The hypocrisy of the F.A.

red11

red11

red11

Soldato
Joined
12 Jun 2005
Posts
8,395
TWO FOOTBALL League clubs have been fined for failing to abide by the FA’s doping control regulations, but that is just the tip of the iceberg, with dozens of players missing out-of-competition tests in England.

QPR and Bradford City have been fined £6,000 and £1,000 respectively for repeated failure to provide accurate information to sampling officers trying to locate players they want to test.

It is prohibited for a player to miss three tests in an 18-month period — anybody who does so faces a lengthy ban. The failure of a club to give the FA accurate information concerning the whereabouts of players is also prohibited.

The Sunday Times has seen figures that suggest players and clubs are failing in their responsibilities under the regulations at an alarming rate as the national game struggles to come to terms with requirements that are commonplace in other Olympic sports.

The minutes of a meeting of the FA’s Professional Game Board, held last August, refer to a report by Terry Robinson, who chaired the meeting. It said that in a 20-month period from January 2008, 96 players had missed one test, while two players were on two strikes, just one missed test away from a one-year suspension, although one of these is no longer in the game.

No fewer than 22 clubs, almost a quarter of those in the top flight of English football, were on one strike, and 13 on two strikes for “failing to provide necessary details of squad schedules”.

Although there are concerns inside football that the doping control regime is too stringent for a sport that is not generally considered to have a problem with drugs, the FA’s enthusiasm for hosting major sports events has led to increased pressure to uphold internationally agreed anti-doping standards.

These missed tests are embarrassing for the FA as it prepares for the 2012 London Olympics, together with its bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

QPR’s fine was imposed in December, a particularly turbulent month for the club with the departure of manager Jim Magilton and the arrival of Paul Hart, his short-lived successor. Bradford City’s penalty was imposed last month.

Football has always been reluctant to embrace drug- testing, partly because of the belief that out-of-competition testing is an unnecessary intrusion into the lives of players. It was only last year that Fifa, world football’s governing body, agreed to adopt the code of the World Anti-Doping Agency, accepted by most other sports in 2003.

There have been examples of leading players taking performance-enhancing drugs in competition. The most notorious case involves Diego Maradona, the Argentina star, who tested positive at the 1994 World Cup for a cocktail of banned substances. He was suspended for 15 months, which effectively ended his career, although he will return to the World Cup this summer as manager of Argentina.

In England, the heaviest suspension of a leading player was the eight months imposed on Rio Ferdinand, who failed to take a drugs test in September 2003 and was also fined £50,000.

In all sports, urine and/or blood samples are collected by sampling officers. Until the beginning of 2010, in Britain these were under the direction of UK Sport, a quango financed with taxpayers’ money. Now this task has been taken on by UK Anti-Doping. It declined to comment on the 96 missed tests. In football, officials arrive unannounced at training grounds, although clubs have to declare where and when training is taking place. There is provision for the FA to target a player if this has been requested by his club or the Professional Footballers’ Association. This has been done if it is suspected players have been taking recreational or performance-enhancing substances.

Three British competitors in other sports missed tests because they were not where they told UK Sport they would be.

They were judo fighter Peter Cousins, triathlete Tim Don and, most notably, Christine Ohuruogu, who later won the Olympic 400m title. All received suspensions, although they were allowed to return to Olympic competition and all took part in the 2008 Games in Beijing.
Click to expand...

As ever nice and consistent. :rolleyes:
 
I'm trying hard to hide my surprise at this lack of consistency. But then all football associations appear to be run by muppets, it's just a question of degree of muppetry I find.

However one line that jumps out is relating to those feeling football has too stringent a regime for drug testing when the sport isn't felt to have a significant drug problem - while I'd hesitate to conclude a link between the two as correlation doesn't necessarily indicate causation I'd be loathe to suggest a relaxing of the rules as the benefit would appear to be negligible in doing so. If you don't have a drugs problem in your sport (and it's worth noting that people inside the sport "feeling" they don't is hardly conclusive either way) then it wouldn't seem completely insensible to stick with a format that is helping ensure this remains the case.
 
It would be a nice earner for the F.A. too, £4.8 million in fines for the 96 who missed the test, and a banning total of 768 months.
 
One More Solo said:
Come on then, where are all the usual critics of Ferdinand leaping to the FA's defence?
Click to expand...

It wasnt the FA, it was one mans personal moral crusade.

A Crusade for truth, a crusade for high moral standards, a crusade for decency.
A crusade he fought valiantly in, right up untill he was found up to his pods in the guts of the office bike and had to resign.
 
The Football Association has dismissed Arsenal's appeal over the red card received by Thomas Vermaelen against West Ham.

The Belgian defender was given his marching orders for bringing down Guillermo Franco in the box just before half-time at Emirates Stadium.

Manuel Almunia brilliantly saved Alessandro Diamanti's penalty but Arsene Wenger was still unhappy with referee Martin Atkinson's decision after the match.

The Gunners announced on Monday that they would be contesting the dismissal but they have failed in their attempt to have Vermaelen available for Saturday's Premier League game at Birmingham.

"At a Regulatory Commission hearing today, a claim for wrongful dismissal from Arsenal defender Thomas Vermaelen was dismissed," read an FA statement.

"Vermaelen was shown a red card for denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity during Arsenal's match against West Ham United on Saturday 20 March.

"He will now serve a one-match suspension with immediate effect."

Although Vermaelen was shown a straight red card, he is not banned for three matches because the sending-off was not for violent and/or dangerous behaviour.

Arsene Wenger must now consider his options for the trip to St Andrews with William Gallas still out, so Alex Song may be asked to continue as a makeshift centre-back alongside Sol Campbell.
Click to expand...

Hhhhmmm so United appeal Ferdinands ban and he gets and extra game Arsenal appeal Vermaelen's and nothing happens.... begs the question what exactly makes a frivolous appeal then? Is it just when United appeal decisions?
 
The F.A. seen the appeal as a way of Man Utd having Ferdinand available for the City game because of how the appeal process works in the sense that the ban doesn't start with immediate effect as it goes under review again during the appeal.

He deserved the ban, and it was the only way of having Ferdinand available for that game, though unfair in the sense that players since then have gone unpunished highlighting how inconsistent and incompetent the F.A. are.
 
It does strike me as odd.

Ferdinand was a high profile player and seen as a role-model so the authorities obviously wanted to make an example of him. Also, it seems a bit stupid to have harsher punishments for people taking drugs than those missing tests as it could encourage people to take drugs which only last in the bloodstream for a short time and miss the odd test. I'm not sure how often footballers are tested though so that might be an unreasonable assumption.

There's also an obvious need for consistency. Other sports also have the three strikes rule for missing tests (Ohurugu anyone?) as well so the FA's policy is fair enough EXCEPT they should have treated Ferdinand the same as everyone else. The fact there was a media witch hunt didn't help this though.
 
Tom84 said:
Hhhhmmm so United appeal Ferdinands ban and he gets and extra game Arsenal appeal Vermaelen's and nothing happens.... begs the question what exactly makes a frivolous appeal then? Is it just when United appeal decisions?
Click to expand...

Can you really not tell the difference? If not, you're so blinkered it's untrue. Ferdinand's elbow was blatantly intended and I'm suprised he had the gall to appeal it, hence the FA considering it frivelous and rightly banning him for an extra game. Vermaelen didnt even foul Franco, he tripped over his own leg and I'm very suprised it wasnt recinded let alone considered frivelous.
 
Burned_Alive said:
Can you really not tell the difference? If not, you're so blinkered it's untrue. Ferdinand's elbow was blatantly intended and I'm suprised he had the gall to appeal it, hence the FA considering it frivelous and rightly banning him for an extra game. Vermaelen didnt even foul Franco, he tripped over his own leg and I'm very suprised it wasnt recinded let alone considered frivelous.
Click to expand...

That in itself is extremely debatable, there's throwing an elbow ala Gerrard and then there's what Ferdinand did which was trying to shake his man in a defending set piece situation. Fair enough Rio knew by doing it with the force he did he'd loose his man but pushing and shoving goes on in the area when defending set pieces all the time.

Regardless of the actions involved both teams appealed the bans to get their player playing in their next game, why was Rio's deemed frivolous and Vermaelen's not?
 
Vermaelen hasn't played since the red card. I disagree about Ferdinand, he knew exactly what he was doing and deserved the consequences. I think it carried over from the game at the beginning of the season, Fagan is a nasty piece of work.
 
Tom84 said:
That in itself is extremely debatable, there's throwing an elbow ala Gerrard and then there's what Ferdinand did which was trying to shake his man in a defending set piece situation. Fair enough Rio knew by doing it with the force he did he'd loose his man but pushing and shoving goes on in the area when defending set pieces all the time.

Regardless of the actions involved both teams appealed the bans to get their player playing in their next game, why was Rio's deemed frivolous and Vermaelen's not?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but thats ********, you have some very tinted spectacles. Both Gerrard and Rio knew exactly what they were doing and it was abolutely deliberate. Gerrard got lucky, Rio didnt. The whole point is that the actions involved are the reason Rios appeal was considered frivelous and Vermaelens wasnt. Rio deliberately elbowed someone off the ball, Vermaelen was challenging for the ball and the guy challenging him tripped over his own leg.
 
Tom84 said:
Regardless of the actions involved both teams appealed the bans to get their player playing in their next game, why was Rio's deemed frivolous and Vermaelen's not?
Click to expand...
Linoge said:
The F.A. seen the appeal as a way of Man Utd having Ferdinand available for the City game because of how the appeal process works in the sense that the ban doesn't start with immediate effect as it goes under review again during the appeal.

He deserved the ban, and it was the only way of having Ferdinand available for that game, though unfair in the sense that players since then have gone unpunished highlighting how inconsistent and incompetent the F.A. are.
Click to expand...
 
Burned_Alive said:
I'm sorry, but thats ********, you have some very tinted spectacles. Both Gerrard and Rio knew exactly what they were doing and it was abolutely deliberate. Gerrard got lucky, Rio didnt. The whole point is that the actions involved are the reason Rios appeal was considered frivelous and Vermaelens wasnt. Rio deliberately elbowed someone off the ball, Vermaelen was challenging for the ball and the guy challenging him tripped over his own leg.
Click to expand...

Gerrard's was much worse than Rio's. Rio didn't lunge into the player with his elbow first he swung it round behind him and and caught him, unlucky to catch him where he did as if it was anywhere else then he would have got off scot free. On the other hand Gerrard led with his elbow and could see exactly what he was doing. Also Mascherano vs Leeds earlier in the season - did exactly the same as Rio against Leeds and got off scot free because the media didn't go on a witch hunt at the time.

Vermaelen's is a totally different situation in that he was judged to have brought down the player and he WAS the last man and was rightly sent off. Not sure why Arsenal appealed though so maybe it was a frivolous appeal ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom