Let's review- Rio gets 8 months for missing a test which he offered to take hours after missing it, and subsequently passes 2 days later. Also, a performance enhancing drug would have still been present, plus there's the hair follicle test he passed to show no recreational drug use either.... Mutu tests positive for a recreational drug and gets 7 months.
Eh, we can bitch and moan about it, but that would make us too similar to a certain other team. It sucks, but that's the price of success. We all know the FA loves ripping their teeth into us. It's not as though he was going to be doing much playing in the near future anyways. Accept it and move on.
Mutu verdict is an Insult to ManUtd and Rio Manchester United FC must complain to the FA about this!!!!!. Its one thing for supporters of other teams to ridicule ManUtd. But when paid Officials of an Organisation that picks the England team including Rio, insults our beloved team, to use Sir Alex's words " its beyond the pale". What would posess the FA to give Mutu a 7 month ban for taking drugs in the aftermath of all the controversy of giving Rio a 8 month ban for not taking drugs, I would consider it an insult if they gave him the same length of ban. In the name of God what was going through there brains when they concluded there considerations. Its going to be interesting to see if that other fool Blatter (fifa) complains as much about this as he did about Rio. Comon Sir Alex raise hell!!!!
Yeah, I was just pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in the two cases. Pity we didn't hear Sepp Blatter/Dick Pound/etc. on all this....
So according to the FA being an forgetful idiot is worse than taking cocaine, this decision is nothing short of a joke.
Re: Mutu verdict is an Insult to ManUtd and Rio nothing to complain about..... missing/forgetting is seen to be worse than failing a drugs test.end of story
I agree that mutu should have been banned longer (1 year sound right). Blatter wont do anything because he said the ban must be at least 6 months. I thought the FA was going to start being tough about drug starting with rio? i guess not I do think the fact that there is no summer international competition next year played into the ban. If the world cup was next year i think the ban would be longer.
I'm under the impression that because Mutu's drug was not performance-enhancing is the reason it's a lenient sentence. More importantly, the FA wants to send a message that it is worse to miss a drug test. Think about it. Say the premeirship is rife with recreational drug use--which some are oft to do. Then suppose Mutu gets a 1 year ban. The next time some coked-up bloke gets called for a drug test, he'll just conveniently miss the test because Rio only got 8 months for missing and Mutu got more for a recreational drug.
I thought the whole rationale for the Rio ban being so harsh was to send a message that taking drugs is bad and missing a test is no excuse - not that missing a drug test is more (or less) of a crime.... double standards by the FA for United is alive and well. It's no use for us to keep complaining about it anymore though...
...so it would have been better for Rio to actually test positive than miss the test. Well done, FA! What were the punishments for Staam (et al) in Italy when they tested positive a couple years back? Wouldn't there be some precedent already set that the FA could have followed?
The punishments in Italy usually range from 3-6 months for a positive test. It puts the Rio incident into some perspective. There was even a ban like this during the Rio farce. Where was Blatter and Pound then?
Well, the FA aren't concerned about precedents, that much is clear. A City player had missed a drugs test the year before and all he got was a 2 thousand quid fine, that's all - no suspension. This myth that has grown that the FA should treat missed test's worse than failing actual tests is laughable. If anything, it should just be assumed that a missed test is the same as a fail (not worse). But as with any punishment, mitigating factors should be taken into account... unfortunately for Rio, pressure from Dick Pound and Sepp Blatter were taken into account more than his spotless history and subsequent clean test results....
Actually, if Man Utd had booted Rio off the team, maybe the ban would not have been 8 months. Also, the Ban had to apply for the Euro as well. Did Rio appeal the ban or no? I can't remember its been so damned long. [Jim Mora]Precedent? Precedent?! Precedent! You're asking the FA, to use Precedent, to be a logically functioning governing body?! Precedent! Precedent!? What's next asking Sepp Blatter to stop trying to add ignorant and baseless rules changes? Precedent, from the FA, you've got to be kidding me?[/Jim Mora]
HAHAHAHAH, for those of u who don't remember who Mora is... he is the coach that was on SportsCenter a while back yelling "PLAYOFFS?!?!?!?!?! PLAYOFFS!?!?!!" and then laughing.. this is hillarious...
Yep, that goes down in the pantheon of great SportsCenter meltdowns with... "Practice? We're talking about practice... " - Allen Iverson "You play to win the game. You play to win the game." - Herm Edwards
Yeah where is that good ole boy Blatter on this? When Rio was charged he went off on how important it was to ban a player and zero tolerance, blah blah blah....For 8 months United and England were deprived of the skills of one of the best centrebacks. Now Mutu only gets 7 months? What happened to all that zero tolerance talk? I got to say it was a chance for Blatter and FA to hit back at a big bad Euro club whose power rivals their own. Now Mutu gets off lightly in comparison. Another insult.
Although it would be hard to argue that the greatest moment in ESPN history isn't former Rams QB Jim Everett beating the sh1t out of interviewer (and well-known soccer-hater) Jim Rome for referring to him as "Chris", in reference to women's tennis star Chris Evert.
I've met Jim Rome. He's not very tall. Jim Everett had "happy feet" in the pocket anyways, he deserved to be called Chris. Of course, Rome deserved to get hammered as well....
this myth that has grown that the FA should treat missed test's worse than failing actual tests is laughable..[/QUOTE] can`t agree with that...the fa had to show rio &whoever else it may concern that this is serious stuff and not to be ignored because im to rich/can`t be botherd /off shopping.or whatever
I'm interested to see what somebody outside of us has to say about this??? what do all of the Arsenal fans think, i know ur gonna read this so go ahead and tell us..do u think it is unfair that he got shorter than Rio or what...and my opinion is that this is all a load of HOOEY
New year, same old sorry-ass Rams! Of course that was back when everyone loved the 49ers. And now they're just a shell of their former selves. Even former Illinois receiver Brandon Lloyd can't save them now. Oh how the times have changed...[/reminisce]
Yeah in a devil's advocate stance, it can be argued that Rio missing the test undermined the testing system, whereas Mutu took the test and failed, resulting in a sort of "the system works" response. Still comes off as total BS though...
Right, so if you if lie to your mom about cutting class you get grounded for 2 months but if your mom finds you at the mall while u should be at school you get a week and a half? There is no justice in it. Rio was clearly not trying to circumvent the rules as he offered right away to take the test. Even if you want to send a message give a 6 month ban and reduce it to 3 based on Rio's impeccable disciplinary record prior to this. If Rio had missed a test before, or worse yet, been tested positive before and missed a test then fine, throw the book at him. This situation was never about logic and fairness though - as Mutu's case shows. The FA had it in for United.