Ferdinand ban upheld

Pepe LeFrits · 18-03-2004 08:11PM #1

Rio Ferdinand's eight-month ban for failing to attend a drugs test remains the same after his appeal hearing.
An independent three-man panel ruled that Ferdinand should remain suspended until 20 September - missing Euro 2004.

"Rio is naturally very disappointed. We believe the suspension was unduly harsh and unprecedented," said Manchester United lawyer Maurice Watkins.

The England defender was originally banned and fined £50,000 in December - a punishment United said was "savage".

However, the Football Association wanted the panel to increase the suspension to 12 months.

The panel decided not to alter the ban, and was content that Ferdinand had not missed the test to avoid detection for a banned substance.

"In reaching its conclusion, the appeal board has discounted the possibility that Mr Ferdinand's reasons for not taking the test were drugs related," said appeals panel spokesman Nick Barron.

The panel, headed by independent QC Ian Mill and also with FA chairman Geoff Thompson and FA councillor Roger Burden retired to consider its verdict at 1515 GMT, with the verdict announced just before 1800 GMT.

While there is no room for further appeal through the FA, if Ferdinand still wishes to fight the outcome of the second hearing, he could take his case to the Sports Arbitrational Panel in Switzerland.

United were top of the Premiership and with the league's best defensive record when Ferdinand started his suspension.

But they have slipped to third in the Premiership and are now 12 points behind leaders Arsenal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/3514462.stm

Big Ears · 18-03-2004 09:34PM

A fair result i beleive

smiaras · 18-03-2004 09:36PM

This post has been deleted.

eirebhoy · 18-03-2004 10:25PM

I'd say every one of the heads in the FA feel the ban is harsh but didn't want to reduce it as they'd have every player appealing their bans. Now that I think of it, 8 months is a bloody disgrace.

gandalf · 18-03-2004 10:32PM

Tough on the lad missing the European Championships like that.

As I said before 8 Months was way too harse but this was driven by FIFA and not the FA.

Well at least he won't have United fans giving him grief over being crap next season as they have seen their defence without him

Gandalf.

kmart6 · 18-03-2004 10:37PM

Thats just plan stupid

NightStrike · 18-03-2004 11:44PM

Really harsh I think. Wonder will he bother bringing it to the European court? Its stupid to think that players who actually took drugs have gotten off with lighter sentences than this

kaimera · 19-03-2004 12:06AM

Originally posted by NightStrike
Really harsh I think. Wonder will he bother bringing it to the European court? Its stupid to think that players who actually took drugs have gotten off with lighter sentences than this

where's the proof he didn't take drugs?

the hair test he took isn't conclusive.

ZENER · 19-03-2004 12:18AM

That means he'll be out until September and it will more than likely take him a month or two to find his feet again, looks like a bad start to the season ahead for Man U unless a new player is bought in the summer.

where's the proof he didn't take drugs?

the hair test he took isn't conclusive.

He wasn't banned for taking drugs so it does'nt matter. The hair test works if the sample is taken within 90 days of the drugs being taken.

Tinky

donhughberto · 19-03-2004 12:18AM

I am glad he will miss Euro 04, thats the only reason he started his ban in Jan to play in it and he is the one who has cost all us man u fans the season we are having.

Think about it, who misses a drug's test, if it was me it would be top of mind for the entire training session and after it even if i wasn't on anything. I think he used time to get it out of his system and is guilty as hell.

Before people start i am a Utd Fan but 8 months is too little when you consider athletes get 2 years for drug abuse but i also think other FA's have players who were def doing drugs and got sentences reduced to 5 months, that would't help Utd as he would only just be back for Euro 04, so fair play!

Seaneh · 19-03-2004 12:28AM

They were under too much preasure from FIFA, who were in turn under preasure from the IOC because they still havent signed up to the new doping policy for the olympics.

The Muppet · 19-03-2004 09:30AM

I,m sorry for Rio that he will miss a major tournament but a reduction in the ban now would have little or no effect on Utds Season . I still think he was treated very harshly but I dont see him appealing to europe as they would be likely to lengthen it.

I hate the double standards Rudetski gets off when found with drugs in his system yet rio gets 8 months even after proving there was no Drugs in his.

Hyzepher · 19-03-2004 10:01AM

I actually agree with the idea that missing a drugs test should incur a penalty EQUAL or LONGER than a penalty for actually caught taking the drugs. Otherwise people would just not turn up to the test or refuse to take the test at all - knowing that they will receive a lighter ban and still have some doubt whether or not they take drugs.

The 8 month ban for Rio is fair - it sends out the right message and players will think twice about taking drugs or missing tests in the future

Hyzepher

Imposter · 19-03-2004 10:13AM

I agree there should be serious penalties for missing a drugs test but didn't another premiership player get a far shorter ban for missing a test (a man city player iirc)?

Ferdinand should turn around to the FA and retire from international football. FIFA have made a scapegoat of him and the FA let it happen.

leeroybrown · 19-03-2004 10:20AM

In my mind the real problem with this situation is that the drug testing system in Soccer is a mess. There appears to be absolutely no accomodation worked out between the various governing bodies and the clubs so that the system runs in any way smoothly.

