Premiership Talk - Page 21

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 05:00 PM

Could you please show me the details of the City players case so I can make a decision on it, also from what I'm aware that was before Palios decided to change the FA's stance on drugs.

In this country, I don't recall someone who failed the test getting a shorter ban.

What I don't understand is why all the United fans are so shitty about this, the guy missed a drugs test, this is against the rules laid down by the FA. Your football club is just as much to blame for actually letting the player leave, and not keeping him at the club to do something that other players did, why didn't he take the test? Why did he go and consult an external doctor? If he had nothing to hide, he would have done the test there and then, "forgetting" to take a test is bullshit, and hey, if the Man City player did exactly the same thing, then yeah he should have got a ban, but I'm not 100% aware of the details of the case, so I can't comment on it, regardless, this doesn't have to be a precedent, precedents are changed, and I would expect anyone in the future to recieve the same treatment as Ferdinand relating to whatever they have done. Ferdinand broke the rules, and he has been deservedly punished for it. That's the way it is.

**Rob** · 03-18-2004, 05:08 PM

It's got nothing to do with me being a Man United fan. I have said it before and I'll say it again, Rio Ferdinand deserved a ban but not 8 months. The Man City player (don't have the details but they are probably on this board somewhere) failed to take a test 2 weeks before Rio and he got a fine. And just because Palios showed up, that doesn't give me the right to change the rules to suit. If there was no previous incident then maybe we could accept the 8 months but when someone got away scot free 2 weeks before, sorry but that's undefendable. Doesn't matter about the details of the case because a missed test is a missed test. And he didn't go to the measures Rio did to take the test either (only to be refused I might add).

**toxic rooster** · 03-18-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cactus Sid

If he had nothing to hide, he would have done the test there and then, "forgetting" to take a test is bullshit, and hey, if the Man City player did exactly the same thing, then yeah he should have got a ban, but I'm not 100% aware of the details of the case, so I can't comment on it, regardless, this doesn't have to be a precedent, precedents are changed, and I would expect anyone in the future to recieve the same treatment as Ferdinand relating to whatever they have done.

HOLY RUN-ON SENTENCE

The Man City player was Christian Nedouai, French I believe, but regardless spoke very little English. He missed a drugs test to pick up his grandma at the airport (so the story goes) and was fined 2000 pounds.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 05:39 PM

Yeah, got a bit...carried away with the writing.

Did he ever take the drugs test?

While I still see no excuse in that, if he spoke little English, then perhaps there is a reason, however if that was the case, City should have made provisions to ensure that everything was communicated to him, and that he took the test.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 05:58 PM

To be fair Rob, and be honest here, because the only answer you can really give is yes, you are only defending the issue because he's a Manchester United player. If he played for Liverpool you wouldn't give a shit, and you wouldn't defend him, and you know that's true. Conversly, I admit that I am pushing the issue because Ferdinand plays for United, but I still see the fact that he deserved what he got.

I'm gonna really look into this Negouai thing, because I think its an important issue, however what you are essentially saying is that the whole thing is a deliberate attempt at holding United down? Is this what you think?

Hell, even if they were trying to clamp down on United, can you blame them? Again, I would like to see the details of the Negouai incident, but at the same time, United basically shot themselves in the foot, because they let the player leave when he had a drugs test to take. Now, basically, Ferdinand turned off his mobile phone, when he turned it on, he didn't take the calls, he visited an external doctor, then switched his phone back on, at which the point the FA had already left. This is what I believe happened. I would like to see the reasons Negouai didn't take the test, if he did just go and pick his Grandma up, while it being complete shite, it doesn't hold the same deal that Ferdinand did. How can you explain walking away from the scene where you and your team mates have been told to take a drugs test? How can you explain that after your fellow team mates took the test, you did not, and furthermore, after being told by your team mates you had to take a test, why did you not take it? Why did Ferdinand then leave the premises, and travel to an external doctor? Why did Ferdinand not immediatly return to the premises to attempt to take the drugs test? You see, even if Ferdinand did want to take the test, the very fact that what happened above is seriously incriminating. No excuses, and I feel that such deliberate flouting of the rules deserve the ban he recieved. I want to see the verdict of the Negouai case, and the reason why he was fined and not suspended, if the FA have given a clear reason why each verdict has been given, then I can decide whether or not the incidents are identical or not.

