West Ham midfielder Shaun Newton suspended

revileandy

West Ham midfielder Shaun Newton has been suspended for seven months after testing positive for cocaine

bit of a joke, the ban runs from May 2006 so his summer holiday's are included in his 'punishment'.

A bit of consistency would be nice from the FA, after all they banned Ferdinand for 8 months for forgetting to take the test, but being cleared 36 hours later.

This Newton character actually tests positive for cocaine and gets a lesser ban.

So whats the message? Taking drugs is serious, but not as serious as forgetting to take the drugs test!

Bateman

Have to agree with your last line, it's an absolute farce of a punishment. We should be talking 1/2 years here, to send a message out. The FA are pathetic, and I don't blame WADA for their sheer frustration with football authorities over this. It's an absolute joke. :mad:

Running Bing

revileandy wrote:

bit of a joke, the ban runs from May 2006 so his summer holiday's are included in his 'punishment'.

A bit of consistency would be nice from the FA, after all they banned Ferdinand for 8 months for forgetting to take the test, but being cleared 36 hours later.

This Newton character actually tests positive for cocaine and gets a lesser ban.

So whats the message? Taking drugs is serious, but not as serious as forgetting to take the drugs test!

Ferdinands ban was spot on. This is a joke. Makes no sense at all and expose the fa for the clowns they are.

SCULLY

As has been discussed at lenght before, the FA treat missing a test the same as failing a test, which is why ferdinand got 8 months. It is a tad unusual that Newton is getting slightly less - 7 months.

On a side issue, should a club stand by a player who has been found guilty of taking drugs, like West Ham appear to be doing or should they be thrown out a la Mutu at Chelsea (I know that the finances of the 2 clubs in question are totally different and Chelsea could easily absorb any financial hit). If players knew that no club would tolerate drug taking surely they would think twice before doing so.- just a thought

Seaneh

SCULLY wrote:

As has been discussed at lenght before, the FA treat missing a test the same as failing a test, which is why ferdinand got 8 months. It is a tad unusual that Newton is getting slightly less - 7 months.

On a side issue, should a club stand by a player who has been found guilty of taking drugs, like West Ham appear to be doing or should they be thrown out a la Mutu at Chelsea (I know that the finances of the 2 clubs in question are totally different and Chelsea could easily absorb any financial hit). If players knew that no club would tolerate drug taking surely they would think twice before doing so.- just a thought

I think that the club should stand by him, give him a bollocking, make sure he knows what happens if he ****s up again, but the way mutu was trated by chelsea was a disgrace IMHO, newton is a young lad who ****ed up, he will learn from it (hopefully).

SCULLY

Seaneh wrote:

I but the way mutu was trated by chelsea was a disgrace IMHO

Why do you think that?

Vokes

Seaneh wrote:

newton is a young lad who ****ed up, he will learn from it (hopefully).

not really, he's nearly 31, he should know better.

Bateman

SCULLY wrote:

Why do you think that?

Not sure how anyone could think that either. They terminated his contract, and he was free to get another club. Chelsea attempted to get compo from him but you can bet your arse that if any was paid, Juve paid it.

Different circumstances, but if an employee fails a drug test, there's a fair chance he'll be sacked, in a lot of walks of life.

Seaneh

SofaKing wrote:

not really, he's nearly 31, he should know better.

LOL, Mixed him up with someone else... yeah, idiot should have know better.

Seaneh

Bateman wrote:

Not sure how anyone could think that either. They terminated his contract, and he was free to get another club. Chelsea attempted to get compo from him but you can bet your arse that if any was paid, Juve paid it.

Different circumstances, but if an employee fails a drug test, there's a fair chance he'll be sacked, in a lot of walks of life.

It's just the way they went about it was all wrong, it didn't sit right with me, it was as if they were just looking to get rid of him and it was the perfect chance.

Even the PFA said they treated him badly (well, it's thier job :S).

Bateman

Seaneh wrote:

It's just the way they went about it was all wrong, it didn't sit right with me, it was as if they were just looking to get rid of him and it was the perfect chance.

Even the PFA said they treated him badly (well, it's thier job :S).

I agree, they probably were trying to g"et rid of him". But if he wasn't on the sniff how else would they have managed to "get rid of him". He would have been transfer listed in the normal fashion, and the club would have had to take a hit on his transfer fees. His own irresponsibility / spupidity / unprofessionalism meant that the club had an easy way out.

astrofool

It's hard to see why they can't follow the athletic ban lengths of 2 years for drug use, while a footballer can lose alot of their short career, athletes usually have an even shorter career.

If anything Ferdinands ban should have been longer, it was hoped (well I hoped) that the ban would have meant a ratcheting up of ban lengths for players, but that hasn't happened. You also have to be banned for longer for missing than taking and caught, or every drug taker would miss (unless exceptional circumstances, i.e. not shopping). 2 years for missing, 18 months for getting caught imo, non-paid by default as well (so different clubs can't treat the players differently).

SpAcEd OuT

Bateman wrote:

I agree, they probably were trying to g"et rid of him". But if he wasn't on the sniff how else would they have managed to "get rid of him". He would have been transfer listed in the normal fashion, and the club would have had to take a hit on his transfer fees. His own irresponsibility / spupidity / unprofessionalism meant that the club had an easy way out.

didn't Chelsea test Mutu not the FA, if thats the case then Chelsea obviously knew Mutu was on cocaine and instead of telling him to stop they saw it as the perfect opportunity to get rid of his wage bill without compensation

maybe my theory belongs in the conspiracy forum

SpAcEd OuT

revileandy wrote:

A bit of consistency would be nice from the FA, after all they banned Ferdinand for 8 months for forgetting to take the test, but being cleared 36 hours later.

being cleared 36 hours later means nothing, if he had been using drugs all of them bar cannabis would have been out of his system by that time

Chucky the tree

i love the way united fans always come out and whinge about ferdiands treatment when there is a drugs ban for cocaine. They seem to complete miss the points.

Ferdiand got off easy. He of been given alot longer. abel Xavier(right name?) got 17 months for testing positive for performance enhancing drugs. Ferdinand should of gotten that. Who knows what drugs he had in his system the day he was meant to take his test.

Although, if it was performance enhancing drugs i seriously hope he got a refund from his supplier as they clearly didnt work.

herbieflowers

Chucky the tree wrote:

Although, if it was performance enhancing drugs i seriously hope he got a refund from his supplier as they clearly didnt work.

Zing!