The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand has been banned for eight months and fined £50,000 after he failed to attend a random drugs test in September.
An independent Disciplinary Commission had spent the past two days hearing testimony at Bolton's Reebok Stadium before finding Ferdinand guilty of a 'failure or refusal' to submit a sample.
Ferdinand failed to attend the test at United's Carrington training ground on September 23 but, two days later, successfully passed a test.
The £29.1 million centre half's suspension will start on Monday January 12 but he has 16 days to appeal against the decision.
The punishment not only rules Ferdinand out of the second half of the Premiership season but he will also be missing from England's Euro 2004 campaign.
United have confirmed they will appeal against the sanctions and revealed their discontent at The FA's decision.
A statement from the Disciplinary Commission outlined their findings and confirmed the panel were unanimous in their verdict.
"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."
The FA will also be hoping their hefty punishment of English football's most expensive player will appease Fifa after the chief executive of the game's ruling body, Sepp Blatter, previously revealed he would be prepared to step in if the censure was not severe enough
from Sky Sports.com
An independent Disciplinary Commission had spent the past two days hearing testimony at Bolton's Reebok Stadium before finding Ferdinand guilty of a 'failure or refusal' to submit a sample.
Ferdinand failed to attend the test at United's Carrington training ground on September 23 but, two days later, successfully passed a test.
The £29.1 million centre half's suspension will start on Monday January 12 but he has 16 days to appeal against the decision.
The punishment not only rules Ferdinand out of the second half of the Premiership season but he will also be missing from England's Euro 2004 campaign.
United have confirmed they will appeal against the sanctions and revealed their discontent at The FA's decision.
A statement from the Disciplinary Commission outlined their findings and confirmed the panel were unanimous in their verdict.
"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."
The FA will also be hoping their hefty punishment of English football's most expensive player will appease Fifa after the chief executive of the game's ruling body, Sepp Blatter, previously revealed he would be prepared to step in if the censure was not severe enough
from Sky Sports.com
Page:
quite right.
sol campbell is better anyway.
sol campbell is better anyway.
If he's stupid enough to miss an enforced test, he should be punished. Just because he's rich and valuable to England and Man Utd does not mean he is exempt from laws and rules.
lalakersrule wrote:
Why don't they just gift wrap the title now and send it to Highbury?? Save us all alot of time and bother.
-------------
Liverpool have 5 first-team players out, and "they should be able to cope with it". Yet, now Man Utd will have 1 player out, the title is now gift-wrapped to Highbury?
Why don't they just gift wrap the title now and send it to Highbury?? Save us all alot of time and bother.
-------------
Liverpool have 5 first-team players out, and "they should be able to cope with it". Yet, now Man Utd will have 1 player out, the title is now gift-wrapped to Highbury?
yes i do think it gives a good impression on english football, despite banning a great player, means we are harsh, but fair, and are not afraid to make decisions like this. however, i do think sepp blatter and pressure did influence the decision. i think that is undeniable.
I'm shocked but also quite pleased at the outcome.
dear lord. didnt catch the news and this is a joke. 2 months at max. atleast this means theres more highlight on sol instead of rio. yEy.
in my opinion, rio has got a suspension which is okay. in any other sport, he would have got a 2 year ban.
if he was found guilty of purposely missing the test, which meant he missed the test on purpose, he would have had something to hide. he then, if found guilty of that, should have got banned for life. to be honest, i think for life is harsh, but i think he did miss it on purpose, i mean, how can you possibly forget something as important as that, even when you had been reminded less than an hour before.
football is the beautiful game, and the best sport, but is lacking in this particular issue. look at the italian f.a. they found inter striker mohammed kallon guilty of missing a test, and he was banned for 2 years. i think this is a fairer ammount for missing a test. once more, it took the italians 4 days to get to this verdict, and us nglish took closer to 4 months. as for the fine, i think that was a bit harsh. he deserved his ban, but £50,000 should have been more like £20,000. i think the f.a. used rio unfairly, as they had sepp blatter breathing down thier necks, and really used rio as an example.
let this be a lesson to people that we are getting harsher and have a 0 tollerance approach on doping and drug-related offences. i think the ban should have been for 2 years, and the fine £22,000. but if rio was guilty, of deliberately missing the test, it would have probably been becoz he had taken drugs, therefore he should have received a life ban. our england team isnt exactly the most sensible. alan smith chucking bottles (he is still a fab player), their poor handling of this issue, and owen owing dyer £50,000 on gambling.
what also what seems strange, is that the ban comes into effect in january, not at the present time. rio has 16 days to appeal, but if he does he risks having his ban increased. i think he will, but nothing will come of it. rio also has to pay for his hearing, which has resulted a further loss of money. some sports stars who receive hefty bans even look at different sports. sprinter dwain chambers, foung guilty of takin the designer steroid t.h.g., is currently pursuin a childhood interest in american football. as for euro 2004, he is a great loss, and will be dearly missed by both the staff, the players and englands slender hopes. however, we do have strength in depth, with players like john terry should have matured, if he already hasnt, by that tournamet. he misses domestic football for man.utd, and the champions league. some people say he should have only been banned from international football, i think is rubbish.
