Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016, Mod Warning in OP, 10/7

Boom_Bap

It's the club that have pulled him, not UEFA.

If he continues to play and found guilty and if we end up winning the tournament, we could be stripped of the title.

54and56

Boom_Bap wrote: »

It's the club that have pulled him, not UEFA.

If he continues to play and found guilty and if we end up winning the tournament, we could be stripped of the title.

I thought we could only be stripped of a UEFA title if two or more players were found guilty during the course of the tournament??

Smart thing to do is for Sakho to not play. It will help with his appeal for leniancy.

Boom_Bap

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I thought we could only be stripped of a UEFA title if two or more players were found guilty during the course of the tournament??

I did not know that

54and56

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I did not know that

12.02 Team disqualification
If more than two players from the same team are found to have committed an
anti-doping rule violation during a competition period, UEFA imposes the
appropriate sanction(s) in accordance with the UEFA Disciplinary
Regulations and the present regulations on the team to which the players
belong, in addition to the consequences imposed on the individual player(s)
found to have committed the anti-doping rule violation. The sanction(s)
imposed on the team may include disqualification from the competition in
progress and/or exclusion from future competitions.

Article 21 page 17 - http://hns-cff.hr/files/documents/2398/UEFA%20Anti-Doping%20Regulations%202015.pdf

Boom_Bap

That's good to know, let's just hope Kolo has been staying away from his wifes stash :pac:

It's obviously not ideal prep for the game tomorrow, but I'm sure when we the game kicks off that will be forgotten about.
The big question now is who do we partner with Lovren - Skittles/Kolo/Lucas/Caulker?

Chardee MacDennis

there will be no sponsors walking away from Liverpool due to Sakho, whether we keep him or not.

It's disappointing but the outrage here is hilarious.

Anymore than a year I can understand cutting him, otherwise hold onto him and renegotiate his contract. I don't see why not, he's made a mistake (whether that mistake is taking a banned substance or getting caught is another debate), and he's still a top quality player.

I do think the club are wise to play it safe and not play him though, just in case. UEFA havent exactly been on our side through our whole EL campaign.

Fromvert

The naivety of people thinking that Liverpool will cut ties with Sakho. He's an asset that is worth about 20m, you don't just throw that out and let someone pick him up for free in a year.

I'd be confident all contracts have stipulations about not getting paid for breach of contract (failing PED tests and being unable for selection) and he'll be kept at the club training for however long the ban is.

54and56

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

there will be no sponsors walking away from Liverpool due to Sakho, whether we keep him or not.

If LFC mishandle the situation e.g. holding onto him if what he was doing was part of a systemic program of PED cheating then you'd better believe brands who pay to be associated with the positive messages surrounding LFC would have a lot to say about it and ultimately review their continuing association with the club if they felt it had negative connotations for them.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

It's disappointing but the outrage here is hilarious.

Why shouldn't people be outraged by a player being paid £80,000 a week or whatever to get and stay fit not being able to do so and resorting to taking banned substances in order to keep his weight down? Don't see anything funny about it at all really. I'm disappointed in and for the player.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

UEFA havent exactly been on our side through our whole EL campaign.

How on earth do UEFA have any discretion in relation to how they handle a player who's been caught taking PED's? In what way have they been unfair to LFC?

54and56

Fromvert wrote: »

The naivety of people thinking that Liverpool will cut ties with Sakho.

All depends on the severity of what he's been caught doing. If it was a once of diuretic then he was stupid, should do his 12 month ban and be allowed back once he has shown some contrition but if it's systemic and the ban is two years there will be a decision to make. Will holding onto him cost more in damaged reputation and lost sponsorship to the club than letting him go. The answer to that question is far from clear.

I wonder do FSG have any parallel experience with one of their baseball players getting caught doing PED's? Isn't PED abuse relatively common in baseball?

corwill

Fromvert wrote: »

The naivety of people thinking that Liverpool will cut ties with Sakho. He's an asset that is worth about 20m, you don't just throw that out and let someone pick him up for free in a year.

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

Chardee MacDennis

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If LFC mishandle the situation e.g. holding onto him if what he was doing was part of a systemic program of PED cheating then you'd better believe brands who pay to be associated with the positive messages surrounding LFC would have a lot to say about it and ultimately review their continuing association with the club if they felt it had negative connotations for them.

