Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016, Mod Warning in OP, 10/7

Boom_Bap

It's the club that have pulled him, not UEFA.

If he continues to play and found guilty and if we end up winning the tournament, we could be stripped of the title.

54and56

Boom_Bap wrote: »

It's the club that have pulled him, not UEFA.

If he continues to play and found guilty and if we end up winning the tournament, we could be stripped of the title.

I thought we could only be stripped of a UEFA title if two or more players were found guilty during the course of the tournament??

Smart thing to do is for Sakho to not play. It will help with his appeal for leniancy.

Boom_Bap

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I thought we could only be stripped of a UEFA title if two or more players were found guilty during the course of the tournament??

I did not know that

54and56

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I did not know that

12.02 Team disqualification
If more than two players from the same team are found to have committed an
anti-doping rule violation during a competition period, UEFA imposes the
appropriate sanction(s) in accordance with the UEFA Disciplinary
Regulations and the present regulations on the team to which the players
belong, in addition to the consequences imposed on the individual player(s)
found to have committed the anti-doping rule violation. The sanction(s)
imposed on the team may include disqualification from the competition in
progress and/or exclusion from future competitions.

Article 21 page 17 - http://hns-cff.hr/files/documents/2398/UEFA%20Anti-Doping%20Regulations%202015.pdf

Boom_Bap

That's good to know, let's just hope Kolo has been staying away from his wifes stash :pac:

It's obviously not ideal prep for the game tomorrow, but I'm sure when we the game kicks off that will be forgotten about.
The big question now is who do we partner with Lovren - Skittles/Kolo/Lucas/Caulker?

Chardee MacDennis

there will be no sponsors walking away from Liverpool due to Sakho, whether we keep him or not.

It's disappointing but the outrage here is hilarious.

Anymore than a year I can understand cutting him, otherwise hold onto him and renegotiate his contract. I don't see why not, he's made a mistake (whether that mistake is taking a banned substance or getting caught is another debate), and he's still a top quality player.

I do think the club are wise to play it safe and not play him though, just in case. UEFA havent exactly been on our side through our whole EL campaign.

Fromvert

The naivety of people thinking that Liverpool will cut ties with Sakho. He's an asset that is worth about 20m, you don't just throw that out and let someone pick him up for free in a year.

I'd be confident all contracts have stipulations about not getting paid for breach of contract (failing PED tests and being unable for selection) and he'll be kept at the club training for however long the ban is.

54and56

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

there will be no sponsors walking away from Liverpool due to Sakho, whether we keep him or not.

If LFC mishandle the situation e.g. holding onto him if what he was doing was part of a systemic program of PED cheating then you'd better believe brands who pay to be associated with the positive messages surrounding LFC would have a lot to say about it and ultimately review their continuing association with the club if they felt it had negative connotations for them.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

It's disappointing but the outrage here is hilarious.

Why shouldn't people be outraged by a player being paid £80,000 a week or whatever to get and stay fit not being able to do so and resorting to taking banned substances in order to keep his weight down? Don't see anything funny about it at all really. I'm disappointed in and for the player.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

UEFA havent exactly been on our side through our whole EL campaign.

How on earth do UEFA have any discretion in relation to how they handle a player who's been caught taking PED's? In what way have they been unfair to LFC?

54and56

Fromvert wrote: »

The naivety of people thinking that Liverpool will cut ties with Sakho.

All depends on the severity of what he's been caught doing. If it was a once of diuretic then he was stupid, should do his 12 month ban and be allowed back once he has shown some contrition but if it's systemic and the ban is two years there will be a decision to make. Will holding onto him cost more in damaged reputation and lost sponsorship to the club than letting him go. The answer to that question is far from clear.

I wonder do FSG have any parallel experience with one of their baseball players getting caught doing PED's? Isn't PED abuse relatively common in baseball?

corwill

Fromvert wrote: »

The naivety of people thinking that Liverpool will cut ties with Sakho. He's an asset that is worth about 20m, you don't just throw that out and let someone pick him up for free in a year.

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

Chardee MacDennis

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If LFC mishandle the situation e.g. holding onto him if what he was doing was part of a systemic program of PED cheating then you'd better believe brands who pay to be associated with the positive messages surrounding LFC would have a lot to say about it and ultimately review their continuing association with the club if they felt it had negative connotations for them.

Where is this systemic doping program coming from? Even if thats what happened, no one is accusing him of that and he's hardly going to admit that?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why shouldn't people be outraged by a player being paid £80,000 a week or whatever to get and stay fit not being able to do so and resorting to taking banned substances in order to keep his weight down? Don't see anything funny about it at all really. I'm disappointed in and for the player.

What difference does his wage make? If Origi did it, on his £20,000 per week, would it have induced 1/4 the outrage?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

How on earth do UEFA have any discretion in relation to how they handle a player who's been caught taking PED's?

i forgot how UEFA was such an upstanding organisation with a history of applying rules consistently...

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

In what way have they been unfair to LFC?

IIRC Liverpool have been charged 7 times this season by UEFA for things such as illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances, and firework offences. More than any other club, and some have certainly been more raucous than us.

Chardee MacDennis

corwill wrote: »

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

why wouldn't he be?

Je_suis_Jean

He was not picked over fitness issues back in Sept/Oct, the test sample taken 17th March.

Even back in the 90s drugs test were frequent in the PL, surely whatever was found was taken in the weeks previous to the test rather than 6 months previous. Looks like use over a period rather than a once off.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Cool your jets there a bit. Let's wait and see what the actual facts are before we equate what Sakho did to Mutu snorting coke FFS!!

1. If Sakho took some diuretics to get his weight down in order to be deemed fit enough to be picked I'd say he's a silly boy who should have worked harder at training, in the gym and on his diet. Such a once off mistake would be a relative misdemeanor for which he should do a ban, do some counselling/training for, do lot's of community type work during the ban, do an "I'm sorry" interview with LFC TV and then get back and show what a player he can be without taking stupid shortcuts.

2. If however he's been caught implementing a planned, premeditated and continuous PED program then I think the club may have more to lose by not getting rid of him (through reduced sponsorships etc) than by getting rid of him.

3. If he's been taking coke or other recreational drugs he should just be told to pack his bags today and get out, end of.

I really really hope it's #1 and this will all blow over in a few weeks.

54and56

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

Where is this systemic doping program coming from? Even if thats what happened, no one is accusing him of that and he's hardly going to admit that?

It's one of the two possible scenarios ie:

1. It was a stupid isolated incident.
2. It was a systemic PED program he was doing himself or with help from others.

If it's #2 he may not want to admit it but if he refuses to say where he sourced the PED's from he'll be obstructing UEFA's investigation which is as good as admitting it wasn't a once off incident. UEFA are obliged to investigate thoroughly right back to the source of the PED and to see what other players or officials may have connections to that source.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

What difference does his wage make?

Doesn't make any difference at all, that's why I said "or whatever"

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

If Origi did it, on his £20,000 per week, would it have induced 1/4 the outrage?

Of course there would.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

IIRC Liverpool have been charged 7 times this season by UEFA for things such as illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances, and firework offences. More than any other club, and some have certainly been more raucous than us.

Shock horror - club who have breached UEFA rules for illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances and fireworks etc are charged for............ wait for it.......... illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances and fireworks. Whatever next?

corwill

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

why wouldn't he be?

Seriously?

Fromvert

corwill wrote: »

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

He'd only be 27 and it would depend on how much the time off has effected him but as long as he stays fit he'd still be worth close to it and still be valuable regardless.

How many players of quality and value have got dumped by their club for being banned? I can't think of many.

This club backed Suarez!
Kolo was kept on by City when he missed six months and played the following year.
United kept Rio when he missed 8 months.

Mutu by Chelsea for coke if I remember correctly is the only high profile one I can think of.

54and56

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

why wouldn't he be?

Several reasons:

1. 18 months of his remaining (96 month until he's 34?) playing career will be gone.

2. If he can't make the optimum weight for top performance aged 26 how will he do so aged 28 and above? (Remember Razor Ruddock :eek:)

3. His image rights which form part of his commercial value will be significantly tarnished. Far less parents are going to buy Sakho shirts or the product he endorses for their kids Vs players not caught taking banned substances.

4. There will be a question mark over whether mentally he will be able to get over this personal setback and return to being the player he had just become. E.g. Mutu never did.

54and56

Looks like it'll all be grand as FSG seem to be ok with their Red Sox players getting a lengthy ban for being caught taking the banned stimulant Oxilofrine http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-michael-kopech-suspended-stimulant-oxilofrine-pitching-prospect-071615 and then returning to play for the Red Sox http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/3/16/11244180/michael-kopech-injury-broken-hand-red-sox-news

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same treatment to Sakho that they did to Kopech.

Harry Palmr

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

there will be no sponsors walking away from Liverpool due to Sakho, whether we keep him or not.

It's disappointing but the outrage here is hilarious.

Anymore than a year I can understand cutting him, otherwise hold onto him and renegotiate his contract. I don't see why not, he's made a mistake (whether that mistake is taking a banned substance or getting caught is another debate), and he's still a top quality player.

I do think the club are wise to play it safe and not play him though, just in case. UEFA havent exactly been on our side through our whole EL campaign.

Are you on drugs?

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Mutu never did.

Agree with almost all of that, but to be fair to Mutu, he fairly burned up Serie A with Fiorentino, 84 goals in 112 appearances according to Wikipedia. Picked a 9 month ban for doping along the way, the spanner.

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Looks like it'll all be grand as FSG seem to be ok with their Red Sox players getting a lengthy ban for being caught taking the banned stimulant Oxilofrine http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-michael-kopech-suspended-stimulant-oxilofrine-pitching-prospect-071615 and then returning to play for the Red Sox http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/3/16/11244180/michael-kopech-injury-broken-hand-red-sox-news

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same treatment to Sakho that they did to Kopech.

The yanks could not care less about doping. Different context, which FSG would do well to bear in mind.

54and56

corwill wrote: »

Agree with almost all of that, but to be fair to Mutu, he fairly burned up Serie A with Fiorentino, 84 goals in 112 appearances according to Wikipedia. Picked a 9 month ban for doping along the way, the spanner.

I sit corrected but I still think there would be a question mark over any players ability to just resume where they left off after 18 months kicking their heels and that would be a factor any potential buyer would have to take into consideration when deciding what value they place on the player.

Uncertainty only has one impact on the value of any asset and that's negative.

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I sit corrected but I still think there would be a question mark over any players ability to just resume where they left off after 18 months kicking their heels and that would be a factor any potential buyer would have to take into consideration when deciding what value they place on the player.

Uncertainty only has one impact on the value of any asset and that's negative.

We're absolutely of the same mind as to the effect of a lengthier ban. Mutu picked up where he left off after a shortish ban. And then got pinged for doping. You don't need to be Hercule Poirot to join those dots.

bur

corwill wrote: »

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

He hasn't been worth that much since we bought him, so no.

Chardee MacDennis

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Are you on drugs?

I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too. :P

MonkeyTennis

the boul Mitch

8-10

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Looks like it'll all be grand as FSG seem to be ok with their Red Sox players getting a lengthy ban for being caught taking the banned stimulant Oxilofrine http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-michael-kopech-suspended-stimulant-oxilofrine-pitching-prospect-071615 and then returning to play for the Red Sox http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/3/16/11244180/michael-kopech-injury-broken-hand-red-sox-news

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same treatment to Sakho that they did to Kopech.

Completely different to be fair. He was 19 and has never played for the Red Sox and would be unlikely to for about 3 years when he got the 50 game ban. 50 games is about a third of a season in minor league terms.

It's the equivalent to one of Liverpool's academy players at aged 16 get a 15 game ban. Sakho is not a kid 3 years away from the first team. Plus there's no point in cutting him loose as in baseball he has a guaranteed contract so you'd have to still pay him to play for another club

ush

There's performance enhancing drugs in baseball?

corwill

ush wrote: »

There's performance enhancing drugs in baseball?

Like there are bikes in Beijing.

