Charged for missing the drug test. But not the "Wilfully missing of a drug test" charge that was feared. http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/031029/21/echv1.html
soooo.....? what do you all think this will lead to? certainly not the 2 year ban everyone (myself included) feared might be given. i do feel he is going to miss some time on the pitch. just don't know how much time.
He will be lucky to get away with a (hefty) fine, otherwise he is looking at 2-6month stretch on the sidelines. I reckon he will get 3months, however in my opinion any ban would be very harsh. Wake up F.A. people do forget, he is only human, unlike the robot premier league refs!
With any luck, he won't miss too much time. I've always thought that we are one of the strongest clubs at the back, but without Rio, we just don't look the same. We were dreadful on Saturday. Hopefully this will end swiftly so that Rio and the club can get on with the rest of their business.
You're jumping to conclusions, guys. The words "or refusal" are still in there indicating the FA has not decided yet on whether it's wilful or not. This is the BBC's take on it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/3208876.stm
Yeah, but if they were confident that he intentionally missed the test, they would have charged him with the wilful refusal statute. Typical FA though, they let this drag out for another month before anything actually happens, and hopefully they'll stay true to form and dole out a smaller penalty once the media storm has died down. (for a preview - wait until the Arse are hit with almost nothing in fines and bans)
The choice of charges certainly says that the FA do not feel that they can prove that Rio deliberately missed the test and that means it will not AUTOMATICALLY be a long ban. But the charge they have leaves plenty of scope for a severe punishment if they want to do that. What troubles me is that I suspect the punishment will be determined, not by Rio's culpability, but by the FA's desire to make an example of him under pressure from FIFA - a high profile player, a severe ban, "hey guys look how seriously we are taking the drugs-in-sport problem" There's a hysteria about the sports authorities' approach to drug problems and I hope that Rio doesn't become a victim of that. The "innocent until proven guilty" principle has already been ignored with Rio's ban from the England game and I fear that's not the only principle at risk here.
As much as I don't want Rio banned and I hope it was simply an oversight, you are way off target here. You say "innocent until proven guilty" well he missed the drug test...everyone knows that so he is guilty of it. The only thing that can be at issue is why. He skipped a drug test and should be punished. If you skip in other sports you are suspended immediately. In Lance Armstrongs new book he talks about the US doping people showing up for a random test as he is trying to get his wife to the hospital to have twins. He has to fill the cup right then or be banned immediately for, I believe, two years.
> well he missed the drug test...everyone knows that so he is guilty of it. That doesn't matter. I can't speak for the USA but in Britain it doesn't matter how obvious the transgression, you're not guilty until a judicial process has taken place at which you can defend yourself or waive the right for such a process (as in accepting a "mandatory" speeding fine) and are found guilty by that process. Rio had not had such a hearing when he was banned from the England match and certainly no procedure had taken place that has the authority to declare him guilty. Regardless of how certain you are that he didn't attend the test he is still not guilty at this point. That's why the FA insisted they hadn't "punished" Rio by the ban but were merely acting as custodians of the English National team. Lawyers playing with words of course - of course he was punished - they merely acted without too much thought as to what they were doing. There was no threat to the England team had Rio played - no more than to Utd for continuing to play him. >If you skip in other sports you are suspended immediately. That's nonsense. The idea that other sports are severe in punishing even proven drug taking is wrong. Am I not right that the NFL has only a 4 match ban for a player's first proven use of steroids? That is PROVEN drug abuse not merely missing the test. The two year ban is merely a maximum. Do you know that the two athletes found guilty of drug abuse at the Atlanta Olympics have still not been named ? - which goes to the other accusation that the FA abused Rio's confidentiality. Much of the trouble here lies with the failure of the FA to organise the tests effectively. I suspect that is part of their trouble - they're trying to avoid the accusation that their testing procedures are inadequate and FIFA are furious about that. Rio simply should not have been allowed to miss the test short of deliberately refusing to take one (in which case the second charge and the implication he was guilty of abuse could be assumed). The testers shouldn't have allowed him out of their sight. Athletes selected for tests, for example, are not allowed to leave the track area before taking the test then this problem doesn't occur. You cannot have the application of a law that can cause a player to be banned, destroy his career and ruin his reputation merely because he forgot an appointment. That's bad law and won't survive a challenge for long. I can see the European "restraint of trade" law at the very least coming into play. If Rio is given more than a nominal ban I think you'll find Utd launch a legal challenge against the FA. I don't mean an appeal to the FA themselves but a challenge in the courts that takes on their right to behave the way they have - that is particularly true when the FA merely fined a Man City player 2000 pounds for a similar failure to turn up at a test.