PDA

View Full Version : Ferdinand given 8 Month Ban


Cactus Sid
12-19-2003, 04:06 PM
LOL, that is all I have to say.

Disturbed316
12-19-2003, 04:07 PM
Should have been longer IMO.

This coming from a guy who used to support Man Utd (I have 97% gone off football now :( )

Cactus Sid
12-19-2003, 04:09 PM
I failed to mention the £50,000 fine, which is a weeks wages. Big fuc</>king loss.

Disturbed316
12-19-2003, 04:10 PM
Oh my god, he's gonna be broke now! :roll:

The Duck
12-19-2003, 04:50 PM
It's a ****ing disgrace. Davids gets 5 months for testing positive for nandrolone, Stam gets 4. Bosnich gets 9 for testing positive for COCAINE and Rio gets 8 for forgetting to take the test. Don't get me wrong, Rio deserves to get punished and he was totally in the wrong but where's the continuity? Rio passed the test 36 hours later but it's one rule for United and another for the rest.

He's been made a scrape-goat of and because of how high-profile Rio and United are, they've been politically driven in attempt to 'stamp their authority' over the game.

What about the french kid who played for City, that got a fine for practically the same offence. Rio deserved a ban and certainly deserved a fine, but 8 months is totally uncalled for when you compare his offence to others.

Disturbed316
12-19-2003, 04:53 PM
Get over it

Cactus Sid
12-19-2003, 05:03 PM
I think you should be thankful its 8 months. Because if it had been less, Blatter would have made it 2 years.

Disturbed316
12-19-2003, 05:16 PM
I thought Stam was banned for 2 years? :?:

The Duck
12-19-2003, 07:58 PM
No he wasn't and nice attempt at engaging in a discussion over this.

Rob
12-19-2003, 08:08 PM
I think you should be thankful its 8 months. Because if it had been less, Blatter would have made it 2 years.

Blatter is an idiot though.

How you can punish someone who offered to take the test the same day and the FA refused is a joke. He won't get 8 months on appeal. Well done the FA though. You just got rid of your best defender for the European Championships and he probably will not want to represent you ever again now you blatantly fu</>cked him.

Kid Robb
12-19-2003, 11:59 PM
Woeful decision, far far too long.

The Mask
12-20-2003, 12:13 AM
Christ, what the fu</>ck is that?

At least we have a few new defenders to look forward to when the transfer window opens, I guess.

Cactus Sid
12-20-2003, 05:52 AM
Won't United just think, oh well, and just go and buy a couple of really good players, making the team even stronger when he returns.

What I think a lot of you are forgetting is that a law of the game has been broken. He missed his test. No excuses needed. How long does it take to do a drugs test? Why should the FA have to stay all day waiting for a player who fu</>cked off to do his own thing. The whole point of Random drugs testing is that it is done there and then, to expose people. It is a serious offence to miss one. Do you think Athletes can get away with it? If an athlete misses a drugs test, regardless of whether he makes up for it, he must expect to recieve a ban, unless cirumstances are such that an excuse warrants the chance to postpone the test. Ferdinand's excuses range from "moving house" to simply "forgetting", excuse me but neither of those seem to be good enough excuses, so he should be punished.

Looking at the rest. Davids and Stam's bans, I can't explain. Were they both playing in Italy at the time? That would explain the length of the bans being so similar, so yes there is continuity. Of course, taking drugs is worse than not taking the test, but this is an issue for the Italian FA, also, I believe that they were not the only people who tested positive at the time, so I'm guessing the Italian FA felt it would be unwise to ban a number of people for a long length of time at the same time. Also, isn't nandrolone a relatively recent drug on the market, i'm not sure about this, but if it was, then the reason for the lower bans is that they could be percieved mearly as a supplement.

The Bosnich situation, again I'm not 100% sure, but what exactly does Cocaine do to the body to make you play better? Also, at the time he didn't have a club, Rio on the other hand is being paid what... 70 grand a week? He'll be fine in the time he's away, and while Bosnich made a lot of money in football, he wont be making any in those 9 months.

You also seem to forget that the "one rule for United, one for everyone else" does apply. Unfortunatly for you, its the first time its worked against Man U.

Also, you talk about "political motivation" "stamping authority" in a high-profile case. I say... good for them. Its about time they told clubs that they can't walk all over the FA, and that rules are there to be adhered to, and not adhered to "when you feel like it".

As for other cases, I'd need to look into them a bit more, but I'm sure they have reasons for certain actions and reasons for others.

Boy, I can't wait to hear Andy Gray's voice on Sunday.

Rob Ban Fan
12-20-2003, 09:44 AM
<font face=verdana size=3 color="#ff9900">well, thats going to be a blow for England in 2004.

I think the ban is a bit harsh personally, but he was always going to made an example of.</font>

Rob
12-20-2003, 10:37 AM
How can the FA or FIFA justify Rio getting a longer ban than Davids, Stam and Bosnich who all failed tests while Ferdinand actually passed his 36 hours later? How can they justify Rio getting a longer ban than Eric Cantona got for assulting a fan or Paulo Di Canio got for assulting a referee? What about that Man City player who failed to take his test much like Rio and he wasn't banned?

Gonna make it all the sweeter when we win the Premiership now.

Cactus Sid
12-20-2003, 10:45 AM
Maybe the length of the ban is harsh, but at the end of the day, a rule was broken, and this is the precedent that the FA wanted to set.

Dazz
12-20-2003, 11:23 AM
Blatter is an idiot though.

He won't get 8 months on appeal. . Yeah thats what I think, thats why I reckon they did it, to make it look like they were gunna be really harsh, and then change it to three months. When Spurs got docked 12 points and chucked out the F.A cup they got it all back by appealing.


You just got rid of your best defender for the European Championships

:lol: he has been piss poor. Over rated heap of shit are the words that come to mind.

packt up
12-20-2003, 01:56 PM
Probs a bit harsh but he broke a law.

Rio Ferdinand should take a look at his own stupidity and take the punishment. Man U should take an even bigger look at themselves as they let the guy just walk away from the training ground. Rio should also be grateful he's not in athletics or some other sport as he'd be banned two years no problem. A failure to take the test has to be presumed to be a fail of the test otherwise anyone could just "forget" to take the test.

As for the ban being longer than some other instances the FA will point out that they have a new head, Mark Palios who is trying to reall stamp out drug abuse.

Its not a case of one rule for Manchester Utd and one for everyone else, its a case of one rule for Mark Palios and one rule for the previous head.

Ian
12-20-2003, 03:03 PM
They have just made an example of Rio but it needed to be done. People now should realise that missing a test will not be accepted.

A failure to take the test has to be presumed to be a fail of the test otherwise anyone could just "forget" to take the test.



:y:

Ogen
12-20-2003, 06:06 PM
As a Villa fan and being someone who has a huge hatred for United I've got to say its a bit harsh. I mean he didn't test positive for anything and IMO a suitable punishment would have been a lesser fine ( because even if your loaded its still 50 fúcking grand ) and stringent testing for perhaps a one year perios ( i.e every week he takes a test ).

I don't even think a ban should have come into the equation, it didn't with that City player a while back and his excuse was shíte too if I remember rightly he said he had to give someone a lift from the airport.

The Duck
12-21-2003, 02:24 PM
Put yourself in the shoes of a United fan and honestly ask yourself if one of your players had been banned 8 months for such an offence whether you'd be fine with it. Bosnich played for Chelsea when he commited the offence and got fired because of it.

Ferdinand deserved a punishment. He deserved to be fined and he deserved to be banned. The fact is the FA set a precident when they fined the young City player 2k. It's a massive leap and nobody could tell me that if this had happened with a Division 1 player, that the punishment would be the same, the time taken to sentence the player would be 3 months or that the player's name would of even be revealed.

The FA have got their heads up their own arses and playing to Blatter's tune. Ferdinand missing Euro 2004 might just be because the FA didn't want Ferdinand to be representing England in front of Blatter and the entire world. Whatever the case, Rio's punishment is too severe.

The Duck
12-21-2003, 02:25 PM
stringent testing for perhaps a one year perios ( i.e every week he takes a test ).



Agreed - he should be tested as often as possible IMO for the rest of his career. An inconvenience maybe, but it would be suitable and appropriate.

packt up
12-21-2003, 03:14 PM
Put yourself in the shoes of a United fan and honestly ask yourself if one of your players had been banned 8 months for such an offence whether you'd be fine with it. Bosnich played for Chelsea when he commited the offence and got fired because of it.

Course I wouldn't be fine with it. I'd wonder why my club could let a player who needed a drug test to just walk away from the training ground.


Ferdinand deserved a punishment. He deserved to be fined and he deserved to be banned. The fact is the FA set a precident when they fined the young City player 2k. It's a massive leap and nobody could tell me that if this had happened with a Division 1 player, that the punishment would be the same, the time taken to sentence the player would be 3 months or that the player's name would of even be revealed.

The leap is infortunate and I would put it down to the change at the top of the FA. It maybe unfortuntate that Ferdinand came along but it was necessary as drug abuse cannot be tolerated and so punishments should be set to reflect that. As opposed to Ferdinand's being to strict I think it should be seen that Negouai's was way to lax. I don't know whether the punishment would have been the same if it had been a lower profile club, but things have happened as they happened. Once his name broke Rio was always going to be in the shit - but the bottom line is it's his and Man U's fault in the first place.


The FA have got their heads up their own arses and playing to Blatter's tune. Ferdinand missing Euro 2004 might just be because the FA didn't want Ferdinand to be representing England in front of Blatter and the entire world. Whatever the case, Rio's punishment is too severe.

Again I would say its unfortunate and probably is harsh but Rio is being made an example of. One thing is for sure drug abusers will think twice now so I guess that is good. Rio and Man U ASWELL as the FA should all take looks at themselves. The root of this problem lies at Rio and Man U feet.

Disturbed316
12-21-2003, 03:45 PM
No he wasn't and nice attempt at engaging in a discussion over this.

Thanks

Oh and stop crying about his ban. United will just buy someone else.

Ogen
12-21-2003, 04:12 PM
Blatter has said there will be uprecedented consequences if United fo to court over this.

diothoir
12-21-2003, 11:07 PM
How can the FA or FIFA justify Rio getting a longer ban than Davids, Stam and Bosnich who all failed tests while Ferdinand actually passed his 36 hours later? How can they justify Rio getting a longer ban than Eric Cantona got for assulting a fan or Paulo Di Canio got for assulting a referee? What about that Man City player who failed to take his test much like Rio and he wasn't banned?

Gonna make it all the sweeter when we win the Premiership now.

For a start, Cantona got a worldwide 9-month ban ( http://www.unitedmanchester.com/sport/ericcantona-biography.htm ) which is longer than Rio's for you math impaired people.

The fact is that he missed a test. If an athlete like Paula Radcliffe missed a test, imagine the uproar. Why should football be any different? Anyway, its been pretty clear that Palios has been desperate to tighten up the rules since he took over, and Rio was the first one he could get at.

Also, it was obvious that Ferdinand was going to get banned until after the European Championships because there would have been a furore about hypocrisy otherwise.

Rio missed the test, Man Utd didn't remind him, I'm honestly surprised he didn't get a longer ban. If this were any other player I'd expect the same: Drugs are unacceptable and missing a test is completely unacceptable.

Paranoid Rattlesnake
12-22-2003, 05:24 AM
Won't United just think, oh well, and just go and buy a couple of really good players, making the team even stronger when he returns.

What I think a lot of you are forgetting is that a law of the game has been broken. He missed his test. No excuses needed. How long does it take to do a drugs test?

It can take ages to give a sample for a drug test, Ferdinand has been made an example of and he didn't even take drugs.

I can't wait for blatter to try and stop Man Utd and Rio taking him to court, as if you can say "No i'm not letting you sue me" can anyone say BREECH OF HUMAN RIGHTS


I'd like to see FIFA try and ban the worlds richest club. It'd completely fu</>ck the game up.

