Mutu gets seven-month ban

MrJoeSoap

Mutu gets seven-month ban


Adrian Mutu has been suspended for seven months and fined £20,000 following an FA disciplinary hearing into his failed drugs test.

Mutu's ban is conditional on him successfully completing a period of rehabilitation and is backdated to start on 25 October.

That means the former Chelsea striker's suspension will conclude on 18 May - meaning he will not return to action before next season at the earliest.

A statement on the FA's official website read: "Following a Disciplinary Commission at Soho Square, Adrian Mutu has been suspended for seven months, subject to the player successfully completing a programme of education and rehabilitation.

"He was also fined £20,000 and will be subject to target testing throughout the period of the suspension.

"This follows Mutu's failing a doping control test after using a prohibited substance.

"However, the commission did take into account the mitigation put forward by the player.

"His suspension includes the period already served under an interim suspension order, beginning on 25 October, and will run until 18 May 2005."

The 25-year-old striker admitted to taking an illegal substance and was sacked by Chelsea last week.

Mutu has already started his rehabilitation at the Sporting Chance Clinic and previously stated he does not intend to appeal against the decision of the hearing.

from www.teamtalk.com

A bit lenient perhaps? I was expecting a bit more in fairness. And £20,000 is nothing in terms of a fine.

What do you thinK?

_blank_

MrJoeSoap wrote:

A bit lenient perhaps?
What do you thinK?

A bit?

Jesus. Ferdinand gets 8 months for missing a drugs test, and nothing was proved as to whether he took drugs or not.

This guy comes out and openly admits taking drugs and gets a lesser sentence.


Perplexing to say the least.

RuggieBear

basically he has been banned till the end of the season. He'll be able to train preseason for any club he decides to go to now.
yep lenient.........

MrJoeSoap

seansouth wrote:

A bit?

Jesus. Ferdinand gets 8 months for missing a drugs test, and nothing was proved as to whether he took drugs or not.

This guy comes out and openly admits taking drugs and gets a lesser sentence.


Perplexing to say the least.

Yeah hadnt thought of it that way, I guess its some sort of victimisation against United. Mutu seems to be a bit of a strange breed, I read somewhere that he has no friends, and is very intellectual (he apparently reads Dostoyevski !). I can see Arsene Wenger rubbing his hands together and signing him when the ban ends next summer.

_blank_

RuggieBear wrote:

He'll be able to train preseason for any club he decides to go to now.

He can train with any club he wants, or that will have him, now if he wishes. He is not banned from training. Only playing.

woosaysdan

thats some joke tbh with him been sacked can he sign to a club when the transfer window opens?

RuggieBear

seansouth wrote:

He can train with any club he wants, or that will have him, now if he wishes. He is not banned from training. Only playing.

There'll be clubs climbing over themselves to sign him now....

_blank_

woosaysdan wrote:

thats some joke tbh with him been sacked can he sign to a club when the transfer window opens?

He is not contracted to anyone, so he could sign for any club that would have him any time he chooses.

The more I think about this punishment, the more ridiculous it seems.

The Muppet

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Yeah hadnt thought of it that way, I guess its some sort of victimisation against United. Mutu seems to be a bit of a strange breed, I read somewhere that he has no friends, and is very intellectual (he apparently reads Dostoyevski !). I can see Arsene Wenger rubbing his hands together and signing him when the ban ends next summer.

Lenient IMO. Arsenal have expressed an interest in him? Yet more feul for the conspiracy theorists. Very interesting.



TBH the sentence is tough enough for the crime but it is lenient when compared to the unjust punishment in the Ferdinand case.

eirebhoy

seansouth wrote:

A bit?

Jesus. Ferdinand gets 8 months for missing a drugs test, and nothing was proved as to whether he took drugs or not.

This guy comes out and openly admits taking drugs and gets a lesser sentence.


Perplexing to say the least.

Ferdinand got banned because he missed a drug test which could have proved him guilty of taking Performance Enhancing drugs (A player found with PE drugs in there system is most likely to get a 2 year ban). Mutu was found guilty for damaging his body by taking recreational drugs. They're completely different circumstances and shouldn't even be compared. 7 months is certainly not lenient.

BTW, there would have been no difference in banning Mutu for 10 months as he'd still return on the same date.

super_furry

Seems fair enough to me. It was a recreational drug and not performance enchancing. Had the FA given him a longer sentence that Ferdinand, they risked sending out the signal that it's better to avoid taking tests than risk failing them.

MrJoeSoap

eirebhoy wrote:

Ferdinand got banned because he missed a drug test which could have proved him guilty of taking Performance Enhancing drugs (A player found with PE drugs in there system is most likely to get a 2 year ban). Mutu was found guilty for damaging his body by taking recreational drugs. They're completely different circumstances and shouldn't even be compared. 7 months is certainly not lenient.

So are you suggesting a ban of less than 7 months for a professional footballer/athlete who uses drugs, even if they are 'recreational'? What sort of a message will that send out, both to fellow professionals and younger, more easily-influenced children?

7 months seems to be very lenient, he's only really missing just more than half a season. Considering the amount of money Chelsea lost out on (even though they can afford it, many others couldnt have), I think the ban should have been a minimum of 12 months.

woosaysdan

super_furry wrote:

Seems fair enough to me. It was a recreational drug and not performance enchancing. Had the FA given him a longer sentence that Ferdinand, they risked sending out the signal that it's better to avoid taking tests than risk failing them.

or how about the msg if you miss a test or take any kind of banned substance you will get at least 8 months???

eirebhoy

MrJoeSoap wrote:

So are you suggesting a ban of less than 7 months for a professional footballer/athlete who uses drugs, even if they are 'recreational'? What sort of a message will that send out, both to fellow professionals and younger, more easily-influenced children?

Message to fellow proffessionals:
If you're foolish enough to risk your career in taking cocaine, the same way you would be if you become an alcoholic, its up to you.

Message to children:
Probably the same message kids get when they read about Colin Farrell's drug consumption or seeing Afroman's "I didn't go to school, cos I got high" song at number 1 for about 3 weeks.

_blank_

eirebhoy wrote:

Ferdinand got banned because he missed a drug test which could have proved him guilty of taking Performance Enhancing drugs

bolding mine

Innocent until proven guilty no?

MrJoeSoap

eirebhoy wrote:

Message to fellow proffessionals:
If you're foolish enough to risk your career in taking cocaine, the same way you would be if you become an alcoholic, its up to you.

But its not really risking your career if you get less than 7 months of a ban. I can see where you're coming from, in the way that drugs have become a part of society today with Colin Farrell and Afroman leading the line... but that doesnt mean it should be accepted as part of sport (and handing out bans of less than 7 months, in my opinion, is getting close to accepting it).

Every time someone in the media spotlight gets away with taking drugs it seems it becomes more and more accepted. It cant slip into sport.

TwoShedsJackson

God when are the 'the whole world is against Manchester United' lot going to get over Ferdinand's ban?

He got the ban because he conveniently 'forgot' about the test in mysterious circumstances. If they hadn't punished him then any time a footballer realised a test was about to be taken which he would fail, he could 'forget' and dodge the test.

When are you going to get that through your dense skulls?

Raskolnikov

Pathetic.

As already mentioned, Ferdinand was banned for 8 months for missing a drug test thanks to Sepp Blatter. Had Mutu been an English player, I warrant that he'd have faced an even greater banning.

MrJoeSoap

TwoShedsJackson wrote:

God when are the 'the whole world is against Manchester United' lot going to get over Ferdinand's ban?

He got the ban because he conveniently 'forgot' about the test in mysterious circumstances. If they hadn't punished him then any time a footballer realised a test was about to be taken which he would fail, he could 'forget' and dodge the test.

