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

[redevil2]

Don't give me this Manchester City player bullshit. Who cared about him? No-one.

I am sure if it was a Shitty player, you wont be asking for a ban or whatever because that's not a typical ABU or WUM would do in a United forum!

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

you are saying the FA is sending a positive message, while you are sending a very negative message to millions of children who idoised Rio! >>that playing good football and asking for justice to be done plays no part, you are still

1. banned to play for your own country before found guilty (even before being charged!!!), and

2. banned to play for your own team even the charge is a 'failing to take a test' and not 'failing to pass a test', and rules are applied arbitrarily with no justice seen to be done!

That's a message you want the FA to give to the young ones>>>No justice in the real world!!!

 

[CRAYFORDBOY]

Livie, two great posts, you almost had me with you there, but you just lost me at the end of your second.

 

[Stick]

From what i can tell in this situation both sides have made silly errors!! Rio in missing the test and not getting tested for 36 hours which leaves question marks over whether he knew what he was doing and also the fa for sending a lad to test the players who was more interested in getting a tour of OT for releasing a players name to the papers when he had failed to show up for the test and for banning the player from the england match!!! Now if they ban Rio he has a very good case against the fa to get the ban removed due to the negligence of the governing body!! I doubt if any ban will be handed down and I would say a big fine of around 20000 should prove enough for a high profile player making an error!! Putting this in perspective people say he is an example to kids and he should be punished but he is guilty of nothing and how is punishing the innocent a good example to anyone???

 

[ruuds left boot]

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.

I think he rang the FA asking to speak to somebody competent....lastest news says they are still trying to find someone who fits that description

 

[Sir A1ex]

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.

This paragraph is truely stunning, you've really surpassed yourself this time.
I'm sure we all apologise for our ridiculous tribal attitude of wanting sport to be run fairly - it's much more fun if the rules are different for different people, as you point out. I guess not being from Finland, it has been hard for us to understand this. Must have been a language thing eh?
Now for one last time, please, really, please, honestly, I'm begging, leave and never come back.

 

[Stick]

What are the bigger things that are at stake?? Maybe kids will stop showing up for there gcse's and a levels in a bid to emulate rio or perhaps college students will stop attending exams!!! FOR feckS SAKE BIGGER THINGS AT STAKE

 

[redevil2]

:Now for one last time, please, really, please, honestly, I'm begging, leave and never come back.

no, it wont happen, he still has his mission to carry out, as an ABU and WUM!!! And he's not going to be banned yet, so let's assume that we will be here putting up with his s**** for a long time!

 

[Gutsy]

Now for one last time, please, really, please, honestly, I'm begging, leave and never come back.

Oh careful there... he may add you to his dreaded "ignore" list, then you will be uhm, ignored... no change there then.

 

[redevil2]

Oh careful there... he may add you to his dreaded "ignore" list, then you will be uhm, ignored... no change there then.

or, you will also be told, 'it's an open forum, if you agree with him, respond, if you dont, ignore him!'

But i am among those who are not afraid of taking on ABUs and WUMs!!! Is there a name for these type of ppls?? ABUWUM?? or AB(W)UM??

 

[Sir A1ex]

Is there a name for these type of ppls?? ABUWUM?? or AB(W)UM??

BUMWADs is the word you are looking for

 

[Litmanen]

This paragraph is truely stunning, you've really surpassed yourself this time.
I'm sure we all apologise for our ridiculous tribal attitude of wanting sport to be run fairly - it's much more fun if the rules are different for different people, as you point out. I guess not being from Finland, it has been hard for us to understand this. Must have been a language thing eh?
Now for one last time, please, really, please, honestly, I'm begging, leave and never come back.

FA are under NO OBLIGATION to follow a precedent. This is no court of law. Similar brawls as happened at Old Trafford against Arsenal occur in the lower divisions monthly (and even in lower profile PL games a few times a year).. but media doesn't print it, there are no demands to ban players, no-one cares really. By your logic, because there are several of these precedents, NO Arsenal players should be banned. We should be fair to them and not punish any of them for one match, because the "so and so" got away with a £500 fine last April. Give me a break!
You have no clue.

I don't know what the culture is in your country in this aspect, but in Finland after several high-profile doping scandals these things are not taken slightly. Maybe I have been affected by media, but honestly I don't believe that Rio could forget it just like that. He was reminded TWICE of it in the training.

If you want to see what the "ABUs" (as you mistakenly refer to me) really think of it, visit http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv Nothing sort of one year ban and United being docked points suffices. They talk of United favouritism if Rio is let off slightly with a 6 match ban or so.
Outside that silly world of tribalism I think my view is quite reasonable.

And what this has to do with saying positive things about the players? Should I add in posts like this that, "this is my opionion on the "Rio-Gate" but please note that I admire SAF and that Ruud is one of the best strikers in the world. huh??"

You can shut the feck up if you don't have anything else to add but name calling and demands for someone being banned, and just because different opinions disturb your mental stability (or lack of it?) so much. It is really getting tiresome.

 

[redinsyd]

Litmanen - don't you think that if so many people are being wound up by your posts than by accident or design you must be a WUM. If you are that upset by the insults you are recieving don't you think that you should moderate your behavior?

Everyone is entitled to their own views, but rember that if you act like a cnut you'll be treated like a cnut.

 

[Gutsy]

FA are under NO OBLIGATION to follow a precedent. This is no court of law. Similar brawls as happened at Old Trafford against Arsenal occur in the lower divisions monthly (and even in lower profile PL games a few times a year).. but media doesn't print it, there are no demands to ban players, no-one cares really. By your logic, because there are several of these precedents, NO Arsenal players should be banned. We should be fair to them and not punish any of them for one match, because the "so and so" got away with a £500 fine last April. Give me a break!
You have no clue.

I don't know what the culture is in your country in this aspect, but in Finland after several high-profile doping scandals these things are not taken slightly. Maybe I have been affected by media, but honestly I don't believe that Rio could forget it just like that. He was reminded TWICE of it in the training.

If you want to see what the "ABUs" (as you mistakenly refer to me) really think of it, visit http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv Nothing sort of one year ban and United being docked points suffices. They talk of United favouritism if Rio is let off slightly with a 6 match ban or so.
Outside that silly world of tribalism I think my view is quite reasonable.

And what this has to do with saying positive things about the players? Should I add in posts like this that, "this is my opionion on the "Rio-Gate" but please note that I admire SAF and that Ruud is one of the best strikers in the world. huh??"

You can shut the feck up if you don't have anything else to add but name calling and demands for someone being banned, and just because different opinions disturb your mental stability (or lack of it?) so much. It is really getting tiresome.

Firstly this thread is about Rios treatment not the brawl at OT and just because finnish media doesnt show the action taken against clubs of any division doesnt mean action isnt taken. Any brawl in any division has the same sort of action taken against them, its just it doesnt make it into media like what happened at OT, just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doesnt happen. You are the ingorant prick here so give us all a break and go play with the traffic please. Of course the FA have to follow a precedent as they have to be seen as acting fairly it may not be "criminal" law but football does have rules and precdures to follow, again total ignorance by yourself there, unsurprisingly.

This isnt a doping scandal ffs, he missed the appointment he didnt fail one and who are you to judge whether he is guilty or not? Who are you to decide what punishment is due? Why feel the need to preach your wumish views and opinions when they are clearly unwelcome?

As for http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv crap, that just shows what a complete feckin muppet you are. Are you copying links to your posts on there saying "look see how i can wind them up with this one"? So you are saying that a bunch of scousers want Rio banned for a year so that justifies your stance? I am lost for words to describe what prick you made yourself look with that little comment...... Wum label fits, so wear it.

Everyone is allowed to post their opinion, and no one is asking for a scouser like yourself to post happy thoughts about United all the time, but just now and then would be acceptable, you just do it every single time in every single post. You went beyond tiresome after about your 10th post, now you are begining to see what the rest of us on here go through since you started posting. Please go back to http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv its obviously where your loyalties lie you sad little wum.

 

[weRutd&werule]

I reckon there was an over-reaction by manchester united as soon as the story came out about rio. We leapt on the offensive and blamed the FA and tried to frighten them into submission. But it didnt work. Certainly the drug testers must be muppets for not making their own jobs easy and letting rio do a test as soon as poss after his non-attendance but still, we should have been cooler in retrospect. All that england strike shit didnt help our cause either.
I don't think the FA are scared of man utd. I wish they were but they are arrogant tossers and love to wield ther power at every opportunity.

 

[phunky]

Firstly this thread is about Rios treatment not the brawl at OT and just because finnish media doesnt show the action taken against clubs of any division doesnt mean action isnt taken. Any brawl in any division has the same sort of action taken against them, its just it doesnt make it into media like what happened at OT, just because you dont see something doesnt mean it doesnt happen. You are the ingorant prick here so give us all a break and go play with the traffic please. Of course the FA have to follow a precedent as they have to be seen as acting fairly it may not be "criminal" law but football does have rules and precdures to follow, again total ignorance by yourself there, unsurprisingly.

This isnt a doping scandal ffs, he missed the appointment he didnt fail one and who are you to judge whether he is guilty or not? Who are you to decide what punishment is due? Why feel the need to preach your wumish views and opinions when they are clearly unwelcome?

As for http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv crap, that just shows what a complete feckin muppet you are. Are you copying links to your posts on there saying "look see how i can wind them up with this one"? So you are saying that a bunch of scousers want Rio banned for a year so that justifies your stance? I am lost for words to describe what prick you made yourself look with that little comment...... Wum label fits, so wear it.

Everyone is allowed to post their opinion, and no one is asking for a scouser like yourself to post happy thoughts about United all the time, but just now and then would be acceptable, you just do it every single time in every single post. You went beyond tiresome after about your 10th post, now you are begining to see what the rest of us on here go through since you started posting. Please go back to http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv its obviously where your loyalties lie you sad little wum.