A missed test is indeed a missed test, and maybe the FA have some explaining to do about each incident and why they gave what they gave, but as far as I'm concerned, Rio Ferdinand deserved an 8 month ban, because he refused to take a drugs test.

Maybe it shouldn't be Ferdinand who gets the punishment, maybe it should be United or in the Negouai case, City, because they should be the ones ensuring that the players take the test, but at the end of the day, fining a club isn't going to doing anything, but suspending or fining a player is.

I'll come back into this thread tomorrow once I found some details of the Negouai case.

**Rob** · 03-18-2004, 06:39 PM

Okay I've said a half dozen times it's not because he is a Man U player and he should have the same punishment as people with similar record (Negouai being a perfect example) but yeah you're right, it's only because he is a Man U player I'm defending him.

Didn't even bother reading whatever else you wrote because you didn't care for my word so I won't bother with yours.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Okay I've said a half dozen times it's not because he is a Man U player and he should have the same punishment as people with similar record (Negouai being a perfect example) but yeah you're right, it's only because he is a Man U player I'm defending him.

Didn't even bother reading whatever else you wrote because you didn't care for my word so I won't bother with yours.

Your just lying to yourself really, if it was someone like say, David Dunn (an example I thought of as he's probably the kind of player who has no attachments to anybody else, and he's English) you probably wouldn't be arguing the case.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 09:23 PM

Ok, if anyone is interested, this below is basically the facts I have found about Negouai, the Rio case, the other cases and my overall take on it all, if you wanna read it, please do, and comment if you like, this is not me talking as a Liverpool fan who is glad that United got what was coming to them, this is a researched piece of writing, that I took a couple of hours over, looking at sources and then reporting back what I have found. In fact, I probably could add more to it, but I won't. So here it is.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 09:23 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.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-18-2004, 09:24 PM

VERDICT

Having looked at the evidence, my only real problem is with the fact that 8 months seems like such a random number. I think 6 months would have been a sufficient ban, but I also feel that perhaps the F.A should have gone the whole way and banned him for 2 years. The Negouai case is a non-factor, because, as I have said, the panel accepted his excuse, while they rejected Ferdinand's. I do feel perhaps Negouai should have been punished further, but the fact that he now has to face regular drugs tests for the next 2 years should prove his innocence. Ferdinand, is probably innocent of taking drugs, but his whole case was built on someone else's mistake, not his own, his excuse is not acceptable, and he has faced the penalty for it. I must add that the next time something like this comes up is crucial to everything I have written here. If someone does a similar thing to Ferdinand, i.e Missing an Unannounced drugs test for seemingly no reason, and ends up recieving a fine, or a ban of say 3 months, then I will put my hands up and agree with the Rob Harvey's of this world who think it is harsh. I think this is the precedent that is being set down for this type of case, and that future cases will be dealt with on this basis. I also think that if a player tests positive in the English game for a banned performance enhancing drug, and did actually take it (i.e like Dwain Chambers and not Greg Rusedski) then they should be banned to the full extent of the law, i.e 2 years. If the Italian F.A want to do what they are doing, that's for the Italian F.A to sort out, not us. FIFA and UEFA need to step in and sort these things out, but as it is, I feel that Rio's ban is fair for what he has done.

**Dazz** · 03-19-2004, 05:54 AM

Its not suprising, United officials told two different stories about what happened.

Oh well, United were never going to get anywhere in the league anyway.

**packt up** · 03-19-2004, 10:07 AM

I think Man U should take responsibility for the length of the ban. The difference between the Negouai case and the Rio case is that Man U DIDN'T ACCEPT THEY WERE WRONG.

Hence when they decided the fight the FA and try to get Rio cleared the consequences was that when he was (obviously) going to be harsher. Many people have said that if Man U had pleaded guilty then the ban would have been 3 months max.

This is the problem with people saying its the FA's fault - its actually Man U. How the **** they can plead not guilty to failing the test - WHEN THE GUY DIDN't ****ing turn up is insane. If the guy doesn't turn up its a fail.

