Rio Ferdinand found guily (shocker!)

The Muppet

Not true, most of these rank very high

Your link is not working bazH , I think this is the one you wanted to link to.:D

James R

I think what makes the whole situation blown out of proportion is that everyone regardless of their position (Ferdinand, Utd, fans, even the FA) expected a 3 month ban. Thats what had been rallied around everywhere.

This didn't bother a lot of people as Utd would have had Brown back and Rio would return in time to get match fit for EURO 2004 (not the World Cup like someone posted above )

The fact the ban was double this has just taken everyone by surprise and is the shocking factor.

RasTa

Aye im over the shock now and sick of hearing it, we should just take the 8 month ban and be done with it. Maybe put P. Nev back in defence or move o'shea to the center and slap fortune at left back, hopefully wes brown will be back soon also
Top of the league for crimbo

gandalf

OK personally I think that 8 months is way OTT. 3 Months would have been fine.

If he was using performance enhancing drugs he would still have traces showing.

No matter who a player plays for there is no way I would wish them to miss one the highlights of his career, the Euro Championship finals over this. United need to follow the proper channels and appeal this to FIFA.

Gandalf.

The Muppet

No matter who a player plays for there is no way I would wish them to miss one the highlights of his career, the Euro Championship finals over this. United need to follow the proper channels and appear this to FIFA.

I would agree that a 3 month ban and a strog statement regarding future failures to comply with tests would have been about an acceptable punishment in this case. As a united fan I would be not be happy if on appeal the FA reduced the ban by 3 months leaving rio unavailable for the rest of the season at United yet having him fresh for their team in the euros next summer. If this was to be the outcome of an appeal I would rather united left things as they are.

SteM

Originally posted by The Muppet
I would agree that a 3 month ban and a strog statement regarding future failures to comply with tests would have been about an acceptable punishment in this case. As a united fan I would be not be happy if on appeal the FA reduced the ban by 3 months leaving rio unavailable for the rest of the season at United yet having him fresh for their team in the euros next summer. If this was to be the outcome of an appeal I would rather united left things as they are.

Surely if this happened he wouldn't be picked for England next summer? He wouldn't be match fit heading into a major tournament so I wouldn't think they'd chance him.

Richieh

There wouldn't be a fraction of the discussion about this if Ferdinand was still playing for Leeds or West Ham.

AdMMM

ditto, If Rio was still with Leeds or West Ham then this would all be forgotten about.

8months was lucky, I would have given him a year at least!

gandalf

Well if he played for Arsenal he would have gotten 18 months given the FA's attitude towards us!!!

Gandalf.

The Muppet

ditto, If Rio was still with Leeds or West Ham then this would all be forgotten about.

Yeah and if he'd played for Man City he would have got a £2000 fine and not a mention in the press or from FIFA.;)

Well if he played for Arsenal he would have gotten 18 months given the FA's attitude towards us!!!

Surely Mr Deins friends at the FA would not do anything like that on him.:)

Big Ears

the fa hate arsenal and as some1 stated before the man city player told the truth in court and was only picking his mother up from the airport(he told the testers this.) but got stuck in traffic.

i say an 8 month ban is in order for u muppet for being such a troller.

The Muppet

the fa hate arsenal

Oh Really? :rolleyes:

Big Ears

from what ive read (a quarter of that article ) it only says about david dein not the fa in general. i know dein has connections with the fa but he mainly has to do with arsenal so its no suprise he recruited him wenger . dosent ken bates have connections with the fa too ? .

any this just sound to me like an article made by a united fan for a united fan.
Do people think i should just stop listening to muppet ?

gandalf

I have no major problems with what muppet has to say. I do however have problems with people saying that others should be banned from the forum I mod. If you have a problem with a particular poster then approach the mods and we will deal with it.

Any more of this crap and I wil ban you from here!

Gandalf.

Aliminator

<edited as mod's post came up>
Rio got what he deserved in terms of hte premiership bannage. he and ferguson pissed Blatter and the FA off so much.
and yeh, it was an article by Utd. fans for Utd. fans. ignorant the lot of ya like muppet.

patto_chan

This just in ....
Sepp Blater and FIFA, wanting to send out a strong message on doping, have increased Rio Ferdinand's punishment ......

..... they're sending him back to Leed Utd.

;- >

Big Ears

Originally posted by patto_chan
This just in ....
Sepp Blater and FIFA, wanting to send out a strong message on doping, have increased Rio Ferdinand's punishment ......

..... they're sending him back to Leed Utd.

;- >

lol. sorry gandalf il think about my posts before posting them any more i just........
better leave that out.

The Muppet

Posted By Big Ears
from what ive read (a quarter of that article it only says about david dein not the fa in general.

Try reading to the end of the Article, Its not that long;)

Posted By Aliminator
ignorant the lot of ya like muppet.

Thats a very well structured argument, but nothings as ignorant as showing an intolerance for others opinions TBH.

Posted by Gandalf
I have no major problems with what muppet has to say.

Thanks Gandalf, you have always been very fair with me here .

This just in .........................

ZENER

Do people think i should just stop listening to muppet ?

Nah . . just keep listenin to those little voices in you head and you'll be just fine !

This thread seems to have come down to everyone versus united just like every other thread on the soccer board these days. Seems very few are putting forward sensible arguments and are resorting instead to childish one upmanship !!

:rolleyes:

Tinky

Thanx 4 The Fish

Ok Tinky, just explain then why Rio lied so much and why he thought that lying like that would help his case. The man u fans who say it is an unjust sentence have still not answered the question that has been asked so many times in this thread.

Why did he lie so much ?

Why did it take so long for the story of his call to the club to come out ?

Perhaps when people think about what happened, rather than defending a player because he plays for a team that they support, they will see that he could have gotten alot worse and that perhaps without his lying and tall tale telling he may have been treated more leniently.

The Muppet

From what i can see it just the usual Knockers who think Rio was treated fairly. there has been plenty of comment from Neutrals here and elsewhere to indicate that the impartial recognise that the punishment was too severe. With todays revelations about the "Independent "judges at his hearing and the severity of the sentence leaving more questions than answers.

Thanx 4 The Fish

And yet people still fail to deal with his lying at all. He deliberatley tried to mislead the FA by saying that he was uncontactable in the period when the club were calling him because his phone was off. This was not the case, it has been proven to be a lie and he has been punished in view of this.

The Muppet

And yet people still fail to deal with his lying at all.

You directed that post at Tinky so I didn,t reply to it as I wouldn,t want to confuse.;)

Rio lied thats a fact and he was wrong to do so. I dont know why he did but the crime hardly matches the punishment considering that people who have actually failed a drug test only got 4 month ban. Maybe you could explain that.

Tray

Originally posted by The Muppet
You directed that post at Tinky so I didn,t reply to it as I wouldn,t want to confuse.;)

Rio lied thats a fact and he was wrong to do so. I dont know why he did but the crime hardly matches the punishment considering that people who have actually failed a drug test only got 4 month ban. Maybe you could explain that.

Those who were suspended for less time (Stam, Davids etc) were suspended in Italy. They may be footballers but its a different country. If you were caught drug trafficking in this country you would get a jail sentence but if you were in Thailand you would be hanged- but the law of the land must be obeyed.
English law is about precedence. Unfortunately for Rio there is no precedent for this offence. The case of the Man City player is completely different as he didnt speak a word of English and he didnt lie to the FA. Now the precedent has been set at Rio's expense. The ban is long but maybe those who think he has been hard done by should maybe consider what could have happened if the testers had stayed with him and insisted a sample was given. The ban could have been even longer if you catch my drift...

The Muppet

They may be footballers but its a different country.

Thats a very weak argument considering the general consensus is that the ban was so severe to appease Mr Blatter and Fifa who also govern football in Italy.

The ban is long but maybe those who think he has been hard done by should maybe consider what could have happened if the testers had stayed with him and insisted a sample was given. The ban could have been even longer if you catch my drift...

Thats pure speculation and has no bearing on the case but taking similar cases into account even if he did fail why should he have expected anything more than 4 months ban.

Tray

Originally posted by The Muppet
Thats a very weak argument considering the general consensus is that the ban was so severe to appease Mr Blatter and Fifa who also govern football in Italy.

Its not a weak argument, you are just being too subjective. Blatter is over the whole association. I do agree that Blatter's two cents have made things harder for Rio but the blame for that can be laid squarely at Utd's door for not just getting on with it. Its an apples and oranges situation and cant be compared I'm afraid. Maybe your argument is with the Italian FA...


][/QUOTE]
Thats pure speculation and has no bearing on the case but taking similar cases into account even if he did fail why should he have expected anything more than 4 months ban. [/B][/QUOTE]

It absolutely is pure speculation but possible none the less. The fact that he didnt take the test when asked brings that doubt into the equation. And what similar cases are there IN THE UK!!! No precedent I'm afraid.

The Muppet

Its not a weak argument, you are just being too subjective.

How? Its fairly Black and white in my mind.

High profile Players in the Italian League are found to be taking performance enhancing drugs adn get a 4 month ban.

Rio ferdinand is found guilty of failing to take the test and gets twice the punishment. I accept that missing a test can be considered as bad a failing the test but can you explain how it merits twice the punishment than failing the test in a sport where all involved are ultimately governed by the same organisation.

Maybe your argument is with the Italian FA...

I have no argumet with the Italian Fa , but I would question what motivation for blatter to look for such a severe sanction on Ferdinanad and United while having no problem with less severe punishments for more serious offences in Italy and Spain.

Tray

It is black and white (red even ) in your mind because you are too partisan to be objective. In all your posts you have failed to address the overiding point. I even put it in capitals. That point is precedence. This is the basis of English law. If you cant or wont grasp that then this is a pointless discussion. The examples you quote are null and void as they happened in a different country. The individual associations have a certain amount of autonomy from FIFA. Hence the reason there is no harmonised calendar. And the FA have chosen to exercise this autonomy. Speaking from a legal background, Utd have'nt a leg to stand on I am afraid.
The motivation Blatter has is that Utd tried to bully the FA. He is an interfering busybody but Utd have handled this catestrophically from a political point of view. Rio is now reaping the reward.

The Muppet

The examples you quote are null and void as they happened in a different country.

All associations are Governed by FIFA so that argument is invalid. we are not talking about a civil legal matter here (yet) but a footballing disciplinary Issue. I fully understand the importance of Legal precedence but that will come into the equation if this ends up in a court of law until then its irrelevant.

The individual associations have a certain amount of autonomy from FIFA.

This does not appear to be the case here, FIFA s intervention is well documented, Why intervene in this case and not the ones in Italy and Spain.

Speaking from a legal background, Utd have'nt a leg to stand on I am afraid.

IF you have a legal background you know very well that you can not say that with certainty without having access to all the evidence. We will only know the strength of each side case if it ends up in court.

Villain

Originally posted by The Muppet

This does not appear to be the case here, FIFA s intervention is well documented, Why intervene in this case and not the ones in Italy and Spain.

They never intervened, Sepp Blatter said they would if the punishment wasn't fair.

As I have said before if Rio had been banned for 3 months straight away, Sepp wouldn't have said anything. He was a fool to miss the test and the FA were fools not to act quickly.

Tray

Originally posted by The Muppet
All associations are Governed by FIFA so that argument is invalid. we are not talking about a civil legal matter here (yet) but a footballing disciplinary Issue. I fully understand the importance of Legal precedence but that will come into the equation if this ends up in a court of law until then its irrelevant.

The argument is not invalid. You have posted a statement of fact ( the governance of FIFA) and assumed a conclusion with no evidence to back it up. I am not here to teach you logic 101. And I am afraid that the FA have based their statutes loosely on English civil law so precedence does apply- granted even more so if it goes to civil court, hence Utd dont have a prayer in that arena.

This does not appear to be the case here, FIFA s intervention is well documented, Why intervene in this case and not the ones in Italy and Spain..[/B]

Sigh, no-one is saying FIFA have'nt intervened in a backhanded fashion. Only a fool would say they had'nt. But their interference is down to Utd's ill- advised sabre- rattling. If Utd had played the game they would'nt have gotten as severe a punishment

IF you have a legal background you know very well that you can not say that with certainty without having access to all the evidence. We will only know the strength of each side case if it ends up in court. [/B]

Well of course I cant but this board is a discussion board. If we were to adopt that attitude all the time we would'nt talk about transfer rumours because they are rumours without substance.

mr_angry

Firstly, if this was any other sport, he would have been banned for the maximum of 2 years for missing that test. 8 months is small in comparison. Look at Michelle De Brun - she was found guilty of "tampering" with a sample (and some sketchy evidence, I might add), and she's never swum competitively again!

The one thing that is in Rio's favour is that other European FAs have been far more lenient with confirmed drug-abusers. However, it is the English FA that are in charge of the England game, and if they choose to be more heavy-handed than the Italian FA, that is their business. As long as they are consistent in England, Ferdinand has no grounds for appeal.

And before you bring up the Man City player who was charged last year, the poor chap couldn't speak any English, and it was proven to the FA that he had been told in passing, without any translation, that he was selected for a drugs test.

As far as I can see, he's got a middle-ground punishment, which is neither draconian nor lenient. I can't see that he has anything to complain about.

The Muppet

Fair enough Guys we,ll have to agree to differ on this case. I,ll leave it there for now and await further developements.

Seasons Greetings to all.


.

jank

Originally posted by The Muppet
You directed that post at Tinky so I didn,t reply to it as I wouldn,t want to confuse.;)

Rio lied thats a fact and he was wrong to do so. I dont know why he did but the crime hardly matches the punishment considering that people who have actually failed a drug test only got 4 month ban. Maybe you could explain that.

well i directed a post at you around 3 days ago and you have yet to answer muppet!!

muppet your a sad bunch, like a mad man saying to yourself "he's innocent, he's innocent i know he's innocent.........."

keep saying it to yourself muppet but sometimes you have to live in the real world

and you calling people ignorant while you go off and call a country a "tinpot" while staing "we are man utd who do they think they are" crap!!

really muppet you really take the biscuit!!

Not Man utd MOAN UTD:D

happy xmas ye all im off to work now to stuff some turkeys!!;)

Baud

Don't forget the English FA report to the UK government, who are a little miffed that the FA rules are completely out of whack with other sports in the UK. (Bosman proved that FAs can't ignore the law of the land).

For some more info:
http://www.sundayherald.com/37435

L.

James R

I agree precedent holds a major part in English law but why should the Man City bloke get off so light regardless of his reasons? True he couldn't speak English, true he got delayed genuinely but that should be no excuse. If you miss something you miss something, same way as murder is murder.

That may sound cruel and yes I do believe Rio was a lot more in the wrong and deserved a bigger punishment but I do believe 8 months is a bit over the top.

If this is a new precedent then I just wonder will a Division 3 player be fined 50,000 for a future similar incident? Doubt it somehow.

Also its quite evident that Blatter's interference caused the panel to be harsher with Rio. Interesting with him coming from a Swiss background and FIFA being based there considering they are in England's group. Nice way to unsettle the camp I'd say.

Sherlock

Took the test, albeit an hour late but he took it. He passed it so there was no chance he'd have been positive an hour later.Add in his lack of English and that he was delayed picking up his mother at the airport and you can see its totally a different situation to Rio.His united collegues took the test so why did Rio disappear?.
Good letter in todays Indo asking if Roy will quit United given his perchant for leaving teams with bad organisational skills.Uniteds lack of organisation has cost them the loss of their most expensive player for 8 months, who will fall on their sword for this?

Big Ears

but being charged of murder u can be found guilty of manslaughter. which is in the man city players case. rio was charged with murder and convicted of it so to speak.
(if u havent read the post before me please do as rio ferdinand did not kill any1 )
i believe the amount players are fined is to do with two things one the crime and two the amount they earn. So a third division player should get the same lent ban but not the same amount of money fined.

James R

No the Man City boy took the test 24 hours later. As for the other Utd players they were all youths not first teamers so they would have been seperate to Ferdinand, not like why didn't he go with 3 or 4 of his mates and get it out of the way.

8 months is very harsh for a case of amnesia I think.

From Big Ears

i believe the amount players are fined is to do with two things one the crime and two the amount they earn. So a third division player should get the same lent ban but not the same amount of money fined.

This is total bull. Why should it matter? Just because they are with a big club? Does this mean if I have a well paid job then I should get fined more for a speeding offence or something than someone in a low-paid job or on the dole?

Hell no!

kida

English FA Law may differ from Italian FA Law but I thought Ferdinands legal threts were to the European courts for Human rights where it would be very important what happened in one member state as opposed another.

The Muppet

and you calling people ignorant while you go off and call a country a "tinpot" while staing "we are man utd who do they think they are" crap!!

Which country did I call Tin pot and who did I call Ignorant, and could you please link to my post which you took that direct quote from. ( "we are man utd who do they think they are")

muppet your a sad bunch, like a mad man saying to yourself "he's innocent, he's innocent i know he's innocent.........."

Again could you please provide a link to the post where I said Rio was Innocent ?

If you read the posts properly instead of seeing what you want to see in them you would not misrepresent and mis quoting others opinion.

Not Man utd MOAN UTD

Ah come on Yank after all you are an Arsenal supporter.


Happy Xmas. (did the Turkeys have fun);)

Thanx 4 The Fish

Originally posted by The Muppet

Anway if FIFA and the FA have acted within the law what are they so afraid of that they have to make such a threat to try stop legal action.. Utd are the biggest club in the World and European base so is protected by european law, not some team from a south american tinpot country where such a threat may have the desired effect.

The tinpot quote for ya just in case you forgot it.

Originally posted by The Muppet

Fair enough Guys we,ll have to agree to differ on this case. I,ll leave it there for now and await further developements

Has there been further developments Muppet ?

Tray

[EDIT]
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
[/EDIT]

The Muppet

[EDIT]
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
I must be nice to people for christmas.
[/EDIT]

kida

So whats the explantation why a player from Rushden & Diamonds, Tim Turley got a warning - He is under the FA's jurisdiction

and Rushden & Diamonds goalkeeper Billy Turley escaped with a warning after testing positive for nandrolone

http://www.football365.com/All_News/Premiership_News/story_94734.shtml

Big Ears

Originally posted by James R
.


This is total bull. Why should it matter? Just because they are with a big club? Does this mean if I have a well paid job then I should get fined more for a speeding offence or something than someone in a low-paid job or on the dole?

Hell no!

no but do u pay the same taxes as some1 earning 60 grand a year ? (i assume u dont earn that much )

its all to do witha percentage of their pay.

ZENER

Who do you believe ??

Man City in new drugs cock up !

Tinky

ZENER

Or what about this little gem !!!

Yes, every player bar none who tests positive always protests his innocence, always claims to be mystified by his test failure, always insists the testing system is flawed and always blames something else: vitamin supplements, contaminated food, too much sex. (Theo Zagorakis, the ex-Leicester City midfielder, offered bedroom Olympics as his explanation for a positive test finding while playing for AEK Athens last year. He got off). But surely when 31 first division players test positive for drugs in five months, as happened in Portugal last season, or nine big names during a season, like Serie A last year, something is going on?

Full story here.



Tinky

Big Ears

well i understand why the man city player didnt want to take the test and i belive thats a legitimite reason.
although the other thing really does open up that a huge amount of players could/are using drugs. Marseille were always dodgy though they even paid off other teams to win the french league back in 1993 . But becasue of this they had the champions league and the french taking off them.

James R

The thing is that if the FA are apparently taking this drug testing thing so seriously then there should be no such thing as a legitimate reason. A mate of mine works in theatre and if he misses 2 rehearsals or a tech rehearsal he is out, it doesn't matter if he got shot or his wife is in labour they don't accept any excuse.

I don't suggest the laws to be as draconian as this but if they are taking it so seriously then they should toughen up.