The FA covering up failed drugs tests

Big Chiv

Big Chiv

Vital Football Legend
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4209348/13-Footballers-failed-drugs-tests-FA-guard-names.html

Good thing or bad ?

The downside is that players missing for lengthy periods with ' mystery ailments ' could be subject to rumours that they have failed drugs tests, it's certainly crossed my mind with one of our 'mystery ailments '
 
Mystery ailments my ass. If a player fails a test or fails, on more than a couple of occasions to be available to take the test then they should receive the same roth as Rio. A six month ban. There are no excuses. Why, well we've seen what's happened in cycling, gymnastics etc and I don't want to see anything similar in football.
 
Know doubt it's not the players fault that they have a mystery ailment in their system.

They probably pay their PT some extra money to take the blame.
 
What I meant by 'mystery ailments ' were players out for a lengthy period who are actually serving bans, but no one knows that.
Like Berahino.

He was banned for 2 months, but the supporters and media were fed a bullshit story about him not being fit enough to play.
 
Football is a cover up joke really, for a multi billion industry in 2017 to be allowed the secrecy, obfuscation and outright bribery that governs it, it is appalling.

I mean , at PL club level we argue and pontificate on who signs who , who does what and who is accountable for the wastage of millions upon millions on utter dross that helps out the product in zero terms, but no one really knows, and no one pays the price.

The whole game needs a neutral body investigation and regulation to bring it up to date.
 
We have one of the biggest and most stringent testing regimes in the World (consider la liga, who are not alone, who actually conducted NONE last season and NONE this!)...

Given the amount we test and the tiny percentage found to have taken anything, the evidence would suggest that it really isn't a significant issue at all, but the vigilance is to be admired.

That leaves the question as to whether the very few who are found to have taken drugs should be 'named and shamed' - I'd have to say that as the emphasis is on rehab and 'curing' the problem, I can't think of anything worse than naming them only for the press to have a field day ripping the culprit and probably his family to shreds...

The sanctions open to the FA are based on WADA's guidelines and their imposition is strictly adhered to, of course there is a difference between 'social' drugs and performance enhancing...

So on balance, I'd rather see help and support given (as in Jake LIvermores case ) first BEFORE any player is named and shamed and given/leaked to the press...
 
Big Chiv - 22/2/2017 21:52

Football is a cover up joke really, for a multi billion industry in 2017 to be allowed the secrecy, obfuscation and outright bribery that governs it, it is appalling.

I mean , at PL club level we argue and pontificate on who signs who , who does what and who is accountable for the wastage of millions upon millions on utter dross that helps out the product in zero terms, but no one really knows, and no one pays the price.

The whole game needs a neutral body investigation and regulation to bring it up to date.
Click to expand...

In theory, we already have those bodies, i.e. FIFA, UEFA, WADA, FA..as for commercial decisions over wasted millions on useless players - then all you can ever do is look at your clubs decision making etc..

And let's not forget that a national level the government is now exerting huge pressure on the FA to reform, the FA is in the last chance saloon and if it doesn't chance (and it's the regions that are the problem) then the government has vowed to bring legislation and force transformation to happen..
 
When did the FA approach to recreational drugs changed? You'd have to feel for Mutu, sacked and sued for £14million for the same offence.

I don't get the rehab thing, they are not addicts, they're just breaking rules and comparatively speaking getting away with it.
 
Bluedub - 26/2/2017 13:29

When did the FA approach to recreational drugs changed? You'd have to feel for Mutu, sacked and sued for £14million for the same offence.

I don't get the rehab thing, they are not addicts, they're just breaking rules and comparatively speaking getting away with it.
Click to expand...

from memory; Mutu was found taking cocaine, not a 'soft' drug and was banned for 6 months and got a biggish fine, but it was the Chav's who started action against him and it all went public then..

So, not so show we can blame the FA for this and it doesn't look like they've changed their approach between hard and soft drugs, but I suspect they do now take mitigating circumstances into account?
 
Spursex - 28/2/2017 14:03

Bluedub - 26/2/2017 13:29

When did the FA approach to recreational drugs changed? You'd have to feel for Mutu, sacked and sued for £14million for the same offence.

I don't get the rehab thing, they are not addicts, they're just breaking rules and comparatively speaking getting away with it.
Click to expand...

from memory; Mutu was found taking cocaine, not a 'soft' drug and was banned for 6 months and got a biggish fine, but it was the Chav's who started action against him and it all went public then..

So, not so show we can blame the FA for this and it doesn't look like they've changed their approach between hard and soft drugs, but I suspect they do now take mitigating circumstances into account?
Click to expand...

Berahino took MDMA did he not? That's a class A drug.
 
Bluedub - 1/3/2017 11:52

Spursex - 28/2/2017 14:03

Bluedub - 26/2/2017 13:29

When did the FA approach to recreational drugs changed? You'd have to feel for Mutu, sacked and sued for £14million for the same offence.

I don't get the rehab thing, they are not addicts, they're just breaking rules and comparatively speaking getting away with it.
Click to expand...

from memory; Mutu was found taking cocaine, not a 'soft' drug and was banned for 6 months and got a biggish fine, but it was the Chav's who started action against him and it all went public then..

So, not so show we can blame the FA for this and it doesn't look like they've changed their approach between hard and soft drugs, but I suspect they do now take mitigating circumstances into account?
Click to expand...

Berahino took MDMA did he not? That's a class A drug.
Click to expand...

I didn't know they'd definitively confirmed that, but it seems Pullis did; it looks like he did put forward a case for mitigation, so it does look it's all about the mitigation, whereas - and I haven't really searched much I can't find any mitigation for Mutu?

It could have just been a case of the old farts at the FA having one rule for British players and another for 'foreigners' ...!!
 
It certainly appears that way Ex unless of course they changed tack in the intervening years under pressure from the PFA.

I'm surprised that the meeja aren't all over this more than anything tbh.
 
OK, I think the big difference here is that Berahino was caught in an out of competition surprise drug test which wasn't under WADA's control (so their sanctions didn't apply) and Mutu's was the opposite..and he put up mitigation of being 'depressed' by his weight gain, as he wasn't playing and was now a fat bastard..

"...The FA have a policy of not making the names of those found guilty of doping offences that are not regulated by WADA public.

A positive test for recreational drugs outside of competition is not considered a breach of World Anti-Doping Agency Code...."

But the FA does enforce suspensions for fear over players' health and the image of the English game if they are caught using recreational drugs..."


"...In his defence with the FA, Berahino explained his personal situation and the fact he had suffered depression due to weight issues and had also turned to drink...."

So he used the tried and tested "I was depressed" get out of jail card - and as there is so much pressure from MIND to see this as an actual disease I suspect the FA were told to accept it...

I am so relieved that we didn't buy this idiot.
 
The fact that so few in such a popular game get caught pretty much tells you what you need to know. It's being covered up and nobody in charge really actually cares.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.