If Man U had accepted they had done something wrong in the first place and not fought an unwinnable battle they wouldn't be in this position.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-19-2004, 10:26 AM

^ Agreed

**packt up** · 03-19-2004, 01:05 PM

Leeds future secured as they get taken over.

Always hoped they wouldn't go out of business.

Now I just want them to go down more

.

**British Beef** · 03-19-2004, 02:22 PM

Evening chaps.

I don't post over here often but a few of you might know me from the occasional trip over to Rajah... anyway, just here to to you all a favour and remind you to turn your TVs over to Sky Sports 1 at 1pm on Sunday for the big match. Get a beer, put your feet up and watch the Mighty Shrimpers bring the LDV Vans Trophy back to Essex with them.

You can stick your Champions League up your arse.

Come on you Silvers!

**Rob** · 03-19-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packt up

I think Man U should take responsibility for the length of the ban. The difference between the Negouai case and the Rio case is that Man U DIDN'T ACCEPT THEY WERE WRONG.

Hence when they decided the fight the FA and try to get Rio cleared the consequences was that when he was (obviously) going to be harsher. Many people have said that if Man U had pleaded guilty then the ban would have been 3 months max.

This is the problem with people saying its the FA's fault - its actually Man U. How the **** they can plead not guilty to failing the test - WHEN THE GUY DIDN't ****ing turn up is insane. If the guy doesn't turn up its a fail.

If Man U had accepted they had done something wrong in the first place and not fought an unwinnable battle they wouldn't be in this position.

Man United weren't wrong. How can they be when it's a player at fault and NOT the club?

Cactus Sid, keep saying I'm in denial or whatever dude. Glad you can read minds though. I hope to be able to do that someday too.

**toxic rooster** · 03-20-2004, 12:14 AM

SSSSS Leeds got saved.

My boss is gonna be walking on air tomorrow

Now come on and avoid relegation. I've got ten bucks riding on this

**toxic rooster** · 03-20-2004, 12:16 AM

Oh BTW change of subject, does anyone really think Arsenal can win the Treble?

I mean, if we make the final (that is, beat Chelsea and Real), then we can talk about it, but this is just crap.

Thoughts?

**Wengerland** · 03-20-2004, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Monday Morning

Unless I'm very much mistaken Leicester Wolves *and* Pompey all have a lot of players who's contracts expire at the end of this season...whoever goes down is going to have a lot of rebuilding to do regardless.

True but there is still the backbone of the teams that won promotion.Bad thing for Wolves though is that they're also going to lose Ince and Irwin(assuming they retire) and Rae's form will get him a move back to the premiership.

That said we'll only have Dickov left out of the 3 we have now.Hopefully if we go down Micky will move Scowcroft back up front,at least he's less of a burden there.

**Wengerland** · 03-20-2004, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paranoid Rattlesnake

He has no friends

lol

But he should be gone,his agents said he's looking for a club before the nationwide league transfer window closes.He's too old now,and has been found to be not up to premiership standard this season(same with Elliott,and as much as i hate to have seen him go,Taggart)

Plus none of the fans were that bothered,the only one of the three who's name they chanted during the Birmingham game was Dickov.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-20-2004, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Cactus Sid, keep saying I'm in denial or whatever dude. Glad you can read minds though. I hope to be able to do that someday too.

Ok, fair enough, you've made your point, and because of it, I actually did the background research to the cases stated. If you think he's been treated harshly, its your opinion, I do feel that you wouldn't argue the case as much if he hadn't been a Manchester United player, but if you say otherwise, then otherwise it is, your right, I can't read minds, but I do honestly think that is the case.

**toxic rooster** · 03-20-2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Man United weren't wrong. How can they be when it's a player at fault and NOT the club?

Well the club let him leave, didn't they?

**Cactus Sid** · 03-20-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wee Gooner

Well the club let him leave, didn't they?

Exactly, it is down to the club to ensure that the player does what he's supposed to, to comply with F.A regulations

**toxic rooster** · 03-20-2004, 06:59 AM

Some proper judgement by Man U wouldn't have gone astray either.

You know, defending the indefensible and tacking on, oh, about 5 months onto Ferdinand's suspension..