Wengerland
12-22-2003, 05:35 AM
I think the ban was too harsh,wasn't there meant to have been a phone call made by Rio anyway on that day saying that he couldn't make it or something?

If United mention the other facts on appeal(i.e Davids,Stam) then he should get off likely,also i read that there's a player in Spain who's continued to play despite having an 18 month ban or something.

And for Blatter to even threaten banning United is a complete disgrace,the worst they can deem it is that the test would be positive and so what was he doing to all those other clubs who've appealed bans for positive drugs tests?

packt up
12-22-2003, 11:40 AM
It can take ages to give a sample for a drug test, Ferdinand has been made an example of and he didn't even take drugs.


Sorry but thats bullshit. How long does it take you to take a piss?


I'd like to see FIFA try and ban the worlds richest club. It'd completely fu</>ck the game up.

Yeah thats right - because Man U are bigger than football itself.

packt up
12-22-2003, 11:47 AM
I think the ban was too harsh,wasn't there meant to have been a phone call made by Rio anyway on that day saying that he couldn't make it or something?


Quite frankly so what? There's something more important than a drug test in sport? Er no there isn't Rio sorry. First it was moving house then he forgot - not only shit excuses but he couldn't even settle on one.


If United mention the other facts on appeal(i.e Davids,Stam) then he should get off likely,also i read that there's a player in Spain who's continued to play despite having an 18 month ban or something.

And for Blatter to even threaten banning United is a complete disgrace,the worst they can deem it is that the test would be positive and so what was he doing to all those other clubs who've appealed bans for positive drugs tests?

Blatter is being a bit of an arse over it all. For all you saying that Rio didn't take anything IT DOESN'T MATTER, A failure to take the test has to be a fail of the test. Besides drugs like Cocaine are free from your body within 24 hours so the timing is all important. Rio is being made an example of there's no doubt about that but perhaps thats a good thing - people will think twice about drug abuse now.

If you want sports free of drugs drug testing has to mean something.

Mike
12-22-2003, 12:02 PM
yeah, lol Sid, it's well funny we'll have lost one of 2 decent defenders for Euro 2004

yeah mate yeahhhh well funny.

(Neville was the other good defender btw)

Mike
12-22-2003, 12:03 PM
oh shit

I just missed my doctors appointment

Mike
12-22-2003, 12:04 PM
get my court date in the post tomorrow

Mike
12-22-2003, 12:05 PM
why should I be any different from footballers?

Imagine the uproar if Rio Ferdinand missed his doctors appointment.

appointment was for a drugs test btw.

Cactus Sid
12-22-2003, 12:20 PM
Yeah thats right - because Man U are bigger than football itself.

Exactly, this is what Man Utd seem to think, they seem to believe they are some what above the law. Man Utd are just as at fault as Rio Ferdinand in this whole thing.


yeah, lol Sid, it's well funny we'll have lost one of 2 decent defenders for Euro 2004

yeah mate yeahhhh well funny.

(Neville was the other good defender btw)

You know something, if Neville turns around and decides not to play for England, he is a disgrace. Same for Ferdinand. If they both end up not playing for England, they don't deserve to play for the country, they are not above England, they are not making a point, they are shi</>tting on England for doing it, and yet this appears to be something people would support. I'm not gonna start a whole argument about it, because everyone has different opinions, but I feel John Terry is better than Rio, and I think Neville is replaceable.

Furthermore, the reason the situation is different from you to footballers, is because clubs are obliged under the rules of the game to ensure that there players adhere to the rules, if they breach the rules, as Ferdinand has, they must expect to be punished. If someone misses a drugs test in most sports it is thus assumed a drug has been consumed, and that person must be reprimanded. What you are basically saying is that, you can miss a drugs test, not be reprimanded, take some drugs, and cheat. Do you wanna see cheating in Football or something?

Also, your analogy of Doctor's appointment doesn't stand up, Doctor's appointments are usually arranged for a reason, such as symptoms that you are concerned about, or an appointment related to a recent injury or surgery where they need to be sure of certain things.

In football, the whole point of Random drugs tests are to catch out someone who may have been cheating.

This whole thing.... I can understand that you might be angry at the length of the ban, but you cannot deny that the player has deliberately missed a drugs test, and this is punishable in some cases with a 2 year ban from the game. The player KNEW he was supposed to take a drugs test, his fellow players TOOK the test, yet he decided to LEAVE the ground. He and Man Utd are both at fault, and he got what he had coming to him, he really is that simple.

Mike
12-22-2003, 12:25 PM
way to strain my eyes

Cactus Sid
12-22-2003, 12:28 PM
Sorry

packt up
12-22-2003, 02:14 PM
You know something, if Neville turns around and decides not to play for England, he is a disgrace. Same for Ferdinand. If they both end up not playing for England, they don't deserve to play for the country, they are not above England, they are not making a point, they are shi</>tting on England for doing it, and yet this appears to be something people would support. I'm not gonna start a whole argument about it, because everyone has different opinions, but I feel John Terry is better than Rio, and I think Neville is replaceable.



I couldn't agree more. Playing for your country is an honour not a right. They don't have a right to hold anyone to ransome especially not Gary fuc</>king Neville. They are supposed to be representing England not the FA. If they don't play they aren't sticking it to the FA they are sticking it to you and me.

If they don't want to represent their country they can fu</>ck off.

Dazz
12-22-2003, 02:25 PM
theres more then one way you can look at it, and clearly, I would be pissed off if any Chelsea player had been treated like ferdinand, I think that the fine was abit small, I mean, come on, its like fining me a tenner.

You can say that he missed the test and its as good as failing, or you could say that he took the test a few days later and passed, Ferdinand said it was 72 hours later, United said 36, so even thats wrong.

I dunno what Mike is going on about, and, well, PR, you know my thoughts about you posting in the sports forum :nono:, but I think that Cactus Sid and Packt Up are right, and Purpleduck kinda is also, but really, everyones biased towards the team they support, I find the ban fair, but the way it was handled a disgrace.

If it had been John Terry for example, I would probably be annoyed at the ban.

Whatever, Ferdinand is not valuable to England, neither is he invaluable, with Terry and Campbell at the back, I don't see where Ferdinand would fit into it.

Also, Phil Neville shouldnt be picked, as he is only good in midfield and we have better there, and really, if I saw Gary Neville in the street, I would end him. He always bitches about everything, and is also overrated. Stupid bitch.

The Mask
12-22-2003, 02:56 PM
To be honest, I don't give much of a f</>uck about England. Sure, I want them to win but if I had to choose between winning the champions league with utd or the world cup with england, it'd always be united.

Also, I'm not overly sure why any United player would want to play for England. They're treated like scum of the earth by everyone up until they pull on the white shirt.

Rob
12-22-2003, 03:44 PM
For a start, Cantona got a worldwide 9-month ban ( http://www.unitedmanchester.com/sport/ericcantona-biography.htm ) which is longer than Rio's for you math impaired people.

For the memory impaired people, Cantona was immediately suspended by Manchester United until the end of that season. They agreed a 5 month ban with the FA and later on, the FA changed their mind after agreeing a deal and also helped him get police conviction.

The fact is that he missed a test. If an athlete like Paula Radcliffe missed a test, imagine the uproar. Why should football be any different? Anyway, its been pretty clear that Palios has been desperate to tighten up the rules since he took over, and Rio was the first one he could get at.
Football has different rules to Athletics. Just as Baseball, Cricket, Rugby, Basketball and just about every other sport under the sun do. Personally I feel the athletics rules are too severe especially considering how they treated the likes of Mark Richardson and Dougie Walker.

Also, it was obvious that Ferdinand was going to get banned until after the European Championships because there would have been a furore about hypocrisy otherwise.

You mean like there was for Stam, Davids, that Man City player nobody can remember, etc?


