FIFA anti-doping executive D'Hooghe: "Rio Ferdinand must be punished"

[Litmanen]

The FIFA anti-doping executive D'Hooghe has threatened FA that if they don't punish Rio Ferdinand FIFA will use its right to intervene in the matter.

Hopefully they are wise in FA and give Rio a ban, otherwise it can become very dirty.

 

[redinsyd]

Have you not learned your lesson you WUM cnut?

It is very unlikely that Rio will get a ban

From Soccernet

The Football Association are understood to be planning to ask Rio Ferdinand for his mobile phone records before they decide on what, if any, charges he will face for missing a drugs test.

The FA are to reportedly set to request the records plus some additional information from Manchester United as part of their investigation

Only then will they decide whether the United defender is to be charged with 'failing to attend an anti-doping test' or the more serious offence of 'wilful failure to attend an anti-doping test'.

Ferdinand claims he left Manchester United's Carrington training ground on September 23 after having forgotten he was supposed to be tested.

Frantic efforts by United staff to contact him on his mobile phone failed until that afternoon.

If his phone records prove it was switched off for the hours immediately after leaving training then it will help Ferdinand's mitigation that he did not deliberately avoid the drugs testers.

The FA have been told that United's club doctor Mike Stone told Ferdinand twice about his test - Nicky Butt, Ryan Giggs and a junior player were also tested - but he still forgot and went off shopping for household goods as he was moving house.

Meanwhile, United chief executive David Gill has confirmed Ferdinand will be available for selection against on Saturday as they travel to Elland Road to face his former club, Leeds United.

Despite being left out of the England squad last week, the 24-year-old will not be suspended before or after being charged - under FA regulations he is only suspended as a punishment and a ban is by no means certain.

Gill told the Manchester Evening News: 'Rio will continue to be selected until such time as whatever punishment is decided upon is meted out and begins.

'The manager and his United team-mates would want him to be selected I am sure. As a club we'd be comfortable with him being chosen. We clearly know the facts behind the case and there is no moral dilemma.

'The club has reacted in the past when it felt it was necessary to do so. United suspended Eric Cantona in 1995 following his unfortunate incident with a fan against Crystal Palace. You take each case on its merits and there is no requirement we feel not to carry on playing Rio if the manager chooses him.'

Ferdinand's case could be raised at FIFA's executive board meeting in Doha later this week.

FIFA's medical committee head Michel D'Hooghe stressed today that Ferdinand's case was serious and that he had to be punished.

Punished = yes,
Banned = No

 

[lonbwoy]

Study his Phone records??, what is this a police investigation??, the FA are really being ridiculous now.

 

[Gillespie]

Study his Phone records??, what is this a police investigation??, the FA are really being ridiculous now.

Seems reasonable to me.How else do you assess whether it was wilful avoidance or not ?? Look on the bright side...his mobile phone records will clear him if it was switched off.In which case he'll only get a caution,I'd have thought,plus possibly a fine.

 

[Stoned.Rose]

Just watching they think its all over it showed a picture of Rio in Manchester that afternoon with his mobile phone in his hand.

 

[Rams]

Just watching they think its all over it showed a picture of Rio in Manchester that afternoon with his mobile phone in his hand.

kin funny though

 

[green demon]

Just watching they think its all over it showed a picture of Rio in Manchester that afternoon with his mobile phone in his hand.

But was that after he had tried to make contact? If so, I'm sure he would have his mobile in his hand waiting to hear if the Dopey Testers were still about.

 

[Red Dreams]

But was that after he had tried to make contact? If so, I'm sure he would have his mobile in his hand waiting to hear if the Dopey Testers were still about.

Apparently he called the FA asking to speak to the folks in charge of the testing.....He has names of people he spoke to at the FA....
The fact is he can prove that he did attempt to contact the FA about taking the test...the same day! So he can prove he was not avoiding the test...He missed it...two different matters. And the precedent for missing a test has never concluded with a ban. Also the highest fine has been 2000 pounds.

 

[green demon]

Apparently he called the FA asking to speak to the folks in charge of the testing.....He has names of people he spoke to at the FA....
The fact is he can prove that he did attempt to contact the FA about taking the test...the same day! So he can prove he was not avoiding the test...He missed it...two different matters. And the precedent for missing a test has never concluded with a ban. Also the highest fine has been 2000 pounds.

That explains being seen with a mobile. But the FA have already banned him from one England match, how many more will they ban him from just to prove a point?

 

[Red Dreams]

That explains being seen with a mobile. But the FA have already banned him from one England match, how many more will they ban him from just to prove a point?

The FA dont call it a ban...just being prudent...cause they screwed up!

 

[Kristjan]

The FIFA anti-doping executive D'Hooghe has threatened FA that if they don't punish Rio Ferdinand FIFA will use its right to intervene in the matter.

what right ?

 

[redevil2]

Hopefully they are wise in FA and give Rio a ban, otherwise it can become very dirty.

maybe you consider yourself wise to stage a protest against the FA 's getting Rio off lightly when it happens then!!! Even the gooners wouldnt go so far as your statement against UNITED! What makes you hate United so much you have to come on here? I wonder!

But you are on a mission on behalf of a lot of ABUs, so why would i be wondering?

 

[Cal?]

The FIFA anti-doping executive D'Hooghe has threatened FA that if they don't punish Rio Ferdinand FIFA will use its right to intervene in the matter.

Hopefully they are wise in FA and give Rio a ban, otherwise it can become very dirty.

Why should you worry, for an ABU like yourself, surely the more bad press United receive the better? Non?

 

[The King]

Telephone CDR's will never show if his phone was on or off, it can only show the numbers originating and terminating on the mobile. Rio is in shit if the records show that he avoided the calls by the testers and actually answered other personal calls. Only the cell information will show if his mobile was on or not, and to do that, its got to be a police report i think! I doubt if the FA can get such records walking up to BT, they will tell them to feck off as they have to protect the subscriber.

Easy, even if he was photographed with a mobile or missed calls from the testers, just say that he left the phone at home or something...and he was using a friends phone at that time...

 

[Red15]

FIFA's statement shows that they've already pre-judged the case. And I assume they didn't have a representative present when Rio was interviewed by the FA the other day, so in effect they're judging him based on what they've read in the media and possibly through their other sources. How can that possibly be fair?

 

[Cal?]

Telephone CDR's will never show if his phone was on or off, it can only show the numbers originating and terminating on the mobile. Rio is in shit if the records show that he avoided the calls by the testers and actually answered other personal calls. Only the cell information will show if his mobile was on or not, and to do that, its got to be a police report i think! I doubt if the FA can get such records walking up to BT, they will tell them to feck off as they have to protect the subscriber.

Easy, even if he was photographed with a mobile or missed calls from the testers, just say that he left the phone at home or something...and he was using a friends phone at that time...

If they want phone records, I'm sure Vodafone can be very helpful in such circumstances.

 

[devilish]

Why doesnt the FA ask for Rio's DNA and check whether or not the unsolved murders in the last 24 years havent been done by him?

If I was Rio I would hang my England's boots for good and let England plow their trade with Terry, Campbell and Keown. I mean, the FA would protect you more if you are a thug right?

 

[Cal?]

Quite, Rio should just threaten them with international retirement like Campbell did and that should ensure he gets off scotch free.

 

[The King]

Cal, i doubt very heavily that the mobile service provider will reveal such details unless its a police case or some legal body applies for it. I dont think the football authority has a right to demand, unless they force Rio to get those details for them. I dont think they can do it directly.

 

[MadDogg]

If Rio is in the right, surely he would be very happy for them to get these records as they would give weight to his story.

 

[Jacqueline_S]

just punishes, no banning plz

 

[Gutsy]

The FIFA anti-doping executive D'Hooghe has threatened FA that if they don't punish Rio Ferdinand FIFA will use its right to intervene in the matter.

