Yet another example of Rio being a whipping boy

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

wheres me jumpa

im not even going to mention the rio thing! but that is crazy that you can choose not to do a test and not face consequences.

PHB

Its because a blood test is in a lot of peoples opinion a violation of privacy.
Gattuso took a urine test which is required by the rules, but did not take a blood test, because he isn't obligated to and didn't want to.
This has nothing to do with rio.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

astrofool

How could a blood test be more an invasion of privacy than a urine test? I know for most people, they'd prefer to give a blood sample than to take a whiz in front of someone else.

I think everybody knew this would happen with Rio being made a scapegoat. I think some hoped that his ban would set the standard for how football dealt with drugs, rather than become the anomalae it has become. I think the United fans would now deserve to feel hard done by, and had it been any other league he was competing in, or even played for another country, or club, the chances are he would have been given some silly little meaningless ban, if anything at all.

If anything it points to the sheer amount of corruption in the sport.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Guy:Incognito

The situations are completely different. Ferdinand broke a rule and Gattuso didnt. Regardless of anyones opinions on what should or should not be in the rules the fact is no rules were broken, unlike in the ferdinand case where a rule was clearly broken.

Would everyone here oblige (sp?) their boss if he decided that random blood test will be asked for? I for one hate needles and as long as they are not absolutely neesessary, I avoid them.

Guy:Incognito

wheres me jumpa wrote:

im not even going to mention the rio thing! but that is crazy that you can choose not to do a test and not face consequences.

He didnt choose not todo the test, he gave a urine sample (which, incidentally, is fine for every other league) he just refused to give a blood sample which is his choice under the rules.

Chucky the tree

astrofool wrote:

How could a blood test be more an invasion of privacy than a urine test? I know for most people, they'd prefer to give a blood sample than to take a whiz in front of someone else..

oh god, your not ****ing serious are you?! Taking a whiz in front of someone esle is a invasion of privacy? how you never pissed in a pub with someone beside you no?

also, they can stand in a cubicle when giving the test, so its not like someone is starring down at there todger, waiting for them to piss.

Not only that, but pissing is a completely natural process, everyone pisses a couple of times a day, if not more. Giving blood is not a natural daily process. It involes having a needle stuck in you. I could even go into the medical harms of this (aids etc). There is also the fact that someone people have a serious phobia about giving blood, and needles. I dont anyone has a phobia about pissing, do they?

astrofool wrote:

I think everybody knew this would happen with Rio being made a scapegoat. I think some hoped that his ban would set the standard for how football dealt with drugs, rather than become the anomalae it has become. I think the United fans would now deserve to feel hard done by, and had it been any other league he was competing in, or even played for another country, or club, the chances are he would have been given some silly little meaningless ban, if anything at all.

If anything it points to the sheer amount of corruption in the sport.

Do you not know that the English Fa and Italian FA are two completely different bodies? that little notion has by passed you it seems.

The actions the IFA take have nothing to do with the EFA. So you cant call him a scapegoat. SO please, get your facts right before going on a rant.


I also strongly recommend people read the ****ing article before commenting, i really think the thread starter should do that aswell.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Chucky the tree

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Seriously, what are you talking aobut?! Its up to individual FA's to deal with anti-doping policy isnt it?

This has nothing to do with the RIo affiar, he took a test, passed it(afaik), so why are you relating it to RIo' case?

abccormac

FIFA made a lot of noise over the whole Ferdinand affair, where he missed a test, supposedly accidentaly, then took it the next day. Gattuso refused to take a test, which he is allowed to do according to the serie A rules. I think smiaras' point is that we are not hearing much from FIFA about this at all. Why make such a fuss over one players error, and say next to nothing about a system whereby a player doesn't need to take a test if he doesn't want to, in a league where several high profile players, (Davids, Stam, etc.) have failed tests, and juventus have been found guilty of systematic doping? I'm not a united fan, and I think Ferdinand got what he deserved, but the same rules should apply across the board. With clubs like Milan and United, this affects more than domestic competition, European competition is involved aswell.

Chucky the tree

jesus christ.


Gattuso TOOK a urine test!!! he refused the blood test, which he is prefect entitled too!

astrofool

Well seeing as Gattuso came out a few days later saying he would give a blood test would show it wasn't a fear of giving blood or needles that made him skip the test.

And my point wasn't that taking a piss in front of someone was an invasion of privacy for most people (although under law, it would be seen that way), but that basically both were as harmless as each other, so to say that giving blood is invading privacy more than urinating is absurd.

I think the big thing seems to be that football is crying out for a unified drugs testing programme, especially to create a level playing field, and especially with a competition that spans many leagues being the season's big competition to win, to have every team playing there under different levels of testing is ridiculous.

