Englasnd International Footballer Rio Ferdinand has been left out of the England team for this weekend game against Turkey. The story of why can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/england/3169798.stm

Whatever the outcome of the disciplinary meeting (to be held next Monday) he has been found guilty and punished before he's been tried. There are precedents to this case, a Manchester City player missed a test (subsequent tests were negative and he was fined for missing the test) but his name was never made public. The Team, the Player and the FA were the only ones with the information so it must have been the FA who released the name breaching their own confidentiality rules.
Does anyone else think that the decision was politically motivated given the high profile of the England Turkey game

As a Manchester United and England supporter, I find this incomprehensible. Fosse says that "Innocent until proven guilty". I tend to agree with that. Why suspend an integral part of England's defence for something he hasn't done? The English FA has a lot to answer for and I do not pity then one bit. Is Sven going? Will England ever be the same again? Can we survive tomorrow (today) without Owen, Rio, et al? I would like to think so, but are the fans going to let us? I doubt it.

Agreed on that part, but what the FA don't seem to recognise is that he did pass a test at Old Trafford 48 hours later. Both FIFA and UEFA have said that they wouldn't instigate such a rule, but the FA are sticking to their guns. Just because this is a Manchester United and England player, they've blown it out of proportion.
If it was someone from Gillingham, etc., we'd not hear a word about it.

Izzi, I too think he was Guilty - Guilty of not taking the test when requested to and should be punished. The precedent had been set - a fine for missing the test. My point was that he should not have been named until after the hearing (which fined him for missing the test!) and reading todays newspapers it appears that the meeting to discuss it could have been held within a couple of days of the report and everything cleared up well in advance of the England game. Seems to me to be another cock-up by the beurocratic (Will Carling expression) that seem to run England Sport these days.

The FA has today charged Rio Ferdinand with misconduct for a breach of FA Rule E26, with reference to Regulation 1(c) of the FA Doping Control Regulations.

Regulation 1(c) refers to "the failure or refusal by a player to submit to drug testing as required by a competent official".
The charge relates to the selection of Rio Ferdinand to submit to out-of-competition testing on 23rd September 2003 as part of The FA's Doping Control Programme.

Rio Ferdinand has 14 days to respond to the charge.

Because there's no 'malicious intent' wording in there, we can assume he won't get a long-term ban.

Well, I must admit to being stunned at the FA's verdict. An 8 month ban will start on January 12th, which means not only will his Manchester United season be over, he will not take part in the European Championships in June, 2004.

A statement released by the FA reads as follows:

"The Disciplinary Commission sat on the 18 and 19 of December 2003 to hear the charge of misconduct brought against Rio Ferdinand in respect of an allegation that, on the 23 September 2003, he failed or refused to submit to a drugs test procedure required to be undertaken by the officials of UK Sport as agents for The Football Association and under the supervision of The Football Association Supervising Officer," read the statement.

"The Disciplinary Commission heard submissions made on behalf of Rio Ferdinand and The Football Association, considered the documentary evidence and the testimony of witnesses to the events surrounding the charge.

"The Disciplinary Commission unanimously found that the charge was proved against Rio Ferdinand.

"It was further decided he would be suspended for a period of eight months with effect from Monday 12 January 2004 and be fined the sum of £50,000.

"Having requested a personal hearing he was ordered to pay the full costs of the hearing."

Manchester United also released a statement:

"We're extremely disappointed by the result in this case, in particular by the savage and unprecedented sentence which makes an appeal inevitable," said United director Maurice Watkins in a club statement.

"Rio has the full support of Manchester United and The PFA and there will be no further comment at this stage."

I'm not sure on the legal aspect here, but I would think that come the 12th of January, Rio will still be playing for United, as until the appeal is heard. This could drag on and on, as you could firstly have the appeal, then a court, and it's highly likely it will end up in an European court.

I'd say that he got away pretty lightly.

Quote:

---

Just because this is a Manchester United and England player, they've blown it out of proportion. If it was someone from Gillingham, etc., we'd not hear a word about it.

---

If this footballing superstar had been an athlete (and not even a top flight athlete) he'd be out of sport for years. As an athlete his career would be in shreds unless he had the backbone and willpower to keep up a training regime until such time as he could continue in his chosen sport. No support, no backing, no sponsors, he'd have to go it alone. Ferdinand is an extremely lucky lad!

Quote:

---

Manchester United also released a statement:

"We're extremely disappointed by the result in this case, in particular by the savage and unprecedented sentence which makes an appeal inevitable," said United director Maurice Watkins in a club statement.

---

The previous precedent was an absolute joke. I have a feeling that the case Fosse is referring to resulted in the player given just a £2000 fine and no ban. If they'd dealt with Ferdinand in a similar manner it would have sent out the wrong message entirely.

