He's done damage to the team yup. 2 things though: I've made mistakes at work Sahko strikes me as a dumb footballer For me it's common sense, its on the banned list (Chemicals right, not the actual pill itself) and this stuff probably isn't as straight forward as it seems (yes i know he should have consulted the doctor) but a diet pill (if thats all it is and not as a masking agent) is not in itself a massive deal. It's just because it happened to be part of the banned substance. Throwing him to the wolves is akin giving him a murder charge when all he's done is done is swiped the ciggies from a newsagents. Anyway, from an owners perspective, it's yes he's done damage to the team but: Is it better to get rid of him or to keep him. He might not be able to play for 2 years, he's costing x amount in wages, he's been banned for drugs (reputational damage, squad morale etc). Or he gets a ban for a year, we could still shift him on for 20m, he's still young enough to come back and is potentially our best defender etc. That's the question LFC must ask themselves.
IF HE AGREES TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT ACCEPTS HE WON'T BE PAID FOR THE DURATION OF HIS BAN, THAT ALSO STATES HE WON'T BE SUED FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT. #compromise #agreement #notdisputed
Not if he thought what he was taking was not a banned substance. If i fed lukaku duck laced with steroids and he ingested it and its in his blood stream then because he's got banned drugs in his body he is guilty and thats the end of that. Drugs cheat
There's no suggestion that he didn't know what he'd ingested, so your 'spiking' analogy is absolute nonsense. Ignorance is no excuse in this circumstance. Ask any athlete, they all know the score and for the vast majority it's not an issue. "ooops, I forgot" is a bollocks excuse, and nothing more.
no... the list of drugs has market names on them. there is no excuse to take anything not given by the lfc medical staff employed to ensure they are safe. read sharapova stuff.. the drug she failed on had lots of different trade names all on the banned list given to her and she tired to claim she failed to read it once but the other two communications were missed as they were not specific enough.. was it taken.. no.. everyone said you got caught. the thing is on a banned list. he took it.. anything else positive or negative is a supposition. He's done for a drugs ban now for a period to be determined. I have never seen a footballer banned that long frankly though that is a athletics type ban. He might get 6 months, 9 months, a year... irrespective he will never be our best anything simply cos now he's going to be replaced as needs must... sure a guy has 6 months it looks ah well maybe this or that but look at the pictues already... he's now portrayed as a snorter. we can't change it. now in pre and post match conferences klopp will have to answer on this not anything else when LFc should be looking at a europa semi final!
If it were black and white there would be the standard 2 years ban and that's all, in fact it would be a life ban The fact there is an option to reduce it to as little as 6 months suggests it's not black and white
His transgressing of the rules is Black and White. The only thing that is subjective is the length of the ban.
I'm not denying he's failed the drugs test and i'm in agreement that he should get banned. I'm debating your suggestion he took drugs deliberately (you questions astro mentioning Sahko might have taken it in good faith which i'm meaning to be that it wasn't a banned drug) in the knowledge that it was a banned substance in order to gain an advantage and because of that he should have the book thrown at him.
Yes I would agree. He's not had chance to explain his actions yet, and the full details of the exact banned substances concerned haven't been made public. Both will be the key factors in the length of his ban and how your club / fans react to him post it being handed down.
