patrick42uk
Established Member
whatever the views on the correctness of rio's punishment, i have the utmost respect now for rio as a person and a player in being able to prevent this off the field issue affecting his perfomances.
-
! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !
Discussions about police investigations
In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.
Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.
Ferdinand and the FA
- Thread starter The Premier
- Start date
- Replies 111
- Views 4,663
A
Anonymous
Guest
nope..he was shopping for stuff to decorate his new house...
ruud said:
Yes he is, and not just because the FA has said so! In any other sport he would have received a much harsher sentence than 8 months. He knows, Alex Ferguson knows, and even YOU know that failure to attend a test when asked is a VERY SERIOUS OFFENSE, and failure to do so is treated the same as being found postitive.
You can post on this Forum, and argue all you want, but the FACT remains that he didn't attend the test when asked
ERIOD. So in the eyes of the law he's as guilty as someone who did attend and was found to be taken illegal substances. Don't you think it's time you got over it, and accept that Ferdinand was a "BLOODY IDIOT"!
Country: England
G-F said:
Good grief.
The bottom line is that Rio missed the test.
Is he some drug crazed goon? No.
Is he even on drugs? Apart from the odd (alleged) spliff no.
But,
Does he emply a bunch of heavies to move his Steinway? Yes.
Was he "so busy" moving house he could afford to go shopping? Yes.
Was he aware of the test? Yes.
Did his teammate, can't remember who, take the test? Yes.
Should the club have ensured he took the test especially given that his principle line of Defence apeared to be "everyone in Manchester knows I am a spaced out airhead"? Yes.
Is it a strict offence to miss the test (i.e. no excuses)? Yes.
As for the City player who missed a test, he couldn't speak bloody English and anyway he had received cleareance to pick his mum or someone up from the airport. Flight delayed = test missed. Rio didn't even have clearance to leave Carrington.
And, just because there is bad law, does that mean it should never be changes/enforced?
This shouldn't be an Arsenal v Manure or ABU issue.
Rio waqs unlucky; he was the first high profile candidate Palios came across. Could have been any airhead footballer. Let's face it with a few honourable exeptions the PL is full of them.
But it dosen't make it wrong. This is good law, the FA were entitled to take this approach & all the FA need do now is enforce it against all offenders from whatever team.
Ruud & Myth, you should consider whether your club has helped itself by adopting such an agressive, bombastic posture. Remember that the Arsenal board stamped on Wenger following the handbags at OT incident & told all concerned to accept their punishment, which seemed equally unfair & OTT at the time.
Country: England
IW8 said:
Ta.
I guess that Butt is Eintstein compared to Rio...
Jinn
Established Member
Great posting Beany.
Those lawyer ways with words make things so much easier to understand!
Those lawyer ways with words make things so much easier to understand!
Country: England
Jinn said:
Hehe...
You should see me at work...
The art of the lawyer is to make the comprehensible incomprehensible. And then sue on it.
:wink:
- Thread starter
- #90
The Premier
Active Member
IW8 said:ruud said:
Yes he is, and not just because the FA has said so! In any other sport he would have received a much harsher sentence than 8 months. He knows, Alex Ferguson knows, and even YOU know that failure to attend a test when asked is a VERY SERIOUS OFFENSE, and failure to do so is treated the same as being found postitive.
You can post on this Forum, and argue all you want, but the FACT remains that he didn't attend the test when asked
Don't you think it's time you got over it, and accept that Ferdinand was a "BLOODY IDIOT"!
No problem - this is a strict liability offence - if it happens, you pay the penalty. No mitigating circumstances, nothing. Like running a red light - yoiu did it, you pay the fine - no excuses.
If the penalty should have been a two year ban, then no problem. That's life. But explain to me why a similar case earlier in 2003 attracted only a 2,000 fine. Someone earlier on posted here something about the City player having been given permission to leave and take his test later. In a strict liability situation, you can't possibly give to the people sent around to hold the bottle the discretion to excuse the testee once they show up. They either take the test or they don't.
Personally, I'd like to see this go into the civil court system - if there's any justice, that fat sod blatter will get his comeuppance. There are not many private fiefdoms left, one less now that Saddam's been kicked out.
BTW, there is a Canadian X-country skier who won a bronze medal at the past winetr games. She has now been given the Gold medal, 'cause the two ahead of her later tested positive. Believe it or not, it was the sports Court in Lausanne, Switzerland that had to order to IOC to give her the Gold - at every step of the way, the IOC refused to hear her arguments, and steadfastly refused to consider giving her the Gold - something about opening a pandora's box of other possible cases if this ever happened. Let's shine the light on Blatter's little empire for a change.
Country: England
As I posted above the City player was a different case; I wasn't there and don't know all the detail.
Maybe you're right and he should have got a tougher penalty.
But maybe Manure should have been punished, severely, for chasing the ref round the pitch en mass the other year. And maybe Diverboy should have been punished, severely, for blatantly punching Llungberg in the Stomach. And maybe Arsenal's punishment for the OT furore this season was over the top by comparison.
Some time between the first two incidents and the last incident the FA decided to get tough on this sort of activity. About time I say, and a good number of Atrsenal fans were on these forums saying ok, it's OTT, but Keown and Lauren and the rest brought it on themselves. The bar has been reset and boy is it higher.
Ditto Rio and the City boy.
Blatter may be a fat wotsit but what has that got to do with anything?
Maybe you're right and he should have got a tougher penalty.
But maybe Manure should have been punished, severely, for chasing the ref round the pitch en mass the other year. And maybe Diverboy should have been punished, severely, for blatantly punching Llungberg in the Stomach. And maybe Arsenal's punishment for the OT furore this season was over the top by comparison.
Some time between the first two incidents and the last incident the FA decided to get tough on this sort of activity. About time I say, and a good number of Atrsenal fans were on these forums saying ok, it's OTT, but Keown and Lauren and the rest brought it on themselves. The bar has been reset and boy is it higher.
Ditto Rio and the City boy.
Blatter may be a fat wotsit but what has that got to do with anything?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Glad the posts have been rised higher! Manchester Uniteds players can keep there cool and let Sir Alex do the talking, just hope we can wind you up again and just watch you bleat bleat bleat on about the FA? but by then i'll be banned i think just like your team car't take it when you get it shoved up ya.
Henry's Girl
Well-Known Member
not fair on Rio
I agree with the argument that says that the Man City player should not have been allowed to leave without being tested (Man City should have arranged for his Mother to be picked up from the airport).
However, it could also be argued that because he was let off lightly that Man U decided that Ferdinand would get the same. As I've said before if the FA had let Ferdinand "get away" with it as well then the flood gates would be wide open for players to "forget" to attend their tests. Incidently Palios did say after the Man C case that if anyone tried that again the FA would come down hard.
Man U have always argued that they are the biggest and most popular club in the world, then surely with that position comes a certain amount of responsibilty. This means that their administration, officials or whoever are seen to whiter than white. There is no way that the club should have allowed Ferdinand to miss that test, and if Man U want to say that he's been scapegoated then tough, they rode their luck and this time it ran out. What better way for the FA to set an example to players in other clubs than to punish a player in the biggest club in the world!
Piston Broke
Active Member
ruud said:
Being an Arsenal fan it pains me to say it but Rio's Ban is Horribly Wrong When u Consider Stam's ban i thought 3 Months would of been Fair & i thought We got Off Lightly with the FA this year
A
Anonymous
Guest
X25 the fine? a ban ? yes sound very very fair.
What don't kill ya makes you stronger.
What don't kill ya makes you stronger.
Myth, mate, you've obviously given up on an argument you can't win....
It's so ****ING SIMPLE.
Ferdinand has not been done for the possibility of his having taken drugs, but for having failed to take a test.
In Athletics the law is simple. Miss a test, two year ban.
In football, which is so badly regulated, there is no clear law.
So one needed to be set.
As Alex Ferguson is about to find out, what he said about English law being based on precedent has another side. As well as relying on precedent, it also relies on new precedents being made.
From the very beginning of the Ferdinand case, he was the ultimate example of someone who's actions HAVE to be used as an example to others.
Why? Is it harsh on him? Simply because he is a high profile player at a high-profile club. One willing to contest the rule of law in football. One that has the power to do so. So when that club, and it's player makes one of the STUPIDEST errors possible, it needs to provoke a situation in which the messy way in which this sport is run can be resolved. That's the way things work.
Arsenal got fined 275k for another act of stupidity. We deserved it. Stupidity is the biggest crime in football - it's barely possible to commit another type. We pay for our stupidity, Rio and Man U can pay for theirs. And if that ensures that doping procedure finally gets sorted out once and for all, so be it.
Rio will recover, just as Tony Adams and Eric Cantona did from their enforced absences from the game. He's good enough. Man U can cope. They're rich enough, and Fergie's good enough to deal with it. But it ain;t about Man U, it ain't about Ferdinand, it's about the well-being of the game in general. Which frankly is rubbish after what we did, after Grosvenor House, after Turkey and so on. A line needs to be drawn that says someone's in control of this mess, and it's been drawn here.
Deal with it. It's better in the longterm.
It's so ****ING SIMPLE.
Ferdinand has not been done for the possibility of his having taken drugs, but for having failed to take a test.
In Athletics the law is simple. Miss a test, two year ban.
In football, which is so badly regulated, there is no clear law.
So one needed to be set.
As Alex Ferguson is about to find out, what he said about English law being based on precedent has another side. As well as relying on precedent, it also relies on new precedents being made.
From the very beginning of the Ferdinand case, he was the ultimate example of someone who's actions HAVE to be used as an example to others.
Why? Is it harsh on him? Simply because he is a high profile player at a high-profile club. One willing to contest the rule of law in football. One that has the power to do so. So when that club, and it's player makes one of the STUPIDEST errors possible, it needs to provoke a situation in which the messy way in which this sport is run can be resolved. That's the way things work.
Arsenal got fined 275k for another act of stupidity. We deserved it. Stupidity is the biggest crime in football - it's barely possible to commit another type. We pay for our stupidity, Rio and Man U can pay for theirs. And if that ensures that doping procedure finally gets sorted out once and for all, so be it.
Rio will recover, just as Tony Adams and Eric Cantona did from their enforced absences from the game. He's good enough. Man U can cope. They're rich enough, and Fergie's good enough to deal with it. But it ain;t about Man U, it ain't about Ferdinand, it's about the well-being of the game in general. Which frankly is rubbish after what we did, after Grosvenor House, after Turkey and so on. A line needs to be drawn that says someone's in control of this mess, and it's been drawn here.
Deal with it. It's better in the longterm.
Sol man
Well-Known Member
Quick question. I realise that some fans and so called experts are comparing Rio's ban with others(stam, man city player .....). But did these other players plead guilty to the offence or did they act like Ri :angel and plead not guilty to an offense that they were obviously guilty of commiting.
I think the FA were pressurised to a certain extent, into giving Rio a lengthy ban. They completely stuffed the whole thing up by delaying the hearing for 4 months and this as we all know did not sit well with Blatter.
Some critisicm came by way of the Italian FA (who by the way deal with such cases within a week) for the English FA's failure to handle the situation quickly.
And with no concrete laws or even general guidelines, I reckon Rio was tried more as an athlete than as a footballer (people from the International Anti-Doping Organisation were at the hearing) and this affected the length of the ban.
In the end, there's no one to blame really; it all comes down to Rio's stupidity and there seems to be no way out for him. I do have this sneaky feeling that the ban will be reduced just so that Rio can feature in Euro 2004. I do agree with the general opinion on here that the Manure defence team aren't doing a very good job by using their 'bullying' tactics. That's just typical anyway.
Some critisicm came by way of the Italian FA (who by the way deal with such cases within a week) for the English FA's failure to handle the situation quickly.
And with no concrete laws or even general guidelines, I reckon Rio was tried more as an athlete than as a footballer (people from the International Anti-Doping Organisation were at the hearing) and this affected the length of the ban.
In the end, there's no one to blame really; it all comes down to Rio's stupidity and there seems to be no way out for him. I do have this sneaky feeling that the ban will be reduced just so that Rio can feature in Euro 2004. I do agree with the general opinion on here that the Manure defence team aren't doing a very good job by using their 'bullying' tactics. That's just typical anyway.
