People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just .
I can't even be bothered to debate it, if you can;t see how a longer punishment for a drug passed the next day compared to shorter punishments for players actually found guilty is unfair then there is actually no point in the discussion. That's not even considering these allegations which I wouldn't be surprised at in the slightest.
I also am similarly baffled, by your complete lack of understanding about how the system works. Are you familiar with the British legal system at all, do you ever wonder why criminals that plead guilty are given shorter sentences than those that deny their guilt? Why drivers who are suspected of drink driving but refuse to give a test are given harsher sentences? Are you unfamiliar with the fact that the law is not just a punishment but a deterrent? The same appl;ies to the FA's rules.
Rio Ferdinand was treated the way he was because he tried to circumvent the law by missing the test, you cannot allow someone to simply miss the test which could see them be proven guilty for an offence and let them off with a light sentence, it would give absolutely no incentive for people to cooperate with anything. Ferdinand was banned for 8 months, a month more than Mutu and that is because Ferdinand did not show up and allow the due process to take place, rather he removed the chance of him being caught. If you try to prevent justice happening you must be punished more severely than you would if you cooperate. It's only fair
Its a shame that logic hasn't been applied to others who missed test isn't it?
Anyway the case you reference is an interesting one, there are players who have been tested positive who have served half the sentence Rio got.
What a bizarre and twisted and analogy you use, unsurprisingly I might add. The justice system works in such a way to ease the burden of the courts as well speed up the time and reduce the cost it takes to prosecute someone pleading innocent . Neither is really needed in Sport with so few cases unlike the burden of paying for the justice system by the state.
A footballer pleading guilty once testing positive is completely different to a criminal pleading guilty.in all but the most straight forward case. Pleading guilty once you have already tested positive is a mere formality/ The verdict is already proven, its undeniable. A criminal prosecution is a much more complicated matter where the mere existence of reasonable doubt is enough for an innocent verdict. There is no reasonable doubt in the case of a positive test.
The driver analogy is a decent one but Rio never conclusively refused to take a test in the same way. Rio actually had a case to present, and as such was perfectly entitled to present his case. Speaking of ignorance United challenged it because Rio had called the authorities, albeit late and offered to take the drugs test the very same day. The testers said he was too late and went home. He then passed a test the next day. Someone testing positive has no case to present. Even on the assumption Rio was guilty he should have been given no more of a sentence than players who actually test positive, regardless of whether they appeal or not.
I'm not saying he deserved to get away with his stupidity scott free but when you consider all the elements of doubt no way did he deserve to get a longer ban than players testing positive, and only did so because of pressure from the press, Blatter and idiots baying for blood on the basis of who he played for.
Edited by Mr Scruff, 11 September 2011 - 07:45 PM.