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

LiamoSail wrote: »

corwill wrote: »

What most influenced the tie against Utd was how useless your team and manager were over two legs. Sakho could have taken cyanide and we would have waltzed past you. Now jog on.

You're trying to derail a debate about doping in sport into one about tribalism. The point I'm arguing is irrelevant to who I support. I'm saying that Liverpool won the tie because of Sahko's use of a banned substance, I'm saying it influenced the tie and hence it wasn't a straight match.

Also, I'm a Liverpool fan. So you can **** off with the above. Unlike yourself, where I stand on an issue such as doping isn't dependent upon how it suits the club I support

really?

The rules are that the club can't be punished unless 2 or more players are charged. Nothing will happen to the club, that's the rules.

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'm not suggesting the club were complicit, however ignorance is no excuse of the law. The performance against United was influenced by the use of a banned substance, and the responsibility for ensuring the side put out complies with the rules lies with Liverpool.

Legia Warsaw unknowingly put out an ineligible player for the last few minutes of a CL qualifier and as a result found themselves out of the CL. To my mind, fielding a player using a banned substance is a greater offence than fielding an ineligible player.

While I acknowledge that the club weren't complicit, the buck still stops with Liverpool, and I do believe clubs should perhaps be more proactive in ensuring their players aren't using banned substances. The fact is though that the tie with United was influenced by a banned substance and as such I don't see how the result can legitimately stand. While I understand the argument that this is unfair on the club as it was the actions of only one person, the club as a whole still benefited and the tie was compromised

I get the argument, but the whole system of testing and punishing had to be overhauled for it to happen in the way you say. It's not just the EL, every game he played in since March 17th would be voided and I guess forfeited?

I just don't think it's practical in any way. What if a United defender tested positive in the same game? What do you do with the knockout rounds? If it happens in the league what do you do with the points or do you replay the game causing more fixture congestion and annoyance for the fans who paid good money to see the game the was later found to not be a valid result?

I'm not saying you're wrong by any means. But as it stands the system needs to improve a lot before you start talking about forfeiting results weeks after they happened. Right now nobody even knows if the control sample was tampered with or not.

Testing is far too slow a process right now to make it practical to void results. If that's the road to go down then make it like the jockeys in the Grand National or other big races: test them all before the event and ban them before they have the chance to compete. Prevention not retrospective punishment.