Gattuso did something he was entitled to do, but the fact that he was entitled to at all makes a mockery of drug testing in football. Why should the FA be harsh at all when every other association does nothing.

In reality, they should probably join up with the olympics in drug testing, where missing a test, or testing positive is a mandatory 2 year ban from the sport, and then disallow any federation that does not implement this fully from entering european competitions.

Oh, and putting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! after every sentence does not create a point where one does not exist, geddit!!!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Chucky the tree

astrofool wrote:

Well seeing as Gattuso came out a few days later saying he would give a blood test would show it wasn't a fear of giving blood or needles that made him skip the test.

And my point wasn't that taking a piss in front of someone was an invasion of privacy for most people (although under law, it would be seen that way), but that basically both were as harmless as each other, so to say that giving blood is invading privacy more than urinating is absurd.

If its so "abusrd", why do you think the Italian Fa cant enforce a blood test? Now i am not 100% sure, but i presume its because a blood test violates a persons human rights, or is a invasion of privacy.

Again, gattuso might not be afriad of needles, but other players are bound to be, do you think they should be forced to take a blood test?

astrofool wrote:

I think the big thing seems to be that football is crying out for a unified drugs testing programme, especially to create a level playing field, and especially with a competition that spans many leagues being the season's big competition to win, to have every team playing there under different levels of testing is ridiculous.

Gattuso did something he was entitled to do, but the fact that he was entitled to at all makes a mockery of drug testing in football. Why should the FA be harsh at all when every other association does nothing.

As far as i know the FA dont even have the opition of blood tests. I think the Italian FA brought it in themselves to clamp down because of the previous scandles they had.

astrofool wrote:

In reality, they should probably join up with the olympics in drug testing, where missing a test, or testing positive is a mandatory 2 year ban from the sport, and then disallow any federation that does not implement this fully from entering european competitions.

Oh, and putting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! after every sentence does not create a point where one does not exist, geddit!!!!!!!!!11111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!1

But he didnt miss a drugs test, this is the point that everyone seems to be missing, and i was getting fairly annoyed, thats why i added the !!.

Again, i am waiting for someone to point out the similiarites between gattuso and rio? Personally i cant see any at all.

abccormac

There are no similarities, and thats the whole point, one player refused to take a test, and didn't get punished, another player missed a test because he wanted to go shopping and received a lengthy ban.

do you think they should be forced to take a blood test?

Yes.

Guy:Incognito

astrofool wrote:

Why should the FA be harsh at all when every other association does nothing.

Because it's their job to look after their own, not slack off because others do.

By that reasoning all laws should b the same in every country but they arent.

Guy:Incognito

abccormac wrote:

There are no similarities, and thats the whole point, one player refused to take a test, and didn't get punished, another player missed a test because he wanted to go shopping and received a lengthy ban. .

Right this has gone so far, i'm just going to call you stupid now. He didnt REFUSE a test, he took yhe test that is perfectly acceptable in England and every other country. He then declined to take a further, non mandatory test.

Plus you are not Rio Ferdinand, so you dont know that he forgot the test or whether he deliberatley "forgot" the test to cover somethimg.

abccormac

AC Milan players Gennaro Gattuso and Giuseppe Pancaro declined to take optional blood tests after Sunday's Serie A game with AS Roma leaving Italian Football Federation president Franco Carraro in a tricky position.

He still refused to take a test. I know that he has the right to do so, but I don't think he should have that right. It's an injection, not open heart surgery, it's not as if it would inconvenience him too much.

Chucky the tree

abccormac wrote:

He still refused to take a test. I know that he has the right to do so, but I don't think he should have that right. It's an injection, not open heart surgery, it's not as if it would inconvenience him too much.

The inconvenience doesnt matter, he doesnt have to take the test. Rio did, and he didnt. He got punished, its simple really.

The Muppet

Stekelly wrote:

Plus you are not Rio Ferdinand, so you dont know that he forgot the test or whether he deliberatley "forgot" the test to cover somethimg.

Yes he does Ferdinand took tests after the missed test tha proved he was clean. At the time of Rio's case we heard that from then on Fotball was cleaning up its act and there would be consistancy in all future cases. What has happened to those undertakings. Sepp Blatter was very vocal about the Ferdinand case insisting on the severe punishment , Why has he allowed this situation to continue if he wanted to clean up the game?.

abccormac

To be honest, I couldn't care less if Ferdinand forgot or deliberately avoided the test, I think he got what he deserved. I also think any player who misses a test for whatever reason shoul get a similar punishment. Whats the point of having a testing regime in in place if even part of it is optional? It's farcical.

Guy:Incognito

The Muppet wrote:

What has happened to those undertakings. Sepp Blatter was very vocal about the Ferdinand case insisting on the severe punishment , Why has he allowed this situation to continue if he wanted to clean up the game?.

If gattuso was playing in England he would only have had to give a urine sample so its the same in Italy. Thats fairly consistant I'd say. The blood test was introduced as an opyional extra, which he took his option of not taking. Again, Itlay is the only place that does blood test so if anything they are going above and beyond, but obviously theres a reason , legal or otherwise, that they havnt made the blood test mandatory.

Chucky the tree

abccormac wrote:

To be honest, I couldn't care less if Ferdinand forgot or deliberately avoided the test, I think he got what he deserved. I also think any player who misses a test for whatever reason shoul get a similar punishment. Whats the point of having a testing regime in in place if even part of it is optional? It's farcical.

there is no point having a test regime in place if its optional, so they should scrap it as its not workable.

Thanx 4 The Fish

It's very simple, Gattuso did take a test, I am not sure what the problem is, FIFA make a player take a urine test, not a blood test, the Italian FA have brought in a non mandatory blood test as an extra. Sepp blatter can have no interest in this case as the Fifa requirements have been met.

So how are the cases of Rio who missedthe FIFA mandated drugs test (didn't take it) and Gatusso who did take the FIFA mandated test in any way similar ?

Anyone ?? Anyone ? No I thought not.

abccormac

scrap it as its not workable.

Or make it compulsory, as in other sports.

Chucky the tree

abccormac wrote:

Or make it compulsory, as in other sports.

what other sports are it compulsory, and do you have a link to it?

Big Ears

The Muppet wrote:

Yes he does Ferdinand took tests after the missed test tha proved he was clean.

no he didn't , he took the same test he was required to 36 hours later , so god knows what could have gone out of his sytem in that time , and the hair folical test he took several months later can only identify most recreational drugs and some performance enhancing drugs , so really he didn't prove anything .

PHB

Read The Article!!!!!

abccormac

what other sports are it compulsory, and do you have a link to it?

Ice skating
the paralympics
athletics

Five minutes with google threw up those.

EDIT: All olympic sports

And from the 2000 olympics, when blood testing was first introduced:

Prince Alexandre de Merode, head of the IOC's medical commission, warned that any athlete who refused to take the new test would be thrown out of the Games.

The Muppet

Big Ears wrote:

no he didn't , he took the same test he was required to 36 hours later , so god knows what could have gone out of his sytem in that time , and the hair folical test he took several months later can only identify most recreational drugs and some performance enhancing drugs , so really he didn't prove anything .

Well I,m not sure either of us would be qualified to argue the techninical side of that and it would be off topic in this thread anyway but from what I have read on it Ferdinand was proved to be clean and I have not seen anyone qualified to do so cast doubt on those findings.

The Rooster

If you miss a test on a given day then its impossible to definitively prove you had no illegal substance in your system on that day - thats why you get a ban for missing tests.

As for Gattuso v Ferdinand:

- Both were obliged to give urine samples on a certain day, Gattuso complied and Ferdiand didnt.

- Neither were obliged to give blood samples on that day - neither gave a blood sample.

Therefore Gattuso gets no ban and Ferdinand gets a ban.

Anyone who doesnt think that makes perfect sense needs to cop themselves on.

Why the Italian FA bother with blood tests without making them mandatory is another question altogether. I know personally that I wouldnt give one unless it was mandatory.

BTW, has Chelsea's alleged blood doping been discussed anywhere? It seems they take blood from players and then give them "better" blood back in return, with higher red cell count, or something. Sounds dodgy (if true), but I dunno if its against the rules or not.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

The Muppet

The Rooster wrote:

Why the Italian FA bother with blood tests without making them mandatory is another question altogether. I know personally that I wouldnt give one unless it was mandatory.

The defence that any Footballer would refuse to give ablood sample unless it was compulsory is a cop out. I would assume that top athletes give lots of blood samples to their clubs throught the yeare to guage fitness/ aId with curing injuries etc etc. It's an occupational necessity as is evident in TheMonsters Chelsea Blood spinning thread .

I agree gatutso met his mandatory obligations but why do the Italian FA ask for blood samples if urine analysis is enought to ensure that players are clean? Are there performance enhancing drugs that will not show up in a urine test that will be evident in blood test. I don't know the answer to the question but there are people here that will (psi spings to mind). If that's the case they should make blood testing compulsory if they are serious about cleaning up the problem. I think the reasoning behind this thread is to show that the authorities are not serious about the problem despite all the soundings made at the time of the rio incident.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

_blank_

I've never heard of that Branco stuff, truly shocking if true.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.