Chelski in trouble again

cruiserweight

Chelsea are in trouble again and this time it is to do with drugs testing! I wonder if this is as a result of the Mutu incident?


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/4226916.stm

Chelsea charged over drugs policy
The Football Association has charged Chelsea with misconduct for carrying out "independent private drug testing" on some of its players.

The FA alleges that the Premiership champions breached Rule E25 by testing on 12 July.

The rule says: "The independent private testing/screening of players by clubs, club officials or any other person subject to FA rules is prohibited."

Chelsea have been given until 23 September to respond to the charge.

Necronomicon

Another fine for Roman and some new furnishings for F.A. Headquaters maybe?

CrazySka

strange that its illegal, i would have thought it was being responsible. Or is it a way of taking positve testing players out of games before they can be caught by the FA?

jimbling

john_dub wrote:

strange that its illegal, i would have thought it was being responsible. Or is it a way of taking positve testing players out of games before they can be caught by the FA?

I recon thats the way they're going to portray it it anyhow. But arent the FAs "random drugtests" pre-arranged and all that. I mean it is pretty easy for them to avoid been caught anyhow... surely this is extra precaution from chelsea.... but hey.... they'll get a few more quid out of them... and I suppose it was in the rules.

The Muppet

What a joke the FA are going after Chelsea for making their players take Drug tests. What happened to the new get tough policy we heard about in Jan 04.
Someones not too happy withe the shift in power in London, I wonder who that could be?

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Someones not too happy withe the shift in power in London, I wonder who that could be?

Alex Ferguson?

Necronomicon

I reckon his initials are DD, and it's not DareDevil

jank

Someones not too happy withe the shift in power in London, I wonder who that could be

Im sure he has bigger fish to fry then go after chelsea himself

p.pete

I'm sure Mourinho will twist this effectively and get lots of newspaper inchs from it - not that big a charge tbh.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Alex Ferguson?

Freezing, Try Again

Pepe LeFrits

The Muppet wrote:

Freezing, Try Again

Sunnier climes eh, Carlos Queiroz?

Dempsey

Chelsea should be busted down a divison and they'll be on the straight and narrow then.

The Clown Man

Dempsey wrote:

Chelsea should be busted down a divison and they'll be on the straight and narrow then.

Read it again.

It's not rocket science.

:rolleyes:

growler

Dempsey wrote:

Chelsea should be busted down a divison and they'll be on the straight and narrow then.

yeah but then we'll have loads of threads about how chelsea bought the championship and how its not fair on the other teams.


storm in a tea cup , can't believe the FA even bother to come out with this nonsense, don't test your own players for drugs we'll do it, sometimes, and if we find they've taken drugs you get a big fine, so best to wait until we fine you before you do anything. Insane

redspider

This is an interesting case as it should bring in Employment Law. An employer, can test candidates for drugs before employment and make it a part of their contract that they can be regularly tested during employment. If the employee breaches their employment contract they can be dismissed if that is the stated consequece in the contract.

The FA are being pushed into this by the EU I think, and other sports bodies. The issue will depend on the key phrase "subject to FA rules". A Club can do private testing subject to FA rules, so perhaps there is a procedure to follow tyhat wasnt, such as notification, etc. Obviously, the rule is setup to avoid situations where players could protect drug takers. However, the random testing of players needs to be done. What they should do, is just do a blitez, and test all premiership players on the books on one day. That will tell us something. The current 2 players here and there on a weekend will never work.

Drugs in football is a problem that has yet to be properly addressed. People say its not a stamina or fitness sport, yet at the pace the sport is being played at these days, an extra 5% of fitness stamina can make all the difference between winning and not. Many players may not even realise they are on stuff as they take so many supplements anyway. A bit like the cyclists in he 1990's, most of them didnt know.

redspider

astrofool

They should do mandatory all drug (blood/urine) tests, on all players from each club at least once a season from div1 and above (and below depending on funding). Also, semi-finals and finals should have all the players tested. They should also stick to the olympic guideline of a straight two year ban for any players testing positive.

For the likes of the above, the FA should be able to be notified privately by the club, and an observer be able to come and take a second set of samples for the FA's own tests.

With the amont of money in the sport, something like the above would be easily done, and stamp out drugs fairly effectively. Juve are a joke when it comes to drug abuse, for example, and never get adequately punished.

TheDoc

The reason why you cannot have your own independant drug testers is because what would happen if john terry,lampard or another star was found positive for drugs? The Chelsea testers could easily forge or tamper with evidence. FA testers must do the test because they are fully independant.

And also from personal experience, from my cousin telling me about tests when he played for liverpool, you cannot jsut "forget" to take a drugs tests, so thats why i always say Rio Ferdinand did do drugs. Because the testers arrive at the training ground with security and no one is allowed to leave unless "secretly" rushed out.

evilhomer

redspider wrote:

What they should do, is just do a blitez, and test all premiership players on the books on one day.

