TPWW Forums - View Single Post

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 10:23 PM

Ok, having looked into the cases, these are the facts as far as I am aware, these are as accurate as reported, as they have come from different sources and all appear to have been verified by one another, I have as a result changed some of my opinions, and confess that some of the things I have said have not been 100% accurate or indeed 100% relevant to the point, but I still believe the ban is fair.

THE NEGOUAI CASE

The Negouai case, IS different to the Rio Ferdinand case, whether you like it or not.Now, I'm sure some will argue the toss about what I am about to say, but this is an F.A take on the issue, Rio Ferdinand failed to take an UNANNOUNCED test, while Negouai failed to take an ANNOUNCED test. This is different. The concept behind both tests is clearly the same, however the major factor is that an Unannounced test is designed to catch players out, refusal to take such a test is, in the eyes of all sporting bodies around the world, a failure of the test.

Ferdinand LEFT the scene of a drugs test, while Negouai didn't arrive on time. Negouai had to travel to the test, and he missed the test apparently because he was stuck in traffic, after picking his mother up from the airport. He didn't speak good English and was supposedly confused by the situation. The main point here is that the F.A ACCEPTED that this was the case, and due to this reasoning, he recieved a fine of �2000 and was warned about his future conduct. Just so people know, Negouai now has to take drugs tests every 2-3 months, as a means of ensuring that he is indeed clean, if it becomes apparent that he has actually taken some sort of substance, then it is likely that he will be banned for the maximum time of 2 years, and will be fined heavily. It should also be mentioned that Negouai DID attempt to take the test, as Manchester City tried to organise it for him, however the testers left the scene.

THE DRUGS TESTERS

This is where I see a problem, and where I feel that the F.A should sort the whole deal out. The testers should stay at the scene for as long as they can.

The argument could be, however, that if a player fails to appear, why should they wait? Especially when you consider that in the case of Negouai, they had already told him days before that the test was going ahead, and in the case of Ferdinand he was told countless times to take the test, and both failed to do so. Why should they be forced to wait for them, when it is the duty of the club and the player to comply with the rules of the game. Ferdinand left while the drugs testers were there, Negouai didn't arrive until they had gone, these are differing circumstances as Ferdinand knew they were there, while Negouai could only assume that they would be there. Either way, you have too look at it from 2 perspectives, should they have waited? Or should the players have done what they were contractually obligated to do.

FERDINAND'S DEFENCE

Rio Ferdinand does not have a defence. Its that simple. Nothing can justify the fact that he left the premises when he was supposed to take the test. What is Rio's excuse? "I forgot to take test". What did he do instead? He went shopping. Bringing this back to the so called "precedent" of Negouai, who, if the argument is about forgetting the test, forgot the time of the test, which I feel is different, Ferdinand left the premises, when he could have taken the test, Negouai could not leave the premises, cos he was never there.

WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO, AND AFTER, FERDINAND LEAVING THE PREMISES?

Prior to Ferdinand leaving the premises, it has been made known that Ferdinand was told at least twice that he had to attend the drugs test. A player was even sent to tell Rio while he was changing that he had to take the test. Despite this, Rio did not, even though 3 other players did. Manchester United attempted to contact the player after he left the ground, but Rio either did not have his phone switched on, or did not answer it. When he did eventually do this, it was too late, as the testers were gone, or were in the process of leaving. See above for my views on this.

DID RIO VISIT A DOCTOR?

The jury is out on whether Rio Ferdinand visited his doctor, however, his phone records state that he did indeed get in contact with him. The question is, why did he phone him? There are 2 trails of thought. The first is that Rio phoned the doctor to find out whether or not the treatment he had been recieving for a kidney infection would provide a negative effect on a drugs test, The other is that Rio panicked, in the knowledge he had taken some substance, be it performance enhancing or recreational, and that he needed to clear with the doctor that he would be ok.

It would be wrong to think the second without proof, however, with the 1st case, why did Rio not speak to the Manchester United club doctor about it? Why did he have to leave the premises to find out this information? What is the reasoning behind this?

THE REACTION TO THE INCIDENT

The F.A for the record, did not want this to come out into the open. They told Ferdinand on the 3rd of October that he had failed to take the original test, and that action was going to be taken. He is told that the case would be heard on the 13th of October. Behind the scenes both United and the F.A start negotiations to sort the matter out, the F.A offered to move the hearing forward, but Ferdinand REJECTED this, which left the F.A with no choice but to tell Eriksson he wouldn't be available. Ferdinand was charged with the following "the failure or refusal by a player to submit to drug testing as required by a competent official".

PALIOS AND HIS ROLE

Mark Palios was named the new "Guy At The Top" of the F.A, after the Negouai case. In a statement when he first got the role, he made a point of saying that the F.A were going to introduce a tougher stance on drugs. This, may I add, was partially under the pressure of Sepp Blatter, who was campaigning for stronger penalties on drugs issues in football. With the Ferdinand incident being the first case of a drugs test "failed or refused" since Palios took over, it was likely that he was going to be made an example of. One point is, however, that Mark Palios DID NOT make the decision on whether or not Rio Ferdinand got an 8 month ban, it was discussed by a panel of 3 experts representing different areas of expertise, who having reviewed the evidence, gave what they felt was a justified position. They were perhaps advised by Palios that a ban was neccessary in this case, but Palios would not have the power to ensure a ban was upheld

THE BAN LENGTH AND THE RELATION TO THE NEGOUAI INCIDENT AND THE OTHER DRUGS TESTS

8 Months vs �2000 vs 6 Months, this is the general argument from those who oppose the ban. Firstly, the Negouai case. Negouai, was fined, because this is what a panel felt was a satisfactory punishment. The basis was that Negouai had tried to attend the test, but due to his lack of understanding of English he had failed to arrive at the time that was designated. They agreed that Negouai did not forget to take the test, and had made the effort to do so, further added to this was the fact that as it was an announced test, he had not deliberately copped out and left, and that a fine and a warning over his future conduct was sufficient. Negouai will of course be under severe checks for the remainder of his career. The Davids and Stam cases have come under a severe backlash from many sources, and rightly so, the bans for these players SHOULD have been longer, but the Italian FA failed to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. Both players did serve suspensions, and quite rightly, but the bans should have been longer. The argument continues to go on, as why were these players not banned for 2 years? This includes Ferdinand. If the FA and FIFA had continuity they would agree that a set period should be agreed for whatever they feel is necessary, the appeal process is available for those to argue the case, and evidence is heard to determine the outcome of any case. In Ferdinand's example, they found that the player had not given a satisfactory reasoning behind the reason for missing the test, and banned him for what they deemed to be a fair amount of time.

MY TAKE ON IT

Personal feelings aside, I'm not going to say I'm loving the fact he is banned, because I think it's fantastic that the F.A finally stood up to Man U, and are finally clamping down on drugs in the sport, but I'll look at it from a neutral perspective

Firstly, you have to look at the Negouai case vs the Rio case, as much as it may be argued the 2 are different cases which include the same basic happening. A missed test, and then a negative follow up test. In the case of both, they attempted to sort out the test, however, they do differ. Rio left the premises where the drugs test was supposed to be held, while Negouai did not arrive on time. Both eventually turned up. The fact remains however, that Rio Ferdinand, despite being told to both return earlier and not leave at all, failed to do so until the Unannounced testers had left. Negouai missed the planned test in a relatively similar timespan to Ferdinand.

Why do these differ? Its simple. Both spoke to a panel at the F.A, where a decision was made. Negouai is not a precedent for the case, because in his example the F.A accepted his reasoning behind missing the test, and punished him accordingly. In Ferdinand's case, they rejected his reasonings, because they felt that simply "forgetting" to take a drugs test is not a reason for doing so. Hence, in Ferdinand's case he was given a ban relating to the severity of what he had done, while Negouai was fined and warned that his future conduct would be monitored.

The F.A, should have done more to ensure both men took the test on the days, however, they cannot be at fault for leaving the premises, as it was the duty of both the players and their clubs to ensure that they took the tests. As a result, this cannot be seen as a legitimate excuse.

I agree with the F.A stance on rejecting Ferdinand's argument, not "because I'm a Liverpool fan" but because Ferdinand clearly broke F.A regulations, and carried on regardless. His "forgetfulness" is certainly not an excuse, as he was reminded constantly, and unless he suffers from ADD or some other mental problem, he should have taken the test at the time. Furthermore, his phone was switched on, and he did not answer it, and despite his apparent attempts at contacting the F.A, this did not stop him from going shopping. These are the facts, and surely no one can argue that Ferdinand did not deserve to be punished, although I must say, no one has disagreed, but they have disagreed on the length of the ban.