Where is this systemic doping program coming from? Even if thats what happened, no one is accusing him of that and he's hardly going to admit that?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why shouldn't people be outraged by a player being paid £80,000 a week or whatever to get and stay fit not being able to do so and resorting to taking banned substances in order to keep his weight down? Don't see anything funny about it at all really. I'm disappointed in and for the player.

What difference does his wage make? If Origi did it, on his £20,000 per week, would it have induced 1/4 the outrage?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

How on earth do UEFA have any discretion in relation to how they handle a player who's been caught taking PED's?

i forgot how UEFA was such an upstanding organisation with a history of applying rules consistently...

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

In what way have they been unfair to LFC?

IIRC Liverpool have been charged 7 times this season by UEFA for things such as illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances, and firework offences. More than any other club, and some have certainly been more raucous than us.

Chardee MacDennis

corwill wrote: »

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

why wouldn't he be?

Je_suis_Jean

He was not picked over fitness issues back in Sept/Oct, the test sample taken 17th March.

Even back in the 90s drugs test were frequent in the PL, surely whatever was found was taken in the weeks previous to the test rather than 6 months previous. Looks like use over a period rather than a once off.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Cool your jets there a bit. Let's wait and see what the actual facts are before we equate what Sakho did to Mutu snorting coke FFS!!

1. If Sakho took some diuretics to get his weight down in order to be deemed fit enough to be picked I'd say he's a silly boy who should have worked harder at training, in the gym and on his diet. Such a once off mistake would be a relative misdemeanor for which he should do a ban, do some counselling/training for, do lot's of community type work during the ban, do an "I'm sorry" interview with LFC TV and then get back and show what a player he can be without taking stupid shortcuts.

2. If however he's been caught implementing a planned, premeditated and continuous PED program then I think the club may have more to lose by not getting rid of him (through reduced sponsorships etc) than by getting rid of him.

3. If he's been taking coke or other recreational drugs he should just be told to pack his bags today and get out, end of.

I really really hope it's #1 and this will all blow over in a few weeks.

54and56

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

Where is this systemic doping program coming from? Even if thats what happened, no one is accusing him of that and he's hardly going to admit that?

It's one of the two possible scenarios ie:

1. It was a stupid isolated incident.
2. It was a systemic PED program he was doing himself or with help from others.

If it's #2 he may not want to admit it but if he refuses to say where he sourced the PED's from he'll be obstructing UEFA's investigation which is as good as admitting it wasn't a once off incident. UEFA are obliged to investigate thoroughly right back to the source of the PED and to see what other players or officials may have connections to that source.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

What difference does his wage make?

Doesn't make any difference at all, that's why I said "or whatever"

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

If Origi did it, on his £20,000 per week, would it have induced 1/4 the outrage?

Of course there would.

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

IIRC Liverpool have been charged 7 times this season by UEFA for things such as illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances, and firework offences. More than any other club, and some have certainly been more raucous than us.

Shock horror - club who have breached UEFA rules for illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances and fireworks etc are charged for............ wait for it.......... illicit chanting, throwing objects, crowd disturbances and fireworks. Whatever next?

corwill

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

why wouldn't he be?

Seriously?

Fromvert

corwill wrote: »

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

He'd only be 27 and it would depend on how much the time off has effected him but as long as he stays fit he'd still be worth close to it and still be valuable regardless.

How many players of quality and value have got dumped by their club for being banned? I can't think of many.

This club backed Suarez!
Kolo was kept on by City when he missed six months and played the following year.
United kept Rio when he missed 8 months.

Mutu by Chelsea for coke if I remember correctly is the only high profile one I can think of.

54and56

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

why wouldn't he be?

Several reasons:

1. 18 months of his remaining (96 month until he's 34?) playing career will be gone.

2. If he can't make the optimum weight for top performance aged 26 how will he do so aged 28 and above? (Remember Razor Ruddock :eek:)

3. His image rights which form part of his commercial value will be significantly tarnished. Far less parents are going to buy Sakho shirts or the product he endorses for their kids Vs players not caught taking banned substances.