When are you going to get that through your dense skulls?

Nobody is moaning about Ferdinands ban in itself, its merely the fact that someone who was actually found to have taken drugs (be they recreational or performance enhancing), i.e. - Mutu, was given a shorter ban than Rio.

thejollyrodger

off till end of the season ? thats easy going. But at the end of the day it wasnt performance enhancing so I think its ok. I dont think Ferdinand came off well in light of this though

eirebhoy

seansouth wrote:

bolding mine

Innocent until proven guilty no?

How can a player be proven innocent or guilty if he doesn't turn up to the test? The drugs could be in his system one day and gone the next, they don't stay there forever, and the FA/FIFA have to take that into account.

But its not really risking your career if you get less than 7 months of a ban.

Taking cocaine is risking your career in itself, forget about the ban. If a player is that stupid so be it.

Can anyone give me a valid reason as to why Mutu should have been banned for more than 7 months, if at all? Forgot about Rio for 5 minutes.

eirebhoy

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Nobody is moaning about Ferdinands ban in itself, its merely the fact that someone who was actually found to have taken drugs (be they recreational or performance enhancing)

That is where you and everyone else is going wrong. you can't just say "be they recreational or Performance Enhancing". They are both treated seperately and rightly so. Rio might aswell have been banned for cung fu kicking a Crystal Palace fan for all the FA care.

RuggieBear

i think Mutu's punishment was probably a bit lenient but then i think Ferdinand should have got a 2 year ban. For the credibility of the game, drugs of all sorts have to be stamped out. Look at Ricky Williams (Miami Dolphins)....he tested postive for cannibis 3 times and he only got a 3 game ban after the third time! Now that's lenient!!

Waylander

I do not disagree with what you say twosheds, but it is a bit daft handing a lesser ban to somebody who was definitely found guilty of taking drugs, then somebody who missed a test but offered himself up for testing either later the same day, or the next day. Ferdinand should have been punished, but Mutus ban should have at least been the same. Also I notice that Sepp Blatter was not interfereing at all this time, he was practically looking for a life ban for Ferdinand. Eirebhoy I disagreew ith your distinction between the classes of drugs, as far as I am aware the rules do not diffrentiate, therefore the punishment should not be different.

TwoShedsJackson

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Nobody is moaning about Ferdinands ban in itself, its merely the fact that someone who was actually found to have taken drugs (be they recreational or performance enhancing), i.e. - Mutu, was given a shorter ban than Rio.

Joe, I am aware of this, my point is that Ferdinand was given a harsh ban to discourage other players from emulating him in the future. Say he was given a two month ban, and had he been found guilty or admitted guilt like Mutu, he would have got a seven month ban.

Now, if you were a player faced with a test you knew you would fail, do you admit your guilt and be banned for seven months, or skive off, say you 'forgot', and get the two month ban?

An obvious no-brainer, and that's why Ferdinand got the ban he did, not because of some huge conspiracy by FIFA to torture Manchester United.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

That is where you and everyone else is going wrong. you can't just say "be they recreational or Performance Enhancing". They are both treated seperately and rightly so. Rio might aswell have been banned for cung fu kicking a Crystal Palace fan for all the FA care.

Mark Bosnich got longer for the very same offence. How do you explain that?

RuggieBear

The Muppet wrote:

Mark Bosnich got longer for the very same offence. How do you explain that?

[glow=4] coz he once played for Man u!!!?[/glow]

eirebhoy

The Muppet wrote:

Mark Bosnich got longer for the very same offence. How do you explain that?

I can't really explain it but Bosnich got a 9 month ban which was backdated from 4 months earlier meaning he only had to serve 5 more months. There would be no difference if Mutu got a 9 month ban so maybe they just cut it down to 7 as its the end of the season. Anyway, there would be no need for the long cases in the FA if everyone was to get the same length ban.

