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

corwill wrote: »

The reputational damage

Reputational damage means literally nothing in this sport. it matters for the first news cycle, and then goes away. Time and time again.

Where's Suarez reputational damage got him? 3 separate bans for biting people and a ban for racism later, and he's at the biggest club in the world, on one of the highest salary's in world football. Christ, he was bought twice while actually still serving bans for biting.

and the huge write-off of much his value as a club asset that result from a 1+ year ban means he'll have to go.

Well, if you cancel his contract, then you write off his asset value. If you keep him, he stays on the books as an asset, increasing the value of the club.

Also, we know from experience that 6 months of decent football after he's back, and his value will be wholly restored.

Add to that, what message would any other approach send to the rest of the playing staff on the one hand, and to the world at large on the other? Just not sustainable.

Erm, we signed Kolo after he served a ban for the same thing. I don't recall anyone caring very much about that.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Biting and alleged racism is not equivalent to taking PED's for three critical reasons:-

1. Biting and alleged racism aren't illegally improving physical performance and/or subversive cheating. Mental behaviour no doubt!!

2. A player suspended for biting and alleged racism will return to the same level of physical performance after their ban as they had beforehand. A player banned for taking PED's won't unless they keep taking PED's.

3. PED's are dangerous to your health and whilst biting and alleged racism may also be seen as detrimental to your health they generally don't have any long term affect other than a black eye or sore jaw if the offended party gets to land a punch.

I think you need to re-read my points in relation to what they were actually answering.

The above response has nothing to do with the reputational damage of the club, which was the point raised. I'll reiterate - the act doesn't matter. Once this news cycle passes, it'll be forgotten for the most part. It'll become a footnote. Kolo is loved throughout the land. Rio is a TV personality now. Couto, Stam, Davids - all found to be doping, all still have good reputations intact and enjoy post-playing careers in the game.

It's news for right now, but as with all things in football, it'll all die down, and everyone will move onto the next thing. I'm not saying it's right, i'm simply saying it's the reality.

Two things:-

1. You're assuming what Kolo did was exactly the same as Sakho. No one know's yet, other than Sakho, if that's the case.

2. The rules and attitudes to PED's have changed substantially since Kolo was banned 5 years ago.

Once again, the point raised was about the message keeping him on would send.

Well, as you point out, Sakho's the only one that may know of a difference. As far as the greater world is concerned, they're the same thing. Noone cared that we signed Kolo almost exactly 2 years after he'd been found guilty of what is ostensibly the same thing.

And y'know what - if we release him and when the ban ends, Lyon, or PSG, or Madrid sign him up - noone will care.

corwill wrote: »

@~Rebel~: what JSJ said, basically. Not that I don't see merit in your arguments, I do. But the club soaking up as much flak as they did for Suarez was not entirely without cost or consequence, and it's left them in a much weaker position to stand behind Sahko.

This is all about intangibles and perception, so pretty hard to measure, only time will tell. Whatever approach the club takes, I just hope it works out. There's still a fair bit to be revealed, Sahko's pleas in mitigation and evidence advanced in support of same, and the ban to be imposed. I know I've posted here in fairly trenchant terms over the last 2 days about this topic, I'm pretty disappointed and not a little angry with Sahko for getting himself into this mess, but I suppose we should all keep as open a mind as possible until we actually hear his side of it, and what the club has to say about that themselves.

Edit: the last thing I'll say is that, regardless of who else might care, I care (perhaps naively), and I think I'm not alone in that.

I understand where you're coming from, and as you said we're best off waiting until all the facts are in and we know where we stand.

I'm not quite sure where I stand on the area of doping control at this stage...we're so far past the days of black and white, right and wrong now, that we can't look at it in those terms so much anymore. It's all nuance. For instance would people consider creatine a PED? I mean, its a supplement that helps you build muscle, and it can be harmful under certain circumstances, but it's totally fine for players to take. At what stage does Lucozade sport become performance enhancing? It sounds silly, but it's really all so very gray on what's right and wrong.

It's not like all of these banned substances turn you into superman, the gains are often very slight, and are more about allowing you to train that little bit longer than actually doing the work for you. I can somewhat empathize with a player hitting a wall, but knowing they need to do more to be at the top.

This is all a general stance on my part by the way, not necessarily in relation to the Sakho case. But it's interesting that he's the subject - given that we know he's actually a very decent, socially conscious guy. On a social level, he's clearly a more genuinely decent guy than many of the players we watch every week. That alone makes me want to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he did and why he did it.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

At what stage does Lucozade sport become performance enhancing?

Never, it's just sugar

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It sounds silly, but it's really all so very gray on what's right and wrong.

It's actually not grey at all, it's totally black and white. There's a comprehensive list of WADA banned substances here https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2016-prohibited-list-en.pdf. If you're a professional athlete it's up to you to make sure anything you take isn't on that list. Simples :cool:

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This is all a general stance on my part by the way, not necessarily in relation to the Sakho case. But it's interesting that he's the subject - given that we know he's actually a very decent, socially conscious guy. On a social level, he's clearly a more genuinely decent guy than many of the players we watch every week. That alone makes me want to give him the benefit of the doubt as to what he did and why he did it.

Couldn't agree more. If it had been Moreno (for example) I think he'd be getting a lot less sympathy than Sakho is.