4. There will be a question mark over whether mentally he will be able to get over this personal setback and return to being the player he had just become. E.g. Mutu never did.

54and56

Looks like it'll all be grand as FSG seem to be ok with their Red Sox players getting a lengthy ban for being caught taking the banned stimulant Oxilofrine http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-michael-kopech-suspended-stimulant-oxilofrine-pitching-prospect-071615 and then returning to play for the Red Sox http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/3/16/11244180/michael-kopech-injury-broken-hand-red-sox-news

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same treatment to Sakho that they did to Kopech.

Harry Palmr

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

there will be no sponsors walking away from Liverpool due to Sakho, whether we keep him or not.

It's disappointing but the outrage here is hilarious.

Anymore than a year I can understand cutting him, otherwise hold onto him and renegotiate his contract. I don't see why not, he's made a mistake (whether that mistake is taking a banned substance or getting caught is another debate), and he's still a top quality player.

I do think the club are wise to play it safe and not play him though, just in case. UEFA havent exactly been on our side through our whole EL campaign.

Are you on drugs?

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Mutu never did.

Agree with almost all of that, but to be fair to Mutu, he fairly burned up Serie A with Fiorentino, 84 goals in 112 appearances according to Wikipedia. Picked a 9 month ban for doping along the way, the spanner.

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Looks like it'll all be grand as FSG seem to be ok with their Red Sox players getting a lengthy ban for being caught taking the banned stimulant Oxilofrine http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-michael-kopech-suspended-stimulant-oxilofrine-pitching-prospect-071615 and then returning to play for the Red Sox http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/3/16/11244180/michael-kopech-injury-broken-hand-red-sox-news

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same treatment to Sakho that they did to Kopech.

The yanks could not care less about doping. Different context, which FSG would do well to bear in mind.

54and56

corwill wrote: »

Agree with almost all of that, but to be fair to Mutu, he fairly burned up Serie A with Fiorentino, 84 goals in 112 appearances according to Wikipedia. Picked a 9 month ban for doping along the way, the spanner.

I sit corrected but I still think there would be a question mark over any players ability to just resume where they left off after 18 months kicking their heels and that would be a factor any potential buyer would have to take into consideration when deciding what value they place on the player.

Uncertainty only has one impact on the value of any asset and that's negative.

corwill

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I sit corrected but I still think there would be a question mark over any players ability to just resume where they left off after 18 months kicking their heels and that would be a factor any potential buyer would have to take into consideration when deciding what value they place on the player.

Uncertainty only has one impact on the value of any asset and that's negative.

We're absolutely of the same mind as to the effect of a lengthier ban. Mutu picked up where he left off after a shortish ban. And then got pinged for doping. You don't need to be Hercule Poirot to join those dots.

bur

corwill wrote: »

Is it more or less naive than thinking Sakho will still be worth £20mil at the end of, for instance, an 18 month ban?

He hasn't been worth that much since we bought him, so no.

Chardee MacDennis

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Are you on drugs?

I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too. :P

MonkeyTennis

the boul Mitch

8-10

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Looks like it'll all be grand as FSG seem to be ok with their Red Sox players getting a lengthy ban for being caught taking the banned stimulant Oxilofrine http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/boston-red-sox-michael-kopech-suspended-stimulant-oxilofrine-pitching-prospect-071615 and then returning to play for the Red Sox http://www.overthemonster.com/2016/3/16/11244180/michael-kopech-injury-broken-hand-red-sox-news

It'll be interesting to see if they apply the same treatment to Sakho that they did to Kopech.

Completely different to be fair. He was 19 and has never played for the Red Sox and would be unlikely to for about 3 years when he got the 50 game ban. 50 games is about a third of a season in minor league terms.

It's the equivalent to one of Liverpool's academy players at aged 16 get a 15 game ban. Sakho is not a kid 3 years away from the first team. Plus there's no point in cutting him loose as in baseball he has a guaranteed contract so you'd have to still pay him to play for another club

ush

There's performance enhancing drugs in baseball?

corwill

ush wrote: »

There's performance enhancing drugs in baseball?

Like there are bikes in Beijing.

Chardee MacDennis

ush wrote: »

There's performance enhancing drugs in baseball?