RIO Announcement Today?

[GETT1NLOTS]

[Aykay1]

one last point before i go to bed.... (i can't quite believe im sticking up for manure here ) but 8 months is way OTT, what other country would deprive their national team of its best players for a tournament. The FA need sorting badly, PFA also !!

[PAULM03]

I, like most people it seems am totally split over the whole thing. Personally i think he deliberately missed the test for reasons probably known only to himself and a few others. In this respect i think the ban is deserved, and something tells me that although 8 months sounds harsh the FA must have had pretty strong evidence that he deliberately avoided the test otherwise it would just have been a face saving slap on the wrists.

On the other hand 8 months is a long time for england and man utd. to be without one of their best players, its also a long time for a footballer to be out when their careers are so short anyway.

If i was him i wouldnt bother appealing, just get my head down and keep my mouth shut.

I'm in the camp of wanting to know why a woman who done nothing wrong gets the sack and the person who broke the rules only gets 8 months. This woman should not have been sacked for the failings of manure and Ferdinand to follow the rules.

2 points.

1. Whatever the penalty is for failing a drug test should be the penalty for failing to take the drug test.

2. So they went for 8 months. Well, 8 months is a joke, no doubt about it. How many games do manure play between the middle of May and the middle of August? How many games will they play between the start of the ban and the end of the season? That's the real length of the ban...only 4 months. An absolute joke. Now, to use 8 months as a guide....given that the entire football season is 9 months long there's a case for banning him for a number of matches. That would be a better method. Something like 32 matches should represent 8 months of a football season. The FA have given in to manure, bloody spineless arseholes.

Ferdinand is a very lucky bloke today.

Yes, sorry about the lager-inspired knee-jerk reaction, punter.

I was, and still am, seething over the sacking of that woman.
Her punishment could hardly have been any harsher and 8 months for the main actor in this drama adds further insult to her predicament, in my opinion.

Using your criteria none of us should comment on anything because I doubt if any of us have inside knowledge of anything.

When it comes to this woman losing her livelihood I ask myself one question. That is...would she have been sacked had Ferdinand not deliberately ducked taking a drug test?

I don't agree that whether he actually took any drugs or not is worth commenting on. He was charged with missing the drugs test, not taking drugs and he was found guilty. If the penalty for skipping a drug test is not the same as the penalty for failing a drug test any player who HAS taken drugs will merely skip a test.

[PompeyPunt]

Lets not forget though, Rio's name should not have officially been made public in all this. I have a feeling this could end up in court in some form.

He quite clearly wasn't taken any drugs of any sort, there's little question about that, and i feel the only reason this ban is so harsh due to the fact that prat Blatter, started to shout his mouth off, so the FA had to do something. When you look at past case, exactly the same circumstances, only a 2 grand fine, you have to ask yourself why this is the case that should lay down the law.


AS for the sacking of that woman, i feel sorry for her, but none of us have any inside knowledge, so we have no idea of what other factors got her sacked, so there is no real point in commenting on it.

[GETT1NLOTS]

If the penalty for skipping a drug test is not the same as the penalty for failing a drug test any player who HAS taken drugs will merely skip a test.

I can't disagree with that to be honest.

[PompeyPunt]

Each case should be taken on it's individual merits.

There is no question he took drugs, he offered to take the test the same day, and came back clear 36 hours later.

Yes he should be punished, but 8 months is far to much, as when you look at some bans for drug users in football, who have actually proved positive, they have got off lighter.

8 months is bodering on a scandal IMHO.

In case you didnt get that.....1 word

SCAPEGOAT.

Before we start looking at blame can i just say i have been searching for information on this womans sacking and cant find anything so if someone has a link i would appreciate it. It is apparent that there is a lot of change going on at UK Sport at the moment?

