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

J Mysterio

Not to blow my own trumpet but I do recall saying something about giving him the benefit of the doubt! Fućking delighted. If its true the substance is not on the banned substances list, UEFA have a lot to answer for and should be sued for damages.

Really delighted. Saves us worrying about defence too which means we can up the ante in terms of making one or two big purchases.

K-9

All going well it strikes CB off our list of transfer target areas so we can concentrate elsewhere. If Karius settles in, we upgrade on Moreno and get a good DM type I think we'd be more solid at the back. Wouldn't be too hard anyway!

Francie Barrett

J Mysterio wrote: »

Not to blow my own trumpet but I do recall saying something about giving him the benefit of the doubt! Fućking delighted. If its true the substance is not on the banned substances list, UEFA have a lot to answer for and should be sued for damages.

Really delighted. Saves us worrying about defence too which means we can up the ante in terms of making one or two big purchases.

Said the same thing myself. The whole thing just seemed to unlikely.

klose

Wonder what fsg will have to say about the whole sakho thing if it turns out he was wrongfully banned, given how they fancied their chances in court of the Suarez buy out clause contract saga would they look at court action?

mormank

K-9 wrote: »

All going well it strikes CB off our list of transfer target areas so we can concentrate elsewhere. If Karius settles in, we upgrade on Moreno and get a good DM type I think we'd be more solid at the back. Wouldn't be too hard anyway!

I don't think it does tho. Even with sakho we really only have Sahko and Lovren as centre backs next season. If you believe that Skrtel is leaving and kolo is gone we only have Gomez as cover for the CB position with Lucas at a stretch but that's still not sufficient imo.

Buford T. Justice XIX

klose wrote: »

Wonder what fsg will have to say about the whole sakho thing if it turns out he was wrongfully banned, given how they fancied their chances in court of the Suarez buy out clause contract saga would they look at court action?

I imagine if they had appealed the UEFA ban and were denied, they would have a huge case.

But as it is, Sakho has a nice ball of euros coming his way for impugning his good name.

The down side is he can afford to give up the painting job now.

dmigsy

mormank wrote: »

I don't think it does tho. Even with sakho we really only have Sahko and Lovren as centre backs next season. If you believe that Skrtel is leaving and kolo is gone we only have Gomez as cover for the CB position with Lucas at a stretch but that's still not sufficient imo.

You're forgetting Matip. I'd prefer to see kolo get another year as cover too though.

Ben Gadot

If this is true about Sakho then we should take UEFA every which way possible.

K-9

mormank wrote: »

I don't think it does tho. Even with sakho we really only have Sahko and Lovren as centre backs next season. If you believe that Skrtel is leaving and kolo is gone we only have Gomez as cover for the CB position with Lucas at a stretch but that's still not sufficient imo.

As mentioned there's Matip as well so 3 senior CB's and I've a feeling they might keep Toure if he wants to stay. That leaves Gomez 4th or 5th choice at worst, so he should get cup games at least. No point keeping him about otherwise. It puts it down the list anyway whereas it would have been top priority along with LB.

UEFA have to make the decision by Tuesday at the latest, otherwise Sakho could miss the Euros which would be very unfair on him.

Riesen_Meal

Aww, "poor" Raheem having a mare according to the rags....

I'd take him back at cut price!

NukaCola

Ah...he's just a kid who loves to play football......oh, and hippy crack, he loves that stuff too.....

NukaCola

RoboKlopp wrote: »

I'd take him back at cut price!

Not to sound like a bitter, because the price we got for him was mega, but there is no way I'd go anywhere near him if Aidy Ward was involved......poison.

rob316

A case of too much too young too fast. Maybe pep can save him but I couldn't care less either way. He made his bed now sleep on it.

doc_17

Very strange to ban someone unless they detected something. Surely Liverpool looked at it at the time and thought it was pretty clear cut?

Vicxas

Sky Sports reckons we'll finish 5th next year, if we don't make top 4 with no European football as a distraction i'd be a bit annoyed.

Turtyturd

Is Sterling being set up as the fall guy for when they go out of the Euros?

If Klopp is going to keep Sturridge I'd rather Welbeck 4.0 gets his place in the England squad, and the circus that follows it.

K-9

How can anybody predict finishes now?

I hope Roy doesn't pick Sturridge either though there's talk he might go with 5 strikers. Roy has changed his "philosophy" going with 3 CB's so it's a possibility.

It's more to do with his CB and CM options being shyte though.

5starpool

doc_17 wrote: »

Very strange to ban someone unless they detected something. Surely Liverpool looked at it at the time and thought it was pretty clear cut?

As I understand it, he took something, it was found out, it was on the banned list but his defence is that it should not be on the banned list and it seems uefa might agree with him. The case is still ongoing though so could still be banned potentially.

Some people here seen to have hold of the wrong end of the stick.

K-9

I'm not 100% sure on it either. It seems to be assumed that because they didn't extend the ban that he should be in the clear.

ush

5starpool wrote: »

doc_17 wrote: »

Very strange to ban someone unless they detected something. Surely Liverpool looked at it at the time and thought it was pretty clear cut?