**Frank Grimes Jnr** · 03-20-2004, 09:05 AM

I'm predicting an upset in the premier league today.
I think Bolton will beat Arsenal 1-0.
Therefore, ending their winning streak and ending their run of a billion games without not scoring a goal.

**packt up** · 03-20-2004, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

Man United weren't wrong. How can they be when it's a player at fault and NOT the club?

Cactus Sid, keep saying I'm in denial or whatever dude. Glad you can read minds though. I hope to be able to do that someday too.

Ok they let him leave the club and mishandled his defence.

And if your saying its Rio's fault why did Man U tell him to plead not guilty? Surely he's guilty if its his fault.

**Danny Electric** · 03-20-2004, 12:05 PM

Ha ha Mr Monday Morning!

**Mr. Monday Morning** · 03-20-2004, 12:45 PM

Fuck you, you lucky sons of bitches :foc:

**Danny Electric** · 03-20-2004, 12:50 PM

Super Sami.

**Mr. Monday Morning** · 03-20-2004, 12:58 PM

Super my ass, you have absolutely nothing to be proud or even happy about, let's face it, if you have to rely on an injury time winner to beat us, you're shite.

Where the fuck's Cactus when I need someone to agree with me

**Rob** · 03-20-2004, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wee Gooner

Oh BTW change of subject, does anyone really think Arsenal can win the Treble?

I mean, if we make the final (that is, beat Chelsea and Real), then we can talk about it, but this is just crap.

Thoughts?

They can win it. You have to give them credit when they are unbeaten in the league still and are in one semi final and one quarter final. I don't think they will though.

**Danny Electric** · 03-20-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Monday Morning

Super my ass, you have absolutely nothing to be proud or even happy about, let's face it, if you have to rely on an injury time winner to beat us, you're shite.

Where the fuck's Cactus when I need someone to agree with me

I don't care, the result says 1-0 and three points.
I know we're shit and I want you to stay up because I would love to see a Black Country derby in the Premiership.

**packt up** · 03-20-2004, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Monday Morning

Super my ass, you have absolutely nothing to be proud or even happy about, let's face it, if you have to rely on an injury time winner to beat us, you're shite.

Where the fuck's Cactus when I need someone to agree with me

HA I'LL AGREE WITH U

Damn you liverpool for still being above us. Goals scored

But yeah have it Charlton we deserved to win despite the commentators licking your arse all day.

**packt up** · 03-20-2004, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

They can win it. You have to give them credit when they are unbeaten in the league still and are in one semi final and one quarter final. I don't think they will though.

Pretty much agree with that. European Championship is the one which is gonna be the toughest by a country mile.

**Danny Electric** · 03-20-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packt up

HA I'LL AGREE WITH U

Damn you liverpool for still being above us. Goals scored

But yeah have it Charlton we deserved to win despite the commentators licking your arse all day.

What was the score, I forgot it was a late kick off.

**Dazz** · 03-20-2004, 04:33 PM

Everyone STFU and watch Gudjohnsen's goal later, what a beauty.

**Cactus Sid** · 03-20-2004, 05:00 PM

Liverpool are still shite, its the same old story though, something lucky masks the fact that we are underperforming (bar Gerrard who apparently didn't stop running for 90 minutes AGAIN). It also saves Houllier's job, which is bullshit too, because the guy has no fucking clue. No offence to Wolves, but we should be annihilating them at Anfield, and Kirk's right, if it takes an injury time winner to beat them, then something is seriously wrong.

**Dazz** · 03-20-2004, 05:08 PM

Wasn't there a penalty miss too, from Wolves? I think Jones said something like that after the game.

And didn't Man United only beat Wolves 1-0 at their gaff? (and then lost 1-0 nil away

)

I don't know if Wolves played well, but we have them next week so I hope before then that turn into the suckiest bunch of suckers that ever sucked...again.

**Mr. Monday Morning** · 03-20-2004, 07:40 PM

He might've mentioned Ganea missing last week (dunno why though)

Apparently Heskey collapsed like a sack of potatoes when Craddock got back to stop a one-on-one (I dunno if they showed it tonight, I missed the Premiership)

On a related note I seriously hate Stuart Hall right now, all afternoon he wouldn't shut the fuck up about how fabulous Baros is and how he should've been playing instead of Heskey. Christ, ask him out if you like him that much

The reason I've been so pissed off is because I didn't expect us to take anything from the game going in, but to come *SO* fucking close is just galling. I don't expect we'll get much from Chelsea either but then I imagine that's what everyone will be thinking, so who knows?

