lane on Sunday, irrespective of the verdict.

United have until 5 January to formally appeal, but until they do, Ferdinand is also technically available for the games over Christmas and New Year, with the home match against Newcastle on 11 January the last before his ban would begin.

If his appeal is unsuccessful, he may end up not returning to action until the start of next season.

That would force England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson, who also submitted a character reference for Ferdinand at the hearing, to plan for Euro 2004 without his first-choice central defender.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter, who had warned he expected the FA to administer a heavy punishment for Ferdinand, will be keen to ensure the 25-year-old does not feature at the summer showpiece in Portugal.
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
#3
Should have been banned for life.

If Manu do appeal then uefa should remove them from their tournaments

At least the FA finally showed some balls... even if a bit small
 

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,039
#5
Damn you, I was just about to post this :(


Anyways, I think it's a bit harsh. Players who have been proved guilty of using drugs have gotten less (especially in Italy. Mark Bosnich got 9 months and it was proven he used cocaine)

Anyways, I think the decision was largely influenced by Blatter and FIFA.

It will get reduced on appeal anyway, to something more like 4 or 6 months, but I have a feeling UEFA are going to ban him from EURO 2004 anyways.
 
OP
OP
Roverbhoy

Roverbhoy

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2002
1,840
#6
Hehe... I hope you forgive me.

I don't see it as harsh.
1 He knew he was to have the test.
2 Man U knew he was to have the test
3 How did he forget to report to the testers when there is supposed to someone with you from the club at all times when you have been notified that you are having a test.
4 No one stopped him leaving...why not?
5 Cocaine is classed as a social drug and not as a performance enhancing drug, but there are drugs which can dissipate in the system within 24 hrs which are.

On appeal he could find himself with the full two years. The grounds for appeal are only on the grounds of error in procedure or evidence, not on fact


Risky business for him and Man U
 

Respaul

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
4,734
#7
++ [ originally posted by -Z- ] ++
Damn you, I was just about to post this :(


Anyways, I think it's a bit harsh. Players who have been proved guilty of using drugs have gotten less (especially in Italy. Mark Bosnich got 9 months and it was proven he used cocaine)
Charlie is a recreational drug that gives no performance benefit, more of a hindrence... not comparable imo


Anyways, I think the decision was largely influenced by Blatter and FIFA.

It will get reduced on appeal anyway, to something more like 4 or 6 months, but I have a feeling UEFA are going to ban him from EURO 2004 anyways.
In most sports outside of football a no show is regarded as a positive and a straight 2 year ban is imposed.

If he appeals i expect them to hold the line and ban him for the full 2yrs
Rarely do these kind of appeals end in anything other than a longer sentance

We dont know whether he took anything but we dont know that he didnt either.

Lets have a quick look at EPO... The drug that has effected sport the most over the last decade.
Using the archaic urine test football uses.. epo is only detectable for 3-5 days after use (the blood test can cover 3 weeks)
EPO must be used 3 days before to have any effect and if controlled correctly will last about 3 weeks (you see why the blood test is so important)

So if he took epo on the friday... the test was on the sunday... chances are its still detectable.
He takes it 3 days later hes in the clear.

You say... but hew tried to go back and take the test.

Its also proven you can quite easily cover up epo use in a matter of hours to get you through the test if you arent worried about losing most of its benefit.

Now im not saying he has done this or used anything else, but the fact remains he could have...

Make your own choice, but my thoughts are he should have been banned for life or at least the 2 yrs

Under appeal i expect the 2 yrs.. rarely do such appeals lead to anything but an extended sentence

The bodies need to send out a strong message... otherwise whats to stop cheats missing the test on purpose to take it later when they know they are ok

I also think anyone found guilty of any drug related offence should be banned from international competition for life.. whatever their ban was
 

Zlatan

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2003
23,039
#8
Frankly, I dont really care, it will only make Manyoo weaker in the CL ;)


Anyways, considering the bannings Davids, Stam, De Boer, etc got, it is a little harsh IMO.


P.S. I didnt know you had a nickname for it Paul :p ;)
 

KB824

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2003
31,538
#12
Not here in the US, where we believe in 2nd, 3rd, sometimes 7th or 8th chances.

I know a lot of FC Porto fans right now who aren't exactly crying a river for Man U
 
Sep 28, 2002
13,975
#15
++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
Should have been banned for life.

If Manu do appeal then uefa should remove them from their tournaments
why?
now after reading your posts hsi ban was quite fair. but why he should be banned for life?


and if possitive testers get 6 months why rio got 9 months. the only thing that pisses me is that england will be without their best defender in portugal. all hopes for 2006 then.
 

nina

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2001
3,717
#16
He deserves it alright. Should even get more as IMO not showing up means he took something and avoided to not get caught. You cannot forget something like this!

Isn't the official who comes for you to take the test always with you from the time you step off the pitch till you take the test? :undecide: I know it's so in swimming, but football, I'm not quite sure how that works.
 
Aug 30, 2002
301
#17
I don't know why people are suggesting he was lucky to only get an 8 month ban. This is a FOOTBALL case not athletics, cycling etc. And why Dick Pound of WADA says Rio got off lightly let alone has anything to say is beyond me since, FIFA refuses to sign up to WADA's code precisely because they believe their punishments are too harsh.

Rio was guilty only for forgetting to turn up for the test. And as much as Rio is guilty for that the testers are guilty for not making sure he took the test. Surely the responsibility is for testers to test the football players on the spot and not create a situation that allows them any freedom of movement and let them out of sight for one moment. Perhaps the largest proportion of guilt are for the testers who did not do their job.

An important point is that, Rio contacted the testers after a couple of hours once he realised his mistake to see if he could take the test whilst the testers were still at Man Utd's training ground.

FA chief, Muppet Palios obviously wants to impress Sepp Blatter and England's Olympic bid committee and thus making up rules as he goes along. Rio is a victim at the wrong time, wrong place dealt with disproportionately harshly. Not too long ago a Manchester City player under similar circumstances failed to attend a drugs test and was only fined... I believe the 8 month ban will be reduced under appeal.
 

Slagathor

Bedpan racing champion
Jul 25, 2001
22,708
#18
I agree. People forget things - the automatic assumption that a player is guilty because he doesn't show up is nonsense if you ask me. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?

And I must agree on your theory about the FA chief wanting to impress FIFA. I for one am disgusted by the power plays of these associations, if I ever were to give up on football, they would be my motivation.
 

Torkel

f(s+1)=3((s +1)-1=3s
Jul 12, 2002
3,537
#20
++ [ originally posted by Manutd.Visitor ] ++
And as much as Rio is guilty for that the testers are guilty for not making sure he took the test. Surely the responsibility is for testers to test the football players on the spot and not create a situation that allows them any freedom of movement and let them out of sight for one moment. Perhaps the largest proportion of guilt are for the testers who did not do their job.
I don't get this at all. A grow man who is payed millions of pounds a year shouldn't be expected to show up for a drug test on time to be allowed to do his job? If he needs to be babysitted around how does he manage to show up for training everyday, or function in everyday life?

I don't understand how the testers can be blamed at all.
++ [ originally posted by Matto ] ++
I agree. People forget things - the automatic assumption that a player is guilty because he doesn't show up is nonsense if you ask me. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty anyway?
But this is different than a normal trial, he can't just not show up. They have to be strict. I would rather compare it to someone not showing up for their trial, they can't just be let free.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)