Player Banned for Testing Positive

yop

FROM BBC

"FA bans unnamed player for drugs
The Football Association has banned an unnamed player for six months after twice testing positive for cocaine.
The player first returned a positive finding early in 2004 and appeared before a disciplinary hearing in August of the same year.

He was ordered to reappear in April 2005 while his case was reviewed but was caught again when drug-testers swooped between October and December.

UK Sport claim the player received his ban and a fine in December.

More to follow. "

BolBill

Its Rio again, where has he been ?

Big Nelly

Probably a player from the lower leagues! if it was a PL player it would be all over the press!! there is no way it would be covered up!! if from Lower Leagues the papers would be as bothered!!!

sharkman

Why are the F.A refusing to name this player if he has been found guilty ????

meditraitor

He is a league player, prob 1st 2nd, and i can only presume that his age might be the reason his name is not being released....

MrJoeSoap

The radio just said it wasnt a household name. I take it that means sub-championship? Another player who has twice tested positive for Marijuana has been given a suspended sentence, which seems slightly ridiculous.

wheres me jumpa

they said on sky news its a premiership player

galactus

wheres me jumpa wrote:

they said on sky news its a premiership player

Could it be a certain goalkeeper?

Big Ears

wheres me jumpa wrote:

they said on sky news its a premiership player

This contradicts Sky text saying it is most likely a Nationwide League player .(or whatever the leagues below the Premiership are now called collectively)

wheres me jumpa

im sure i heard them say earlier a premiership player had tested positive, but im open to corrections

d22ontour

6 months for taking drugs,thats a great example the fa are setting for kids,you can take drugs just dont miss the test oh and beg for rehab that will help
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Big Ears

d22ontour wrote:

6 months for taking drugs,thats a great example the fa are setting for kids,you can take drugs just dont miss the test oh and beg for rehab that will help
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Do I have to explain , that if a player misses a test and gets a lesser ban than players who are found positive then all players who know they have drugs in their system will just miss the test , do I really have to explain that ?

PHB

The point is that you should get the exact same for missing a test as being found positive, unless extrenuating circumstances warrent a reduced sentance.

eirebhoy

No a player should definitely get more for missing a test than he does for having recreational drugs in his system. There's always a chance that the person that missed the test had performance enhancing drugs in his system at the time.

Big Ears

eirebhoy wrote:

No a player should definitely get more for missing a test than he does for having recreational drugs in his system. There's always a chance that the person that missed the test had performance enhancing drugs in his system at the time.

thanks for explaining what always seems to have to be explained to people whenever the subject of drugs in sport come up .(saves me wasting my time)

d22ontour

Big Ears wrote:

Do I have to explain , that if a player misses a test and gets a lesser ban than players who are found positive then all players who know they have drugs in their system will just miss the test , do I really have to explain that ?

the ban should be at least the same for all drug related offences whether you have taking anything or missed the test at least then it might have an effect on the amount of users

6 months for taking drugs is pathetic it should be at least 1 year mandatory

players can take drugs and see that they wont get banned for over 6 months as you should get longer for missing tests i dont see any incentive for them to stop if thats the case

Big Ears

d22ontour wrote:

the ban should be at least the same for all drug related offences whether you have taking anything or missed the test at least then it might have an effect on the amount of users

6 months for taking drugs is pathetic it should be at least 1 year mandatory

players can take drugs and see that they wont get banned for over 6 months as you should get longer for missing tests i dont see any incentive for them to stop if thats the case

For me personnaly it should be 6 months for recreational , 2 years for a missed test and 2 years for performance enhancing .
Id let pros ruin themselves wihout any ban for recreational , but it wouldn't set a good example to children . Performance enhancing=cheater , recreational=stupid .

d22ontour

most footballers only take recreational so 6 months i feel is paltry,i feel your 2 years is fair enough but if it was 2 years for all of them now that would have an impact,there is no way a player would risk a 2 year ban for a line or a j or whatever else they do

Guy:Incognito

d22ontour wrote:

players can take drugs and see that they wont get banned for over 6 months as you should get longer for missing tests i dont see any incentive for them to stop if thats the case

If the ban for getting caught was more or the same as missing the test, thered be no incentive for taking a test and being outed as a drug user. It'd be muh better, reputation wise to have missed a test than to be branded a junkie.

eirebhoy

d22ontour wrote:

the ban should be at least the same for all drug related offences whether you have taking anything or missed the test at least then it might have an effect on the amount of users

6 months for taking drugs is pathetic it should be at least 1 year mandatory

players can take drugs and see that they wont get banned for over 6 months as you should get longer for missing tests i dont see any incentive for them to stop if thats the case

If I had my way I wouldn't even have a ban for recreational drugs. A player is extremely foolish to take them with or without a ban. PE drugs are cheating and 2 years is about right for that.

The Rooster

Big Ears wrote:

For me personnaly it should be 6 months for recreational , 2 years for a missed test and 2 years for performance enhancing .
Id let pros ruin themselves wihout any ban for recreational , but it wouldn't set a good example to children . Performance enhancing=cheater , recreational=stupid .

Exactly. There can be no argument with that.

I would only give a ban for cocaine if it was taken immediately before a game or at half time, when there's a chance it may be performance enhancing. Otherwise I'd only ban if it was a second offence.

As for marijunana, its barely worse than tobacco or alcohol and from my (limited) experience/knowledge certainly wouldnt improve performance in any way, but would probably do the opposite.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

If I had my way I wouldn't even have a ban for recreational drugs. A player is extremely foolish to take them with or without a ban. PE drugs are cheating and 2 years is about right for that.

What about the bad example the player is setting for the kids? Did the FA not say at the time of the Rio ban that this was a major factor in the severity of the ban.

Where is the consitancy in thie rulings? How come Mutu's and Ferdinands identity were revealed but the players in these cases were not.

I understand that this is the second time this player has failed a test. What punishment did he recieve the first time and as he continues to offend should he not be more severly punished . A banned substance whether recreational of performance enhancement are covered under the same rules so there is no "legal" facility to treat them differently,

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in this case as something just doesn't appear to be right about it. Conflicting reporfs about it being a household premiership name or a lower division player. Other reports say the player recieved a suspended sentence which means he could still be playing.

Theres too many questions and not enough answers for my liking .

eirebhoy

Yeah, I agree, the FA/FIFA as usual have it messed up. I'm just saying, if I was in Sepp Blatter's shoes I'd have no ban for recreational drugs and leave it up to the clubs to punish. I don't think that will make kids go out and smoke more hash, it doesn't usually start til their around 15 and by then I don't think they'll be doing it because Marildinho also does it. There's plenty of people in the music and film industry that openly admit to taking drugs.

PHB

I disagreee about a blanket ban, I think while the punishment shoulld be severe, I think rehaabiilitation shoul be the most important thing.

Would cocaine not give you a boost in the game?
Wasns't that what mardonna was done for?

The Rooster

PHB wrote:

I disagreee about a blanket ban, I think while the punishment should be severe, I think rehaabiilitation shoul be the most important thing.

Would cocaine not give you a boost in the game?
Wasns't that what mardonna was done for?

I understand (not an expert!) that coke taken a day before a game would have zero positive affect on your performance. However coke taken immediately before a game would affect performance - whether it would be a positive or negative affect is a matter of differing opinions.

It was said Maradona was taking coke before games (and even at half time) towards the end of his career. This had probably more to do with addiction (needing it to get by) than deliberately cheating - though the line was no doubt very blurred

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

Would cocaine not give you a boost in the game?

Wouldn't want to to be trying it out. I've seen plenty of people on the stuff and I'm 99.9% it would not do anyone any good on a football pitch (except the opposition). Maybe Maradona did coke before a game but that was because he's an addict.

edit; what Rooster said.

The Muppet

The Rooster wrote:

It was said Maradona was taking coke before games (and even at half time) towards the end of his career. This had probably more to do with addiction (needing it to get by) than deliberately cheating - though the line was no doubt very blurred

Coacaine is not physically addictive

Eirebhoy wrote:

I don't think that will make kids go out and smoke more hash, it doesn't usually start til their around 15 and by then I don't think they'll be doing it because Marildinho also does it. There's plenty of people in the music and film industry that openly admit to taking drugs.