Chardee MacDennis

ush wrote: »

There's performance enhancing drugs in baseball?

dogbert27

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561056/Carlisle-football-club-chief-slammed-tweets-joking-Hillsborough.html

My twitter account was hacked has to be the lamest excuse I ever heard.

dogbert27

Just read Klopp has managed 45 games already with us!

46.67% win rate.

corwill

dogbert27 wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3561056/Carlisle-football-club-chief-slammed-tweets-joking-Hillsborough.html

My twitter account was hacked has to be the lamest excuse I ever heard.

Clown. Don't recall anyone laughing at them when Brunton Park was underwater last year, and I doubt they would have taken kindly to anyone who did. This is far worse.

I just assume anyone claiming a hacked Twitter account is lying, why would anyone to the effort for this bell?

~Rebel~

corwill wrote: »

The reputational damage

Reputational damage means literally nothing in this sport. it matters for the first news cycle, and then goes away. Time and time again.

Where's Suarez reputational damage got him? 3 separate bans for biting people and a ban for racism later, and he's at the biggest club in the world, on one of the highest salary's in world football. Christ, he was bought twice while actually still serving bans for biting.

and the huge write-off of much his value as a club asset that result from a 1+ year ban means he'll have to go.

Well, if you cancel his contract, then you write off his asset value. If you keep him, he stays on the books as an asset, increasing the value of the club.

Also, we know from experience that 6 months of decent football after he's back, and his value will be wholly restored.

Add to that, what message would any other approach send to the rest of the playing staff on the one hand, and to the world at large on the other? Just not sustainable.

Erm, we signed Kolo after he served a ban for the same thing. I don't recall anyone caring very much about that.

Knex*

If you're not doing PEDs of some sort, you don't have the right mentality for professional sport.

Sakho can stay. The rest I want out. Bunch of pussies.

Agent Coulson

I see him getting an 8 month ban and he will return just in time for our triumphant New Year run in for the quadruple!

54and56

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Reputational damage means literally nothing in this sport. it matters for the first news cycle, and then goes away. Time and time again.

Where's Suarez reputational damage got him? 3 separate bans for biting people and a ban for racism later, and he's at the biggest club in the world, on one of the highest salary's in world football. Christ, he was bought twice while actually still serving bans for biting.

Biting and alleged racism is not equivalent to taking PED's for three critical reasons:-

1. Biting and alleged racism aren't illegally improving physical performance and/or subversive cheating. Mental behaviour no doubt!!

2. A player suspended for biting and alleged racism will return to the same level of physical performance after their ban as they had beforehand. A player banned for taking PED's won't unless they keep taking PED's.

3. PED's are dangerous to your health and whilst biting and alleged racism may also be seen as detrimental to your health they generally don't have any long term affect other than a black eye or sore jaw if the offended party gets to land a punch.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Erm, we signed Kolo after he served a ban for the same thing. I don't recall anyone caring very much about that.

Two things:-

1. You're assuming what Kolo did was exactly the same as Sakho. No one know's yet, other than Sakho, if that's the case.

2. The rules and attitudes to PED's have changed substantially since Kolo was banned 5 years ago.

~Rebel~

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Biting and alleged racism is not equivalent to taking PED's for three critical reasons:-

1. Biting and alleged racism aren't illegally improving physical performance and/or subversive cheating. Mental behaviour no doubt!!

2. A player suspended for biting and alleged racism will return to the same level of physical performance after their ban as they had beforehand. A player banned for taking PED's won't unless they keep taking PED's.

3. PED's are dangerous to your health and whilst biting and alleged racism may also be seen as detrimental to your health they generally don't have any long term affect other than a black eye or sore jaw if the offended party gets to land a punch.

I think you need to re-read my points in relation to what they were actually answering.

The above response has nothing to do with the reputational damage of the club, which was the point raised. I'll reiterate - the act doesn't matter. Once this news cycle passes, it'll be forgotten for the most part. It'll become a footnote. Kolo is loved throughout the land. Rio is a TV personality now. Couto, Stam, Davids - all found to be doping, all still have good reputations intact and enjoy post-playing careers in the game.

It's news for right now, but as with all things in football, it'll all die down, and everyone will move onto the next thing. I'm not saying it's right, i'm simply saying it's the reality.