Right...blame time.
Firstly the club. Manchester United should of had procedures in place to ensure Rio never left the training ground.
2nd Rio. I already commented yesterday that i thought he was a complete muppet for missing the test.
3rd. The FA. Rio passed a test 36 hours later. However they decided they didnt want to take him to Turkey and wanted to leave him out of the squad. This forced United to go public that he was being treated unfairly. Even the england squad backed him. Why didnt they just take him and pretend he then picked an injury in training. Doesnt every club in the premeriship now have the right to request a replay against us if Rio played?
More importantly the FA had previously been so soft in dealing with people who missed tests im sure Rio didnt get overly concerned. Negoui (man city player) got a slap on the wrists for doing EXACTLY the same thing.

Next we have the examples that have been set for players that were CAUGHT. Bosnich got 9 months for actually TAKING COCAINE!! Stam got 4 months for actually TAKING nandralone.

Where is the consistency. You cant just decide 1 day that you are going to make someone a scapegoat. Rio is guilty of being a plonker and nothing more. 3 months was acceptable in everyones eyes but oh no not the FA.

In a way something positive might come out of this for Rio and United. 1 accusation thrown at him by United fans is that he has never really looked like he wanted to wear the shirt with pride. Hopefully he will come back stronger.

Finally, thanks to those fans from other clubs who agree that this sentence is "a little excessive" to put it politely.

Staam found guilty of failing drug test......5 month ban
Ferdinand found guilty of missing his drug test.....8 month ban

Ok can someone please explain the logic in this???

Firstly the club. Manchester United should of had procedures in place to ensure Rio never left the training ground.

I agree. Some action ought to have been taken against the club also for not having measures in place. I assume there are no rules in place for this to happen.

Doesnt every club in the premeriship now have the right to request a replay against us if Rio played?

They have more of a right to request 3 points be awarded to them than to request a replay.

Negoui (man city player) got a slap on the wrists for doing EXACTLY the same thing.

From what I heard on the radio today this case was completely different from Ferdinands. It is a bit odd that Man Utd supporters keep bringing this case up as a comparison, claiming it was EXACTLY the same when it clearly was not. The story I heard on this one is that this player was given permission by the drug testers to turn up for his test at a certain time, however, on his way he was caught up in a confirmed traffic accident that caused him to miss the test. On contacting the club and the drug testers while stuck in traffic he was told 'not to worry about it'. He was later fined. Now that seems ott to me, since there were valid mitigating circumstances in his case that caused him to miss the test. He also kept his club and testers updated on his situation and did not deliberately avoid taking the test.

Bosnich got 9 months for actually TAKING COCAINE!!

So what would you suggest Bosnich should have got had he deliberately avoided taking the test that discovered he was taking cocaine?

Stam got 4 months for actually TAKING nandralone.

That one's a good point but he does play in a different league. We don't have the same rules across all Football Associations. That we should have is not the point either. The fact is, we don't.

You cant just decide 1 day that you are going to make someone a scapegoat.

They didn't. But even if they did, why can't there be a toughening up of rules and punishments? At some point in time rules are made or changed. It's been clear since the change at the FA that a tougher line would be taken on all kinds of issues. Since you are so adamant he has been made a scapegoat, the implication of that is that you think he did no wrong. Are you suggesting that Ferdinand should have had no charges brought against him for missing a drug test deliberately?

Rio is guilty of being a plonker and nothing more. 3 months was acceptable in everyones eyes but oh no not the FA.

Look, if he was guilty of only being a prat, then I wouldn't ban him at all. Being a plonker is not a crime is it? The fact is, he was not guilty of being a plonker, he was guilty of breaking the rules. By saying you think 3 months would be acceptable you are saying you agree that he was guilty of missing a drug test. I'm not bothered what the circumstances are if it is established the test was missed on purpose. In that situation the penalty should be the same as having failed a drug test. There seems to have been no mitigating circumstances (like the Man City player you reckon is the same), Ferdinand simply decided not the take the test.

[Aykay1]

My brother just called me from a pub in Bolton and the travelling gooners are singing:

"HIS NAME IS RIO AND HE'S SITTING IN THE STANDS!"

[GETT1NLOTS]

To be fair the difference between a 3 month ban and a 8 month ban is not as BIG a difference to Man Utd as it first seems because a good proportion of those months will fall into the summer break.