My take on the length of the ban is simple. I believe that Ferdinand should have recieved a 2 year ban from football, but feel that 8 months is fair taking into account other factors. I also believe that anyone who doesn't comply with the rules and regulations in regards to drugs tests, be it missing them or taking them, should have their case held, like Ferdinand's was, and a decision made.

It is here where things needed to be shaken up to make things clearer.

Ferdinand recieving an 8 month ban doesn't make sense, because 8 months appears to be a fairly random number, however, it is fair if you take into account the circumstances. Had this been athletics, he would have recieved a 2 year ban. In the case, Rio's only defence is that he did try and take the test later in the day, and to me, that is the only thing that prevented this from being a years ban, in the eyes of the F.A.

My belief now about the Negouai case is simple, it is not a precedent, because of the 2 differing stances on the hearing. If Rio had an excuse other than "I forgot" it is possible that the ban would have been more lenient. The case presented by Manchester United was that the "precedent" of the Negouai trial is what Rio should be sentenced by, they did not argue in a positive manner about Ferdinand, and this simply gives the F.A no choice but to slap a ban on him.

The question I do pose is indeed what many have said, and that is, why does Ferdinand get 8 months for failing to take a test, and Davids and Stam get less for testing positive. To me, Negouai is a non-factor, Davids/Stam is. The only answer I can give to that is that the F.A decided to take a different stance on the issue than the Italian F.A. I have read that in the case of Italy, the problem of designer drugs like THG is that they suddenly sprung up really quickly, and a lot of people got caught out. In the last few years there have been MANY cases of players testing positive for drugs in the Italian game (Kallon of Inter and Gaddafi's son to name a couple) and the Italian F.A has felt that too long a ban would have a negative effect on football in the country. This is only what I can suggest, but clearly, the Italian F.A is not taking a tough stance on the issue, this is nothing to do with the F.A in the UK, Italy does not set precedents for our footballing body.

So an argument then, Bosnich recieved a 9 month ban for testing positive for Cocaine, why is Rio's ban almost as long as this? I can only suggest that as Cocaine is not neccessarily a performance enhancing drug, but is instead regarded as a recreational drug, then they have decided 9 months is sufficient, it is difficult to comment on such a case, because you'd need to know the statements of the hearing. Which I have just found.

Seemingly, it was a case of again, the panel deciding whether to believe his story or not, and they didn't. It was that simple.

03-18-2004, 10:23 PM	#809
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	Ok, having looked into the cases, these are the facts as far as I am aware, these are as accurate as reported, as they have come from different sources and all appear to have been verified by one another, I have as a result changed some of my opinions, and confess that some of the things I have said have not been 100% accurate or indeed 100% relevant to the point, but I still believe the ban is fair. THE NEGOUAI CASE The Negouai case, IS different to the Rio Ferdinand case, whether you like it or not.Now, I'm sure some will argue the toss about what I am about to say, but this is an F.A take on the issue, Rio Ferdinand failed to take an UNANNOUNCED test, while Negouai failed to take an ANNOUNCED test. This is different. The concept behind both tests is clearly the same, however the major factor is that an Unannounced test is designed to catch players out, refusal to take such a test is, in the eyes of all sporting bodies around the world, a failure of the test. Ferdinand LEFT the scene of a drugs test, while Negouai didn't arrive on time. Negouai had to travel to the test, and he missed the test apparently because he was stuck in traffic, after picking his mother up from the airport. He didn't speak good English and was supposedly confused by the situation. The main point here is that the F.A ACCEPTED that this was the case, and due to this reasoning, he recieved a fine of �2000 and was warned about his future conduct. Just so people know, Negouai now has to take drugs tests every 2-3 months, as a means of ensuring that he is indeed clean, if it becomes apparent that he has actually taken some sort of substance, then it is likely that he will be banned for the maximum time of 2 years, and will be fined heavily. It should also be mentioned that Negouai DID attempt to take the test, as Manchester City tried to organise it for him, however the testers left the scene. THE DRUGS TESTERS This is where I see a problem, and where I feel that the F.A should sort the whole deal out. The testers should stay at the scene for as long as they can. The argument could be, however, that if a player fails to appear, why should they wait? Especially when you consider that in the case of Negouai, they had already told him days before that the test was going ahead, and in the case of Ferdinand he was told countless times to take the test, and both failed to do so. Why should they be forced to wait for them, when it is the duty of the club and the player to comply with the rules of the game. Ferdinand left while the drugs testers were there, Negouai didn't arrive until they had gone, these are differing circumstances as Ferdinand knew they were there, while Negouai could only assume that they would be there. Either way, you have too look at it from 2 perspectives, should they have waited? Or should the players have done what they were contractually obligated to do. FERDINAND'S DEFENCE Rio Ferdinand does not have a defence. Its that simple. Nothing can justify the fact that he left the premises when he was supposed to take the test. What is Rio's excuse? "I forgot to take test". What did he do instead? He went shopping. Bringing this back to the so called "precedent" of Negouai, who, if the argument is about forgetting the test, forgot the time of the test, which I feel is different, Ferdinand left the premises, when he could have taken the test, Negouai could not leave the premises, cos he was never there. *WHAT HAPPENED PRIOR TO, AND AFTER, FERDINAND LEAVING THE PREMISES?* Prior to Ferdinand leaving the premises, it has been made known that Ferdinand was told at least twice that he had to attend the drugs test. A player was even sent to tell Rio while he was changing that he had to take the test. Despite this, Rio did not, even though 3 other players did. Manchester United attempted to contact the player after he left the ground, but Rio either did not have his phone switched on, or did not answer it. When he did eventually do this, it was too late, as the testers were gone, or were in the process of leaving. See above for my views on this. *DID RIO VISIT A DOCTOR?* The jury is out on whether Rio Ferdinand visited his doctor, however, his phone records state that he did indeed get in contact with him. The question is, why did he phone him? There are 2 trails of thought. The first is that Rio phoned the doctor to find out whether or not the treatment he had been recieving for a kidney infection would provide a negative effect on a drugs test, The other is that Rio panicked, in the knowledge he had taken some substance, be it performance enhancing or recreational, and that he needed to clear with the doctor that he would be ok. It would be wrong to think the second without proof, however, with the 1st case, why did Rio not speak to the Manchester United club doctor about it? Why did he have to leave the premises to find out this information? What is the reasoning behind this? *THE REACTION TO THE INCIDENT* The F.A for the record, did not want this to come out into the open. They told Ferdinand on the 3rd of October that he had failed to take the original test, and that action was going to be taken. He is told that the case would be heard on the 13th of October. Behind the scenes both United and the F.A start negotiations to sort the matter out, the F.A offered to move the hearing forward, but Ferdinand REJECTED this, which left the F.A with no choice but to tell Eriksson he wouldn't be available. Ferdinand was charged with the following "the failure or refusal by a player to submit to drug testing as required by a competent official". *PALIOS AND HIS ROLE* Mark Palios was named the new "Guy At The Top" of the F.A, after the Negouai case. In a statement when he first got the role, he made a point of saying that the F.A were going to introduce a tougher stance on drugs. This, may I add, was partially under the pressure of Sepp Blatter, who was campaigning for stronger penalties on drugs issues in football. With the Ferdinand incident being the first case of a drugs test "failed or refused" since Palios took over, it was likely that he was going to be made an example of. One point is, however, that Mark Palios DID NOT make the decision on whether or not Rio Ferdinand got an 8 month ban, it was discussed by a panel of 3 experts representing different areas of expertise, who having reviewed the evidence, gave what they felt was a justified position. They were perhaps advised by Palios that a ban was neccessary in this case, but Palios would not have the power to ensure a ban was upheld *THE BAN LENGTH AND THE RELATION TO THE NEGOUAI INCIDENT AND THE OTHER DRUGS TESTS* 8 Months vs �2000 vs 6 Months, this is the general argument from those who oppose the ban. Firstly, the Negouai case. Negouai, was fined, because this is what a panel felt was a satisfactory punishment. The basis was that Negouai had tried to attend the test, but due to his lack of understanding of English he had failed to arrive at the time that was designated. They agreed that Negouai did not forget to take the test, and had made the effort to do so, further added to this was the fact that as it was an announced test, he had not deliberately copped out and left, and that a fine and a warning over his future conduct was sufficient. Negouai will of course be under severe checks for the remainder of his career. The Davids and Stam cases have come under a severe backlash from many sources, and rightly so, the bans for these players SHOULD have been longer, but the Italian FA failed to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. Both players did serve suspensions, and quite rightly, but the bans should have been longer. The argument continues to go on, as why were these players not banned for 2 years? This includes Ferdinand. If the FA and FIFA had continuity they would agree that a set period should be agreed for whatever they feel is necessary, the appeal process is available for those to argue the case, and evidence is heard to determine the outcome of any case. In Ferdinand's example, they found that the player had not given a satisfactory reasoning behind the reason for missing the test, and banned him for what they deemed to be a fair amount of time. *MY TAKE ON IT* Personal feelings aside, I'm not going to say I'm loving the fact he is banned, because I think it's fantastic that the F.A finally stood up to Man U, and are finally clamping down on drugs in the sport, but I'll look at it from a neutral perspective Firstly, you have to look at the Negouai case vs the Rio case, as much as it may be argued the 2 are different cases which include the same basic happening. A missed test, and then a negative follow up test. In the case of both, they attempted to sort out the test, however, they do differ. Rio left the premises where the drugs test was supposed to be held, while Negouai did not arrive on time. Both eventually turned up. The fact remains however, that Rio Ferdinand, despite being told to both return earlier and not leave at all, failed to do so until the Unannounced testers had left. Negouai missed the planned test in a relatively similar timespan to Ferdinand. Why do these differ? Its simple. Both spoke to a panel at the F.A, where a decision was made. Negouai is not a precedent for the case, because in his example the F.A accepted his reasoning behind missing the test, and punished him accordingly. In Ferdinand's case, they rejected his reasonings, because they felt that simply "forgetting" to take a drugs test is not a reason for doing so. Hence, in Ferdinand's case he was given a ban relating to the severity of what he had done, while Negouai was fined and warned that his future conduct would be monitored. The F.A, should have done more to ensure both men took the test on the days, however, they cannot be at fault for leaving the premises, as it was the duty of both the players and their clubs to ensure that they took the tests. As a result, this cannot be seen as a legitimate excuse. I agree with the F.A stance on rejecting Ferdinand's argument, not "because I'm a Liverpool fan" but because Ferdinand clearly broke F.A regulations, and carried on regardless. His "forgetfulness" is certainly not an excuse, as he was reminded constantly, and unless he suffers from ADD or some other mental problem, he should have taken the test at the time. Furthermore, his phone was switched on, and he did not answer it, and despite his apparent attempts at contacting the F.A, this did not stop him from going shopping. These are the facts, and surely no one can argue that Ferdinand did not deserve to be punished, although I must say, no one has disagreed, but they have disagreed on the length of the ban. My take on the length of the ban is simple. I believe that Ferdinand should have recieved a 2 year ban from football, but feel that 8 months is fair taking into account other factors. I also believe that anyone who doesn't comply with the rules and regulations in regards to drugs tests, be it missing them or taking them, should have their case held, like Ferdinand's was, and a decision made. It is here where things needed to be shaken up to make things clearer. Ferdinand recieving an 8 month ban doesn't make sense, because 8 months appears to be a fairly random number, however, it is fair if you take into account the circumstances. Had this been athletics, he would have recieved a 2 year ban. In the case, Rio's only defence is that he did try and take the test later in the day, and to me, that is the only thing that prevented this from being a years ban, in the eyes of the F.A. My belief now about the Negouai case is simple, it is not a precedent, because of the 2 differing stances on the hearing. If Rio had an excuse other than "I forgot" it is possible that the ban would have been more lenient. The case presented by Manchester United was that the "precedent" of the Negouai trial is what Rio should be sentenced by, they did not argue in a positive manner about Ferdinand, and this simply gives the F.A no choice but to slap a ban on him. The question I do pose is indeed what many have said, and that is, why does Ferdinand get 8 months for failing to take a test, and Davids and Stam get less for testing positive. To me, Negouai is a non-factor, Davids/Stam is. The only answer I can give to that is that the F.A decided to take a different stance on the issue than the Italian F.A. I have read that in the case of Italy, the problem of designer drugs like THG is that they suddenly sprung up really quickly, and a lot of people got caught out. In the last few years there have been MANY cases of players testing positive for drugs in the Italian game (Kallon of Inter and Gaddafi's son to name a couple) and the Italian F.A has felt that too long a ban would have a negative effect on football in the country. This is only what I can suggest, but clearly, the Italian F.A is not taking a tough stance on the issue, this is nothing to do with the F.A in the UK, Italy does not set precedents for our footballing body. So an argument then, Bosnich recieved a 9 month ban for testing positive for Cocaine, why is Rio's ban almost as long as this? I can only suggest that as Cocaine is not neccessarily a performance enhancing drug, but is instead regarded as a recreational drug, then they have decided 9 months is sufficient, it is difficult to comment on such a case, because you'd need to know the statements of the hearing. Which I have just found. Seemingly, it was a case of again, the panel deciding whether to believe his story or not, and they didn't. It was that simple.