Jump to content


Photo

Footballers Miss Drug Tests


  • Please log in to reply
77 replies to this topic

#1 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:08 PM

Hundreds of footballers missed Football Association drug tests over three years.

From April 2007 to August 2010 experts cancelled 240 checks because players from clubs including *Liverpool, Manchester City and *Newcastle did not turn up.

The findings were *uncovered by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme.

A survey of 2,800 *footballers – of whom 700 responded – saw 28 per cent admit they have not been tested for two years.

That is despite the FA *insisting regular tests should take place on players.

In a statement the FA said tests were often missed *as *training schedules change.

Dispatches is on *Channel 4 on Monday at 8pm.




My link






Should be an interesting documentary this.


The part in bold is absolutely shocking if true and would be yet further evidence United are treated far harsher than any other club in the land (yea I know boo hoo, worlds smallest violin yawn). But seriously I think any rational person could see the ban was a joke at the time and that the FA caved in to the numskulls but this takes the piss if they have just been letting people off since.


We seriously need an independent commission to investigate what goes on at the FA (and other governing bodies) They aren't fit for purpose.




Anyway, the program is tomorrow at 8pm, I'll certainly be watching.









#2 mnb098mnb

mnb098mnb
  • Supporter
  • 16,126 posts
  • Supports:Bracknell Town
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:11 PM

It's a serous issue, and undeniably all about Manchester United.

#3 allouso

allouso
  • Moderator
  • 33,382 posts
  • Location:Lebanon
  • Supports:Liverpool
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:14 PM

United fans and their victim mentalityPosted Image

#4 NTFC Army

NTFC Army
  • First Team
  • 4,756 posts
  • Location:South
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:16 PM

Something needs to be done, why hasn't a moment of silence for Man Utd been planned???

#5 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:16 PM

United fans and their victim mentalityPosted Image


Are you seriously trying to say you wouldn't be pissed off at these allegations had it been Gerrard rather than Rio.

Neutrals and their inability to see reasonable grievance Posted Image

Something needs to be done, why hasn't a moment of silence for Man Utd been planned???



Yep because its completely unfair to expect our players to be treated in the same manner as everyone else. We should just shut up and take what we get.

Incidentally I expect there to be no complaints on here next time we get a decision in our favour. After all, moaning is just evidence of a victim mentality.

Edited by Mr Scruff, 11 September 2011 - 12:44 PM.
''


#6 fisel

fisel
  • First Team
  • 4,511 posts
  • Location:Manchester
  • Supports:Manchester United
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:17 PM

Saw this advertised, should be interesting.

Edited by Masterwig, 11 September 2011 - 12:22 PM.
You can't repeat libellous statements like that


#7 allouso

allouso
  • Moderator
  • 33,382 posts
  • Location:Lebanon
  • Supports:Liverpool
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:19 PM

Are you seriously trying to say you wouldn't be pissed doff at these allegations had it been Gerrard rather than Rio.

Neutrals and their inability to see reasonable grievance Posted Image


Except Gerrard wouldn't take drugsPosted Image

#8 fisel

fisel
  • First Team
  • 4,511 posts
  • Location:Manchester
  • Supports:Manchester United
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:27 PM

Could have at least just edited out the players name lol.

#9 Ebeneezer Goode

Ebeneezer Goode

    Hand of the King

  • First Team
  • 16,236 posts
  • Supports:England
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:31 PM

United fans and their victim mentalityPosted Image


It's a Manchester thing...

#10 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:34 PM


United fans and their victim mentalityPosted Image


It's a Manchester thing...


"insert generic United fans aren't from Manchester joke"

#11 Son of Cod

Son of Cod

    All about the good time vibes

  • Legends
  • 19,369 posts
  • Location:Gwangmyeong, South Korea
  • Supports:Grimsby Town
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:00 PM

The part in bold is absolutely shocking if true and would be yet further evidence United are treated far harsher than any other club in the land (yea I know boo hoo, worlds smallest violin yawn).


