most of the time my streams are so far behind the draw for the next round has been made before the game has finished but mainly i object to the moral theft of copyright material from a struggling startup like BT
They're not, they are thinking of going against the ruling because apparently the substance is on their banned list
Because the scale of their ****up is going to be a nail in the coffin of their reputation. If Sakho and Liverpool sue they will win. Aside from the millions that will cost them, the precedent it would set would ruin them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...akho-facing-fresh-legal-battle-over-doping-v/ The agency may need to overturn the verdict if it is to avoid legal action over its handling of a saga which threatens to shatter confidence in its ability to lead the fight against drugs in sport. Indeed, a source close to the case told Telegraph Sport that Wada must take “sole responsibility” for the events which culminated in Friday’s outcome. “The way in which Wada managed this case is absolutely unacceptable,” he added. Telegraph Sport has been told by more than one source that proceedings against Sakho would not even have been opened – and would have been dropped much sooner – but for Wada, which insisted on a case being pursued despite mounting evidence any conviction would be unsafe. The agency is said to have intervened almost from the very beginning, when Sakho tested positive for a substance called higenamine following the second leg of Liverpool’s Europa League tie against Manchester United on March 17. The compound was included in a fat-burner Sakho had been taking, which had apparently been checked against Wada’s prohibited list to ensure it was legal. The director of the Wada-accredited laboratory in Cologne which tested Sakho’s doping sample is said to have determined higenamine not to be a banned substance. But, after double-checking with Wada, he was told the agency deemed it to be something known as a beta2 agonist – a category of compounds which are prohibited – and was instructed to report a failed test. This back and forth explains the month-long delay between the test taking place and Sakho being informed of the result on April 22, the day before Liverpool’s 2-2 Premier League draw against Newcastle United. Liverpool recommended Sakho employ one of the world’s leading anti-doping lawyers, Mike Morgan, who is said to have helped the player file a request to be provisionally suspended for 30 days – something he had to do for any subsequent ban to be backdated to the date of the failed test. Morgan is also said to have begun looking into higenamine and to have discovered the science that could reasonably lead Wada to class it as a beta2 agonist was far from robust. An application for the case to be dismissed on that basis was filed to Uefa just after the Europa League final and shortly before Sakho’s provisional ban was due to expire. Uefa chose not to extend the suspension while it made inquiries about higenamine, which it learnt to its horror not all Wada-accredited labseven test for – with that in Cologne being perhaps one of only two which do. Its disciplinary body was also told by the lab director he had not considered higenamine a doping substance until instructed to report it as such by Wada. Last week, Uefa’s disciplinary body finally concluded the evidence for higenamine being a banned substance did not stand up to scrutiny. And although Wada may still seek to argue otherwise, its handling of a case it was unable to convince Uefa to prosecute is another hammer blow – following its humiliating retreat over meldonium – to its credibility as the supreme authority on doping. With Sakho and Liverpool understood to have not ruled out legal action, it is a failure that could prove very costly indeed.
It isn't, and the majory of Wada testers don't even check for it. Wada ordered the test to be reported as failed with no evidence.
Ok with you now not sure how you can be so sure a legal challenge would automatically be successful though
They didn't even bother to send a rep to his hearing. Now that it is apparent they ****ed up they want to change the verdict. So UEFA did not mess up they just followed wadas advice
Not what this says......... But, after double-checking with Wada, he was then told that the agency did, in fact, deem higenamine to be prohibited.
It is what it says. The substance isn't on the banned list and only 2 labs in the world even test for it. The agency ordered the test to be reported as #failed regardless, hence them being totally ****ed
I love the way you read things how you want them to be If they do appeal it will be because they are sure they have a case. We shall have to wait and see
I love the way you ignore the massive newspaper article spelling out Wada's ****up in detail and you like to pretend this is just about me
Ok, let me ask some questions here so you can clue me in. There are "possibly" only two labs testing for this (the article doesn't seem to know the exact number), why do you think they test for it? have they just pulled something out of the air or do you think they have "possibly" read a directive telling them to do so and others haven't bothered to read it. When the lab found traces of it in Sakho's sample why do you think WADA confirmed it was banned, because it was a Liverpool player? Who decides what should be on the list, some outside pharmacist getting paid to say it shouldn't or the people at WADA?
I think the directive thing makes sense. That just proves it isn't standard procedure though. Why should the number of labs be relevant? One or two or ten? If it isn't 100% of all Wada labs testing for it then Wada is a joke. The #reality is it wasn't on the banned list that's available for Sakho, so some moron in charge looking to get a PR win against doping after their other ****ups doesn't have a leg to stand on. Banning Sakho wasn't scientifically sound, and wasn't sound procedure. What's the point of a public list for athletes to consult if a Wada manager can phone a lab and let them know what this week's secretly banned substance is?
TBF though yes this time it wasn't UEFA's well known anti-Liverpool stance responsible, it was a desperate Wada exec looking to repair their reputation for incompetence with a high profile 'win' but ****ing things up again
