Luis Suarez appreciation thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Sell or Not

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 63.4%

  • No

    Votes: 15 36.6%
  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Milk said:
I don't think the ban is necessarily excessive. I just think out of reality when compared to punches, kicks, elbows, etc.
Click to expand...


Nah mate, no training, not even allowed in a stadium
#definitelyexcessive

Taking illegal substances to improve performance means you cheat and break rules in every game you play while you are doing it, both international and domestic. That's why it is such a heavy ban for that, and a full ban.
 
Lol, no, it was his comments

Worthy of discussion, if it gets out of hand (cant see it doing though) then lockdown mothertrucker!
 
Milk said:
I don't think the ban is necessarily excessive. I just think out of reality when compared to punches, kicks, elbows, etc.
Click to expand...

This. Hard to argue he doesn't deserve it, but FIFA had to re-write there rule book and give an unprecedented ban, especially the domestic one, based on populist purposes as much as anything else. That said, FIFA can do that - like the FA it is a law onto itself, and the only way either can be challenged is through CAS, and Liverpool have been very scared and cowardly to do that in the past, even when statutes and procedures favoured them. In this case there is surely bugger-all for Liverpool to gain in sabre-rattling when FIFA know they won't do a fig. Should be interesting to see if Liverpool have redress against the Uruguayan FA though, even if they have to sell at cut price.

Otherwise, it's a fair penalty but arrived at out of an on the hoof policy and procedures that sum up FIFA aptly. Be interesting to see what the appeal brings forth.
 
Milk said:
I don't think the ban is necessarily excessive. I just think out of reality when compared to punches, kicks, elbows, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's not that his ban is too harsh, it's that those other offences are treated too leniently.
 
lol @ that beak and roid headed cheating fat mess Maradona coming out in support, that's like Gary Glitter gving a character reference for Savile.
 
Can't agree folks, for various reasons, a full ban is given for very valid reasons when it is doping. because the offence takes place in both international and domestic.

Even if they up the ban for elbowing, they won't ban for it domestically.

Also, they should not be making new rules when incidences occur, then how is that fair, to have a new punishment created for your crime.

imagine you ran a red light and they said, we're gonna change it so you can get 4 years, if you knew it was 4 years would you have ran the red light in the first place.

punishments are meant to be a deterrent after all. So they just change the punishment. Biting IS covered under the rules, violent conduct. Any suggestion it is not is bollocks..
 
Sisu said:
Can't agree folks, for various reasons, a full ban is given for very valid reasons when it is doping. because the offence takes place in both international and domestic.

Even if they up the ban for elbowing, they won't ban for it domestically.

Also, they should not be making new rules when new incidences ofccur, then how is that fair, to ahve a new punishment created for your crime.

imagine you ran a red light and they said, we're gonna change it so you can get 4 years, if you knew it was 4 years would you have ran the red light in the first place.

punishments are meant to be a deterrent after all. So they just change the punishment. Biting IS covered under the rules, violent conduct.
Click to expand...

I actually make you right there. <yikes>

I never thought he'd get a total football ban, as there was no precedent for it and it looked to be stretching the current rule book to administer one.

I think given his previous it's probably the right result, but I also think your point about a known deterent is a fair one.......but then again if he was acting due to a compulsive disorder, then no level of deterrent would make any difference eh mate ;)
 
Sisu said:
Can't agree folks, for various reasons, a full ban is given for very valid reasons when it is doping. because the offence takes place in both international and domestic.

Even if they up the ban for elbowing, they won't ban for it domestically.

Also, they should not be making new rules when incidences occur, then how is that fair, to have a new punishment created for your crime.

imagine you ran a red light and they said, we're gonna change it so you can get 4 years, if you knew it was 4 years would you have ran the red light in the first place.

punishments are meant to be a deterrent after all. So they just change the punishment. Biting IS covered under the rules, violent conduct. Any suggestion it is not is bollocks..
Click to expand...

With drugs you also don't know when or how long he was doing it before the test found it out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back