Page 1 of So Mutu`s banned for 7 months. How`s that work then??

While I`m not the biggest Man Utd. fan, I like to think I can look at things fairly and objectively....
How can it be fair then that a player who missed a drug test is banned for 8 months whereas someone caught abusing drugs is banned for 7 months? What`s the message there then??

Am I missing something??????

Ste

love the sig dude..where do you pick that up?
and the football..you`re right.
maybe the f.a. have a thing for charlie snorting, blood drinking, hooker loving romanians...
cheers,
kozza.

I think maybe because what Mutu took wasn`t performance enhancing perhaps? I don`t know, it seems like double standards; but hey it was only Rio wasn`t it?

The problem was that Rio was not given long enough. If they had Given Mutu a longer ban (say a year) then other players would say, if i take cocaine and get caught then i will get a years ban, but if i just skip the test altogether i will only get 8 months!

Also remember that Rio could have taken a performance enhancing drug, which would have made him a `cheat`, we don`t know `cause he never turned up. Mutu took a recreational drug which actually had a negative impact upon his performance, which is why he got a lesser sentence anyway.

The new FA guidelines have now been established, and were followed in this case; fail for recreational drugs 6 month - 1 year ban; no show for test 1 - 2 year ban; fail for performance enhancing drugs 2 year ban.

Of course there is a totally different issue about players getting paid so much and then taking drugs etc etc...

______________________________

...some kind of superstar*

This item was edited on Thursday, 4th November 2004, 22:09

Thats a fairly sensible way to look at it. Makes sense. What it does say though is that drugs are better than missing a test. To me at least. FIFA needs to put some clear rules down and make Football Associations stick by them.

If I remeber rightly it had been proven that Rio didn`t take drugs because of his hair, quite a lot of perfomance enhacers affect the makeup of the hair.

Seriously though, Mutu should have been given at least a year.

I don`t think 7 months was too lenient, particularly as the FA have insisted he attend and complete a rehab program and during that time he will be subjected to further random tests. Much more like the American football system of education and rehabilitation.

What I wonder is how many of you think that the way Chelsea handled the matter was in order? Personally, I think they were wrong to react so quickly and strongly, I appreciate the zero tolerance approach but wonder if the same would have applied to one of their more favoured stars.

Riggs

I`m too old for this sh*t!

Through all of this Chelsea have acted like pre-historic right wingers. Yes, Mutu shouldn`t have used cocaine, but is sacking him and then saying a 7 month ban is not long enough going to help him?

Nick

What I still can`t work out out why is it just footballers who abuse their physical condition by drinking too much, taking drugs, eating junk, etc, whereas in most other sports participants seem to be capable of self-discipline?

In most other sports they don`t get paid £60k + a week. More money than they know what to do with. I don`t object the ban mutu got, but i see no reason why he should not have been fined about £750k which could be put toward drug rehab programmes. >:(

______________________________

...some kind of superstar*

I agree with the ban, bearing in mind what Rio got.

I would have given Ferdinand the maximum 2 years, as by missing the test he could have potentially avoided being found guilty of the worst performance enhancing drugs. The FA should have made it clear that missing a test isn`t a way to get off.

With the 8 month ban that Rio got, there is no way that Mutu should have been given more.

Just out of interest, how long did Bowyer get for his cocaine carry on while at Charlton? And Tony Adams admitted taking it during his time at Arsenal, while he was still playing.