So, you think Man United are treated harsher than Rushden and Diamonds - whose fans now have the choice of going to watch local rivals Kettering (who have moved into their ground) or the newly formed AFC R&D compete in the Senior Youth League Western Division? Or Luton when they were docked 30 points and lost their league status as a result? Or what about Boston? Hmmmm. Pull the other one, mate. Man Utd are most certainly not treated far harsher than any other club in the land. We'll have to see what the documentary says, the link is a bit vague. I wonder what differences to the Ferdinand case we'll see here. Hopefully they'll name said players. This should be on 4OD too, I'm assuming? I think Dispatches usually is.

Edited by Son of Cod, 11 September 2011 - 01:00 PM.
''


#12 HumongousFungus

HumongousFungus
  • First Team
  • 1,876 posts
  • Location:Birmingham
  • Supports:The Villa
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:29 PM



United fans and their victim mentalityPosted Image


It's a Manchester thing...


"insert generic United fans aren't from Manchester joke"


So, where you from buddy? Just wondering.

#13 mnb098mnb

mnb098mnb
  • Supporter
  • 16,126 posts
  • Supports:Bracknell Town
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:30 PM


The part in bold is absolutely shocking if true and would be yet further evidence United are treated far harsher than any other club in the land (yea I know boo hoo, worlds smallest violin yawn).


So, you think Man United are treated harsher than Rushden and Diamonds - whose fans now have the choice of going to watch local rivals Kettering (who have moved into their ground) or the newly formed AFC R&D compete in the Senior Youth League Western Division? Or Luton when they were docked 30 points and lost their league status as a result? Or what about Boston? Hmmmm. Pull the other one, mate. Man Utd are most certainly not treated far harsher than any other club in the land. We'll have to see what the documentary says, the link is a bit vague. I wonder what differences to the Ferdinand case we'll see here. Hopefully they'll name said players. This should be on 4OD too, I'm assuming? I think Dispatches usually is.


Nonsense. Wimbledon's move to Milton Keynes pales into insignificance once you see the ridiculous eight month ban for Rio Ferdinand's missed drug test.

#14 Rastamandem

Rastamandem

    Bumbibjörnarna

  • First Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Location:Whitchurch - England
  • Supports:Miami Dolphins
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:39 PM


From April 2007 to August 2010 experts cancelled 240 checks because players from clubs including *Liverpool, Manchester City and *Newcastle did not turn up.


The part in bold is absolutely shocking if true and would be yet further evidence United are treated far harsher than any other club in the land (yea I know boo hoo, worlds smallest violin yawn).




United and:



Tottenham
Blackburn
Arsenal
Aston Villa
Stoke
Everton
Fulham
Bolton
Chelsea


And all the others.


The mistreatment of all the clubs is just... well...


Posted Image

#15 Captain Yossarian

Captain Yossarian
  • First Team
  • 5,198 posts
  • Location:Suzhou
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:53 PM

The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking. Has anyone actually considered the issue? It just shows how amoral football fans are. The same guys who don't have any serious opinion now probably wanted Rio banned for life when he missed his test. I'm not saying my own opinions on football matters haven't been affected by loyalties in the past but I'm working on it.

#16 Rastamandem

Rastamandem

    Bumbibjörnarna

  • First Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Location:Whitchurch - England
  • Supports:Miami Dolphins
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 01:59 PM

The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking.


Maybe if the OP didn't contain the whole "Utd. are victimised" bit, people would take it a bit more seriously. It makes it look like one of Spear's posts, unfortunately. Although I will watch the program Posted Image

#17 Captain Yossarian

Captain Yossarian
  • First Team
  • 5,198 posts
  • Location:Suzhou
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:04 PM


The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking.


Maybe if the OP didn't contain the whole "Utd. are victimised" bit, people would take it a bit more seriously. It makes it look like one of Spear's posts, unfortunately. Although I will watch the program Posted Image


Yeah maybe he should have disassociated Rio from United. Rio was dealt with very harshly, especially in relation to the hundreds of players who have apparently missed tests since. Maybe they all had better excuses than 'I forgot'. Let's just be grateful twitter wasn't around back then when Rio was idle.