And then who would play football? I would say there are quite a few players on Performance Enhancing Supplements. Just because you don't inject yourself with it doesn't mean it's not a steroid, testosterone enhancer, etc...

The FA now use the Olympic standards for Performancer Enhancers iirc, so things like creatine are banned now. Roy Keane admitted to taking creatine in his book (it wasn't illegal then).

The fact that the tests are almost always pre-arranged tells you something.

growler

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

The reason why you cannot have your own independant drug testers is because what would happen if john terry,lampard or another star was found positive for drugs? The Chelsea testers could easily forge or tamper with evidence. FA testers must do the test because they are fully independant.

.

it makes perrfect sense for a club to want to test their own players for drugs, if Terry or Lampard were found to have aken something then the club could take action as it did against Mutu, why run the risk of waiting for the FA to turn up to test them and risk fines, point deductions or other sanctions when they can take corrective action themselves ?

Why would Chelsea's testers tamper with evidence ? they wouldn't do their own tests and pass results to the FA, it's up to the FA to do their own.

PHB

Because Chelsea might not like the idea of losing Lampard and Terry to an FA drug test.
However with the right treatment and techniques I'm sure they could concel the drugs

The Clown Man

Maybe Man U should do the same and avoid any future 8 month bans.

growler

PHB wrote:

Because Chelsea might not like the idea of losing Lampard and Terry to an FA drug test.
However with the right treatment and techniques I'm sure they could concel the drugs

No team would like the idea of losing any of their star players because they were taking performance enhancing ( or other) drugs, with so much invested in players why would any club be daft enough to risk player bans and fines, which the lax curent testing regime seems designed to encourage, when they could actively enforce their (and the FA's) drug policy themselves.

Unlike the Rio affair where Man U decided to avoid rather than deal with drug allegations, Chelsea ( albeit conveniently) used their suspicions of Mutu's recreational habit to get rid of him. Any club should have the right to ensure that their players aren't risking the club's reputation, position and possible fines by indulging in illegal subsance taking. To assume that Chelsea would do tests just so they could cover up drug taking in the off chance of an FA sanctioned test on a player taking drugs is just crazy Man U paranoia.

PHB

Thats just pure illogic.

First off you say this:

club's reputation, position and possible fines by indulging in illegal subsance taking.

Does that mean they can doso without the knowledge of the FA?
Can they protect themselves at the expense of any others knowing?
I don't like the sound of that.

Secondly, as you hinted at yourself,
Chelsea used the allegations to get rid of Mutu easily.
I absolutely guarentee you that if John Terry was caught with drugs in his system, they would work through the ban to have him back.


Any team, including Man Utd, would avoid having any public knowledge about one of their players taking drugs, unless they wanted rid of him.They have a huge incentive not to tell anyone, and avoid the consequences they deserve to face.
There is no reason why the FA should allow independent drug testing.

growler

PHB wrote:

Does that mean they can doso without the knowledge of the FA?
Can they protect themselves at the expense of any others knowing?
I don't like the sound of that.
.

well yeah , why not , as the FA's random testing policy is totally inadequate to be a real disincentive to players who might be tempted, it makes sense for a club to take whatever actions are necessary to protect itself from bad publicity and FA sanctions. If having their own drug testing policy does this , great. You assume that a club testing its players would be in order to cover up drug taking, I'd assume that it would be done in order to further discourage any drug taking. Players are employees and as such, if their contracts allow it, their employers should be allowed to protect their investments.

TheMonster

growler wrote:

well yeah , why not , as the FA's random testing policy is totally inadequate to be a real disincentive to players who might be tempted, it makes sense for a club to take whatever actions are necessary to protect itself from bad publicity and FA sanctions. If having their own drug testing policy does this , great. You assume that a club testing its players would be in order to cover up drug taking, I'd assume that it would be done in order to further discourage any drug taking. Players are employees and as such, if their contracts allow it, their employers should be allowed to protect their investments.

If you have spent 30M on a striker and he fails the "club test" would you report him or get him clean before the next official test? Come into the real world...

growler

TheMonster wrote:

If you have spent 30M on a striker and he fails the "club test" would you report him or get him clean before the next official test? Come into the real world...

of course I wouldn't report him, but neither would I play him and run the risk of a fine, bad pr or a points reduction on the chance that the FA wander by. Drop the player and if necessary get him treatment.

TheMonster

it would be irrelevant whether he played or not. the same fine/ban would happen.

growler

if he's not in the squad , not in the ground then it's unlikely that he'll be subject to a random test.

TheMonster

aren't a lot tests carried out at training grounds? they could pick anyone there.