8 months for Mutu??

Discussion in 'Premier League: News and Analysis' started by sinner78, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. sinner78

    sinner78 BigSoccer Supporter

    Sheffield Wednesday
    England
    Nov 7, 2001
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/3973219.stm

    Its being claimed that Mutu will get an 8 month ban for his cocaine use .
    If he does in fact get 8 months than why the fvck did they give ferdinand a 9 month ban? Seems that ferdinand got hammered worse than any player who actually failed a drugs case simply for missing a test.
    I wouldnt put it past the clowns at the English FA to hand out 8 months or less.
     
  2. Acronym

    Acronym BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Nov 26, 2003
    Ol' blighty
    Wouldn't suprise me at all. Rio was hung out to dry by that Dein.
     
  3. Ronaldo T Willemski

    Ronaldo T Willemski New Member

    Nov 2, 2004
    Brizroy
    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.
     
  4. sendorange

    sendorange Member+

    Jun 7, 2003
    Bigsoccer.com
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    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.
     
  5. soccerfan

    soccerfan BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 13, 1999
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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
     
  6. sendorange

    sendorange Member+

    Jun 7, 2003
    Bigsoccer.com
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    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.
     
  7. Ronaldo T Willemski

    Ronaldo T Willemski New Member

    Nov 2, 2004
    Brizroy
    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.
     
  8. soccerfan

    soccerfan BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 13, 1999
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    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
     
  9. soccerfan

    soccerfan BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 13, 1999
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
     
  10. Heyzeus Krist

    Heyzeus Krist New Member

    Nov 2, 2004
    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?
     
  11. Boro_lad

    Boro_lad New Member

    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....
     
  12. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    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...
     
  13. soccerfan

    soccerfan BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 13, 1999
    New Jersey
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    '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
     
  14. sinner78

    sinner78 BigSoccer Supporter

    Sheffield Wednesday
    England
    Nov 7, 2001

    hahahhahaha

    You think any player would want to get banned for 9 months under any circumstances??? I bet players will be lining up to do drugs just so they can get a nine month ban if they miss the test .

    Oh yeah ,what a great way to sidestep the landmine of a drugs test .oooohhh I think i'll miss it so I will just get the 9 months. lol

    I reckon players who actually get caught doing drugs should get the 2 years that FIFA are always talking about.
     
  15. sinner78

    sinner78 BigSoccer Supporter

    Sheffield Wednesday
    England
    Nov 7, 2001
  16. Pazarius

    Pazarius New Member

    Jan 10, 2004
    England
    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.
     
  17. Almogavar92

    Almogavar92 New Member

    Aug 17, 2001
    USA
    Club:
    Galatasaray SK
    Nat'l Team:
    Korea Republic
    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.
     
  18. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    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. "
     
  19. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    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.
     
  20. A-J-A-X

    A-J-A-X New Member

    Jul 14, 2004
    South London, UK
     
  21. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    And I thought the Italian's were bad...

    [​IMG]

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

Share This Page