Rio missed the test, Man Utd didn't remind him, I'm honestly surprised he didn't get a longer ban. If this were any other player I'd expect the same: Drugs are unacceptable and missing a test is completely unacceptable.
You might expect the same but their aren't concrete rules and that's the problem. It's been a clear case of rules for one person and rules for others. Why did Blatter stick his nose in this case when he didn't for any others? Why were there 3 members of the FA on the 8 man commission deciding the case? Why did it take 3 months to get a ruling?

Rob
12-22-2003, 03:46 PM
It can take ages to give a sample for a drug test, Ferdinand has been made an example of and he didn't even take drugs.


How long would it take you to piss in a cup? :p

Seriously it takes less than a week to have a sample checked and results of the test made available. Remember, Rio actually passed his drug test.

Rob
12-22-2003, 03:52 PM
Sorry but thats bullshit. How long does it take you to take a piss?



Yeah thats right - because Man U are bigger than football itself.

Yeah that's why United are pissed eh! :roll:

You think any member of G14 is going to sit by and watch FIFA go at Man United? I don't think so! All it takes is for someone to piss them off and every member of G14 quits FIFA and makes their own federation.

Dazz
12-22-2003, 04:08 PM
To be honest, I don't give much of a f</>uck about England. Sure, I want them to win but if I had to choose between winning the champions league with utd or the world cup with england, it'd always be united.

Also, I'm not overly sure why any United player would want to play for England. They're treated like scum of the earth by everyone up until they pull on the white shirt.

Yeah I agree, I would rather see Chelsea win the league then England win the World Cup, I support England, but I don't give a shit really, Chelsea are the only team I actually always care about. England are gay.

packt up
12-22-2003, 04:19 PM
Yeah that's why United are pissed eh! :roll:

You think any member of G14 is going to sit by and watch FIFA go at Man United? I don't think so! All it takes is for someone to piss them off and every member of G14 quits FIFA and makes their own federation.

Why the hell would the G14 leave FIFA at Man U's beck and call :wtf: If the G14 quits FIFA I will eat all my faeces.

packt up
12-22-2003, 04:42 PM
You might expect the same but their aren't concrete rules and that's the problem. It's been a clear case of rules for one person and rules for others. Why did Blatter stick his nose in this case when he didn't for any others? Why were there 3 members of the FA on the 8 man commission deciding the case? Why did it take 3 months to get a ruling?

You may think its a case of different rules and they are. THINGS HAVE CHANGED since the Negouai case.

Palios has come in to crack down on drugs. FIFA have said they are going to crack down on drugs.

Added to this was the fact that Rio and Man U refused to accept that they had done wrong. Requesting a personal hearing to lay the blame at the FA's door is not going to endear themselves to the FA. Rio didn't even accept the charge of "the failure or refusal by a player to submit to drug testing as required by a competent official".

HOW THE HELL can he claim that he didn't fail to take a drugs test.

Maybe if he accepted the damn charge, accept his own error and moved on then he wouldnt hhve got such a long ban.

Mike
12-23-2003, 06:45 AM
Mask, Dazz, you unpatriotic sons of bitches.

Paranoid Rattlesnake
12-23-2003, 08:36 AM
Sorry but thats bullshit. How long does it take you to take a piss?



Yeah thats right - because Man U are bigger than football itself.
Erm i'd like to see you take a piss after training, de-hydration can be a factor with players which is why the test should have been carried out before not after training.

Sepp Blatter seems to think he is bigger than everybody else when in fact these clubs in the G14 can lobby for him to be ousted from the position or as ROB said can break away and form a separate federation. This is the man who was accused of taking bribes only last year for the promise of hosting a world cup. Blatter is not an honerable man and he has no right to say a worldwide ban could be imposed on any team for a matter such as this. Who is he to get involved in the FAs dealings, FIFA maybe the governing body but all the federations that are part of FIFA should be able to run there association as they see fit and well. Manchester United are standing by a player who has done nothing more than forget/fail to take a drugs test, i don't condone this "forgetting" to take a test but the guy did pass one 36 hrs later and probably would have passed it that same day had the FAs people let him come back. Any other team would have had the FA on their side and the FA would not have released the players name. IT IS ONE RULE FOR MAN UTD AND ONE RULE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

Cactus Sid
12-23-2003, 09:06 AM
Erm i'd like to see you take a piss after training, de-hydration can be a factor with players which is why the test should have been carried out before not after training.

Sepp Blatter seems to think he is bigger than everybody else when in fact these clubs in the G14 can lobby for him to be ousted from the position or as ROB said can break away and form a separate federation. This is the man who was accused of taking bribes only last year for the promise of hosting a world cup. Blatter is not an honerable man and he has no right to say a worldwide ban could be imposed on any team for a matter such as this. Who is he to get involved in the FAs dealings, FIFA maybe the governing body but all the federations that are part of FIFA should be able to run there association as they see fit and well. Manchester United are standing by a player who has done nothing more than forget/fail to take a drugs test, i don't condone this "forgetting" to take a test but the guy did pass one 36 hrs later and probably would have passed it that same day had the FAs people let him come back. Any other team would have had the FA on their side and the FA would not have released the players name. IT IS ONE RULE FOR MAN UTD AND ONE RULE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.

Why the hell should the FA have to wait on a player who left KNOWING he had a drugs test to take. Ferdinand deliberately left the ground, 3 of his team mates took the test, yet he chose not too, he left the ground and did whatever it is he did, the FA should not be forced to sit around waiting for a player who appears to believe he doesn't have to take the test. Their are no excuses for Ferdinand's actions, and that is why the ban has been enforced as harshly as it has.

Also, as a former Torquay Utd trainee I can go on record as saying most of the players i played with needed a piss after playing, and just went. You seem to forget that drinks are readily available to prevent dehydration, so what your saying has no foundation. Besides, the whole point of a RANDOM drugs test is that the FA turn up at some point during training unannounced, this, as I have explained a few times, is so that they can catch out those who may have cheated.

Sepp Blatter is, I agree, a bit overboard on occasions, however you seem to forget that as the FIFA president, he has the power to do what he sees fit. G14 isn't as powerful as everyone seems to think they are. They aren't even recognised by FIFA as a footballing organisation, and the 14 clubs involved, are not the biggest clubs in Europe, so the power they have is in fact limited. You also seem to forget that in any type of federal state, the states (in this case the FA) have the ability to make their own rules, but they are still dictated to but the head of the state, in this case its FIFA. Therefore, if FIFA feel the FA are not doing what they should be, they have the right to intervene, which is what Blatter is doing.

Manchester United do, of course, have the right to stand by the player, however they cannot surely argue that the player is not guilty, although they have to say this, because they are as guilty as Ferdinand is. Ferdinand taking a test within 36 hours (although Ferdinand himself stated 72, so yes, there is something up here).

The only reason you United fans are saying all of this, is because your angry at the outcome. We don't know what would have happened if it had been a high-profile Arsenal or Chelsea player, but I have reason to believe Palios IS doing what he can to stamp out drugs in the game, and to be tougher on those who are bringing the game into disrepute by not taking tests. The FA were well within their rights to give Ferdinand an 8 month ban, and FIFA are well within their rights to punish United, if they feel the situation arises. It's nothing to do with it being Manchester United, get out of your own asses.

Rob Ban Fan
12-23-2003, 09:11 AM
<font face=verdana size=3 color="#FF6600">Like Dazz and Maaaask have said, i'd always rather have club success than national success but I still want to see England do well and i'd feel better if we could go to Portugal with Terry, Campbell, Ferdinand and the rest of a full squad.

Don't get me wrong, I think Rio should be punished and the way things have been handled is stupid (and that goes for everyone, Rio, the FA, Blatter) but this can only be seen as a blow for the national team.</font>

Rob
12-23-2003, 02:58 PM
Why the hell would the G14 leave FIFA at Man U's beck and call :wtf: If the G14 quits FIFA I will eat all my faeces.

They won't quit FIFA because FIFA are going to cave to Man United. G14, not FIFA is the most powerful group in football and they know it. It was an extreme example.