Thas not the case . Canabis abuse can start a lot younger thatn that and I,m sure I don't have to point out the differences in behaviour which is expected from sports people as compared to those in the music industry.

WhiteWashMan

so do we know who it is yet?

eirebhoy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

so do we know who it is yet?

Both players are squad players in the lower English divisions.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=54781904&p=5478zzxx&n=54782239&x=

The Muppet, I just can't see people taking drugs just because a footballer does so. The footballer would be punished by his club and I doubt there'd be a major increase. Anyway, kids are hardly going to know the difference if there is no ban for drugs, its not as if a player is going to openly admit to taking them.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

Both players are squad players in the lower English divisions.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/story.asp?j=54781904&p=5478zzxx&n=54782239&x=

The Muppet, I just can't see people taking drugs just because a footballer does so.

Why do you think NIke etc. pay fottballers buckets loads of cash to wear their product ? Of course their actions influence youngsters.

eirebhoy

I'm just imagining a load of 13 year old Romanian's flocking out to the street corners to be a bag of coke to be like their hero Mutu. It really is just not going to happen.

As I've said, if there was no ban for recreational drugs in football, I very much doubt there'd be players openly admitting to taking them. If a club finds out about a player who has been taking drugs they could punish him theirselves and keep it queit. That way there'd probably even be less drugs stories in the media. I'm sure there are plenty of managers that found out about players taking drugs but we only hear about it when they have tested positive.

SCULLY

eirebhoy wrote:

I'm just imagining a load of 13 year old Romanian's flocking out to the street corners to be a bag of coke to be like their hero Mutu. It really is just not going to happen.

As I've said, if there was no ban for recreational drugs in football, I very much doubt there'd be players openly admitting to taking them. If a club finds out about a player who has been taking drugs they could punish him theirselves and keep it queit. That way there'd probably even be less drugs stories in the media. I'm sure there are plenty of managers that found out about players taking drugs but we only hear about it when they have tested positive.

If you watch any kids playing football you will see them acting like their 'heros' (whether it is diving, goal celebrations, sporting mohican haircuts- whatever is the latest thing in the news). I don't think that it requires too much of a stretch to suggest that if their heros are seen to be taking drugs that it gives out a totally wrong message. A blanket ban seems to make sense to me as if it is left up to the clubs to punish the players , inequality will occur. They may punish him also may do nothing at all. Also the idea of a strict banning period seems a good one (if you are a player and you miss a test you will be banned for x months; Snort coke and you are banned for y months etc). At least that way everyone would know where they stand

eirebhoy

SCULLY wrote:

A blanket ban seems to make sense to me as if it is left up to the clubs to punish the players , inequality will occur. They may punish him also may do nothing at all.

If you look at it from a business perspective, its like allowing an employee put the wrong fuel into a machine purposely. I doubt any team would allow a player to take drugs. I certainly agree with your last point but not this "example for kids" thing. Those that are old enough to understand the drugs in sports situation are old enough to have a mind of their own.

SCULLY

eirebhoy wrote:

If you look at it from a business perspective, its like allowing an employee put the wrong fuel into a machine purposely. I doubt any team would allow a player to take drugs. I certainly agree with your last point but not this "example for kids" thing. Those that are old enough to understand the drugs in sports situation are old enough to have a mind of their own.

My point is that different teams will treat their players differently for the same crimes which is inequitable. Chelsea got rid of Bosnich and Mutu for taking coke while others might go down the leniant rehabilitation road (btw I'm aware that if it had been Robben or Lampard found guilty then CFC's attitude may well have been different!!). In a similar vein, Man Utd fought tooth and nail against Ferdinands ban for missing the drug test (a serious charge) - I wouldn't trust any club to police themselves.

uberwolf

ah sure you could let the clubs administer the tests as well. Then Rio would not have had a problem. Solution.

eirebhoy

uberwolf wrote:

ah sure you could let the clubs administer the tests as well. Then Rio would not have had a problem. Solution.

So other than this "example for kids", why does a player deserve to be banned by FIFA for testing positive for recreational drugs?

SCULLY

eirebhoy wrote:

So other than this "example for kids", why does a player deserve to be banned by FIFA for testing positive for recreational drugs?

Simply because it is against FIFA's rules! Whether or not it should be is another arguement but as it stands it breaks their rules. In much the same way a player who takes his shirt off to celebrate a goal will get booked - stupid rule perhaps but a rule none the less. I persume when a player is registered with FIFA as a player , he is made aware of all rules associated with the registration and thus deserves to take the punishement given down by FIFA if he breaks these rules.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

So other than this "example for kids", why does a player deserve to be banned by FIFA for testing positive for recreational drugs?

How about because they are cheating the fans especially those tha hand over a chunk of their hard earned at the turnstile to see players and their team perform to the best of their ability. Instead they are paying to see some highly paid spaced out twat producing performance way below what he should be producing . Mutu was a perfect example of that.

According to the FA the bad example was reason enough to deserve a lengthy ban or at least it was a year ago, what's changed in that time?

case n basket

The Muppet wrote:

How about because they are cheating the fans especially those tha hand over a chunk of their hard earned at the turnstile to see players and their team perform to the best of their ability. Instead they are paying to see some highly paid spaced out twat producing performance way below what he should be producing . Mutu was a perfect example of that.

Players produce sub par performances for a variety of reasons all the time. That doesn't mean they warrant a long ban for it.

The Muppet

case n basket wrote:

Players produce sub par performances for a variety of reasons all the time. That doesn't mean they warrant a long ban for it.

Did I say they did ? We're talking about players abusing drugs here.

Big Ears

case n basket wrote:

Players produce sub par performances for a variety of reasons all the time. That doesn't mean they warrant a long ban for it.

are you sure , because I really want Titus Bramble banned , or does it not count if their crap all the time ?

PHB

Because Muppet the important thing here is not punishment, and it is sending the right message to kids, and that message should not be.

If you do something wrong, we'll **** up your entire life.
It should be,
If you do somethign wrong, we will tell you that its wrong, and try and fix it.
Thats something a long ban doesn't do, especially when you look at the addicitive nature(not just physical but mental addiction, which many would argue is worse!) of drugs.

The Muppet

PHB wrote:

Because Muppet the important thing here is not punishment, and it is sending the right message to kids, and that message should not be.

If you do something wrong, we'll **** up your entire life.
It should be,
If you do somethign wrong, we will tell you that its wrong, and try and fix it.
Thats something a long ban doesn't do, especially when you look at the addicitive nature(not just physical but mental addiction, which many would argue is worse!) of drugs.

I have no problem with that as long as it is carried out consistantly across the board which we all know is not the case at present. Yes cocaine is mentally addictive but Sports people should not start using in the first place .

galwaydude

A goalkeeper by the name of billy turley, he plays for rushden and diamonds in the first divison, its the second time he has been caught.

It was reported last week in the papaers about the above player, i dont know who the other scumbags are, ie scumbags for taking drugs and ruining their careers,

Big Ears

do you mean league one ? , because rushden aren't in the Championship .

evilhomer

I think it should be a ban for x amount of games as oppossed to a simple x month ban.
say performance enhancing drugs = 100 competitive games.
recreational 50 games + mandatory rehab + large fine.
Missing test 100 games + mandatory test every month for rest of career!

that would stop them quick enough. and also means all players miss same amount of games for there teams. unlike some who may have half there ban over the off season (Rio comes to mind). all punishment should be the same (extenuating circumstance's aside) regardless of league, celebrity, etc...

galwaydude

sorry its league two my apologies,aparently theres three more players suspended too.Proberly bannor knows the names.

galwaydude

Rushden & Diamonds have confirmed goalkeeper Billy Turley was suspended in December for failing a drugs test.
Turley was suspended on 23 December "pending a disciplinary investigation", but the reason for the investigation was not revealed at the time.

A statement on Rushden's website has now confirmed that Turley tested positive for a prohibited substance and the FA is investigating the matter.

No further comment will be made by the club or FA until a decision is reached.