Ferdinand is unfortunate to have missed the test just after FIFA decided to lay down the law more strongly. He's unlucky to have recieved an 8 month ban that will keep him out of Euro2004. He's also lucky that the FA thought an 8 month ban was enough of a punishment.

Personally, I think he's slightly hard done by to come off with such a long ban when the system is a mess. Unfortunately, they did have to set a precedent (and keep FIFA happy - they may not have wanted him to be in Euro 2004).

cournioni · 19-03-2004 10:41AM

Originally posted by smiaras
He should have taken nandrolone and he'd have gotten a smaller sentence

Exactly what I was going to say.

cournioni · 19-03-2004 10:42AM

Originally posted by Imposter
I agree there should be serious penalties for missing a drugs test but didn't another premiership player get a far shorter ban for missing a test (a man city player iirc)?

He got fined £5000 and didn't get banned.

smiaras · 19-03-2004 10:44AM

This post has been deleted.

Mossy Monk · 19-03-2004 10:57AM

he broke the rules and is being punished. whats wrong with that?

Hyzepher · 19-03-2004 10:58AM

Originally posted by PORNAPSTER
He got fined £5000 and didn't get banned.

I think it would be truer to say that he got off lightly rather than Rio getting an unjust penalty.

Originally posted by smiaras
So by that logic they should just turn up and fail, thus getting a lighter sentence?

OK - well maybe not longer but at least as heavy otherwise it just wont work.

Hyzepher

vorbis · 19-03-2004 11:00AM

as an arsenal fan, that ban is a joke. Players in Italy a la Davids and Couto tested positive and got far shorter sentences. 8 months is ridiculous imo.

uberwolf · 19-03-2004 11:04AM

All other sports impose much longer bans for similar offences. In that context 8 months is not a joke. It relatively speaking a light ban. Compared to previuos soccer cases it seems harsh, maybe, but all the sports are trying to fall in line with each other.

cournioni · 19-03-2004 11:06AM

Originally posted by Mossy Monk
he broke the rules and is being punished. whats wrong with that?

Rob some sweets out of a sweet shop and get the death penalty. Whats wrong with that?

uberwolf · 19-03-2004 11:10AM

Originally posted by PORNAPSTER
Rob some sweets out of a sweet shop and get the death penalty. Whats wrong with that?

nothing.

cournioni · 19-03-2004 11:18AM

Originally posted by uberwolf
All other sports impose much longer bans for similar offences. In that context 8 months is not a joke. It relatively speaking a light ban. Compared to previuos soccer cases it seems harsh, maybe, but all the sports are trying to fall in line with each other.

Yeah, so Ruzetski gets off with failing a drugs test. Thats certainly falling in line with each other alright. :rolleyes:

leeroybrown · 19-03-2004 11:20AM

I agree that players who take drugs (performance enhancing or otherwise) should recieve long bans, but this needs to be done in a consistent manner in tandem with a proper set of guidelines and agreed testing procedures.

The problem in this situation is that Ferdinand is being singled out for a high profile precedent setting exercise with no proper groundwork or consistency.

uberwolf · 19-03-2004 11:22AM

Originally posted by leeroybrown

The problem in this situation is that Ferdinand is being singled out for a high profile precedent setting exercise with no proper groundwork or consistency.

you'll get no argument from me on the consistency front, but they need to bring things in line and thats what Rio has learned. The Rudeski case hinged on the fact that in all likliehood the very people trying to ban him and given him the drugs. Slightly different in fairness.

Big Ears · 19-03-2004 11:44AM

Originally posted by The Muppet
.
I hate the double standards Rudetski gets off when found with drugs in his system yet rio gets 8 months even after proving there was no Drugs in his.

A hair folicle test covers most recreational but only some peformance ebhancing drugs , so he didnt prove he didnt take drugs . (although that has nothing to do with the verdict as missing a test was the charge )

Also if u look back at some of the old threads when rio got his ban origionaly u will see why the man city player got such a small fine and no ban . (i cant be bother explaining myself)

Thanx 4 The Fish · 19-03-2004 11:44AM

Originally posted by PORNAPSTER
Yeah, so Ruzetski gets off with failing a drugs test. Thats certainly falling in line with each other alright. :rolleyes:

The drugs that Rusedski took were given to him by the governing body of his association as a supplement. There is a slight difference there.

smiaras · 19-03-2004 12:57PM

This post has been deleted.

PHB · 19-03-2004 01:09PM

I don't mind the fact that its an 8 month sentance, I think it should be 2-3 years for missing or failing a drugs test.

However that said, if its a 2 year sentance, I want to see every single player who does it get the two year sentance, and this just isn't happening.
It was a token ban which worked out great for FIFA as MAn United are such a high profile sport.
It worked out even better for them now that Man United have ****ed up their season due to his absence, hammering home more the point that drugs are bad.

If they want to stomp out drugs in sports, kudos, but they should do it evenly and fairly across FIFA world

Ferdinand ban upheld

Comments