Sakho Suspended For Failing Doping Test.

  • 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!
moreinjuredthanowen said:
Mutu got sacked for cocaine. Merson did not, nor bosnich.. and fredinand didn't do a test but got 8months... cheslea decided to do for him and then pursued him after he joined a different team after his ban... they were quite draconian honestly.

I believe in zero tolerance of this stuff. You cannot have the best medical staff possible then have a guy flout it. he's done damage to the team and club so he should get whats coming.
Click to expand...

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.
 
InBiscanWeTrust said:
I don't know if employment law allows you to actually employ someone, not allow them to resign/terminate contract and not pay them.
Click to expand...

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.

[HASHTAG]#compromise[/HASHTAG]

[HASHTAG]#agreement[/HASHTAG]

[HASHTAG]#notdisputed[/HASHTAG]
 
Tobes said:
It is a very 'black and white' thing.

He took the pills, (he's apparently admitted it) they contain a banned substance / substances - therefore he's guilty - the end.

His motives (whatever they were) are neither here nor there, he KNEW that he's subject to testing and therefore shouldn't ingest anything that wasn't signed off as being OK by the clubs medical team, but he chose to ignore that and take whatever he took, for whatever purpose.
Click to expand...

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
 
BobbyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the issue, as only he knows what purpose he took it for........
 
BobbyD said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobbyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Saxton
Tobes said:
It is a very 'black and white' thing.

He took the pills, (he's apparently admitted it) they contain a banned substance / substances - therefore he's guilty - the end.

His motives (whatever they were) are neither here nor there, he KNEW that he's subject to testing and therefore shouldn't ingest anything that wasn't signed off as being OK by the clubs medical team, but he chose to ignore that and take whatever he took, for whatever purpose.
Click to expand...

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
 
astroturfnaut said:
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
Click to expand...
His transgressing of the rules is Black and White.

The only thing that is subjective is the length of the ban.
 
Tobes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
astroturfnaut said:
And the response of the club/fans accordingly
Click to expand...
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.
 
BobbyD said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never said that though.....

Try reading what I actually said and come back to me x
 
Tobes said:
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.

[HASHTAG]#compromise[/HASHTAG]

[HASHTAG]#agreement[/HASHTAG]

[HASHTAG]#notdisputed[/HASHTAG]
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like an Ashley zero hours contract
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back