But surely the biggest pain of all for him is missing his chance at euro 2004, wich, if back up players like mills,terry and keown perform, could seem him lose his guarenteed first team place.
But whether he purposly missed the test, and if he did take unessacery or illegal drugs, is an intirely different matter altogether........
if he was found guilty of purposely missing the test, which meant he missed the test on purpose, he would have had something to hide. he then, if found guilty of that, should have got banned for life. to be honest, i think for life is harsh, but i think he did miss it on purpose, i mean, how can you possibly forget something as important as that, even when you had been reminded less than an hour before.
football is the beautiful game, and the best sport, but is lacking in this particular issue. look at the italian f.a. they found inter striker mohammed kallon guilty of missing a test, and he was banned for 2 years. i think this is a fairer ammount for missing a test. once more, it took the italians 4 days to get to this verdict, and us nglish took closer to 4 months. as for the fine, i think that was a bit harsh. he deserved his ban, but £50,000 should have been more like £20,000. i think the f.a. used rio unfairly, as they had sepp blatter breathing down thier necks, and really used rio as an example.
let this be a lesson to people that we are getting harsher and have a 0 tollerance approach on doping and drug-related offences. i think the ban should have been for 2 years, and the fine £22,000. but if rio was guilty, of deliberately missing the test, it would have probably been becoz he had taken drugs, therefore he should have received a life ban. our england team isnt exactly the most sensible. alan smith chucking bottles (he is still a fab player), their poor handling of this issue, and owen owing dyer £50,000 on gambling.
what also what seems strange, is that the ban comes into effect in january, not at the present time. rio has 16 days to appeal, but if he does he risks having his ban increased. i think he will, but nothing will come of it. rio also has to pay for his hearing, which has resulted a further loss of money. some sports stars who receive hefty bans even look at different sports. sprinter dwain chambers, foung guilty of takin the designer steroid t.h.g., is currently pursuin a childhood interest in american football. as for euro 2004, he is a great loss, and will be dearly missed by both the staff, the players and englands slender hopes. however, we do have strength in depth, with players like john terry should have matured, if he already hasnt, by that tournamet. he misses domestic football for man.utd, and the champions league. some people say he should have only been banned from international football, i think is rubbish.
But surely the biggest pain of all for him is missing his chance at euro 2004, wich, if back up players like mills,terry and keown perform, could seem him lose his guarenteed first team place.
But whether he purposly missed the test, and if he did take unessacery or illegal drugs, is an intirely different matter altogether........
Why do you always have to use 'Arsenal' in stuff like this when it's got nothing to do with us.
Gift wrap the title to us?!
Gift wrap the title to us?!
because chelsea would have a few things to say about that! Even funny is that it is now a chance for everyone to see how cap wes brown is. He is an average at best centre back, and now that he'll actually play a game or two people will actually see. They'd be much better of using John O'shea at CB.
So will the FA now go back and ban that Manchester City player (not even going to attempt to spell his second name) for 8 months and fine him £50,000 as well? He did the exact same thing as Rio yet only got a £1,500 fine. Where's the fairness in that?
Rio tried to take the test the same day but was refused and could have made it back in time before the last tester left the ground. Now if the testers couldn't be bothered to wait for him to get back then that's their fault not Rio's and he should just be hit with a hefty fine for leaving the ground in the first place.
This however is absolutely ridiculous and shows that the FA have about as much balls as a Badminton competition and bowed to the pressure of that pillock Blatter and the athletics committee. I hope United do win the appeal and if they don't, take another course of action. Why don't they just gift wrap the title now and send it to Highbury?? Save us all alot of time and bother.
Rio tried to take the test the same day but was refused and could have made it back in time before the last tester left the ground. Now if the testers couldn't be bothered to wait for him to get back then that's their fault not Rio's and he should just be hit with a hefty fine for leaving the ground in the first place.
This however is absolutely ridiculous and shows that the FA have about as much balls as a Badminton competition and bowed to the pressure of that pillock Blatter and the athletics committee. I hope United do win the appeal and if they don't, take another course of action. Why don't they just gift wrap the title now and send it to Highbury?? Save us all alot of time and bother.
Page: