Mutu gets seven-month ban

eirebhoy

PORNAPSTER wrote:

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.

Read over the thread before commenting again because it has all been answered. Would you like to give me one reason why Mutu should have got a ban at all, never mind 7 months? When you think of that reason, compare it to skipping a drugs test purposely because there was performance enhancing drugs in the persons system.

eirebhoy

The Muppet wrote:

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.

Aye, I know they've lost money on his transfer fee but I'd be pretty sure they would have let him go for free in the summer if there was someone willing to pay his wages so they got rid of him the easy way.

cournioni

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.

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

But Rio still gave his sample in a day or a couple of days after the test was due to take place. And you are forgetting the Man City player that missed his test because he was "stuck in traffic". And got no ban.

It is a joke.

cournioni

Oh yeah, what is the difference between Bosnich's use of recreational drugs and Mutu's? Bosnich got 9 months for taking cocaine.

Mutu gets 7 months for the same offence. And this is after the FA said they were taking a "hard line against drugs".

They must have taken a few of these "hard lines" with Mutu before handing out his suspension. :rolleyes:

gandalf

I think Bosnich denied he took them. Mutu came out and admitted that he took drugs fairly quickly after the story broke. I would assume that was the difference.

Again UEFA or FIFA should put a code of practice with set banning periods in place for drug offences. That would stop all this stuff of people claiming rough justice because ban periods vary.

puntosporting

There is a world of difference between performance enhancing and recreational drugs!
Recreational drug use is an abuse of your body and mind,a problem,an addiction and a weakness!
Performance enhancing drugs use is just cheating!
The only punishment mutu should have got for his drug abuse was a criminal prosecution !
Rio got what he deserved you cant try and play the system and hope youll get off with it,he made himself appear to be guilty even if he was not!

The Muppet

puntosporting wrote:

There is a world of difference between performance enhancing and recreational drugs!

They are all banned substances, there is no facility in the law to differentiate between them so there is no difference, Why test for them otherwise?

jobonar

tis a joke tbh. he should have got at least a year, if rio got 8 months and nothing was proved then surely a player who admits to taking the substance should get a longer ban???!!

fifa really needs to set out some standards and (minimum)punishments for drug abuse so that they will know what they could be facing at teh very least, stops the fa's from just picking a number out of a hat to decide teh length of the ban!

on teh back of this rio was unfairly treated IMO

uberwolf

The Muppet wrote:

They are all banned substances, there is no facility in the law to differentiate between them so there is no difference, Why test for them otherwise?

there are legal differences between PE and recreational drugs. Italy and France now have laws regarding sporting fraud under which players/athletes can be found guilty of perverting the outcome of sporting fixtures by drug use(and other ways) and Ferdinand would have probably copped it under those kinda rules. But EPO is not illegal in the same sense as cocaine in the UK.

The Muppet

uberwolf wrote:

there are legal differences between PE and recreational drugs.

Not under the rules of the FA there's not which is what we are talking about here.

uberwolf

Pornapster said legal. FA rules are sub legal level.

cournioni

uberwolf wrote:

Pornapster said legal. FA rules are sub legal level.

Em... no I didn't.

uberwolf

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Em... no I didn't.

you're right, you didn't. The muppet did. Sorry.

"facility in law"

cournioni

Tis cool.

I still think that if the FA were supposedly taking a hard line on drugs, then they should have banned Mutu for longer. Recreational or Performance Enhancing. It isn't exactly a good example to the young football supporters now is it?

BaZmO*

I wish everybody would stop going on about Rio. The fact of the matter is players have to make themselves available for testing when they are asked to do so and Rio didn't, therefore breaking the rules, so by definition he's a cheat. End of!! It doesn't matter if he made himself available 2 hours later, 2 days later or 2 months later he wasn't there when he was supposed to be, "I was ou shoppin, Innit!" Great excuse that. :rolleyes:

With regards to people comparing cases, you can't do that as all cases are different. Just like if you take five murder cases you can't say, how come he only got 5 years while the other guy got life and someone else got 8 years. The reason being that the judge had to take into acount the extenuating circumstances of each case and take each one on it's own merits in much the same way the FA did.

And to those that said Chelsea was harsh in the way they treated Mutu. Why? If anything they done him a favour due to the fact that he's a free agent and it'll be easier for him to go to a new club and in all fairness Chelsea have enough money to lose 16 million and for it not to make a dent into their accounts.

B.

cournioni

BaZmO* wrote:

I wish everybody would stop going on about Rio. The fact of the matter is players have to make themselves available for testing when they are asked to do so and Rio didn't, therefore breaking the rules, so by definition he's a cheat. End of!! It doesn't matter if he made himself available 2 hours later, 2 days later or 2 months later he wasn't there when he was supposed to be, "I was ou shoppin, Innit!" Great excuse that. :rolleyes:

So what should have been done about the Man City player who missed his because he was "stuck in traffic"? I know we have been over this a million times, but it is clear that the FA have double standards. You are saying that Rio is by definition is a cheat? What does that make Mutu?