#18 Veggie Legs

Veggie Legs
  • Supporter
  • 6,553 posts
  • Location:Norwich
  • Supports:Ipswich
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:08 PM

The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking. Has anyone actually considered the issue? It just shows how amoral football fans are. The same guys who don't have any serious opinion now probably wanted Rio banned for life when he missed his test. I'm not saying my own opinions on football matters haven't been affected by loyalties in the past but I'm working on it.

Yes, but the issue is not the one Scruff is making it out to be. The fact that 240 players have missed drugs tests is notable and worthy of investigation, which is why this programme should be interesting; it's nothing to do with Rio Ferdinand. Taken in isolation, Ferdinand being banned for missing a drugs test is not an unreasonable punishment, the real problem is that lots of people are missing tests with nothing being done.

#19 Jockney

Jockney

    Flying on a tasteful pink duvet

  • Supporter
  • 15,996 posts
  • Supports:Millwall
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:12 PM

Most of the uproar was about the England players threatening to strike, if I remember correctly. The incident happened at a time when public opinion of footballers was at a low, and Rio was seen to be representative of the selfishness and egotism of our national team.

#20 The Paranoid Pineapple

The Paranoid Pineapple

    MIGHTY PIRATE

  • Moderator
  • 5,467 posts
  • Location:Guildford, Surrey
  • Supports:Kingstonian
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:15 PM


The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking. Has anyone actually considered the issue? It just shows how amoral football fans are. The same guys who don't have any serious opinion now probably wanted Rio banned for life when he missed his test. I'm not saying my own opinions on football matters haven't been affected by loyalties in the past but I'm working on it.

Yes, but the issue is not the one Scruff is making it out to be. The fact that 240 players have missed drugs tests is notable and worthy of investigation, which is why this programme should be interesting; it's nothing to do with Rio Ferdinand. Taken in isolation, Ferdinand being banned for missing a drugs test is not an unreasonable punishment, the real problem is that lots of people are missing tests with nothing being done.


Quite. I don't know why United fans like to perpetrate this idea that Rio was horribly persecuted. He was dealt with in a quite appropriate manner. Anyone else who's subsequently missed a drugs test should be dealt with similarly.

#21 Rastamandem

Rastamandem

    Bumbibjörnarna

  • First Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Location:Whitchurch - England
  • Supports:Miami Dolphins
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:19 PM

Most of the uproar was about the England players threatening to strike, if I remember correctly. The incident happened at a time when public opinion of footballers was at a low, and Rio was seen to be representative of the selfishness and egotism of our national team.


Nail on the head. It was Euro 2004 and our national team were a bunch of egotistical muppets (and still are mostly). Unfortunately for Rio he was the centre of media controversy at the time so he was the media's target. The article Scruff has put into question states from 07-10, although I'm sure the gangster Rio will be on the program at some point during the show. Rio punishment was justified and any other footballer should be punished the same. Drugs are bad.

#22 Captain Yossarian

Captain Yossarian
  • First Team
  • 5,198 posts
  • Location:Suzhou
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:22 PM



The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking. Has anyone actually considered the issue? It just shows how amoral football fans are. The same guys who don't have any serious opinion now probably wanted Rio banned for life when he missed his test. I'm not saying my own opinions on football matters haven't been affected by loyalties in the past but I'm working on it.

Yes, but the issue is not the one Scruff is making it out to be. The fact that 240 players have missed drugs tests is notable and worthy of investigation, which is why this programme should be interesting; it's nothing to do with Rio Ferdinand. Taken in isolation, Ferdinand being banned for missing a drugs test is not an unreasonable punishment, the real problem is that lots of people are missing tests with nothing being done.


Quite. I don't know why United fans like to perpetrate this idea that Rio was horribly persecuted. He was dealt with in a quite appropriate manner. Anyone else who's subsequently missed a drugs test should be dealt with similarly.


I don't think United are dealt with harshly or more so than any other club. The fact is that Rio Ferdinand was banned for eight months for missing a test when others have failed tests and been banned for a shorter time. I know that the issue here should be about the hundreds of players who have missed drug tests but it is relevant to bring Ferdinand into the debate if for an example if nothing else. I'm sure he'll be watching tomorrow with personal interest.

#23 Merseyboyred

Merseyboyred

    * * * * *

  • Moderator
  • 19,862 posts
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 02:22 PM



The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking. Has anyone actually considered the issue? It just shows how amoral football fans are. The same guys who don't have any serious opinion now probably wanted Rio banned for life when he missed his test. I'm not saying my own opinions on football matters haven't been affected by loyalties in the past but I'm working on it.

Yes, but the issue is not the one Scruff is making it out to be. The fact that 240 players have missed drugs tests is notable and worthy of investigation, which is why this programme should be interesting; it's nothing to do with Rio Ferdinand. Taken in isolation, Ferdinand being banned for missing a drugs test is not an unreasonable punishment, the real problem is that lots of people are missing tests with nothing being done.


Quite. I don't know why United fans like to perpetrate this idea that Rio was horribly persecuted. He was dealt with in a quite appropriate manner. Anyone else who's subsequently missed a drugs test should be dealt with similarly.


I agree with that sentiment. However I'd actually like to know the background behind these missed tests, what reasons are given, how exactly they're missed before making any judgement. Basically I need to see the show and evidence before declaring anything above the headline grabber Scruff has, well, grabbed.

#24 Liverlad

Liverlad

    .

  • Supporter
  • 11,218 posts
  • Location:Liverpool
  • Supports:Liverpool
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 03:08 PM

Hmm, that article doesn't say much, be funny if Man United had players who have missed tests too. (apart from Rio)

#25 anaconda

anaconda
  • First Team
  • 10,281 posts
  • Location:England
  • Supports:Arsenal
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 03:47 PM

I am sure alot of this gets covered up by there clubs especially when it comes to the more high profile players doing coke

#26 mnb098mnb

mnb098mnb
  • Supporter
  • 16,126 posts
  • Supports:Bracknell Town
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:14 PM

The lack of intelligent responses to the OP is quite shocking. Has anyone actually considered the issue? It just shows how amoral football fans are. The same guys who don't have any serious opinion now probably wanted Rio banned for life when he missed his test. I'm not saying my own opinions on football matters haven't been affected by loyalties in the past but I'm working on it.


Yes, I think that the issue of missed drug tests in football revolves solely around the effect it has on Manchester United, no club in the land is treated so unfairly.

#27 Oli#1

Oli#1
  • First Team
  • 2,772 posts
  • Supports:Norwich City
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:49 PM

I still can't believe that Roman Bednar got caught red handed buying coke and The Fa couldn't do anything about it...

Edited by Oli#1, 11 September 2011 - 07:05 PM.
Please no unfounded allegations about players.


#28 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:03 PM

People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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.

#29 Martovite

Martovite

    I like to Dodge it Dodge it

  • Academy
  • 1 posts
  • Supports:everton
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:15 PM

People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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

#30 Rastamandem

Rastamandem

    Bumbibjörnarna

  • First Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Location:Whitchurch - England
  • Supports:Miami Dolphins
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:20 PM

People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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.



That's the justice system though, like it or not.

You can go to prison for 5 years for attempted murder and 7 years for dealing drugs...

Then of course there is the classification of what drugs they used. No-one is going to get a lengthy ban for using calpol now, are they?

As the guy above me said, that's the British Legal system for you.




#31 Poshcockney

Poshcockney

  • Supporter
  • 9,199 posts
  • Location:Ayberdein
  • Supports:Millwall
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:21 PM


People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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



But you are guessing he missed it on purpose with no proof whatsoever. British Justice would be all over the place if this were the case. People who refuse to give a specimen when there is a potential for drink driving are not treated harsher than someone who is caught in the car swigging from a tin of red stripe are they?

Edited by Poshcockney, 11 September 2011 - 07:22 PM.
''


#32 Rastamandem

Rastamandem

    Bumbibjörnarna

  • First Team
  • 6,296 posts
  • Location:Whitchurch - England
  • Supports:Miami Dolphins
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:24 PM

But you are guessing he missed it on purpose with no proof whatsoever. British Justice would be all over the place if this were the case.


You don't need "proof". In the "eyes of the law" he was obstructing the law, even if he was/is just a thick idiot. British Justice is all over the place, it's an absolute sham at the moment.

#33 Eamonn7

Eamonn7
  • First Team
  • 8,334 posts
  • Location:West London
  • Supports:Man United
Offline

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:39 PM

You cant compare it to the law as in Rios case he took a test the next available opportunity and passed it therefore he wasnt guilty it wasnt him denying guilt in that irrelevant example not to mention the City player who missed a drug test and got off with a fine. I will certainly be watching this with interest.

#34 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:42 PM


People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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


Hi Dodge.

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.


#35 Veggie Legs

Veggie Legs
  • Supporter
  • 6,553 posts
  • Location:Norwich
  • Supports:Ipswich
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:49 PM

People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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.

It depends how you look at it. Ferdinand got a fair treatment for his transgression (for the reasons outlined by Dodger); he didn't get fairly treated in relation to some other cases (possibly, anyway, I don't know anything about any of these other cases). That seems to be the prevailing opinion in this thread among people who are taking it seriously, I don't see what your problem is with that.

#36 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:53 PM


People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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.

It depends how you look at it. Ferdinand got a fair treatment for his transgression (for the reasons outlined by Dodger); he didn't get fairly treated in relation to some other cases (possibly, anyway, I don't know anything about any of these other cases). That seems to be the prevailing opinion in this thread among people who are taking it seriously, I don't see what your problem is with that.


He didn't.

(see my reasoning above. )

Edited by Mr Scruff, 11 September 2011 - 07:53 PM.
''


#37 mnb098mnb

mnb098mnb
  • Supporter
  • 16,126 posts
  • Supports:Bracknell Town
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:54 PM

A documentary regarding the possible use of drugs in football and it's being used for one club's fans to score points against another. Fucking tragic.

#38 Mr Scruff

Mr Scruff

    Life's a Bitch

  • First Team
  • 8,838 posts
  • Location:Not France
  • Supports:Chinese Women
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 07:57 PM

A documentary regarding the possible use of drugs in football and it's being used for one club's fans to score points against another. Fucking tragic.


Where exactly am I trying to score points against other clubs fans?

I used it as evidence that Rio was mistreated, which it is and he was. Nothing to do with point scoring.

#39 Veggie Legs

Veggie Legs
  • Supporter
  • 6,553 posts
  • Location:Norwich
  • Supports:Ipswich
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:00 PM



People thinking Rio was not unfairly treated is just Posted Image.

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.

It depends how you look at it. Ferdinand got a fair treatment for his transgression (for the reasons outlined by Dodger); he didn't get fairly treated in relation to some other cases (possibly, anyway, I don't know anything about any of these other cases). That seems to be the prevailing opinion in this thread among people who are taking it seriously, I don't see what your problem is with that.


He didn't.

(see my reasoning above. )

Then that's where we disagree, as far as I'm concerned he deserved the punishment that he received.

mnb098mnb is right, the bottom line is this:
Most people hear of this documentary and think that it's interesting/terrible/whatever that so many players are missing drugs tests.
Manchester United fans only seem to care as much as it relates to Rio Ferdinand and the perceived injustice of the way he was treated, the big picture is irrelevant to them.



#40 mnb098mnb

mnb098mnb
  • Supporter
  • 16,126 posts
  • Supports:Bracknell Town
Online

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:02 PM


A documentary regarding the possible use of drugs in football and it's being used for one club's fans to score points against another. Fucking tragic.


Where exactly am I trying to score points against other clubs fans?

I used it as evidence that Rio was mistreated, which it is and he was. Nothing to do with point scoring.


Other clubs/other club's fans, par for the course with the Premier League I guess. Defend a drug cheat, use his comparatively severe (but nowhere near severe enough penalty) as the focus of the post. I think it's sad that the first reaction of a football fan when faced with possible allegations over drug use in football is to whine about how one of his team's drug cheats were treated in the past.