As I understand it, he took something, it was found out, it was on the banned list but his defence is that it should not be on the banned list and it seems uefa might agree with him. The case is still ongoing though so could still be banned potentially.

Some people here seen to have hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Exactly. Some people think its black and white. Sakho's brief argued the case and cast enough doubt on the charge. Nothing that involves lawyers stays black and white for very long.

5starpool

Some stuff from twitter on the Sakho thing. Shows how complex it is (if this is true)

The particular substance found in #Sakho’s urine, that was present in the product that he was taking, is called higenamine. #LFC

Higenamine isn't on AMA’s list of banned substances, even though it belongs to a category, beta-2 agonists, that is banned

Reports in France say Mamadou Sakho is still set to miss EURO 2016, despite being cleared of doping. #LFC

A mistake by the authorities, but legally, Sakho has not made a mistake.

When one types higenamine into the UKAD and AFLD websites, neither authorities’ page recognises the molecule.

Seems like maybe the specific ingredient should have been on the banned list as it is from a category of thing that it banned which is why it was caught in the tests, but it wasn't on the list specifically.

We should find out next week either way anyhow I reckon. It'll be good if he is available next season anyhow, save us some money.

LuckyLloyd

Kerrigooney wrote: »

A lot of people have been left looking a bit silly over this.

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Systematic doping was being put out there by boards doping experts

Well I'd still wonder why the **** he was taking a fat burner? If it isn't on the list of banned substances and they couldn't find anything else in his sample then fair play - free to go. But I was going to feel alright about my assumption that X was a masking attribute for Y even if they banned him for X.

Either way, I don't care if he's a clean athlete or not once he plays well for us. In that sense, this is potentially excellent news.

mosstin

Vicxas wrote: »

Sky Sports reckons we'll finish 5th next year, if we don't make top 4 with no European football as a distraction i'd be a bit annoyed.

Fucking gobshites. Season just over - let Leicester enjoy their moment without already analysing who'll win next year's. Euros to come, plus a full summer of transfers. I hate Sky Sports.

Knex*

Origi's bicycle kick

https://streamable.com/1ryy

54and56

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure on it either. It seems to be assumed that because they didn't extend the ban that he should be in the clear.

No, it appears that whatever he took is in fact on the banned list but there's a question as to whether the substance he took should be on the banned list and UEFA have accepted that there is potentially some merit to Sakho's defence so they are lifting his ban to give themselves time to examine the argument and make a fully informed determination. I'm sure there is a lengthy process involved in deciding whether a substance should or shouldn't be on the banned list (potentially UEFA/WADA experts arguing it should and other experts, possibly retained by the substance manufacturer or LFC or both, arguing it shouldn't) and until there is a final determination which could involve an appeal process Sakho won't be banned from playing.

Just because he isn't banned though doesn't mean France will pick him for their Euro squad or LFC will allow him back into the squad when the PL restarts. They may decide to take the moral high ground and "voluntarily" not pick him until the issue of whether the substance should be on the list or not is fully resolved as it's possible this is a very technical loophole which won't fundamentally change the fact that Sakho took a PED he shouldn't have. What I mean by "technical" is for example that the substance on the list is spelt XXX whereas the manufacturers spelling of it on the bottle Sakho used was XXXY. In circumstances like that Sakho may avoid having the book thrown at him by UEFA but LFC may see through the technicality and cancel his contract or try to off load him.

This is entirely speculation on my behalf but shows that the lifting of the ban does not necessarily equate to Sakho being innocent of taking a PED and that once the technical issue is resolved he may well have the appropriate ban applied to him. I really hope not though, I'd be very happy if this was indeed a monumental cock up by UEFA and Sakho plus all other footballers are free to keep taking the substance as it's some sort of natural supplement which aids weight loss.

54and56

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Systematic doping was being put out there by boards doping experts

If doping does actually occur there's only two scenarios:-

1. The player/athlete is acting without the assistance or knowledge of their coaches/managers etc.

2. The player/athlete is being encouraged to take PED's by their coaches/managers etc.

Imagine people on a rumours and gossip thread spreading rumours or speculating that one of the two options pertaining to Sakho's failed drug test could apply :eek:

Also, I don't recall anyone on here describing themselves as "doping experts". We all put forward our own theories and arguments. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. That's why we come here and read what others are saying. Big deal.

K-9

Yep, he isn't claiming an "innocent mistake" defence but it doesn't seem a technicality either, as it seems to be more from a medical viewpoint than legal.

I don't think the drug experts were on this thread!

Harry Palmr

Presumably they'll add Higenamine AKA Norcoclaurine & Demethylcoclaurine to their list, but a retrospective ban would be against the spirit of fair play and clearly easy to challenge so I expect UEFA will not attempt to impose one.

Agent Coulson

Got to love a loophole.

Riesen_Meal

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Got to love a loophole.