Missing a drugs test is bad, I agree. And it was punished, but it is logical that a player who has failed a drugs test should get a longer ban than someone who has missed a drugs test.

uberwolf

PORNAPSTER wrote:

but it is logical that a player who has failed a drugs test should get a longer ban than someone who has missed a drugs test.

Do you recognise the difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs? My take is that performance enhancing is cheating. Recreational is just stupid.

If you miss the drugs test - then they have to assume you're guilty. But they can't tell if they reckon you're guilty of recreational or of performance enhancing, so theyhave to assume the worst again.

being caught for the lesser charge is better than the possibility of the greater charge.

cournioni

uberwolf wrote:

Do you recognise the difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs? My take is that performance enhancing is cheating. Recreational is just stupid.

If you miss the drugs test - then they have to assume you're guilty. But they can't tell if they reckon you're guilty of recreational or of performance enhancing, so theyhave to assume the worst again.

being caught for the lesser charge is better than the possibility of the greater charge.

Yes I do recognise the difference between drugs. And yes I agree with you that PE drugs is cheating and Rec drugs is stupid and pointless. However, Rio handed in his sample as soon as he found out that he was in the wrong. Which was clean. So why do they have to assume the worst. They didn't do that with the Man City player.

Also players such as Stam, Couto, Davids etc have been found guilty of using these PE drugs and had bans of less than 6 months. Something is not right there...

BaZmO*

PORNAPSTER wrote:

So what should have been done about the Man City player who missed his because he was "stuck in traffic"?

He was stuck in traffic, not out shopping!! But yeah you're right we have been over this a million times. And isn't it funny that most of the people sticking up for Rio are ManU fans.

PORNAPSTER wrote:

You are saying that Rio is by definition is a cheat? What does that make Mutu?

Missing a drugs test is bad, I agree. And it was punished, but it is logical that a player who has failed a drugs test should get a longer ban than someone who has missed a drugs test.

See uberwolf's reply.


B.

cournioni

BaZmO* wrote:

He was stuck in traffic, not out shopping!! But yeah you're right we have been over this a million times. And isn't it funny that most of the people sticking up for Rio are ManU fans.

How is stuck in traffic any more of an excuse than being out shopping. He still missed the drugs test. Yeah we will stick up for Rio, because whenever United are in trouble with the FA, they always seem to get the full force of their bans. While others get away with a ticking off. Same with the Arsenal game two weeks ago. The FA are a shower of ****, and I'll stick up for any United player that gets harshly treated by them.

BaZmO*

PORNAPSTER wrote:

and I'll stick up for any United player that gets harshly treated by them.

and even when they haven't.........

uberwolf

PORNAPSTER wrote:

However, Rio handed in his sample as soon as he found out that he was in the wrong. Which was clean. So why do they have to assume the worst. They didn't do that with the Man City player.

Also players such as Stam, Couto, Davids etc have been found guilty of using these PE drugs and had bans of less than 6 months. Something is not right there...

EPO - test clears you outside of 72 hours of taking it. So if Rio was a day out all he needed was that brief delay. Not saying he did, but if you miss a test the authorities have no option but to assume that was the case.

missing the test has to be the same as the worst drugs offence or else those on the worst drugs will the weaker option & their team will get teh plaudits for the successes earned by cheaters.

Soccer is under pressure from other governing bodies to align the bans, soccers bans are the most lenient. If a cyclist misses a test tis 2 years out of the game. There is more money and therefore more incentive to cheat in soccer than in any other sport.

cournioni

BaZmO* wrote:

and even when they haven't.........

They have.

BaZmO*

PORNAPSTER wrote:

They have.

In your opinion.

eirebhoy

jobonar wrote:

tis a joke tbh. he should have got at least a year, if rio got 8 months and nothing was proved then surely a player who admits to taking the substance should get a longer ban???!!

Jaysus, read the thread!!!

The Muppet wrote:

Not under the rules of the FA there's not which is what we are talking about here.

I'd be pretty certain that if a player tested positive for a PE drug tomorrow he'd be banned for 18-24 months. The two types of drug are certainly treated diffferently.

PORNAPSTER wrote:

I still think that if the FA were supposedly taking a hard line on drugs, then they should have banned Mutu for longer. Recreational or Performance Enhancing. It isn't exactly a good example to the young football supporters now is it?

Kids know that a footballer will only get a 7-9 month ban for testing positive for recreational drugs. :eek: I better set up a business.

PORNAPSTER wrote:

but it is logical that a player who has failed a drugs test should get a longer ban than someone who has missed a drugs test.

If that was the case, why on earth would a player with a banned substance in his system turn up for the test?

PORNAPSTER wrote:

So what should have been done about the Man City player who missed his because he was "stuck in traffic"?

So we're now comparing the Man City player to Rio's case? The media and FIFA played a major part in Rio's banning. Nobody knew that the Man City player missed the test while the media found out immediately after Rio missed his.

gandalf

BaZmO* wrote:

He was stuck in traffic, not out shopping!! But yeah you're right we have been over this a million times. And isn't it funny that most of the people sticking up for Rio are ManU fans.

Actually there are alot of non United fans like me that said all along that the ban was totally over the top. I am sure Porna would agree and say that Rio should have been punished for breaking the rules, but I believe the FA were influenced by Sepp Blatter and UEFA at the time to give a greater ban. 3 months max would have been more than enough.

Any chance we can get back on topic about Mutu?

Jivin Turkey

Right a few facts here:

Stop talking about Rio in comparison to Mutu, they are 2 totally different cases. If you want to discuss the harshness of Rio's ban open a new thread. But I doubt anyone will argue that he didnt get treated harshly, especially compared to the likes of Stam and Davids who got less for testing positive for PE! But can people not get it into their heads that his ban has NOTHING to do with Mutu's. So get over it.

As regards the Man City player, I dont remember exactly, but there were definately mitigating factors in his favour as regards the missed drugs test, it wasnt that he was out shopping. He was an African player who had got delayed coming home, I think he rand ahead to say he was going to be late and could they hold on for an hour or so, which they agreed. It was something like that, so please stop claiming he got off lightly, he tested negative. Google it up and you will see.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

Jaysus, read the thread!!!


I'd be pretty certain that if a player tested positive for a PE drug tomorrow he'd be banned for 18-24 months. The two types of drug are certainly treated diffferently.

That's pure conjecture . You have a lot more faith in the FA than I do. Don't forget this is the same F.A. that couldn't find enough evidence to punish David Beckham after he admitted cheating to the press.

There is no differentiation in the rules between the two type of drugs so if the FA are to abide by the rules all offences that breach those rules should be all treated the same. Anything else is unfair. They can not just make it up as they go along and expect to maintain any credability as the FA appear to be doing.

BaZmO* wrote:

And isn't it funny that most of the people sticking up for Rio are ManU fans.

No , whats funny about supporters sticking up for their teams. Most fans do it.

I tell you what I do find funny though is the hypocracy of some of the contributors here who were baying for a lengthy ban for Rio at the time of his incident and yet here thet are defending someone who has admitted taking banned substances.

_blank_

The Muppet wrote:

No , whats funny about supporters sticking up for their teams. Most fans do it.

And that's why they are called fans.

The Muppet wrote:

I tell you what I do find funny though is the hypocracy of some of the contributors here who were baying for a lengthy ban for Rio at the time of his incident and yet here thet are defending someone who has admitted taking banned substances.

Nail on the head there mate.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I tell you what I do find funny though is the hypocracy of some of the contributors here who were baying for a lengthy ban for Rio at the time of his incident and yet here thet are defending someone who has admitted taking banned substances.

Well from what I see, I think few people are defending Mutu. They are saying that the ban is sufficient. Same way the ban for Rio was sufficient.

I fail to see the hypocracy.

uberwolf

The Muppet wrote:

here thet are defending someone who has admitted taking banned substances.

I can't recall an instance of this at all. I don't think anyone defended cocaine use. Most people simply agree with the perspective that recreational drugs are of less consequnce in a sporting sphere than influencing sporting results by cheating.

smuckers

I have no sympathy for Mutu, the club may have helped him had he not
lied to 2 managers!! We offered him the chance to own up. He laughed it off. He's been taking it since Feb for christ sake.

Self centred person who the club rid of.

Being sad and lonley is no excuse for taking a class A drug Adrian. :mad:

eirebhoy

smuckers wrote:

He's been taking it since Feb for christ sake.

Seriously? Around the time he scored his last premier league goal and went from a super signing to a flop? Coincidence?

Chucky the tree

Alot of pointless crap on this thread about how RIo was treated harshly etc.

FA were in a no win situation, if he got longer then Rio then its sends out a message that your better off skipping a drugs test if your have done something.

either way he misses out for this season, and thats it, he will be back for the start of next season. If they had of given him the same ban as Rio it would of been the excact same. He could of started next season. So technically he basically got the same sentence as Rio which is fair.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well from what I see, I think few people are defending Mutu. They are saying that the ban is sufficient. Same way the ban for Rio was sufficient.

I fail to see the hypocracy.

If you read back over the thread you will see the point was made that Mutu should not have been banned at all for the offence . That's defending him whatever way you look at it.

smuckers

eirebhoy wrote:

Seriously? Around the time he scored his last premier league goal and went from a super signing to a flop? Coincidence?

Yep.