12-19-2003, 03:06 PM | #1 |
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
Ferdinand given 8 Month Ban
LOL, that is all I have to say.
|
12-19-2003, 03:07 PM | #2 |
Posts: 22,695
|
Should have been longer IMO.
This coming from a guy who used to support Man Utd (I have 97% gone off football now ) |
12-19-2003, 03:09 PM | #3 |
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
I failed to mention the £50,000 fine, which is a weeks wages. Big fuc>king loss.
|
12-19-2003, 03:10 PM | #4 |
Posts: 22,695
|
Oh my god, he's gonna be broke now!
|
12-19-2003, 03:50 PM | #5 |
D-Unit Founda
Posts: 944
|
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. |
12-19-2003, 03:53 PM | #6 |
Posts: 22,695
|
Get over it
|
12-19-2003, 04:03 PM | #7 |
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
I think you should be thankful its 8 months. Because if it had been less, Blatter would have made it 2 years.
|
12-19-2003, 04:16 PM | #8 |
Posts: 22,695
|
I thought Stam was banned for 2 years?
|
12-19-2003, 06:58 PM | #9 |
D-Unit Founda
Posts: 944
|
No he wasn't and nice attempt at engaging in a discussion over this.
|
12-19-2003, 07:08 PM | #10 | |
Part time poster
Posts: 22,963
|
Quote:
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. |
|
12-19-2003, 10:59 PM | #11 |
Mr. Bump
Posts: 8,990
|
Woeful decision, far far too long.
|
12-19-2003, 11:13 PM | #12 |
That Entenbrot, The Mask
Posts: 56,852
|
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. |
12-20-2003, 04:52 AM | #13 |
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
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. |
12-20-2003, 08:44 AM | #14 |
Rt Hon Ed Balls MP
Posts: 9,004
|
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. Last edited by Rob Ban Fan; 12-20-2003 at 09:01 AM. |
12-20-2003, 09:37 AM | #15 |
Part time poster
Posts: 22,963
|
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. |
12-20-2003, 09:45 AM | #16 |
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
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.
|
12-20-2003, 10:23 AM | #17 | ||
IRREPLACEABLE
Posts: 11,608
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-20-2003, 12:56 PM | #18 |
Posts: 3,460
|
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. |
12-20-2003, 02:03 PM | #19 | |
Posts: 4,270
|
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.
Quote:
|
|
12-20-2003, 05:06 PM | #20 |
Inebriated Foreskin
Posts: 16,220
|
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. |
12-21-2003, 01:24 PM | #21 |
D-Unit Founda
Posts: 944
|
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. |
12-21-2003, 01:25 PM | #22 | |
D-Unit Founda
Posts: 944
|
Quote:
|
|
12-21-2003, 02:14 PM | #23 | |||
Posts: 3,460
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
12-21-2003, 02:45 PM | #24 | |
Posts: 22,695
|
Quote:
Oh and stop crying about his ban. United will just buy someone else. |
|
12-21-2003, 03:12 PM | #25 |
Inebriated Foreskin
Posts: 16,220
|
Blatter has said there will be uprecedented consequences if United fo to court over this.
|
12-21-2003, 10:07 PM | #26 | |
Tattieman
Posts: 3,590
|
Quote:
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. |
|
12-22-2003, 04:24 AM | #27 | |
TPWW's OFFICIAL SNAKE
Posts: 6,968
|
Quote:
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. |
|
12-22-2003, 04:35 AM | #28 |
Theo Zagorakis
Posts: 7,148
|
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? |
12-22-2003, 10:40 AM | #29 | ||
Posts: 3,460
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-22-2003, 10:47 AM | #30 | ||
Posts: 3,460
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you want sports free of drugs drug testing has to mean something. |
||
12-22-2003, 11:02 AM | #31 |
Who are ya?
Posts: 5,295
|
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) |
12-22-2003, 11:03 AM | #32 |
Who are ya?
Posts: 5,295
|
oh shit
I just missed my doctors appointment |
12-22-2003, 11:04 AM | #33 |
Who are ya?
Posts: 5,295
|
get my court date in the post tomorrow
|
12-22-2003, 11:05 AM | #34 |
Who are ya?
Posts: 5,295
|
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. |
12-22-2003, 11:20 AM | #35 | ||
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
12-22-2003, 11:25 AM | #36 |
Who are ya?
Posts: 5,295
|
way to strain my eyes
|
12-22-2003, 11:28 AM | #37 |
Smashing Blouse
Posts: 7,800
|
Sorry
|
12-22-2003, 01:14 PM | #38 | |
Posts: 3,460
|
Quote:
If they don't want to represent their country they can fu>ck off. |
|
12-22-2003, 01:25 PM | #39 |
IRREPLACEABLE
Posts: 11,608
|
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 , 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. |
12-22-2003, 01:56 PM | #40 |
That Entenbrot, The Mask
Posts: 56,852
|
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. |