12/21/24
December 19, 2003
Ferdinand gets 8 month ban.: Now you would have to look at me for a very long time before you saw someone with any sympathy for Man Utd, but this is outrageous. The bloke missed a drug test, offered to give one 20 minutes later but the testing jobsworth told him no way Jose. He has been found guilty of missing a test, that's it, nothing else. I worked in the criminal justice system for a bit with offenders who constantly missed court dates, and they were never punished; they were simply given a new date. The question that interests me is this; should sportsmen, who in most cases will come from not dissimilar backgrounds to my young miscreants, be treated more harshly than the general population simply because they have a talent for kicking a ball around?
posted by Fat Buddha to soccer at 02:52 PM - 12 comments
If the fans are to believe the drug testing regimes are real, even big stars have to be treated with no allowance for deviation. And the drug regimes are only for the fans, IMO. Plus, the idea that a veteran national squad player on on a top three team managed his schedule so poorly is a bit much for me. I think he's lucky to only get 8 months and not the full two years.
posted by billsaysthis at 04:35 PM on December 19, 2003
Hahahah I hadn't considered old Taggart, I expect his chuffin head has exploded. The powers that be in this case have been a bit inconsistent, even this season, and I don't think Ferdinand should be made to pay for past cock ups. If you look at the make up of the disciplinary board you will see a bunch of old farts, uniquely unqualified for the job. I also see the hand of Mark Palios in this and he is the ultimate fool; every decision he makes is the wrong one. As far as choreographed celebrations go, I am with the authorities: ban em, forever. On preview, Bill I don't understand, he has been found guilty of zilch, and made himself available 25 minutes after the appointed time, but was told to bog off. I can't see that those 25 minutes would have made any difference if he did have drugs in his system. This is just plain unjust.
posted by Fat Buddha at 04:41 PM on December 19, 2003
By the by, we never did have a discussion over whether Zidane should have won over Henry and Ronaldo. Are those three really the top 2003 performers or should Alex or someone else been put up? I looked over the list of past winners and seems very limited--only members of Italian and Spanish club squads need apply.
posted by billsaysthis at 08:31 PM on December 19, 2003
20 minutes later? Sorry Fat Buddah, I haven't seen that reported anywhere else. Wasn't he spotted shopping in Manchester later that afternoon? The FA has, for one, made the right call.
posted by aaronscullion at 04:46 AM on December 21, 2003
I just did a google news search on "rio 25 minutes" not very sophisticated but it threw up plenty of examples, that substantiate the claim, you might want to try it, you might even try different word combinations. The claim has been mentioned in every report I have read so I don't understand how you have missed it old chap. Do you have a rationale for believing the FA has got it right? if so I would be interested to read it.
posted by Fat Buddha at 05:30 AM on December 21, 2003
FB, why should EPL players have different rules than those applied to nearly every other athlete?
posted by billsaysthis at 01:11 PM on December 21, 2003
Bill, if the F.A wants to change the rules, that's fine by me.
posted by Fat Buddha at 04:37 PM on December 21, 2003
From what i know about this, it sounds like Ferdinand went to the drug test but there was some kind of mix up with him moving that day so he was 20 minutes late or some shit? Well, if that truly is the case, why is this being blown up to such an extent? Here is what concerns me: If Ferdinand is taking some kind of drugs to play better, why doesn't he PLAY better!? I don't rate him as high as most people do, and i see him play at least 3 times a week. At most he is mediocre and if he IS taking drugs and is afraid about being caught, he should at least take drugs that will actually IMPROVE his ability... Second, if he really DID just show up 20-25 minutes late, why didn't they just take his pee when he DID show up and then discuss the results afterwards? It sounds to me that this is more than Ferdinand just showing up late. I think there was something else going on with him that made him avoid the test.
posted by StarFucker at 01:20 AM on December 23, 2003
That was supposed to be 3 times a month in my previous comment above...
posted by StarFucker at 07:26 AM on December 23, 2003
This is just speculation, especially as the FA haven't actually released the evidence used for and against Ferdinand. Ferdinand had some sort of kidney problems earlier in the season - he missed an England match and a couple of United matches, I think - and he was taking medication or something to help him get over this. Now, supposedly, according to his leaked telephone records, he phoned his doctor/urologist during the time he was supposed to be at the test, and this was before he phoned the club to say he'd fogotten his test. To me it looks like he was worried that either what he was taking to help his kidney complaints, or whatever was causing his kidney complaints (maybe he's a glue sniffer), would cause him to fail his test, so he skipped it, waited to find out if he would pass, and when he found out he would, he remembered his test, and phoned the ground. Also, ignoring my conspiracy theory, Ferdinand hardly helped himself by changing his story every few minutes - he was moving house, then he was shopping, had a lunch appointment, his phone was off, then it was on but he'd left it in the car - and Man United, or whoever, didn't help his case by leaking his name to the press, and then complaining that the FA had leaked his name to the press. Both those things are surely going to piss off the FA, and give the impression that Ferdinand and his club aren't really acting in good faith. (Sorry about the length) And Merry Christmas everyone. And a happy New Year.
posted by dng at 10:06 AM on December 23, 2003
I was going to wax lyrical on this, but then remembered that really I'd just be plagarising this excellent article (excellent not least for slipping in the word "flumdiddle"), written before the ban was dished out, and which for me sums it all up rather neatly. "Did he forget, or did he do a bunk? Had he been taking a drug and needed time to clear it? Is he a liar or an idiot? Who did he ring on his mobile phone and why? Was it just the pressure of moving house? Or was it something more sinister? All these questions are irrelevant. I can solve this case myself, here and now. I don’t need any more evidence. I have all the evidence I need. Rio Ferdinand, I believe you failed to take a drugs test. Quite correct. Then you are banned for two years. Sorry and all that, but that’s the rules." And so say all of us... well, so says me.
posted by JJ at 10:55 AM on December 23, 2003
I'd like to agree with you FB, but on this side of the pond sports stars get away with murder (ahem, Ray Lewis) for breaking rules. Many are tried by the court of public opinion (Kobe, OJ, etc), and usually more favourably than they deserve. Currently all the talk surrounding American football is not about the upcoming playoffs, but about the players who do silly things to celebrate ...well... themselves. Whether it is making throat-slashing gestures (I just don't get it) or making cellphone calls from the endzone, players seem to think they are beyond rules. So while I realise Ferdinand's suspension is rather harsh, I can see how the powers that be want to send a message that missing drug tests for whatever reason is not a good idea. I can't wait to see what Sir Alex has to say. :)