Still doesn't explain why he was taking it in the first place...

Is he taking it because it's "not banned yet" kind of thing?

Silly boy if so....

Knex*

Fieldog wrote: »

Still doesn't explain why he was taking it in the first place...

Is he taking it because it's "not banned yet" kind of thing?

Silly boy if so....

I've heard rumours, but they're most likely retroactive thinking, that the reason why Rodgers used to not always play Sakho was because he was often out of shape.

Seems fairly ludicrous to me, considering he's a notorious beast, but who knows.

Agent Coulson

Fieldog wrote: »

Still doesn't explain why he was taking it in the first place...

Is he taking it because it's "not banned yet" kind of thing?

Silly boy if so....

Maybe if he wasn't told he was overweight by the manager he might not have felt the need to use fat burners to lose weight.

He may have psychological issues about his appearance and being told he looks overweight hurt him.

SuperTortoise

He's never looked overweight to me, his top speed when chasing down is good enough for a CB it's just his acceleration to reach that top speed is poor enough, no big deal for me, every other part of his game is superb.

5starpool

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Maybe if he wasn't told he was overweight by the manager he might not have felt the need to use fat burners to lose weight.

He may have psychological issues about his appearance and being told he looks overweight hurt him.

He's not a teenage girl.

Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

...........

............

Also, I don't recall anyone on here describing themselves as "doping experts". We all put forward our own theories and arguments. Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong. That's why we come here and read what others are saying. Big deal.

Indeed, at worst we have some aspiring doping experts who reckon the rest of us are naïve to the doping that goes on at PL clubs

K-9

He looked less awkward while on the fat burners.

Agent Coulson

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Maybe if he wasn't told he was overweight by the manager he might not have felt the need to use fat burners to lose weight.

He may have psychological issues about his appearance and being told he looks overweight hurt him.

Indeed, manager's fault, 100%.

Agent Coulson

5starpool wrote: »

He's not a teenage girl.

Statements like that are the reason some men bottle everything up and don't talk about there psychological issues.

Kerrigooney

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, manager's fault, 100%.

Not 100%,no.

But partially? Maybe...who knows?

Buford T. Justice XIX

Kerrigooney wrote: »

Not 100%,no.

But partially? Maybe...who knows?

Feck him, he should have gone shopping instead!

Bit of transfer 'news' for the LOLs

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2016/05/liverpool-transfer-news-roundup-sakho-zielinski-balotelli-nzonzi-oxlade-chamberlain/

Zielinski talks accelerated, Balotelli on move to Lazio in a 'low cost plan', and we are fighting with Leicester for N'Zonzi and Oxlade-Chamberlain.

citytillidie

5starpool wrote: »

If true pity the news didn't come too late for him to be involved in the Euro's. I'd prefer if all our players were left out and decided to retire from international football.

Ahh it's only more tears if Liverpool players don't make the Euros

Milkers

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Got to love a loophole.

5starpool

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Statements like that are the reason some men bottle everything up and don't talk about there psychological issues.

Ah heyor. He has the best available mental and physical medical staff at both club and country level. I doubt someone hurt his feelings in the way you described.

Turtyturd

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Feck him, he should have gone shopping instead!

Bit of transfer 'news' for the LOLs

http://www.thisisanfield.com/2016/05/liverpool-transfer-news-roundup-sakho-zielinski-balotelli-nzonzi-oxlade-chamberlain/

Zielinski talks accelerated, Balotelli on move to Lazio in a 'low cost plan', and we are fighting with Leicester for N'Zonzi and Oxlade-Chamberlain.

N'zonzi could be a decent squad player, Oxlade Chamberlin is a poor mans Ibe.

mormank

dmigsy wrote: »

You're forgetting Matip. I'd prefer to see kolo get another year as cover too though.

Yes I am, you're right. Phew, I was genuinely worried there for a second.

8-10

Turtyturd wrote: »

N'zonzi could be a decent squad player

No thanks

Buford T. Justice XIX

Turtyturd wrote: »

N'zonzi could be a decent squad player, Oxlade Chamberlin is a poor mans Ibe.

Well should keep a count of the players we are linked with. It will run into the hundreds but we are probably only looking seriously at 10 to 15 including first choice and next best players for 4 or 5 positions.

Click bait Summers.

corwill

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Well should keep a count of the players we are linked with. It will run into the hundreds but we are probably only looking seriously at 10 to 15 including first choice and next best players for 4 or 5 positions.

Click bait Summers.

Wait until the Euros. Every yahoo at it who kicks a ball out of his way without falling over will be linked with us.

Umaro

https://twitter.com/GFFNEURO2016/status/736947588822368256

[font=Arial, sans-serif]Didier Deschamps: "Call up Sakho? I have never thought about it. Or I would no longer have any respect for those that I have selected."[/font]

What a mess this whole thing will have been if Sakho ends up cleared - but still had to miss a European final and Euro 2016.

It does mean that Lovren, Sakho, Matip and Karius will be there at the very start of pre-season though.