Tbf I didn't make it clear in my first post.
(I'm sure my phone's got a secret 'Allo 'Allo app installed. Every time I type post it comes out as pist, most as mist and just as jist - and on an on and on
Last edited:
David Coote
- Thread starter luvgonzo
- Start date
-
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
-
(I'm sure my phone's got a secret 'Allo 'Allo app installed. Every time I type post it comes out as pist, most as mist and just as jist - and on an on and on
He's probably not the only ref to be taking cocaine, just the only one stupid enough to do it on camera.
Suspect a fair few refs socialise together so some others would have known for sure, and bosses probably would have suspicions if his use was long term.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,752
- 25,680
- 113
Have to wonder why pgmol aren’t doing random drug testing in their refs throughout the season as standard anyway in same way players are.
Well I guess there's an argument for it (though I wouldn't agree personally) but it's not really a fair comparison to players?
Players are professional athletes who in basically all sports are banned from taking drugs even outside of work. Referees aren't athletes and therefore aren't under those same restrictions.
- May 22, 2011
- 73,752
- 25,680
- 113
Surely as an organisation they will have a no drug and alcohol tolerance like majority of companies do. I’m not an athlete but get tested when sitting in an office randomly.
These are people who are athletes and performing at top level of their profession as well as being in charge of player safety on the field. They should not be under the influence.
this and to add to that a little.
whilst the performing enhancing aspect is a moot point. the integrity of it is very valid.
given the flack refs get for decisions, then when you consider how drugs impare your decision making and judgement then that's a big problem.
Yeah like I say there's an argument for it, I just don't think that saying because the players do is the best argument.
Loads of companies also don't do drug testing too, an obvious example is the NHS which is probably the biggest employer in the country. I've never had a drug test whilst working an office job personally, only when operating machinery.
Important clarification though, implementing drug testing doesn't just mean they can't work under the influence, it means they can't ever be under the influence even in their free time.
If the player safety aspect is important do you think should it be at all professional levels or just the PL?
I'm quite curious now as to whether other sports do it.
This is the strongest argument for it imo, though you could argue lots of things impact judgement ie alcohol/stress.
Nothing performance enhancing about cocaine anyway mind and physical exertion really isn't a good idea
All players and competing athletes in British sport are compelled to undergo routine and surprise drug testing.
Yeah I know? My point is refs aren't competing which is why I think saying "well the players get tested" is a poor argument for it.
The impaired judgement is a much stronger argument imo.
Do you know if any other sports randomly test officials?
- May 22, 2011
- 73,752
- 25,680
- 113
Given that it’s also illegal then also see no problem in them not being able to do it in their own time. The debate about weed and legalities is a whole different debate but as of current rules then yes, no Problem in them not being under influence in their own time.
And yes I do think all levels should be. If you’re being paid then it should be part of it. I’d be massively surprised that it’s not in their contract or they don’t already have a policy which states they can’t do it to be honest.
Even the nhs I imagine despite not doing testing, there is still a policy that says you can’t be under influence and if they suspect someone is, they have the right to do random testing.
Yeah I'm sure if somebody seems under the influence they can test but was just responding to your mention of most large companies do random testing by pointing out that lots won't too.
I personally wouldn't have a problem with a ref smoking weed on his own time but alcohol or class A close to a game obviously would be an issue. I suspect you're right that it's in their contract that they can't come to work under the influence and imagine that's pretty standard everywhere.
The problem doing it throughout the leagues is one of cost and also I suspect you'd lose many people too, particularly outside of the premier league.
When you said you were curious if other sports did it I presumed you meant players in other sports. I'm guessing from this comment you meant officials of other sports. After a bit of research, the answer to that seems to be no although FIFA wanted to introduce it in 2012 but no more was heard from them after the initial announcement. The NBA and MLB in America test referees and umpires on a regular basis.
Ah yeah apologies, reading back it wasn't particularly clear.
Interesting about the US.
Maybe the US being a litigation culture, a team could sue if a ref or umpire was found to be under the influence when their team lost.
As you said earlier, the reasoning for not testing officials in sport here is because they can't gain a sporting advantage which obviously is true but misses the point about them maybe having their decision making compromised.