Hopefully they are wise in FA and give Rio a ban, otherwise it can become very dirty.

You HOPE Rio gets a ban? You have called, no DEMANDED in a few threads now that Rio gets a 2 month ban, when everyone else is calling for a fine and yet you claim you are not a wum? Why would it get dirty if Rio was just fined? Sol escaped a ban and was given a pathetic fine for intentionally kicking another player, yet you think that Rio should miss 16 matches...... Infeckincredible, seriously guy, you really need to go outdoors, find a woman, and get a life.

 

[Cal?]

Cal, i doubt very heavily that the mobile service provider will reveal such details unless its a police case or some legal body applies for it. I dont think the football authority has a right to demand, unless they force Rio to get those details for them. I dont think they can do it directly.

I'm sure Rio will happily oblige to provide them with details produced by Vodafone.

 

[Cal?]

You HOPE Rio gets a ban? You have called, no DEMANDED in a few threads now that Rio gets a 2 month ban, when everyone else is calling for a fine and yet you claim you are not a wum? Why would it get dirty if Rio was just fined? Sol escaped a ban and was given a pathetic fine for intentionally kicking another player, yet you think that Rio should miss 16 matches...... Infeckincredible, seriously guy, you really need to go outdoors, find a woman, and get a life.

Please, no unfounded speculations of Lit's sexual preference.

 

[Gutsy]

Please, no unfounded speculations of Lit's sexual preference.

True.. He does have an air of an ascending horticulturist....

 

[Jacqueline_S]

FA calls for Rio phone records


The questions Rio must answer
Rio Ferdinand's mobile telephone records could form the cornerstone of his defence against charges over his missed drugs test.
The Football Association has ordered the England defender to produce the record of his calls, which could determine the seriousness of the charge he faces.

Phone records could back Ferdinand's claim that he simply forgot to take the test, switched his phone off and could not be contacted by Manchester United officials for a crucial 90-minute period.

If records back that claim, he could face a lesser charge of failing to attend a drugs test, which would only carry a fine.

But any calls made during the period would allow the FA to lay a more serious charge that he wilfully ignored calls to attend the drugs test.

That charge could carry a maximum two-year ban from football.

We will let the English do their work first. If everything is correct, we won't have to do anything

Fifa's Michel D'Hooghe

Meanwhile, Fifa has warned that it could launch its own action if it feel Ferdinand has been treated too leniently by English football's governing body.

Fifa's medical committee head Michel D'Hooghe said: "This is a serious case. Ferdinand certainly has to be punished.

"We are waiting to assess whether a serious sanction is forthcoming - one which fits the infringement.

"We will let the English do their work first. If everything is correct, we won't have to do anything."

Ferdinand met Steve Barrow, head of the FA's compliance unit, along with his legal team and officials from the Professional Footballers' Association on Monday.

The former Leeds and West Ham defender later issued a statement.

"In accordance with the FA procedures and timetable, I participated today in an FA interview and provided the association with a full and detailed explanation of my failure to take a random test on 23 September.

"My explanation dealt with a number of issues, including the reasons why I failed to attend the test and my attempts to rectify the situation with a test that same day.

"I also reiterated my condemnation of drugs in sport."


Analysis:
Why the war of words will rage on

Ferdinand, who claims he forgot about the test as he was moving house, did eventually take - and pass - a test 36 hours later but that will not have any bearing on any disciplinary action.

Meanwhle FA chief executive Mark Palios hit back at criticism of the body's handling of the affair.

Palios took the step of issuing a letter to FA staff, defending the action taken.

The letter said: "Some people have questioned whether we at any point, stepped outside our due process for disciplinary decisions.

"I can confirm we have not.

"It's also very important to note that at no time did we breach confidentiality.

"To the best of my knowledge, tis organisation did not leak any confidential information."

 

[holyland red]

FIFA obviously didn'y thing that the FA was too lenient with city's player in similar cicrumstances.

Actually, the whole thing is just such a boring affair. Grateful that real football is only 3 days away, after that international break that allowed alleged rapes, drug tests and other boring stuff to reach the headlines.

 

[Livvie]

Study his Phone records??, what is this a police investigation??, the FA are really being ridiculous now.

This is getting silly now. Siege mentality again.

If it proves that Rio did try to phone the FA or whoever, within a couple of hours of missing the test, then it's in his interest!

If it isn't in his interest, then that means he lied, so quite frankly, will have to take whatever punishment is handed out.

And I'm not sure it's wise for him to play against Leeds on Saturday either, unless the FA don't have a problem with it. We shouldn't be taking the FA on here like we are the injured/innocent victims, as we have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the whole mess. And if we do upset the FA any further, it could come back to haunt us when Cristiano and Giggsy get their hearing.

It may have been handled badly to start with but I don't see the point in making it worse.

 

[Livvie]

You HOPE Rio gets a ban? You have called, no DEMANDED in a few threads now that Rio gets a 2 month ban, when everyone else is calling for a fine and yet you claim you are not a wum? Why would it get dirty if Rio was just fined? Sol escaped a ban and was given a pathetic fine for intentionally kicking another player, yet you think that Rio should miss 16 matches...... Infeckincredible, seriously guy, you really need to go outdoors, find a woman, and get a life.

I think what he means is that if the FA are seen to handle it in a way that FIFA approves of, they are unlikely to step in with a worse ban. Not unlike when we suspended Eric - the idea was the same.

 

[Bury Red]

And I'm not sure it's wise for him to play against Leeds on Saturday either, unless the FA don't have a problem with it. We shouldn't be taking the FA on here like we are the injured/innocent victims, as we have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the whole mess. And if we do upset the FA any further, it could come back to haunt us when Cristiano and Giggsy get their hearing.

It may have been handled badly to start with but I don't see the point in making it worse.

I'd play him until the FA pass judgement, you're right that we can't treat this like an anti United conspiracy but why should we compound the prejudice Rio's already received and hinder our cause in the process. If Rio's fit and mentally ready then we should play him as the FA will not back date any ban to account for any pre-emptive action by United. As for colouring the impending judgements over Giggs and Ronnie, I would imagine the FA should be more worried about any bias creeping into their decisions than vice versa.

I think what he means is that if the FA are seen to handle it in a way that FIFA approves of, they are unlikely to step in with a worse ban. Not unlike when we suspended Eric - the idea was the same.

It would probably have the same success as our pre-emptive action on Eric had as well, we handed him a ludicrously long ban and the FA feeling they should be seen to do something increased it further . If you're going to play that game, start like you're haggling in the Soukh at a fraction of the realistic goal and then any increase is less damaging. I read FIFA's words as a warning that they are watching, nothing more nothing less and provided the FA have a reasoned prosecution and punishment backed by precedent then they are unlikely to push it any further, we have already gone further than any other nation would by pulling him from an international before the hearing.

 

[Livvie]

Well whatever the rights and wrongs, I'd like to see us behave with dignity over it, and not take the Kenneth Williams stance of "Infamy infamy, they've all got it in for me", thus perpetuating the image of the persecution complex....let's leave that to Mr. Wenger.

 

[kkcbl]

This is getting silly now. Siege mentality again.

If it proves that Rio did try to phone the FA or whoever, within a couple of hours of missing the test, then it's in his interest!

If it isn't in his interest, then that means he lied, so quite frankly, will have to take whatever punishment is handed out.

And I'm not sure it's wise for him to play against Leeds on Saturday either, unless the FA don't have a problem with it. We shouldn't be taking the FA on here like we are the injured/innocent victims, as we have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the whole mess. And if we do upset the FA any further, it could come back to haunt us when Cristiano and Giggsy get their hearing.

It may have been handled badly to start with but I don't see the point in making it worse.

I agree.

 

[Bury Red]

Well whatever the rights and wrongs, I'd like to see us behave with dignity over it, and not take the Kenneth Williams stance of "Infamy infamy, they've all got it in for me", thus perpetuating the image of the persecution complex....let's leave that to Mr. Wenger.

Agreed, but we also shouldn't take the Frank Bruno stance of "I know I'm gonna get hit so I'll run onto it to get it over with quicker"

 

[kkcbl]

It would probably have the same success as our pre-emptive action on Eric had as well, we handed him a ludicrously long ban and the FA feeling they should be seen to do something increased it further . If you're going to play that game, start like you're haggling in the Soukh at a fraction of the realistic goal and then any increase is less damaging. I read FIFA's words as a warning that they are watching, nothing more nothing less and provided the FA have a reasoned prosecution and punishment backed by precedent then they are unlikely to push it any further, we have already gone further than any other nation would by pulling him from an international before the hearing.

You're right about the perverse logic of disciplinary hearings - I have had personal experiences when I've represented my players in disciplinary hearings - it seems it's better if we made a hue & cry rather than just roll over & get screwed anyway!

 

[Litmanen]

I don't know how reliable this is, but I read FIFA wants FA to dish out at least a 3 month ban. It is unofficial of course.

Do you really believe that they mean a 2,000 fine with "serious sanctions" (direct qoute)??? God in what kind of a world do you live in?? And it is not just your average FIFA member speaking, but the head of their anti-doping committee.

Don't give me this Manchester City player bullshit. Who cared about him? No-one. You must understand that the rules are different when it is a high-profile player, like Rio Ferdinand one of the five most well known defenders in the world, and the authorities want to send a "positive message" to the millions of children who follow the game and idolize players like Ferdinand. There are bigger things at stake than your ill-advised concept of fairness and Rio being available for every game.

I say I want FA to give Rio a ban, because if they don't FIFA is certain to intervene and then in the end you will cry why FA didn't act differently.

I think 2 month ban is about correct. It probably pleases FIFA, it doesn't harm Manchester United's chances considerably (the real games start in 2004) and it gives time for Rio to re-think his priorities and take responsibility.

This is a point of view, which I think is not that illogical or "ABUish" or whatever you call it. Is one not allowed to think outside the common concepts here?

Should I join in the mindless nonsense about FA being anti-Utd and Rio a victim?? Please...

 

[holyland red]

I don't know how reliable this is, but I read FIFA wants FA to dish out at least a 3 month ban. It is unofficial of course.

Do you really believe that they mean a 2,000 fine with "serious sanctions" (direct qoute)??? God in what kind of a world do you live in?? And it is not just your average FIFA member speaking, but the head of their anti-doping committee.

Don't give me this Manchester City player bullshit. Who cared about him? No-one. You must understand that the rules are different when it is a high-profile player, like Rio Ferdinand one of the five most well known defenders in the world, and the authorities want to send a "positive message" to the millions of children who follow the game and idolize players like Ferdinand. There are bigger things at stake than your ill-advised concept of fairness and Rio being available for every game.

I say I want FA to give Rio a ban, because if they don't FIFA is certain to intervene and then in the end you will cry why FA didn't act differently.

I think 2 month ban is about correct. It probably pleases FIFA, it doesn't harm Manchester United's chances considerably (the real games start in 2004) and it gives time for Rio to re-think his priorities and take responsibility.

This is a point of view, which I think is not that illogical or "ABUish" or whatever you call it. Is one not allowed to think outside the common concepts here?

Should I join in the mindless nonsense about FA being anti-Utd and Rio a victim?? Please...

I am not bothered with calling you ABUish, but your post is crapish.
If you accept FIFA making an example out of Rio (who was a stupid cnut to miss the test), next you'll be calling for the FA to ban Ronaldo and Giggs for the OT brawl, because FIFA might make an example out of that issue too.
Rio should be dealt with in the same way as any other player, and I would expect United's legal experts to step in if he wasn't.

 

[Amir]

Don't give me this Manchester City player bullshit. Who cared about him? No-one. You must understand that the rules are different when it is a high-profile player, like Rio Ferdinand

No, the rules aren't different. Whats different is how the people who are supposed to enforce those rules act. It's the same rule for everyone, basic rule of life surely. Nowhere in the FA rules is it written that high profile players should get more severe punishments than those who are rather unknown.

And if all Rio is guilty of is just forgetting a test, a two month ban is not acceptable, especially when no one else got such a punishment for a similar offence. If he is guilty of not giving a damn or trying to hide something, then he deserves whatever he gets.

 

[Gutsy]

This is a point of view, which I think is not that illogical or "ABUish" or whatever you call it. Is one not allowed to think outside the common concepts here?

Should I join in the mindless nonsense about FA being anti-Utd and Rio a victim?? Please...

Trouble is ALL your "views" are negative, i dont think i have yet to see ONE single positive post from you yet, you put the target on yoiur own back and then you are naive enough to claim the victim.... sheesh.....

NOT one single person on here really thinks that Rio should go unpunished, but how is banning Rio for 2 months fair when other players have escaped with no ban whatsoever and a small fine for the same offence? Rio is a "higher" profile player than a Man Shitty one, fair point but does that mean he should be singled out and used as the sacrificial lamb so the FA can be shown to be flexing some muscle? All this is is some suits trying to make a name for themselves of Rio's name and standing in the football community and i think his treatment from the FA is nothing short of scandalous.

 

[redevil2]

We shouldn't be taking the FA on here like we are the injured/innocent victims, as we have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the whole mess. And if we do upset the FA any further, it could come back to haunt us when Cristiano and Giggsy get their hearing.

It may have been handled badly to start with but I don't see the point in making it worse.

let's be clear, what FA has done right now (the leak, the breach of confidentiality, not to mention the irreversible tarnishing of his reputation... and failure to represent his country etc etc.... ) is far more than disgrace!!!

Bearing in mind a mirror image incident happened to a non United player in the past recieved far lenient treatment so why cant we voice out the injustice?? If FA wants to be seen as whiter than white, obviously they should act fairly (at least on the face of it), and according to precedents, and to treat every player all the same!!! Why a higher profile player should be treated any differently if FA wants to be seen as fair??? The prejudiced panel (representative from other clubs) who would make a decision which will affect Rio obviously has a vested interest, rather than acting on fairness, IMHO!!

I accept that antaganising FA more nowby making more noise might backfire on Rio,.....which we dont want to happen, But similarily, the public might serve as a watchdog giving pressure for them not to act unfairly. By the very nature of what Rio has done, i.e. 'Failing to give a test' which is a strict liability regardless of motive or reason, punishment is not avoidable by the rules of the book. But banning was not among those punishment if the charge is any less than 'willful avoidance', and it's not a case of 'failing to pass a test' either!

 

[An Extremely Boring Man]

I don't know how reliable this is, but I read FIFA wants FA to dish out at least a 3 month ban. It is unofficial of course.

Do you really believe that they mean a 2,000 fine with "serious sanctions" (direct qoute)??? God in what kind of a world do you live in?? And it is not just your average FIFA member speaking, but the head of their anti-doping committee.

Don't give me this Manchester City player bullshit. Who cared about him? No-one. You must understand that the rules are different when it is a high-profile player, like Rio Ferdinand one of the five most well known defenders in the world, and the authorities want to send a "positive message" to the millions of children who follow the game and idolize players like Ferdinand. There are bigger things at stake than your ill-advised concept of fairness and Rio being available for every game.

I say I want FA to give Rio a ban, because if they don't FIFA is certain to intervene and then in the end you will cry why FA didn't act differently.

I think 2 month ban is about correct. It probably pleases FIFA, it doesn't harm Manchester United's chances considerably (the real games start in 2004) and it gives time for Rio to re-think his priorities and take responsibility.

This is a point of view, which I think is not that illogical or "ABUish" or whatever you call it. Is one not allowed to think outside the common concepts here?

Should I join in the mindless nonsense about FA being anti-Utd and Rio a victim?? Please...

Agreed