The governing bodies are right to take a firm stand in cases such as this one. They must be united in showing the world their committed determination to clamp down on drugs in sport. Tighter testing controls and a firm zero tolerance message is the only way to do that.

There was a case last season, where a Manchester City player got away with a £2000 fine. The scenario I see is this:

The F.A. banned Ferdinand for 8 months, and fined him £50,000.
Manchester United and Rio Ferdinand will appeal this decision.
The sentence will be reduced to maybe 5 months, just short of England heading out to Portugal for the Euro 2004 Championships.

Let's face it, Eric Cantona got away with less for assaulting a member of the public! While I do agree that other athletes get lengthy bans, they aren't being paid the same sort of wages that professional football players are on.
In my view, this is punishment towards Manchester United as well as Rio, as they're without his services unti lthe 2004/05 season and also have to pay his wages every week for doing nothing!

Why would they continue to pay his salary during the ban? We haven't seen his contract but surely they wouldn't be expected to pay him if he cannot play due to his own 'misconduct', in most employment you are dismissed without payment in lieu of notice for misconduct. As for the suggestion of a court in Europe, which court might that be, are we talking about a proper court or a football hearing?

With the precedent of players having "comitted the same offence", not being named and not being penalised , I personally think this is vindictive against an international player from the UK.

izzi, while nearly everything you have said is correct, I disagree a little. Rio Ferdinand is a footballer of stature, because he plays for Manchester United As I have already stated, if this was a player from any other club, it would have not been mentioned.
You only have to look at the Man City player who was fined just £2,000 last season for the same offence. Is Rio a drug taker? Nope (or not in the eyes of the FA).
Rio is being persecuted for something, just because Sepp Blatter says so. Rio even called the FA 25 minutes later, but they wouldn't have it. Is that fair? I don't think so!

No it's not fair, but people in power like Sepp Blatter can say and do what they like with no thought for the consequences and feelings of others, he's also threatened United not to pursue appealing the ban,he doesn't want his authority undermined, what a nice man he is......not

Couldn't agree more with you silverginger. That guy only gets a 10 match ban for taking a drug. If only it was another well known player who had tested positive for taking drugs, would they then get a ban that was even close to Rio's? Must just be the English that Mr Blatter doesn't like.

Anyway Rio's ban ends at the weekend, and given Man United's injury list he may well start. Lets hope his comeback game is as successful as Cantona's.

not understanding the nuances f soccer I can['t comment on Beckhams actions but this comment tickled me ... "Beckham added: "I'm sure some people think that I have not got the brains to be that clever." (from here ) Only some people Becks?

And just for fun - things you can bet on that Beckham will admit to next

My particular favourites ...
Being inarticulate 10 - 1
Hating all Spice Girls music 25 - 1
Thinking Victoria's real name was Posh 33 - 1 (HA!!)

Chelsea striker Adrian Mutu has tested positive for a banned substance. The belief is that it's cocaine. So what happens here? Mutu will test positive in a B test, by all accounts, and he will get rehabilitation. He will not receive a 2 year ban (which this should entail), he will not receive an 8 month ban (which Rio Ferdinand received for missing a test).

He will get off scott free.

Justice? I don't think so.

Mutu has admitted to taking cocaine and will therefore forfeit the right to a B test.
This could work in his favour for any ban he may receive.
Personally, I hope he gets banned for the full two years.
There is no consistency in the system if he is not punished more harshly than Ferdinand.

And it ought to shut the whining Manchester United fans up.

Quote:

---

And it ought to shut the whining Manchester United fans up.

---

I would hardly say any of us are whining. Time after time it is proven that United players get a harsher sentence than what someone of another team does. Where is the justice in that?

Took longer than I expected to get a response!
It was, however, said with tongue firmly in cheek.

>>>And it ought to shut the whining Manchester United fans up. <<<


>>>It was, however, said with tongue firmly in cheek.<<<

Ah, that's what ManU fans call a 'cynical challenge'.

Not at all. I had considered replying, but one voice speaks for all. I have other pressing matters to contend with, and Manchester United have more urgent matters (Although I would say my matters precedent anything!)

As I have said before, there is no way Mutu will be banned for 2 years, because he has owned up to it. By the FA, cocaine is a 'commercial drug', and not used for perfornance enhancing. I am sorry, but I fail to see why someone who uses recreational drugs should be let off. If Rio Ferdinand was a player of the team that you support (and he was once Leeds United), then you would argue his case, whether right or wrong. Just because he plays for the richest club in the world, then they took an example, but FIFA, UEFA, and even our own FA are not backing their case.

Let's not forget that Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8 months for missing a drugs test. Adrian Mutu, on the other hand, has admitted cocaine use. Anyone can see the difference there...