Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,150
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
40m tops he will be sold for. nowhere near 100m
Poll: Suarez has to be banned for a year at least
- Thread starter Frankiemac
- Start date
Deja Vu?
He should be banned for a year! He needs to learn his lesson as he his doing things like this all the time. He is a bad example to all the kids that love football.
A strong message needs to be shown in his punishment
A strong message needs to be shown in his punishment
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,150
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
yup. Ferdinand missed a drug test, not failed one. Suarez bitten somoen 3 times now and still gets a smaller punishment then ferdinand. nice
De Jong has ****ed two peoples legs, done Alonso in the chest and probably hasn't faced 9 games in total for all of those. You could pick all day things that realistically are worse than what Rio did, or Suarez.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I'm saying that is why drug bans are MUCH harsher than for onfield activities because they need a huge huge ban to deter players because they'll catch so few, while on field things can be seen by basically millions and can be punished much more simply(though often aren't). Regardless of if Rio should or shouldn't have been banned, the length was due to drug bans being longer so the length of drug bans and other bans aren't directly comparable.
People also seem to generally forget that Fifa changed rules to enable them to review more things by video. I can't remember the precise rules, they can now review something the referee has seen and not punished, where as before if the ref saw it and chose not to punish it they couldn't review it. Whatever it was.
AS for De Jong i think that falls in to that, the kung fu kick for whatever reason wasn't seen by the ref or was and he deemed it not a card. I can't remember precisely the two leg breaking tackles, I think both were overly aggressive but I don't think he intended to break their legs, one was unlucky iirc while the other was completely stupid by De Jong but still no intent. We will always punish intentional things more than non intentional ones.
People also seem to generally forget that Fifa changed rules to enable them to review more things by video. I can't remember the precise rules, they can now review something the referee has seen and not punished, where as before if the ref saw it and chose not to punish it they couldn't review it. Whatever it was.
AS for De Jong i think that falls in to that, the kung fu kick for whatever reason wasn't seen by the ref or was and he deemed it not a card. I can't remember precisely the two leg breaking tackles, I think both were overly aggressive but I don't think he intended to break their legs, one was unlucky iirc while the other was completely stupid by De Jong but still no intent. We will always punish intentional things more than non intentional ones.
Last edited:
I don't think the domestic ban is that bad tbh, but I would like to have seen the international one much longer, so that it at least incorporates the Copa America.
The way they worded it, does it mean that he is only banned from the actual tournament and not 9 qualifiers?
The way they worded it, does it mean that he is only banned from the actual tournament and not 9 qualifiers?
I doubt it, but they really need to do something, otherwise it undermines Liverpool's authority and discipline. It's ok to stand by a player once, but repeatedly it just shows weakness, a lack of discipline and a failure of management of their players. Just because it happened on international duty doesn't waive Liverpool's responsibility for their contracted player.
Sadly Liverpool did well this season, he had literally nothing bad, they'd got in a psychologist and he ended up picking up all the awards. He goes off with Uruguay and inside two games he's ****ing bitten someone and we end up the most punished party, sucks.
Dependant on the club you play for.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,150
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Well he should be banned for half a season to a whole season if he brakes someones leg again
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I think the drug guys are as dodgy as anyone else, they pick and choose who to make examples of, while keeping drugs out of sport is relatively useful. For me I don't even care that much, being heavier with more muscle isn't necessarily good in a endurance and skill sport. Running is entirely down to the bodies capability, sport is a team game where skill/talent/endurance are more important than all out strength, there is so little to gain as the level of strength required in football is frankly easily achievable, there are like 3-4 massively built players in the league who look like weightlifters.
Recreational drugs, as long as they aren't in use during games/training, potentially putting other players at risk, it's their own stupid choice, if the police want to put them away for it(something I also don't agree with) fine, but I can't see a reason for a guy having some weed on a wednesday not being able to play football on the saturday.
It does, like I said even though I'm a United supporter I feel for the Liverpool fans. They don't deserve to be punished, but then what other alternatives are there, just banning him internationally isn't going to impact him too much, the £66k fine similarly. The club need to take charge and decide what is best for the club, its image and what alternatives there are to Suarez...I don't know.
Agreed, it should be performance enhancing drugs.
I'm not particularly well educated on drugs but surely there are ones that help with endurance which is a huge part of football, surely Lance wasn't bulking for the bikes
?Could've banned him for 20 international competitive games
. (Or forever would've been fine with me 
)
The issue isn't just about enhancing performance though...the punishments are also designed to deter any illegal drug abuse/taking because of the image it portrays to young people...whether a drug gives a player an unfair advantage is only part of the responsibility.