He's criticized for being "reckless" and "fiery" for picking up the "uncessary" yellow. Then, he's slammed for explaining the reason behind it and is now being called "a shame to England". The poor guy can't win. It sort of makes his performances (when they're good) all the more impressive when you realize the kind of cr@p he has to shoulder on/off the pitch.
Beckham did great in getting the yellow card...as he knew he would be out for wednesday...(if you watch the replay thatcher tried to "do" him with a right forearm to the ribs in the first challenge)..the mistake Beckham made was in admitting he got the card on purpose....and now it strikes me that eufa or fifa might make him pay....
He should have been more clever about letting his fans know it was intentional. I too am concerned that he may have further action take against him.
The only way there would be further action is if the FA want to go down that route, and they won't. Slap on the wrist, something minor, that's it.
Poor and Beckham do not go together well. And he didn't need to do anything to let the fans know it was intentional, it was pretty obvious.
Thank god Palios aint around anymore... He would probably insist on a 5 match ban for beckham . So much for his hardline over the Rio case .Rio gets a 9 month ban for not turning up for a test .Then FIFA turns a blind eye when the italian federations give 3 month ban to gaddafi's son and other cases . I knew becks would get crucified for this .
Talking about drugs, did anyone see this? http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V4/L0/S22/E6106/sport_Lng0_Spo22_Evt6106_Sto539552.shtml 'AIC president Sergio Campana has said sanctions against those who refused to give blood samples would have no basis in law. "To speak about obligatory blood testing is not right. Every test needs the informed consent of the player. I have grave doubts about the possibility of suspension or sanctions against those who refuse to give their consent," he said last week. Italy's current drugs testing programme involves random urine tests on players. Blood tests are used if players agree. The dispute began when six out of twelve players in Italy's top two divisions refused to give blood samples after matches on January 11.' Off topic, I know but... WTF is going on?????
Yep ,just picked up a couple of papers and they went running straight to blatter for quotes as usual .No doubt they will campaign for him to banned . See how our pondlife media operate . They seem to be accusing him of trying to avoid the trip to azerbaijan even though he was clearly injured and wouldnt have played anyway. This is why I dont pay any attention to these so called "sports writers".
One thing I am pleased about is that Sven and the other members of the squad won't bend to the media, I think Sven will warn Beckham about letting the media get to him, tell him not to repeat this sort of thing, and then that will be that.
We all know Poshboy is a sausage short of a sarny, but he will get no more than a reprimand from the FA - even they aren't stupid enough to jeapordise our qualification - or are they?
If Palios was still around he wouldve handed out full punishment no doubt . Thank god he is long gone . He didnt mind denying us our best defender for 9 months .
You see I'm not too bothered about being hard on drugs... aslong as we're ALL treated the same. What p1sses me off is that some are a little more equal than others.
Other federations issued 3 month bans for players who got caught doing drugs .FIFA turned a blind eye .
Yeah... and, like the link I gave indicated, they let people get away with refusing certain types of test if they want. I mean, what's going on? Are we serious about this stuff or not?
We are seriously serious about appearing to be serious. It seems that a lot of the bans being handed out are all over the place. There is no consistency between the length of ban and the "crime" for which the banishment is handed out. Is missing a test really a much greater crime than failing one? It doesn't seem so to me. It seems like a lot of the sports governing organizations want to appear to be anti-drug when in reality it is a role they do not want and only do what is legally required about the problem.
--- It is a greater crime in that it flouts the authority of the agency to require the test. It says, "I needn't take your flamin' test!" If one submits to the test and fails it, one may say in advance of the result, "I should fail this test, and I need support in remaining drug free." At least there is a margin of self-responsibility, better than saying "bugger off".
I understand your point and my original post was unclear. I meant if the test was missed by mistake, not in the case where the person just says "bugger off". You bring up another interesting point with the "authority of the agency to require the test". It seems to me that this authority must be both legal and moral. Legal seems to be fraught with peril, as some other posters have pointed out. The moral underpinnings of this authority have to consider the fairness of the punishment with relation to the crime. If unfair punishments or wildly differing punishments are handed out for similar breaches of the rules, then this moral aspect of authority suffers as will respect for the agency itself decline. What concerns me is the politicised and variable nature of the punishments meted out. The whole drug issue in particular, is full of the kind of variable punishments and politicised rules that I am talking about.