The Muppet

RuggieBear wrote:

[glow=4] coz he once played for Man u!!!?[/glow]

LOL , I feel a Rant coming on.




Eirebhoy I understand your point but that should not enter into consideration. If player A gets a 9 month for an offence anyone else found guilty of the same offence should be punished the same. If that doesnt happen The FA are leaving themselves open to accusations of favouritism.

Imposter

Jaap Stam - Performance inhancing drug (nandralone sp?) - 4 months - Italian FA
Mutu - recreational drug - 7months - English FA
Bosnich - recreational drug - 9months - English FA
Ferdinand - missed test - 8 months - English FA

Fixed guidelines need to be laid down by Uefa or even Fifa as to the length of suspensions. It affects international football as well so everyone should be subject ot the same guidelines.

RuggieBear

Imposter wrote:

Jaap Stam - Performance inhancing drug (nandralone sp?) - 4 months - Italian FA
Mutu - recreational drug - 7months - English FA
Bosnich - recreational drug - 9months - English FA
Ferdinand - missed test - 8 months - English FA

Fixed guidelines need to be laid down by Uefa or even Fifa as to the length of suspensions. It affects international football as well so everyone should be subject ot the same guidelines.

Ban 'em...ban'em all i say.....

No i think you are right...those bans are all over the place....

The Muppet

Imposter wrote:

Jaap Stam - Performance inhancing drug (nandralone sp?) - 4 months - Italian FA
Mutu - recreational drug - 7months - English FA
Bosnich - recreational drug - 9months - English FA
Ferdinand - missed test - 8 months - English FA

Fixed guidelines need to be laid down by Uefa or even Fifa as to the length of suspensions. It affects international football as well so everyone should be subject ot the same guidelines.

And thats not mentioning the Man City player that only got fined for missing his drugs test.

Iago

TwoShedsJackson wrote:

God when are the 'the whole world is against Manchester United' lot going to get over Ferdinand's ban?

He got the ban because he conveniently 'forgot' about the test in mysterious circumstances. If they hadn't punished him then any time a footballer realised a test was about to be taken which he would fail, he could 'forget' and dodge the test.

When are you going to get that through your dense skulls?

I take exception to that, I know your generalising, the same way everybody generalises. All you're really doing is tarring real football fans (who happen to support Man Utd) with the same brush as people who wouldn't know offside from LBW, and who happen to support Man Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea/liverpool/Blackburn, depending on how the team performed the year before (still can't get over the amount of Blackburn jerseys in dublin after they won the league) but I digress...

Ferdinand may or may not have taken drugs, for my part I think that he probably was guilty of taking recreational rather than performance enhancing drugs. However that wasn't proven and suspicion and conjecture shouldn't lead to conviction. If it did we'd need far bigger prisons.

Mutu on the other hand was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of taking recreational drugs and his ban should have been at least the equal of ferdinands if not longer.

Personal viewpoint, it's their lives let them ruin them if they want to, why taking coke or recreational drugs should lead to a ban from football is completely beyond me. The clubs should sack the player and no other club should take them on, and therefore they would have no option but to be out of football, but for an association to ban them seems a little ridiculous.

eirebhoy

Iago wrote:

Ferdinand may or may not have taken drugs, for my part I think that he probably was guilty of taking recreational rather than performance enhancing drugs. However that wasn't proven and suspicion and conjecture shouldn't lead to conviction. If it did we'd need far bigger prisons.

Lets say a player had taken performance enhancing drugs and doesn't turn up for a drug test. You can't just dismiss the case because he wasn't proven to have taken anything.

Iago wrote:

Mutu on the other hand was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of taking recreational drugs and his ban should have been at least the equal of ferdinands if not longer.

I'll say this one last time. Ferdinand was banned because he could have taken PE drugs and purposely missed the test. Recreational drugs are not treated on par with PE drugs and you can't compare cases.

Iago wrote:

Personal viewpoint, it's their lives let them ruin them if they want to, why taking coke or recreational drugs should lead to a ban from football is completely beyond me. The clubs should sack the player and no other club should take them on, and therefore they would have no option but to be out of football, but for an association to ban them seems a little ridiculous.

Completely agree.

_blank_

eirebhoy wrote:

Ferdinand was banned because he could have taken PE drugs and purposely missed the test

Yes, forgot, on purpose.

eirebhoy

seansouth wrote:

Yes, forgot, on purpose.

The section inside the red is all part of the "could" statement:

Ferdinand was banned because he could have taken PE drugs and purposely missed the test.

Jivin Turkey

You cant compare the Ferdinand case to this, because as Eirebhoy said, they are under different circumstances. Ferdinand COULD have taken anything, prehaps it was only recreational but he still wanted to save face, he deserved his ban.

Mutu's ban is adequate.

Bosnich was banned for longer because I dont think he came out and admitted straight away, they had to go to the B-sample. Hence a longer ban. Fair enough.

The Ferdinand situation was harsh, when you compare it to the likes of Davids and Stam, nobody can argue that. But its another days discussion. Ferdinands case has no relevance to this one.

PHB

tbh I think its bull**** to test for preformance enhancing drugs in the first place.

As for the length of the man,I think its fair.

He admitted to taking preforance enhancing drugs.
Got 7 months.

If he got more than 8 months, then there would be no incentive for people to ever go to drug tests if they had taken drugs. Don't be silly.

Rio missed a drugs test and could have taken preformance enhancing drugs or recreational drugs.
He should have been banned for 8 months.

Chucky the tree

PHB wrote:

He admitted to taking preforance enhancing drugs.
Got 7 months.

hardly call cocaine performance enhancing, not football wise anyway.

gandalf

Hmm don't know why people are going on about Ferdinand still. This thread is about Mutu, personally I think the ban of 7 months is correct, its not performance enhancing if anything it effects your performance in a sport not enhances it.

Ferdinand got banned because there was the possibility of him using the drugs but the punishment was way too severe (gone on record here about that already!). Sepp Blatter should not have got involved with that at all. There should be definate bans set in place across UEFA from now onwards.

As for Chelsea imho they should have tried to help Mutu and not thrown him out the way they did.

The Muppet

gandalf wrote:

-
As for Chelsea imho they should have tried to help Mutu and not thrown him out the way they did.

I agree with you there Gandalf . They should have at the very least waited to see what his punishment would be before deciding what to do with him, Now they have lost a £16 million pound player for nothing. Its true his performance of late were well below the standard he set when he signed first but we now know why that was. When he is back to fiull fitness and clean he would be an addition to any squad. That's not very good business practice if you ask me.
I'll be putting a few quid on him to score if he ever plays against Chelsea again.

gandalf

Yeah I thought it was a strange decision to sack him too, he didn't shag the "Russian Tim Nice but Dims wife" or something did he

Anyway I believe Arsene has said he may be interested in him, not sure I am comfortable with that, then again he is young and a good striker !

smemon

rio ferdinand.

similar case, (although not proven). united under pressure, rio in the limelight, fa ban him and he's perceived as a criminal.

utd back him all the way and now look were he is, better than ever, captaining the side on occasions. its made him a stronger person i believe.

you dont mess with murinho and everyone knows that but surely he deserves a 2nd chance, if mutu was willing to get his career back on track surely chelsea should have given him a break.

drugs in sport has no place i agree but you must ask if this happened to john terry, lampard etc... would such harsh measures be taken? imo, murinho found an excuse to get rid of a player he doesnt like for whatever reason and hasnt even thought twice about it. (i dont think its just because drugs were involved, more how unneeded mutu was in the squad)

Chucky the tree

The Muppet wrote:

I agree with you there Gandalf . They should have at the very least waited to see what his punishment would be before deciding what to do with him, Now they have lost a £16 million pound player for nothing. Its true his performance of late were well below the standard he set when he signed first but we now know why that was. When he is back to fiull fitness and clean he would be an addition to any squad. That's not very good business practice if you ask me.
I'll be putting a few quid on him to score if he ever plays against Chelsea again.

agree, it was way out of order how they treated him. And to make it worse chelese cheif executive Peter Kenyen has given out about how weak the ban was and it should of been harsher.

gandalf

Yep smemon agree with you 100%. Lets hope Mutu makes Murinho eat his words whoever he plays with!!! (Thats if the coachdriver survives at Chelsea!!)