As I understand it the ban starts on Jan 12th - which means that if he had a 3 month ban he would have been back by April 13th (quite near the end of the season anyway).

The team that might suffer the most is England in the summer?

But on the whole I have to agree - where is the consistency? If the FA want to start clamping down on drugs then I am all for that. However they should have published a NEW manifesto on the subject and said "from now on ... irrespective of the reasons... player ... club .... this will be the MINIMUM BAN." And set it at 8 months if they wanted.

To start off a new tough stance with an individual - and in a retrospective manner - seems a little unfair to me.

But we all agree - he is a plonker.

[PAULM03]

He quite clearly wasn't taken any drugs of any sort, there's little question about that

thats rubbish. The only thing that's certain in this case is that he missed a drugs test.
Look at it from another angle, as a proffesional footballer it is unlikely that rio did not know the drugs test procedure. Its therefore fair to assume that he knew that once the test was missed there was no set procedure by which he could take it later, regardless of wether he offered to or not. So if he knew he might fail it's simply a calculated risk. Even if he ends up with a ban for missing the test he still doesnt have the scandal of a positive test, and will even draw sympathy from some quarters.

IMO the integrity of the sport and the random drugs testing procedure is more important than rio ferdinand, it has to be absolutely watertight with no way for any athlete to attempt to give testers the run-around.

Howay, thanks for the constructive reply.

One thing we dont know for certain is how hard Rio tried to get back to the training ground. Some rumours were that even if he had tried to get back the UK Sport people had gone anyway. Where as in the case of Negoui they actually hung around for a while?

The point about Bosnich is the same point about the lower division player who was also given a slap on the wrists for taking nandralone. Basically that the precedent being set by the FA was one of a weak attitude to drugs. If they wanted to "get tough" then as gettin states above then they should have published before this case. Not use Rio to make their point.

About the sentence. Basically the same argument as above. I think its fair to say that the majority of the football world was stunned by the length of the sentence yesterday.

FACT:Rio passed the test at the next earliest convenience of UK Sport.

As gettin rightly points out this doesnt affect United that much. But speaking also as an England fan (unlike many united fans) i am gutted.
Im certain the appeal is going to see a reduced sentence as no doubt some people in the FA will be desperate to see him in Portugal. What needs to be done now is a clear publication of what is going to be done NEXT TIME.

All that is needed is a clear statement that deliberately avoiding a drug test will be treated as though someone has failed a drug test. Whatever the penalty that is laid down for that offence (I'd suggest 38 lge games + any cup games played between game #1 and game #38 ) should be mandatory with a second offence a life ban. Deliberately avoiding a drug test has to be a clear non-starter for those involved in the game.

In Ferdinands case, he should not appeal. He deliberately missed the test for whatever reason and should now accept the punishment. He can play from next season. He has got off very lightly.

I think its fair to say that the majority of the football world was stunned by the length of the sentence yesterday.

If this is true then I would take it as a sign that the people involved in the game believe that they are in some way special and that certain rules should not be applied to them.

The point about Bosnich.....

I asked earlier what I consider to be a good question in response to your point on Bosnich. He failed the test. What if he had deliberately avoided the test?

quote
If this is true then I would take it as a sign that the people involved in the game believe that they are in some way special and that certain rules should not be applied to them.

NO?
I was merely pointing out that a lot of respected people are shocked at the sentence? The fact that you jumped on my response represents the typical abu attitude that exists in certain areas in football.

Bosnich
As i also stated in the climate that existed pre Rio then he should have got a lighter sentence. Im not saying all drug takers should just avoid the ban. I agree with you the sentences SHOULD BE HARSH. If proven guilty then a 2 year ban is fine with me.

If proven guilty then a 2 year ban is fine with me.

Is that for failing a test or are you including failing to submit to a test?

BOTH. No difference in my opinion. Rio was guilty. I admit that and if the FA had published clear rules to say this and enforced them then i have absolutely no problem in saying he should be banned for 2 years.

However as i keep trying to say, an 8 month ban is unprecedented in the current climate. Time for change, YES. Time to make a scapegoat now = NO. >: