8 months for Mutu??

Wouldn't suprise me at all. Rio was hung out to dry by that Dein.

 

My mate Bozza got a two year Peter Pan.

By that theory young Adrian can expect a lengthy spell on the sidelines.
If he gets eight months ill do nude run down the Queen St mall.

 

I think Bosnich only got 6 months?

Mutu getting 8 months... maybe this would be the FA's way of trying to suggest Rio used coke, smear him with the same brush. Dirty b*stards.

 

i think you need to take it easy


didn't Ferdinand deny the charges ?

they told Mutu if he admits and doesn't pull time forcing further tests he will get a light ban, a promise is a promise, i am surprised they gave him 8 not 6 after all he admited right away

 

I think you haven't been following the case closely enough.

Mutu only came clean after his agents forced him, particularly as one of his agents broke straight away and said he'd known Mutu was doing coke. Then it became a cynical attempt to get the lightest ban possible after being caught red-handed. They knew full well he'd fail a B test, pleading not guilty was pointless when he had nothing to defend himself with. This was all done with the FA saying nothing, as is their want, no "promises" were made.

Even now Mutu has been talking bollocks claiming it was some kind of viagra in one interview and not coke.

 

If he does only get 8 months, can we epect him to be playing in the premiership next season?

We would love him at Palace but with AJ in such fine form and The King Ship expected back from injury shortly, we could only find a spot on the pine for him.

 

i am not sure how you see it, but

Chelsea coach suspected him of using something ( i think) and reported him to FA ,club whatever , asking he be tested......well what did you expect Mutu to go admit to it while no one knew about it ( so his agent is his friend) , ....but Mutu could have still refused to show up for testing like Rio did, his agent told him to admit to it and not fight it or deny it, and it will be better off that way..............that is my undestanding


anyway the big difference between them two cases is that Mutu did not refuse to be tested as Rio did

 

I assume any ban handed down by the Fa would be upheld in other leagues. By that I mean would it be possible (or not) for Mutu to be banned from playing in England for 6, 8 months but then play in say the MLS?

 

use your brains...

if mutu get banned for more than rio then it would send the message that missing the test when you know you have drugs in your body is a better alternative to taking the test and getting caught and everyone would do it...

mutu will get a similar or shorter ban to rio, and rightly so....

 

When did Ferdinand refuse to be tested? The following might answer some of the above questions:

"The FA will also be wary of imposing a longer suspension on Mutu than the eight-month ban given to Rio Ferdinand, who missed a drugs test.

That could send a message to users that they might be better off missing a test. "

****************. Bosnich was given 9 months for exactly the same thing. Ferdinand has never tested postive for anything, so therefore deserves a shorter sentence than someone who has tested positive. This is yet another case of the FA ********ing up. Immediately after the Ferdinand incident, they had a chance to publically state that the punishment for any drug abuse was going to be the WADA 2 years. They did not and the drug farce continues...

 

'In football we need to replicate normal principles of justice. If you go to the courts and admit an offence then it is quite right that the judges should treat you better than being in absolute denial when the facts show you are guilty.'



Chelsea hold Mutu's future to ransom, making the players future uncertain, I hope the courts will stop Chelsea from doing this to him or any player for that matter. Chelsea wants to ban Mutu from playing elsewhere even after the ban is over be that 6 months or more.

read on this in today latest before the hearing

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=315297&cc=5901

 

He denied ever taking drugs (and the test 48 hours after he should have been tested did not provide evidence to the contrary), but that wasn't the charge. He was charged with missing the initial test, which Ferdinand accepted. The dispute was simply over how serious this offence was.

According to the explanation given by Rio and Man Utd, Rio left the training complex after training had finished by accident, having forgotten that he been informed of the test halfway through training. The FA did not, in the end, dispute this explanation; they simply declared that Ferdinand was still guilty of the offence of missing a drug test, regardless of the circumstances.

It would be unfair to state, as if it were a fact, that Rio 'refused' to be tested with nothing to back up this assertion except idle speculation and conjecture.

Possibly, although they would not be able to engineer a repeat of the Rio situation. It was only a flaw in the testing procedure that created the ambiguity of whether Rio missed the test deliberately, or simply through innocent incompetence. The FA tacitly admitted this when they quietly decided to review their testing process in the aftermath of the case.

Assuming the FA get their act together, in the future players will be unable to miss a test without blatantly refusing it; and so no-one should shrink from giving those players the maximum two-year ban anyway.

 

I think 7 months for a substance abuse violation is a bit lenient for any player playing in any country. But in the case of the Premiership and in England generally, the verdict sends out a mixed signal. On one hand, the FA tries to take a firm stand on drug abuse as it should because football is the center of media attention not only in the UK, but across the globe. We'll all recall the firestorm caused by Robbie Fowler's bi-line "cocaine snorting" celebration at Goodison Park a few years back and how the FA reacted angrily (over an imitation of drug inhalation done in jest at Everton supporters giving him stick about it). But in my opinion, giving Ferdinand 8 months and Mutu only 7 months is a bad signal overall.

Some will say that Ferdinand was never caught and the 8 month ban was over the top. Fair enough. I think it was not enough. Had he been given less, I'm certain every critic of English football would have been crying foul for the following reasons. (1) The FA would be charged with bias as it is the FA responsible for the English national team. A lenient sentence would look bad as people might start assuming that when a national team player (Rio Ferdinand) of such stature is given less in punishment, it's because he's an integral part of the national team. (2) Anything less would have sent out messages to players who might find themselves in a pickle that you can simply skip a mandatory testing date and claim "I forgot" as a defense. It was never proven that Ferdinand took drugs or some illegal substance. But the precedence of letting off someone as important as Ferdinand was bound to be damaging to the sport (or as the FA likes to say, "bring disrepute to the game.") That's why I think the 8 months wasn't enough.

Having said that, the 7 month ban for Mutu is appropriate in light of the Ferdinand 8 month ban. If Mutu was given a 2 year ban, there would have been calls of bias by the FA. Give one of your own an 8 month sentence, but a foreigner who's role in English football is now virtually over anyways getting more would seem inappropriate. Give him less (I mean like 3 months), then it's ok to take drugs and be a footballer (the ultimate sin in terms of wrong and mixed messages).

But like I said, it's a bad thing overall because if we could turn back time, Ferdinand should have gotten more months in suspension and then the same standard could be applied to Mutu.

 

More Chelsea reaction from planetfootball.

"Chelsea chief executive Peter Kenyon says that Adrian Mutu's drugs ban is far too lenient.

The FA handed a seven month suspension to the Romanian marksman after he failed a drugs test, also fining him £20,000.

Chelsea sacked the former Parma man as soon as they discovered he had taken drugs, and believe that he should have been more severely punished.

Kenyon released a statement on behalf of the Stamford Bridge club blasting the FA's handling of the matter, saying the leniency of the penalty sends out the wrong message. "

 

There's an interesting article on various drug bans in this BBC article. Although they have missed a few relevant players out from the recent Serie A drugs incidents...

Three players recently (about the Rio time) tested positive for nadrolone. Manuele Blasi, Mohamed Kallon and Al Saadi Gaddafi received bans of 6, 8 and 3 months respectively.

 

And I thought the Italian's were bad...



"Villarreal star Marcos Senna has been banned for just 60 days after testing positive for banned substances." - planetfootball