**Cactus Sid** · 03-21-2004, 07:15 AM

I actually think we should have got a penalty for it, but I'm pretty glad we didn't to be honest.

Also Stuart Hall is right to say how fabulous Baros is, because he's quality, Heskey is a big sack of shit

03-18-2004, 05:00 PM	#801
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	Could you please show me the details of the City players case so I can make a decision on it, also from what I'm aware that was before Palios decided to change the FA's stance on drugs. In this country, I don't recall someone who failed the test getting a shorter ban. What I don't understand is why all the United fans are so shitty about this, the guy missed a drugs test, this is against the rules laid down by the FA. Your football club is just as much to blame for actually letting the player leave, and not keeping him at the club to do something that other players did, why didn't he take the test? Why did he go and consult an external doctor? If he had nothing to hide, he would have done the test there and then, "forgetting" to take a test is bullshit, and hey, if the Man City player did exactly the same thing, then yeah he should have got a ban, but I'm not 100% aware of the details of the case, so I can't comment on it, regardless, this doesn't have to be a precedent, precedents are changed, and I would expect anyone in the future to recieve the same treatment as Ferdinand relating to whatever they have done. Ferdinand broke the rules, and he has been deservedly punished for it. That's the way it is.

03-18-2004, 05:08 PM	#802
Rob Part time poster Posts: 22,963	It's got nothing to do with me being a Man United fan. I have said it before and I'll say it again, Rio Ferdinand deserved a ban but not 8 months. The Man City player (don't have the details but they are probably on this board somewhere) failed to take a test 2 weeks before Rio and he got a fine. And just because Palios showed up, that doesn't give me the right to change the rules to suit. If there was no previous incident then maybe we could accept the 8 months but when someone got away scot free 2 weeks before, sorry but that's undefendable. Doesn't matter about the details of the case because a missed test is a missed test. And he didn't go to the measures Rio did to take the test either (only to be refused I might add).

03-18-2004, 05:39 PM	#804
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	Yeah, got a bit...carried away with the writing. Did he ever take the drugs test? While I still see no excuse in that, if he spoke little English, then perhaps there is a reason, however if that was the case, City should have made provisions to ensure that everything was communicated to him, and that he took the test.

03-18-2004, 05:58 PM	#805
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	To be fair Rob, and be honest here, because the only answer you can really give is yes, you are only defending the issue because he's a Manchester United player. If he played for Liverpool you wouldn't give a shit, and you wouldn't defend him, and you know that's true. Conversly, I admit that I am pushing the issue because Ferdinand plays for United, but I still see the fact that he deserved what he got. I'm gonna really look into this Negouai thing, because I think its an important issue, however what you are essentially saying is that the whole thing is a deliberate attempt at holding United down? Is this what you think? Hell, even if they were trying to clamp down on United, can you blame them? Again, I would like to see the details of the Negouai incident, but at the same time, United basically shot themselves in the foot, because they let the player leave when he had a drugs test to take. Now, basically, Ferdinand turned off his mobile phone, when he turned it on, he didn't take the calls, he visited an external doctor, then switched his phone back on, at which the point the FA had already left. This is what I believe happened. I would like to see the reasons Negouai didn't take the test, if he did just go and pick his Grandma up, while it being complete shite, it doesn't hold the same deal that Ferdinand did. How can you explain walking away from the scene where you and your team mates have been told to take a drugs test? How can you explain that after your fellow team mates took the test, you did not, and furthermore, after being told by your team mates you had to take a test, why did you not take it? Why did Ferdinand then leave the premises, and travel to an external doctor? Why did Ferdinand not immediatly return to the premises to attempt to take the drugs test? You see, even if Ferdinand did want to take the test, the very fact that what happened above is seriously incriminating. No excuses, and I feel that such deliberate flouting of the rules deserve the ban he recieved. I want to see the verdict of the Negouai case, and the reason why he was fined and not suspended, if the FA have given a clear reason why each verdict has been given, then I can decide whether or not the incidents are identical or not. A missed test is indeed a missed test, and maybe the FA have some explaining to do about each incident and why they gave what they gave, but as far as I'm concerned, Rio Ferdinand deserved an 8 month ban, because he refused to take a drugs test. Maybe it shouldn't be Ferdinand who gets the punishment, maybe it should be United or in the Negouai case, City, because they should be the ones ensuring that the players take the test, but at the end of the day, fining a club isn't going to doing anything, but suspending or fining a player is. I'll come back into this thread tomorrow once I found some details of the Negouai case.

03-18-2004, 06:39 PM	#806
Rob Part time poster Posts: 22,963	Okay I've said a half dozen times it's not because he is a Man U player and he should have the same punishment as people with similar record (Negouai being a perfect example) but yeah you're right, it's only because he is a Man U player I'm defending him. Didn't even bother reading whatever else you wrote because you didn't care for my word so I won't bother with yours.

03-18-2004, 09:23 PM	#808
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	Ok, if anyone is interested, this below is basically the facts I have found about Negouai, the Rio case, the other cases and my overall take on it all, if you wanna read it, please do, and comment if you like, this is not me talking as a Liverpool fan who is glad that United got what was coming to them, this is a researched piece of writing, that I took a couple of hours over, looking at sources and then reporting back what I have found. In fact, I probably could add more to it, but I won't. So here it is.

03-18-2004, 09:23 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.

03-18-2004, 09:24 PM	#810
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	*VERDICT* Having looked at the evidence, my only real problem is with the fact that 8 months seems like such a random number. I think 6 months would have been a sufficient ban, but I also feel that perhaps the F.A should have gone the whole way and banned him for 2 years. The Negouai case is a non-factor, because, as I have said, the panel accepted his excuse, while they rejected Ferdinand's. I do feel perhaps Negouai should have been punished further, but the fact that he now has to face regular drugs tests for the next 2 years should prove his innocence. Ferdinand, is probably innocent of taking drugs, but his whole case was built on someone else's mistake, not his own, his excuse is not acceptable, and he has faced the penalty for it. I must add that the next time something like this comes up is crucial to everything I have written here. If someone does a similar thing to Ferdinand, i.e Missing an Unannounced drugs test for seemingly no reason, and ends up recieving a fine, or a ban of say 3 months, then I will put my hands up and agree with the Rob Harvey's of this world who think it is harsh. I think this is the precedent that is being set down for this type of case, and that future cases will be dealt with on this basis. I also think that if a player tests positive in the English game for a banned performance enhancing drug, and did actually take it (i.e like Dwain Chambers and not Greg Rusedski) then they should be banned to the full extent of the law, i.e 2 years. If the Italian F.A want to do what they are doing, that's for the Italian F.A to sort out, not us. FIFA and UEFA need to step in and sort these things out, but as it is, I feel that Rio's ban is fair for what he has done.

03-19-2004, 05:54 AM	#811
Dazz IRREPLACEABLE Posts: 11,608	Its not suprising, United officials told two different stories about what happened. Oh well, United were never going to get anywhere in the league anyway.

03-19-2004, 10:07 AM	#812
packt up Posts: 3,460	I think Man U should take responsibility for the length of the ban. The difference between the Negouai case and the Rio case is that Man U DIDN'T ACCEPT THEY WERE WRONG. Hence when they decided the fight the FA and try to get Rio cleared the consequences was that when he was (obviously) going to be harsher. Many people have said that if Man U had pleaded guilty then the ban would have been 3 months max. This is the problem with people saying its the FA's fault - its actually Man U. How the ** they can plead not guilty to failing the test - WHEN THE GUY DIDN't **ing turn up is insane. If the guy doesn't turn up its a fail. If Man U had accepted they had done something wrong in the first place and not fought an unwinnable battle they wouldn't be in this position.

03-19-2004, 10:26 AM	#813
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	^ Agreed

03-19-2004, 01:05 PM	#814
packt up Posts: 3,460	Leeds future secured as they get taken over. Always hoped they wouldn't go out of business. Now I just want them to go down more .

