The FA have a mandatory 2 year ban. Doesn't matter what the WADA or the FA say if the Courts find the ban to be illegal.
Lol, the courts won't find that given the hundreds of cases that have set the precedent on bans resulting from the use of prohibited substances.
I don't think our problem is down to lack of ability. It's more down to lack of tactics. Why is it a good idea to play 10 passes around the back while we wait for us to make one mistake. I agree that Robertson seemed to be aiming for the defenders arse when he tried to cross. I was pleasantly surprised by Hernandez. I don't blame Jelavic because he had very little opportunity. I remember once he went up for a ball and for a long time it was obvious the only thing he could do was head it left but nobody even tried to get to the left.
http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/ Have a look under S6 Stimulants.
We failed for the (possible, but likely) reasons I have offered; Bristol failed because he did not want to move there. Why would I bother with Bristol? I don't support them and their business model (financial set-up) is of no interest to me. Clearly, you are all knowing again, but what relevance it has is beyond me. So you think our owners are exercising a strongly thought through transfer policy, do you? Good for you; I'll question it, you defend it. Do you think that if we had offered that same as Burnley that we would have lost his transfer - if we offered more than my suggested figure of £4-5M, but not enough, it could only realistically of been the £500K that was popularly discussed at the time was that such a leap of faith for a proven striker we so desperately need? Can you describe to me your reasoning over how you believe FFP rules would have been an hindrance to his move? Do you really believe Bruce would have been so far out on his experienced assessment of where the wage demand would be? Do you believe Burnley would have broken the bank on wages? You know that wages were a problem for Bristol do you? Can you tell me what his demands were? Instead of trying to be a clever bugger and telling me I shouldn't post, I would advise you to give your own more thought; but do keep posting them as they amuse.
Morning (to most...) I often read this but have never got involved so have taken a quiet Sunday morning to start! Sorry if this has been mentioned recently but I can't be doing with reading the last 20+ pages. Do we still have Palacios on trial? Is he not fit enough even for the bench? Surely SB is fearing the loss of Thudd if he's still here!
I agree with you now we have Maloney almost over the threshold. We shouldn't be ****ing about on proven striker transfers; it will be interesting to see what is next, although we lost the real one.
I don't think FFP comes into it at the moment, we've cleared out enough to have been clear of FFP and to have been able to make the transfer for Gray. I'm sure OLM and Brett Dilkington posted these points. I think it is simply the Allams wanting to take out circa 70% of the money they have tied up in the first team squad. Burns did touch on something that transfers were taking a while Odubajo/Gray - subsequently Gray. It's as if the board want to be seen to be doing the right thing without actually doing it.
Aren't most of these cases are decided in court? I know the ongoing one in Australia with Essendon was decided by a tribunal, so I suppose not a court, but it's being appealed by WADA (who are disagreeing with ASADA's stance on the verdict) so I suppose we'll see. I guess I just would be highly skeptical of us bothering to wrangle this through the courts when it's so cut and dry.
No, but it'll give Matty Dixon a chance to show what he can do. It'll also see the return of Diame, so it could be an interesting game.
No most of them are decided internally. Assem Allam stands to lose £8 million (less what he gets back, if anything from Jake Livermore). Quite a big incentive to push the FA to let him off. If it was so cut and dried he'd have been banned by now.
The FA has no say in whether or not he can be let off. It's down to WADA. They're a bit big for AA to take on.
As I've already said, players found to have taken drugs in Pre-Season (February) down here only got suspended two weeks ago, and the club isn't challenging it. These things take a fair while for one reason or another.
The FA, that doesn't mean they can let the player off, as WADA would appeal it and have him banned. ASADA do the bans here, but WADA can appeal, as they are currently doing on one set of cases. It would be to streamline and minimise the amount of cases WADA have to oversee, rather than any sort of actual power the FA has.