Two things:-

1. You're assuming what Kolo did was exactly the same as Sakho. No one know's yet, other than Sakho, if that's the case.

2. The rules and attitudes to PED's have changed substantially since Kolo was banned 5 years ago.

Once again, the point raised was about the message keeping him on would send.

Well, as you point out, Sakho's the only one that may know of a difference. As far as the greater world is concerned, they're the same thing. Noone cared that we signed Kolo almost exactly 2 years after he'd been found guilty of what is ostensibly the same thing.

And y'know what - if we release him and when the ban ends, Lyon, or PSG, or Madrid sign him up - noone will care.

corwill

@~Rebel~: what JSJ said, basically. Not that I don't see merit in your arguments, I do. But the club soaking up as much flak as they did for Suarez was not entirely without cost or consequence, and it's left them in a much weaker position to stand behind Sahko.

This is all about intangibles and perception, so pretty hard to measure, only time will tell. Whatever approach the club takes, I just hope it works out. There's still a fair bit to be revealed, Sahko's pleas in mitigation and evidence advanced in support of same, and the ban to be imposed. I know I've posted here in fairly trenchant terms over the last 2 days about this topic, I'm pretty disappointed and not a little angry with Sahko for getting himself into this mess, but I suppose we should all keep as open a mind as possible until we actually hear his side of it, and what the club has to say about that themselves.

Edit: the last thing I'll say is that, regardless of who else might care, I care (perhaps naively), and I think I'm not alone in that.

US sports don't care for doping.

What's the ban for Nfl? Something like 4 games for 1st offence and 10 games for 2nd offence.


Riddled I'd imagine

K-9

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Apologies if the publication has a racist reputation. I'd never heard of it before and didn't do any research on it before linking to it. I'd heard of the stupid idiot who'd advanced the "I fell into her" defence, thought it would be a humorous response to the person wondering what Sakho's excuse/defence might be, Googled it and that was the first result.

Mea culpa if anyone's offended.

The Little Britain politician sketch with him doing a press interview outside his house, with the obligatory supporting wife beside him is a classic.

Basically, I took a walk in Hampstead Heath late at night when I had to unbuckle my belt........ I fell and reached out for a branch and there happened to be another man there with his member out...

~Rebel~

corwill wrote: »

@~Rebel~: what JSJ said, basically. Not that I don't see merit in your arguments, I do. But the club soaking up as much flak as they did for Suarez was not entirely without cost or consequence, and it's left them in a much weaker position to stand behind Sahko.

This is all about intangibles and perception, so pretty hard to measure, only time will tell. Whatever approach the club takes, I just hope it works out. There's still a fair bit to be revealed, Sahko's pleas in mitigation and evidence advanced in support of same, and the ban to be imposed. I know I've posted here in fairly trenchant terms over the last 2 days about this topic, I'm pretty disappointed and not a little angry with Sahko for getting himself into this mess, but I suppose we should all keep as open a mind as possible until we actually hear his side of it, and what the club has to say about that themselves.

Edit: the last thing I'll say is that, regardless of who else might care, I care (perhaps naively), and I think I'm not alone in that.

I understand where you're coming from, and as you said we're best off waiting until all the facts are in and we know where we stand.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the area of doping control at this stage...we're so far past the days of black and white, right and wrong now, that we can't look at it in those terms so much anymore. It's all nuance. For instance would people consider creatine a PED? I mean, its a supplement that helps you build muscle, and it can be harmful under certain circumstances, but it's totally fine for players to take. At what stage does Lucozade sport become performance enhancing? It sounds silly, but it's really all so very gray on what's right and wrong.

It's not like all of these banned substances turn you into superman, the gains are often very slight, and are more about allowing you to train that little bit longer than actually doing the work for you. I can somewhat empathize with a player hitting a wall, but knowing they need to do more to be at the top.

This is all a general stance on my part by the way, not necessarily in relation to the Sakho case. But it's interesting that he's the subject - given that we know he's actually a very decent, socially conscious guy. On a social level, he's clearly a more genuinely decent guy than many of the players we watch every week. That alone makes me want to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he did and why he did it.

dogbert27

I'm with Rebel on this one. No one will really care in a few weeks time when the focus is on Leicester winning the premier league.

A guy with Hamilton got a one month ban for this. 1 month probably because he's a relative unknown. Toure, 6 months and a fine.

Sahko will get between 6 to 12 months, club will fine him. He'll donate it to a local charity. Come back clean and all will be forgiven.

54and56

~Rebel~ wrote: »

At what stage does Lucozade sport become performance enhancing?

Never, it's just sugar

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It sounds silly, but it's really all so very gray on what's right and wrong.

It's actually not grey at all, it's totally black and white. There's a comprehensive list of WADA banned substances here https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2016-prohibited-list-en.pdf. If you're a professional athlete it's up to you to make sure anything you take isn't on that list. Simples :cool:

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This is all a general stance on my part by the way, not necessarily in relation to the Sakho case. But it's interesting that he's the subject - given that we know he's actually a very decent, socially conscious guy. On a social level, he's clearly a more genuinely decent guy than many of the players we watch every week. That alone makes me want to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he did and why he did it.

Couldn't agree more. If it had been Moreno (for example) I think he'd be getting a lot less sympathy than Sakho is.

54and56

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm with Rebel on this one. No one will really care in a few weeks time when the focus is on Leicester winning the premier league.

A guy with Hamilton got a one month ban for this. 1 month probably because he's a relative unknown. Toure, 6 months and a fine.

Sahko will get between 6 to 12 months, club will fine him. He'll donate it to a local charity. Come back clean and all will be forgiven.

How do so many people know exactly what Sakho has been caught doing when he hasn't even been charged yet?

Buford T. Justice XIX

A little bit more on Hillsborough, Richard Keys on Kenny Dalglish and his work during and after Hillsborough.

http://richardajkeys.com/richards-blog/entry/sir-kenny-dalglish

I know many wouldn't have much time for Keys but I think the story deserves a wider audience.

Harry Palmr

Subotic, who is out for the rest of season with thrombosis since the start of April

Sandra Goldschmidt
‎‎@SanBorussia

According to @RevierSport Neven Subotic could be joining Liverpool this summer. #BVB #LFC
6:41 PM - 27 Apr 2016

Alex Chaffer
‎‎@AlexChaffer

Sounds like Neven Subotic is on his way to Liverpool, joining Joel Matip as another new defender for Klopp. #bundesligadefence
7:13 PM - 27 Apr 2016

and

barcastuff
‎‎@barcastuff

Liverpool have made a first formal bid of 10M for Thomas Vermaelen (30). Barcelona are waiting for other teams to also make a bid. [sport]
12:49 PM - 27 Apr 2016

klose

RoboKlopp wrote: »

US sports don't care for doping.

What's the ban for Nfl? Something like 4 games for 1st offence and 10 games for 2nd offence.


Riddled I'd imagine

Was listening to second captains they other day and they were mentioning that, farcical attitude they have to it over there alright.


No sooner has sakho accepted his ban has a potential replacement popped up in the media, subotic again.

murpho999

dogbert27 wrote: »

I'm with Rebel on this one. No one will really care in a few weeks time when the focus is on Leicester winning the premier league.

A guy with Hamilton got a one month ban for this. 1 month probably because he's a relative unknown. Toure, 6 months and a fine.

Sahko will get between 6 to 12 months, club will fine him. He'll donate it to a local charity. Come back clean and all will be forgiven.

Don't get the apathy of football fans to this.

If this was any other sport then there would be calls for life bans, stripping of titles and records and heavy fines.

Sakho, who works at the level of an elite athlete and certainly has an elite level remuneration has let himself, the fans and the club down badly.
He has the best of facilities and advice at his call who can ensure that he eats the right permitted foodstuffs and supplements and takes the right permitted medicines.
He's taken something illegal of his own volition, not by accident which is totally irresponsible and it should not be tolerated.

I would expect him to be sacked for gross misconduct without any pay as he would be in any other sport.

sweetie

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

How would we feel if a player who tested positive for a PED a few weeks ago was allowed play against us in such an important match?

We had a paedo play against us and denied us two points.