Chucky the tree

heres the full story...

Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon criticised the seven-month ban handed out to Adrian Mutu on Thursday, claiming the FA had shown themselves to be "weak over the issue of drugs".

In a statement released by the club, Kenyon said: "Chelsea are extremely disappointed with today's verdict.

"We believe it is far too lenient and sends out the wrong message about drugs in football. It is also indicative of a lack of direction within the FA at this time.

"As a club we can only take the action that we believe is right for Chelsea.

"However, the FA have a much wider responsibility to look after the interests of the game as a whole and, in this case, we believe it has shown itself to be weak over the issue of drugs."

Mutu nevertheless received backing from his native Romania, with national coach Anghel Iordanescu determined to keep his captain within the fold during his suspension.

"I asked to Mutu to come with us, to feel that he is still part of national team of Romania," he told PA International.

Mircea Sandu, chairman of the Romanian FA, added: "Now that Adrian Mutu has admitted his mistake, he will have to serve his sanction but he will have the support of the players and the Romanian FA during this time.

"We will see where he wants to train because he needs supervised preparations to continue his career at the highest level.

"But I have invited Mutu to join the national team of Romania at Yereven, to be together with his team-mates."

Sports minister Richard Caborn had urged the FA to impose a severe penalty but he accepted the decision.

Caborn said: "It is right that disciplinary cases are a matter for sport's governing bodies.

"I would urge these bodies to give the maximum penalty available in cases involving drugs. I believe that sanctions need to be tough to deter sports people from taking any prohibited substance at all.

"The UK's anti-doping body, UK Sport, is satisfied with the FA's handling of this case.

"The sanction is in line with football's regulations."

cournioni

Absolute joke. How on earth did he get less of a ban than Ferdinand?

Johnny_the_fox

Imposter wrote:

Jaap Stam - Performance inhancing drug (nandralone sp?) - 4 months - Italian FA
Mutu - recreational drug - 7months - English FA
Bosnich - recreational drug - 9months - English FA
Ferdinand - missed test - 8 months - English FA

Diego Maradona had 15-month suspension for cocaine in 1991 (+fined: 18,000 english pounds) and again another 15-month suspension for Ephedrine in 1994.

the English F.A yellowed out.

eirebhoy

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Absolute joke. How on earth did he get less of a ban than Ferdinand?

You mustn't have read any of the previous posts?

For those saying that Mourinho should have gave Mutu a second chance after he tested positive, it was Mourinho that ordered the drug test to be taken. He wasn't planning on playing him so it saves Chelsea a few million in wages.

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s22/e6876/sport_lng0_spo22_evt6876_sto652692.shtml

cournioni

eirebhoy wrote:

You mustn't have read any of the previous posts?

Nope, I just read the topic and expressed my feelings of the ban. It is an absolute joke and clear double standards from the FA (yet again) regardless of a confession.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

You mustn't have read any of the previous posts?

For those saying that Mourinho should have gave Mutu a second chance after he tested positive, it was Mourinho that ordered the drug test to be taken. He wasn't planning on playing him so it saves Chelsea a few million in wages.

http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/v4/l0/s22/e6876/sport_lng0_spo22_evt6876_sto652692.shtml

What about the £16 million they have lost by sacking him . The short ban will not help chelsea either if they decide to follow through on their threat to sue him. Chelsea have shot themselves in the foot on this one.