Ferdinand banned for eight months

[MightyBees]

Rio Ferdinand has been banned for eight months and fined £50,000 by the Football Association after being found guilty of missing a drugs test.
An independent tribunal found the Manchester United defender guilty of misconduct after he failed to take a test on 23 September.

The ban, which provisionally starts from 12 January, would see him miss the rest of the season and Euro 2004.

United have already indicated they will appeal against the punishment.

The verdict from the three-man disciplinary commission came at the end of a two-day hearing at Bolton's Reebok Stadium.

Soon afterwards, Ferdinand appeared alongside club director Maurice Watkins, who made it clear United intend to contest the decision.

"We are extremely disappointed by the result in this case," he said in a statement.

"It is a particularly savage and unprecedented sentence which makes an appeal inevitable.

"We can confirm that Rio has the full support of Manchester United and the PFA and there will be no further comment at this stage."

The United star had been ordered to take a test at United's Carrington training headquarters on 23 September, but left without undergoing the procedure.

Ferdinand claimed he then contacted the club to offer to take the test, but was told it was too late.

Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson was among those who spoke on Ferdinand's behalf at the hearing.

Ferguson insisted before giving evidence that Ferdinand would be in the United team to play Spurs at White Hart Lane on Sunday, irrespective of the final verdict.

He was joined by Ferdinand's Old Trafford team-mate Nicky Butt, the other player asked to take a drugs test on the day at the centre of the investigation.

Manchester City midfield man Eyal Berkovic, who met up with Ferdinand after he left Carrington, also made a statement to the hearing.

Ferdinand was also backed up by written submissions from his former West Ham boss Harry Redknapp, and England coach Sven-Goran Eriksson.

Eriksson became embroiled in the controversy when the Football Association ordered him to withdraw Ferdinand from England's squad to play Turkey in the Euro 2004 decider in Istanbul by the Football Association.

It was a decision that almost sparked an unprecedented strike among an England squad infuriated by Ferdinand's treatment.

The commission was led by Barry Bright, chairman of the Football Association's disciplinary committee.

Ferdinand's defence was led by Ronald Thwaites QC and United's legal team, while the FA's submission was outlined by lawyer Mark Gay.

[giggs88]

wtf? eight months?, he is definetly going to miss the rest of the season.

bitches.

[TheSlipperyOne]

Originally posted by giggs88
wtf? eight months?

Exactly what I was thinking.

Should have been the maximum two years.

:rolleyes:

Eight months is appropriate and I wouldn't be surprised if it was reduced on the appeal.

[El Cangri]

Originally posted by giggs88
wtf? eight months?, he is definetly going to miss the rest of the season.

bitches.

Good for his arrogant ass.

[csh2000]

That sounds quite excessive, considering that he passed the test (i.e. "pissed a negative sample") within 72 hours after missing his appointment.

Don't you think there should be a distinction between taking a clean test within a grace period and flat out failing/skipping the test? His excuse for missing the original appointment could be absolute bullsh!t, but I think he's got pretty strong grounds for an appeal.

[afgrijselijkheid]

Originally posted by csh2000
That sounds quite excessive, considering that he passed the test (i.e. "pissed a negative sample") within 72 hours after missing his appointment.

Don't you think there should be a distinction between taking a clean test within a grace period and flat out failing/skipping the test? His excuse for missing the original appointment could be absolute bullsh!t, but I think he's got pretty strong grounds for an appeal.


i agree, that penalty is ridiculous... meanwhile, players involved in rape cases are allowed to play

[giggs88]

Originally posted by TheSlipperyOne
Exactly what I was thinking.

Should have been the maximum two years.

:rolleyes:

i was saying eight months was too much.

[Kusha]

why are they making such a big fuss just cuz he "missed" an appointment. the fact that he passed should be good enough for him to maybe face a fine and let that be that. EIGHT MONTHS?? thats rediculous, we need him for Euro.

[csh2000]

Originally posted by Kusha
why are they making such a big fuss just cuz he "missed" an appointment. the fact that he passed should be good enough for him to maybe face a fine and let that be that. EIGHT MONTHS?? thats rediculous, we need him for Euro.

I expect it'll be reduced on appeal, but possibly not enough that he's 100% game-sharp in time for Euro. Let's say he gets it reduced to four months, that'd be Jan. 14-May 14 - how would he be able to play himself back into match fitness and sharpness after the league season is over?

It's a tough case. I can understand both sides of the arguement and they're both right and they're both wrong. One thing is certain - players are a whole lot less likely to "forget" about a test than if this hadn't happened. Now is the time to reduce this on appeal and implement a blanket penalty for all infractions.

[MightyBees]

I expect it'll be reduced on appeal

They reckon it wont be reduced-
they said the way the appeal works is almost identical to the first hearing with just a different panel. And if found guilty (which is likely) the FA are under pressure from FIFA and would hand out another punishment of 8 months- cant see him getting out of this one.

[lanman]

This whole thing has been a farce from beginning to end. I'm not going to comment on the ins and outs of the case as I don't know enough about them. I do feel, however, that there are several important questions that no-one has asked.

1 - Why does refusal/forgetting to take a drugs test result in a longer ban than actually failing a drugs test where performance enhancing drugs were found (Davids, Stam, De Boer etc)?

2 - Why did it take so long for Ferdinand to first be charged and then receive his hearing? The FA have to look at speeding up there disciplinary process - just look at the Joe Cole scenario where it over six months for him to receive a ban.

3 - Did Ferdinand receive a fair trial? THis for me is the most important question. Sepp Blatter and the IOC had both demanded lenghty bans without knowing all the facts and both made threats towards the FA regarding the outcome. The IOC questioned any British Olympic bid if there was not a harsh sentance, putting pressure on the FA to impose a ban. Blatter was surely guilty of applying even more pressure in threatening to undermine the FA by claiming he would extend any ban if he thought it not severe enough. I can appreciate that this does tie in somewhat with my second question (ie if the trial had occured the same week as the offence there would have been no time for these comments, but that still does not justify the events since), but surely such comments from the president of the games governing body means that no fair trial was possible. There was a case a while ago, where a british newspaper managed to get the Bowyer/Woodgate abandoned and force a re-trial over similar comments.

[sinner78]

players who actually took drugs got lesser bans than 8 months..
seem to recall edgar davids ,jaap stam ,josep guardiola,etc... failing drugs tests and they never served much of a suspension.

[Excape Goat]

Originally posted by csh2000
That sounds quite excessive, considering that he passed the test (i.e. "pissed a negative sample") within 72 hours after missing his appointment.



Because people suspected that he was hiding coke or other recreational drugs he might have used....

And yes, the sentense was harsh. It should be 6 months or less.

[Bauser]

The sentence was appropriate. It is important to put the foot down and fight doping instead of letting people off the hook all the time with silly mid-season two month bans. 8 months and no European Championship for not showing up to a doping test is a step in the right direction. You just don't forget to show up to a test like that. As an athlete it should be your duty to prove that you're clean. If you refuse to prove..well... that sends a clear message that needs no translation.

At least this can be called a sentence and not a vacation. This hurts a bit for the one involved, for once.

Sadly, I do believe the sentence will be reduced enough for him to play in Portugal next summer.

[Danks81]

Originally posted by Bauser
The sentence was appropriate. It is important to put the foot down and fight doping instead of letting people off the hook all the time with silly mid-season two month bans. 8 months and no European Championship for not showing up to a doping test is a step in the right direction. You just don't forget to show up to a test like that. As an athlete it should be your duty to prove that you're clean. If you refuse to prove..well... that sends a clear message that needs no translation.

At least this can be called a sentence and not a vacation. This hurts a bit for the one involved, for once.

Sadly, I do believe the sentence will be reduced enough for him to play in Portugal next summer.

This post is 100% on target.

[Sinter]

how is it appropriate? Are you blind to the fact that he passed the test less than 72 hours later? are you blind to the fact that people who actually failed the test got lesser sentences? This is rediculous.

[Mobile]

Originally posted by Bauser
The sentence was appropriate. It is important to put the foot down and fight doping instead of letting people off the hook all the time with silly mid-season two month bans. 8 months and no European Championship for not showing up to a doping test is a step in the right direction. You just don't forget to show up to a test like that. As an athlete it should be your duty to prove that you're clean. If you refuse to prove..well... that sends a clear message that needs no translation.

At least this can be called a sentence and not a vacation. This hurts a bit for the one involved, for once.

Sadly, I do believe the sentence will be reduced enough for him to play in Portugal next summer.

I think Rio is an idiot for missing the test and deserves to be punished. But I also believe that he was found guilty before the hearing thanks to the interference of Blatter, and that there was no chance at all that Rio would receive a fair opportunity to present his case.

Bauser - do you think it is appropriate that a player who missed a test (and then tested negative within 36 hours) should be given a ban twice the length of players that have tested positive for nandrolone, such as Stam and Davids? What sort of message does that send? That it is a worse offence to fail an administrative procedure than to actually take drugs?

I fully agree that Rio broke the rules and it was right to punish him. But there is no consistency being shown at all.

[soccernutter]

Originally posted by Mobile

Bauser - do you think it is appropriate that a player who missed a test (and then tested negative within 36 hours) should be given a ban twice the length of players that have tested positive for nandrolone, such as Stam and Davids? What sort of message does that send? That it is a worse offence to fail an administrative procedure than to actually take drugs?

I fully agree that Rio broke the rules and it was right to punish him. But there is no consistency being shown at all.

Bauser's post was spot on. I think it is appropiate for an 8 month ban making him miss Euro2004. Whether or not he tested negative (good for him) or positive is irrelivant. Can anybody here give evidence either way about the ability to hide banned substances? It must be possible....

The problem, as you say, is the consistancy. But a drug test is not something that is not to be forgotten. To a professional athlete, it would be akin to missing his wedding. If the FA or FIFA lets Rio off, then Rio makes a mockery of the situation. The ban is appropiate, but those who test positive should be banned longer.

[Mobile]

Originally posted by soccernutter
Bauser's post was spot on. I think it is appropiate for an 8 month ban making him miss Euro2004. Whether or not he tested negative (good for him) or positive is irrelivant. Can anybody here give evidence either way about the ability to hide banned substances? It must be possible....

I don't know - it may well be possible. I agree that it is irrelevant to the verdict whether Rio subsequently tested positive or not, but it is important in the context of bans in general.

As I said, Rio broke the rules and deserves to be punished, but why single him out for this exceptionally harsh treatment, particularly when he is only guilty of a rule infringement?

The problem, as you say, is the consistancy. But a drug test is not something that is not to be forgotten. To a professional athlete, it would be akin to missing his wedding. If the FA or FIFA lets Rio off, then Rio makes a mockery of the situation. The ban is appropiate, but those who test positive should be banned longer.

They should be banned longer but they haven't been - so where is the justification for banning Rio for so long?

[Danks81]

Originally posted by Sinter
how is it appropriate? Are you blind to the fact that he passed the test less than 72 hours later? are you blind to the fact that people who actually failed the test got lesser sentences? This is rediculous.

Are you blind to simple legal logic?