was it really THAT big a deal??? 8 months seems absurd.. and we all know where my allegiance lies... if this was a gunner, I would be livid... ruling him out of Euro2004 is sorta a bummer as well... c'est la vie~
I think they used him as an example that anyone who missies a test will have the book thrown at them. However, I have a feeling that his ban will be reduced following the appeal process which will eventually allow him to take part in Euro 2004.
Considering Stam and Davids only got 6 months, and they tested postive, it seems a bit rough. Though I know the FA is getting a lot of pressure from above.
Then how about the Jackass from Man City who did the same thing this past spring or summer and recieved only a fine? Just because he is from a high profile club doesn't mean they have to turn the screws tighter, unless of course if they are trying to prove a point about how no club is bigger than the game. Sorry, but I too would be pissed if this were happening to any other team. God knows that if they were so desperate to know he did or did not use performance enhancers, they could take a hair sample.... that tells the tale for weeks. I am convinced that they simply sought an opportunity to "make a stand". Next time they want to be dicks I hope they just buy a bottle of Viagra.
not going to disagree with you on this one. I think Rio is paying a steeper penalty than a nobody from a bottom half team would. Just look back at what a big deal was made out of the events at Old Trafford during the Arsenal-Manc game. Would it have received the attention it did had it happened during another match?
This is *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#. I'm all for strict punishment for drug infractions, but he did take a test two days later and it came back negative. I'm no expert, so does anybody know of any drugs that disappear completely from the system in forty-eight hours? Very harsh. Too harsh. If they are going to ban him, I think three months would be fine (half of what the people who actually failed it got).
Herein lies the real problem. Blatter is a piece of rat dropping - and I wonder if his comments didn't have anything to do with an 8 month sentence. He's fishing for the African and Asian vote again.
My opinion is that 8 months is fine, they need to make missing a test a year long ban but have to work up to that. I hope this sends a message to everyone (mainly Arsenal guys) that drugs tests are no joke, because the next ban will be longer.
I'm also a bit sympathetic to Rio's plight here. Perhaps in a vacuum, 8 months is not an unreasonable punishment. But treat similar violations similarly, and treat harsher violations proportionately more harshly. (I think most Arsenal fans can agree on that...) I don't know what the Man City player's circumstances were, but I've not read anything to suggest his was a more excusable situation. And it is hard to see how a missed (or delayed) test deserves a harsher punishment than a failed test. I'd not be at all surprised to see this reduced on appeal. I suppose this might rearrange SAF's priorities during the January transfer window, eh?
Hmmm...now let's see... In another world I might have been tempted to say: "hey, this isn't really a fair punishment for the center-half; he's being punished unduly for relatively minor (albeit stupid) actions..." In this world, however, I am officially "pulling a Sol*#jaer" and keeping my mouth shut. (*whistles* instant karma's gonna get you)
Fairly sure shanghai sally only stays in yer system for 48 hours.. tho i dont think rio is a doper by any means~
Blatter is an arsehole - there is no consistancy in his dishing out of punishments. I expect the ban to be reduced and at worst allow him to play in Euro2004.
Yikes. I am as surprised as anybody to see this verdict from the FA. When i said that they needed to grow a pair, I didn't mean this. Good God. What a shock. Sucks to be Rio right now, and, (God forgive me for saying this) I hope that United do get their appeal. Ouch.
As a very general rule, of the hard drugs, the "downers" (opiates and the like) can be detected up to 7 days, while "uppers" (cocaine, amphetamines, so on) usually disappear within 48-72 hours. Cannibus stays in your system for months. (Not that weed smoking made Rio the player he is -- after all, he's no Canadian snowboarder!) I personally think it was a bit harsh (especially reaching into Euro 2004), but ASSUMING for a second he did dabble with a little "candy," missing the initial drug test would set up the ideal situation to cover for it by testing negative w/in 48 hours. Of course I'm in no place to judge if he did or didn't, but a LOT can transpire within a two-day period. While cocaine and such CAN be detected within 48 hours, there are a numerous amount of things one can do to shorten the detection period. I'm not saying Rio did such a thing, but the "he passed the test 48 hours later" argument is by no means evidence disproving any wrongdoing. His case is still problematic at best. While I'm a fan of anything that is a setback to ManUre, I do think this was a bit on the severe side, especially compared to other players who definitely tested positive. I can only hope that this doesn't permanently scar the career of England's best defender since Tony Adams. (Who obviously had some troubles of his own).
if you were to put all the football players in the world together and was made to select the one that most looked like a junkie.... well i know who i would pick! if was at work and missed a drugs test i would get sacked... ban him for life! i do feel for him, but he got himself, his club and most embarissingly his country in this mess
Glad you know about drugs... And coke can get out of your system in 48 hours. __________________ [size=0.75]Don't ask...[/size]
The FA did need to be firm on this so as not to send the wrong message or lessen their ability to deal with worse offenses in the future. This judgment will get the word out so it was probably a good idea. With that said, I think it should be reduced significantly during the appeal process. GJ40
It just doesn't seem right when compared to the Stam situation and others. I think it was very harsh despite my intense dislike for United. Hopefully it will get reduced after the appeal.
i think we are all forgetting that when we got handed our record ban for the old trafford incident the fa got one the same day for 2% of what we got! inconsistancy on all behalfs! but id like to see alex "the fat alcoholic conspiracy ridden scotsman" ferguson now claim that arsenal has done deals with the fa so man utd will lose players!
I think the 8 month sentence may also be a reflection that Rio and the club may have lied about the attempts to get in contact with him. Isn't that why the FA were looking for the mobile phone records? The sentence may have been politically motivated -- sending a message to the players, showing that the big clubs are not above discipline, bowing to pressure from FIFA, etc, but there is something (and I don't profess to know what it is) disingenuous about Rio's behaviour here too.
Excellent point about consistency here. We at Arsenal know all too well about FA inconsistency and from that angle I sympathize with Ferdinand and his supporters. Still based on current laws of drug-testing he IS guilty and DID get off rather lightly. On the consistency thing, I actually heard the player at ManCity did not speak English at least insufficiently for that situation, and that may have played a major role in the FA's decision then. That's speculation, but makes sense. I guess the real question is will the ban be served? ManU figures to appeal this into the NEXT millenium and I suspect the FA will let them...they need Rio for Euro 2004 as strange as it sounds, and would rather have him miss all or a good portion of NEXT season. Plus this IS the FA and this IS ManU, so them giving the club a break by not pushing to ban Rio immediately should surprise no one. I wonder how much stick Rio will get at S***s? Will they be able to gift a game to ManU again or will the controversy prevent ManU from accepting S***s annual gifts? Stay tuned...