03-19-2004, 02:22 PM	#815
British Beef Hi Posts: 122	Evening chaps. I don't post over here often but a few of you might know me from the occasional trip over to Rajah... anyway, just here to to you all a favour and remind you to turn your TVs over to Sky Sports 1 at 1pm on Sunday for the big match. Get a beer, put your feet up and watch the Mighty Shrimpers bring the LDV Vans Trophy back to Essex with them. You can stick your Champions League up your arse. Come on you Silvers!

03-20-2004, 12:14 AM	#817
toxic rooster adjective noun Posts: 30,417	SSSSS Leeds got saved. My boss is gonna be walking on air tomorrow Now come on and avoid relegation. I've got ten bucks riding on this

03-20-2004, 12:16 AM	#818
toxic rooster adjective noun Posts: 30,417	Oh BTW change of subject, does anyone really think Arsenal can win the Treble? I mean, if we make the final (that is, beat Chelsea and Real), then we can talk about it, but this is just crap. Thoughts?

03-20-2004, 06:59 AM	#824
toxic rooster adjective noun Posts: 30,417	Some proper judgement by Man U wouldn't have gone astray either. You know, defending the indefensible and tacking on, oh, about 5 months onto Ferdinand's suspension..

03-20-2004, 09:05 AM	#825
Frank Grimes Jnr Posts: 240	I'm predicting an upset in the premier league today. I think Bolton will beat Arsenal 1-0. Therefore, ending their winning streak and ending their run of a billion games without not scoring a goal.

03-20-2004, 12:05 PM	#827
Danny Electric dirty irani Posts: 11,956	Ha ha Mr Monday Morning!

03-20-2004, 12:45 PM	#828
Mr. Monday Morning All Part Of The Plan Posts: 12,125	Fuck you, you lucky sons of bitches :foc:

03-20-2004, 12:50 PM	#829
Danny Electric dirty irani Posts: 11,956	Super Sami.

03-20-2004, 12:58 PM	#830
Mr. Monday Morning All Part Of The Plan Posts: 12,125	Super my ass, you have absolutely nothing to be proud or even happy about, let's face it, if you have to rely on an injury time winner to beat us, you're shite. Where the fuck's Cactus when I need someone to agree with me

03-20-2004, 04:33 PM	#836
Dazz IRREPLACEABLE Posts: 11,608	Everyone STFU and watch Gudjohnsen's goal later, what a beauty.

03-20-2004, 05:00 PM	#837
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	Liverpool are still shite, its the same old story though, something lucky masks the fact that we are underperforming (bar Gerrard who apparently didn't stop running for 90 minutes AGAIN). It also saves Houllier's job, which is bullshit too, because the guy has no fucking clue. No offence to Wolves, but we should be annihilating them at Anfield, and Kirk's right, if it takes an injury time winner to beat them, then something is seriously wrong.

03-20-2004, 05:08 PM	#838
Dazz IRREPLACEABLE Posts: 11,608	Wasn't there a penalty miss too, from Wolves? I think Jones said something like that after the game. And didn't Man United only beat Wolves 1-0 at their gaff? (and then lost 1-0 nil away ) I don't know if Wolves played well, but we have them next week so I hope before then that turn into the suckiest bunch of suckers that ever sucked...again.

03-20-2004, 07:40 PM	#839
Mr. Monday Morning All Part Of The Plan Posts: 12,125	He might've mentioned Ganea missing last week (dunno why though) Apparently Heskey collapsed like a sack of potatoes when Craddock got back to stop a one-on-one (I dunno if they showed it tonight, I missed the Premiership) On a related note I seriously hate Stuart Hall right now, all afternoon he wouldn't shut the fuck up about how fabulous Baros is and how he should've been playing instead of Heskey. Christ, ask him out if you like him that much The reason I've been so pissed off is because I didn't expect us to take anything from the game going in, but to come SO fucking close is just galling. I don't expect we'll get much from Chelsea either but then I imagine that's what everyone will be thinking, so who knows?

03-21-2004, 07:15 AM	#840
Cactus Sid Smashing Blouse Posts: 7,800	I actually think we should have got a penalty for it, but I'm pretty glad we didn't to be honest. Also Stuart Hall is right to say how fabulous Baros is, because he's quality, Heskey is a big sack of shit