FIFA World Cup 2014 - GROUP D [Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy - 14/19/20/24 June] **spoilers**

dbgjkk.jpg
 
Moses said:
What's a suitable sanction for missing drugs tests? It has to be serious, otherwise dopers would just miss tests for the lols.
Click to expand...

Fine if it is across the board instead of just the high profile Man Utd player.

They let a lower league player off for missing a test and then being found positive later in the year.
 
Moses said:
What's a suitable sanction for missing drugs tests? It has to be serious, otherwise dopers would just miss tests for the lols.
Click to expand...

I wasn't disagreeing with the sanction, but the fact is Ferdinand didn't actually **** hot. He simply missed the test, I thought 8 months was harsh, what would he have got had the test been positive?
 
McBain said:
I wasn't disagreeing with the sanction, but the fact is Ferdinand didn't actually **** hot. He simply missed the test, I thought 8 months was harsh, what would he have got had the test been positive?
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the minimum sentence if he had tested positive. I am sure thats what was said at the time.
 
BaZ87 said:
:D



You believe that no player has intentionally gone into a challenge to injure the opponent?
Click to expand...

Not to injure. To hurt, yes, but not to break bones etc

manic111 said:
^^ What about when they punch and stamp on other players?
Click to expand...

As vile as a bite. Incidentally, Suarez kicked Dawson and Parker completely intentionally and never got punished. Little ****

Moses said:
Yeah, I get the intent part. But there's sometimes intent when people swing arms (not all the time, but we all see it where there's obvious intent). There's also sometimes intent when it comes to a crazy red mist two-footed challenge. Etc.

There's intent with the biting, but then the actual harm sustained is superficial... as opposed to intentional arm-swinging and horrific challenges which can be career ending/break faces/etc.

Combining the intent with the harm for biting, then comparing it to the intent and harm for (intentional) horrific challenges/elbowing... I find it hard to say the biting is worse, tbh.
Click to expand...

It is kind of simple- if there is a dangerous tackle, you get sent off (regardless of intent) because players must play a contact sport with an eye on the health of other players.

If you do a stupid tiny "headbutt" you get sent off because that is in no way connected with playing of the sport of football; this was true for Beckham's stupid kick and any other tiny lash out by one player on another i.e. things that are violent to any degree and not connected with actually playing the game gets you sent off.
 
Frankiemac said:
Wasn't that the minimum sentence if he had tested positive. I am sure thats what was said at the time.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. So in reality he's been given the same ban as someone who was actually doping... harsh.

Obviously it's completely possible he was actually on something and missed the test on purpose, but to be given the same amount as someone proven to be cheating, I dunno, that seems like a right kick in the nuts.
 
Wasn't it reported that there was a bunch of players secretly banned but publically "injured" for testing positive for recreational drugs a few years ago?

Think it was a Panorama type program or something.
 
BaZ87 said:
You live in a fairy tale mate.

If he walked to training for the rest of the World Cup would you let Suarez off? ;)
Click to expand...

I would if he set up some children's homes or did some indisputably awesome things for the less well off :)

Life>football.

But I really don't think players play to really injure other players (by that I mean breaking bones or other long term damage). You would have to be a complete psycho to do that. I get wanting to rough someone up, but not wanting to do them permanent damage.
 
Moses said:
Were the circumstances the same? I mean, for example, with WADA people have to say they'll be at x place at y time... with that info being made available for every day of their lives as an athlete... if a WADA official rocks up and they're not there, they can get in trouble (but with that I think you can basically get away with not being there on a couple of occasions... eg. Christine Ohuruogu got a year long ban after missing three) - so there someone could just mess up and it not be an obvious attempt to skip a test. But then you have testing where after a match someone comes up to you and says you need to give a sample... then you go home instead - it's more likely someone would say that's an obvious attempt to skip a test.

But anyway, I basically agree that people should be treated equally, but I don't know if the Ferdinand offence was the same circumstances as the lower league one you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Ferdinand went back the same day and they told him it was too late as he had left the training ground.

I don't remember all the details of the lower league chap but he basically missed the test and when they did catch up with him he tested positive for cocaine. They banned him for something stupid like 4 games and a fine.

OldCoals said:
That was because an injury to his other leg ended his career, not the one Keane tried to snap IIRC.
Click to expand...

I think it was more because it would have set a precedent, all contact sport then would have been liable for break etc during games and it would turn into a farce.
 
Denilson was rumoured to have failed a drug test,either official or maybe Arsenal knew he would fail one and thus manufactured an injury as they don't bother testing injured players(if they did, it would stop potential for waiting out a drugs problem). As he became first time then disappeared for a year with an injury that no one saw happen and no one saw any evidence of. Wilshire's injury was obvious and the results are still clear to see. Other players often leave a foot in or try to kick him off the park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom