Caporegime
True and thats the issue i have with it.
Kolo Toure Suspended for Failed Drugs Test
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
True and thats the issue i have with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 3,443
Its yet again another random decision from the powers that be.
Why is this worth 6 months?
The truth is no-one knows.
Rios ban was a joke. However the principle of treating a no-show as guilt is quite reasonable in order to stop everyone who may be guilty simple not turning up in order to avoid punishment. As long as it is consistantly applied of course.
In that context where does a six month ban fit?
It doesnt.
If Koulo Toure made a genuine error and took something he shouldnt for non-performance enhancing reasons then common sense says lets let him play.
If Koulo Toure took something recreationally then ban him for a period to make an example.
If Koulo Toure tried to gain an advantage by taking a drug that could enhance his performance then ban him from the EPL for life.
Why is this worth 6 months?
The truth is no-one knows.
Rios ban was a joke. However the principle of treating a no-show as guilt is quite reasonable in order to stop everyone who may be guilty simple not turning up in order to avoid punishment. As long as it is consistantly applied of course.
In that context where does a six month ban fit?
It doesnt.
If Koulo Toure made a genuine error and took something he shouldnt for non-performance enhancing reasons then common sense says lets let him play.
If Koulo Toure took something recreationally then ban him for a period to make an example.
If Koulo Toure tried to gain an advantage by taking a drug that could enhance his performance then ban him from the EPL for life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 3,443
How?
Why is Rio punished more harshly for missing a test.
By all means put Rios missing a test as an indirect admission of guilt (it wasnt, but in terms of the rules) and punish him as if he had failed a test but how the hell can a guy who actually FAILED a test get a more lenient sentence???
A player that's missed a test could have tested positive for anything, where as we know exactly what Toure took.
Imo, a player that's missed a test should be punished as if he tested positive for whatever the most serious drug testing offense is and receive the maximum ban. That ban should only be decreased from that depending on how legitimate their reason for missing the test was.
What Toure tested positive for and was charged with (iinm), was considered a relatively minor offense and he should only be punished according to that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 3,443
Thats really really a stretch.
At the end of the day Toure took a dietary supplement apparently - to lose body fat, to improve muscle mass, to give a "shot" before a game......All potentially performance enhancing.
Probably not in the real world as a one-off, but they are all possible with the aid of diet pills. And why would he take "diet pills" anyway - the man is a pro athelete.
If we are taking everything to the nth degree then there is no way he deserves to get a lesser ban.
It wasnt a lemsip for a cold.
I'm not a drugs expert like you so I don't know the exact effects of what Toure took. However the testers are experts and only charged him with taking a 'specified substance', which have a credible non-doping explanation. He should therefore be punished based on that.
If somebody misses a test, you don't know if or what they've taken and therefore, providing they don't have a good reason, they should be treated as if they've committed the most serious offense. If they weren't then the easy answer would be to 'miss' your test if you thought you may fail the test.
There is an arguement that any failure or failure to take a test should result in an equal fixed punishment but is it just as guilty to test positive for every drug?
If somebody misses a test, you don't know if or what they've taken and therefore, providing they don't have a good reason, they should be treated as if they've committed the most serious offense. If they weren't then the easy answer would be to 'miss' your test if you thought you may fail the test.
There is an arguement that any failure or failure to take a test should result in an equal fixed punishment but is it just as guilty to test positive for every drug?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 3,443
Im hardly a drugs expert, im just saying what seems to be accepted as fact. I wasnt being arsey.
I totally agree with what you are saying in terms of "no show" = "guilty" but there needs to be some ground rules.
Its a mess as it stands.
It's just typical of the FA. None of their punishments seem to be consistent. It's as if they just make it up as they go along.
Caporegime
Kolo Toure case details
Click here or right click and download to get the PDF - http://goo.gl/KMzKm
The banned substance that was found in his sample was bendroflumethiazide.
Click here or right click and download to get the PDF - http://goo.gl/KMzKm
The banned substance that was found in his sample was bendroflumethiazide.
Its a diuretic used to lower blood pressure... unless he was carrying extra 'water' (oedema) or his blood pressure was high then i have no idea why he was taking it ?(i havent read the whole article).
As far as i know he took it to reduce the size of his belly; surely a better diet and training would have got rid of it? Seems drastic and extremely stupid - but i guess footballers have brains the size of a pea these days!
As far as i know he took it to reduce the size of his belly; surely a better diet and training would have got rid of it? Seems drastic and extremely stupid - but i guess footballers have brains the size of a pea these days!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The main thing here, and with say the Mutu case is that the things they are "caught" taking essentially have no performances benefit at all, neither are they illegal recreational drugs.
Theres always the other thing though, that some drugs can be used to push out other drugs from the system, or mask them, or bind and essentially remove them. Its basically impossible to know if he was cheating for an advantage or it was just a mistake, but frankly it appears the later and afaik most of the evidence pointed to the later not the former.
He's got a 6 month ban right, starting from early in the year so he can play from Sept/October next season right?
Theres always the other thing though, that some drugs can be used to push out other drugs from the system, or mask them, or bind and essentially remove them. Its basically impossible to know if he was cheating for an advantage or it was just a mistake, but frankly it appears the later and afaik most of the evidence pointed to the later not the former.
He's got a 6 month ban right, starting from early in the year so he can play from Sept/October next season right?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Good, always loved Kolo, seems highly unlikely City will ditch him now, assuming he doesn't come back in horrific form and re-establishes himself as first team I assume he'll stay their with Yaya for quite a while. It really doesn't come across as a "bad" case of trying to actually cheat to gain an advantage so good he's not missing a load of time.
Kompany and Kolo were a pretty epic partnership, plus, Kolo's great for some slow mo replays, kung fu moves, and getting trapped on the bottom of piles of players in celebrations.
Kompany and Kolo were a pretty epic partnership, plus, Kolo's great for some slow mo replays, kung fu moves, and getting trapped on the bottom of piles of players in celebrations.
lol.
We are going to easily meet the regulations.
No point selling Kolo now as he is a great player to have in the squad with all his experience winning titles etc same with Vieira and the ban runs out soon unless it gets lengthened.
Toure i hope can have a big impact along with Kompany on Boyata.
Haha, ok.
Well you don't make billions through investment's and generally in business without being smart.
I don't think you would invest 1bn+ in City and East Manchester in general only for it to be rendered useless when you cant meet some daft financial regulations.
We've been over this making billions rubbish before. Being born into the ruling family of an oil rich state doesn't make you smart or a great businessman.
In case you don't know, although entry to Europe is only effected from the 2013/14 season, it's based on figures from the 2011/12 to 2012/13 seasons. To be able to participate in the 2013 CL, clubs can lose no more than a total of €45m in those 2 previous seasons.
To put that into perspective, City's last set of accounts showed a €137m loss. It's going to take some creative accounting for City to meet the requirements.
In case you don't know, although entry to Europe is only effected from the 2013/14 season, it's based on figures from the 2011/12 to 2012/13 seasons. To be able to participate in the 2013 CL, clubs can lose no more than a total of €45m in those 2 previous seasons.
To put that into perspective, City's last set of accounts showed a €137m loss. It's going to take some creative accounting for City to meet the requirements.
Soldato
Effectively Citeh are going to have to sell in order to massage the figures. Does not matter how many times you tell them, they are blinded by this tag of the richest club in the Universe and can buy their way out of trouble. The Irony is, that they probably can't.
Its probably the ultimate Irony, City wait all these years scrabbling away in the lower leagues jealously looking across town United and their money and trophies.......
Then out of the blue they are handed unlimited funds that they have not earnt, dont deserve and dont have to account for thinking the world is going to be strewn from here to eternity with the best players in the world and title after title, cup after cup..........
And then Uefa slams the door in their face.
It couldnt happen to a more deserving bunch of fans.
It's not even as straight forward as selling. What a lot of people don't understand is that buying a player for £30m doesn't equate to a £30m expense on the years profit and loss account and neither does selling a player for £30m equate to a £30m income on the profit and loss account.
Players are assets and are recorded on the balance sheet. When buying a player, the expense that goes onto the profit and loss account is effectively the depreciation of the asset year or year. Take Torres's deal to Chelsea as an example (£50m on a 5 year contract): Chelsea won't post a £50m expense on this years accounts, it will be spread over 5 years at £10m a year (as in 5 years his contract is up and available to leave for free), with the players (assets) value dropping by £10m per year.
When selling a player the number that is recorded on the profit and loss account is the difference between what they're sold for and their book value. Using Torres as an example again; after 1 year Torres's book value is £40m so if Chelsea decided to sell him for £30m, they'd actually record a loss of £10m on the current years accounts. And if he was sold for £50, they'd record a £10m profit.
Signing players for extortionate fees is a double edge sword. Because City paid big money for what were fairly average players - unless their contracts are all but up, meaning their book value is low - they're likely to record significant losses even when selling players.
Players are assets and are recorded on the balance sheet. When buying a player, the expense that goes onto the profit and loss account is effectively the depreciation of the asset year or year. Take Torres's deal to Chelsea as an example (£50m on a 5 year contract): Chelsea won't post a £50m expense on this years accounts, it will be spread over 5 years at £10m a year (as in 5 years his contract is up and available to leave for free), with the players (assets) value dropping by £10m per year.
When selling a player the number that is recorded on the profit and loss account is the difference between what they're sold for and their book value. Using Torres as an example again; after 1 year Torres's book value is £40m so if Chelsea decided to sell him for £30m, they'd actually record a loss of £10m on the current years accounts. And if he was sold for £50, they'd record a £10m profit.
Signing players for extortionate fees is a double edge sword. Because City paid big money for what were fairly average players - unless their contracts are all but up, meaning their book value is low - they're likely to record significant losses even when selling players.