Well said. Sad git.

 

[Litmanen]

Well said. Sad git.

Listen, I'm not reading Gutsy's or redinsyd's posts even when you quote them. I have them censored permanently because I consider their input worthless (it was 95+% name calling, vulgarity, swear words etc.) and I'm not interested in reading one sentence they post.
To imagine that Gutsy took all the trouble to write that and I am not reading it... he is still there trying to hi-jack threads for name calling and personal fights with an obession to turn the cafe into a kindergarten, but I am not having any of it.

Here is a hint for you phunky and others, if my views offend you so much, please use the ignore opition.

Cheers

 

[Gutsy]

Listen, I'm not reading Gutsy's or redinsyd's posts even when you quote them. I have them censored permanently because I consider their input worthless (it was 95+% name calling, vulgarity, swear words etc.) and I'm not interested in reading one sentence they post.
To imagine that Gutsy took all the trouble to write that and I am not reading it... he is still there trying to hi-jack threads for name calling and personal fights with an obession to turn the cafe into a kindergarten, but I am not having any of it.

Here is a hint for you phunky and others, if my views offend you so much, please use the ignore opition.

Cheers

I bet this guys farts smell of rose petals....

 

[Plechazunga]

with an obession to turn the cafe into a kindergarten

Yeah FFS Gutsy, that is a bit of a pointless thing to do, talk about reinventing the wheel

 

[Gutsy]

Yeah FFS Gutsy, that is a bit of a pointless thing to do, talk about reinventing the wheel

Do you reckon Lickmybum has a pair of "La La La Im not listening" hands like those ones on that advert

 

[Plechazunga]

Do you reckon Lickmybum has a pair of "La La La Im not listening" hands like those ones on that advert

I reckon he's got a rosary.

 

[mu77]

FA are under NO OBLIGATION to follow a precedent. This is no court of law

LOL - really you think that MUFC are gonna roll over and accept the same punishment handed out to players that FAIL drug tests? or that lawyers wouldn't bring up presedent in a court hearing - which is what will happen if they ban him. the FA lawyers better be better than the MUFC lawyers.

oh by the way litty - yer a feckin ABU and a WUM!
this is for you -

http://www.limmy.com/playthings/xylophone/

 

[Litmanen]

FA are under NO OBLIGATION to follow a precedent. This is no court of law

LOL - really you think that MUFC are gonna roll over and accept the same punishment handed out to players that FAIL drug tests? or that lawyers wouldn't bring up presedent in a court hearing - which is what will happen if they ban him. the FA lawyers better be better than the MUFC lawyers.

Technically they can ban Rio for 2 years and there is nothing an army of Manchester United lawyers can do about it.

 

[Gutsy]

Technically they can ban Rio for 2 years and there is nothing an army of Manchester United lawyers can do about it.

And exactly what do you know about law then? By what authority do you have to be able to preach what the FA can and United's lawyers cant do? Oh thats right i forgot, God speaks to you and personally asks for your advice on everything doesnt he?!...

If we read in the news that some wierd Finnish loner with no friends was found to be attacking women with a hammer after god told him to do it we can expect a good 15 years without your crap on here at least then i guess...

 

[Cal?]

Technically they can ban Rio for 2 years and there is nothing an army of Manchester United lawyers can do about it.

According to the Finnish media?

 

[Kevrockcity]

FA are under NO OBLIGATION to follow a precedent. This is no court of law. Similar brawls as happened at Old Trafford against Arsenal occur in the lower divisions monthly (and even in lower profile PL games a few times a year).. but media doesn't print it, there are no demands to ban players, no-one cares really. By your logic, because there are several of these precedents, NO Arsenal players should be banned. We should be fair to them and not punish any of them for one match, because the "so and so" got away with a £500 fine last April. Give me a break!
You have no clue.

I don't know what the culture is in your country in this aspect, but in Finland after several high-profile doping scandals these things are not taken slightly. Maybe I have been affected by media, but honestly I don't believe that Rio could forget it just like that. He was reminded TWICE of it in the training.

If you want to see what the "ABUs" (as you mistakenly refer to me) really think of it, visit http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv Nothing sort of one year ban and United being docked points suffices. They talk of United favouritism if Rio is let off slightly with a 6 match ban or so.
Outside that silly world of tribalism I think my view is quite reasonable.

And what this has to do with saying positive things about the players? Should I add in posts like this that, "this is my opionion on the "Rio-Gate" but please note that I admire SAF and that Ruud is one of the best strikers in the world. huh??"

You can shut the feck up if you don't have anything else to add but name calling and demands for someone being banned, and just because different opinions disturb your mental stability (or lack of it?) so much. It is really getting tiresome.

litmanen, your response to this issue is somewhat perplexing...

granted, the fa does not have to use precedent when handing out punishment. but likewise, the fa doesn't have to NOT use use precedent. you don't really cite a reason for prefering one course of action another another except to bring up the frackas at old trafford, where you claim that stiff punishments for arsenal players would not be in line with disciplinary measures given to players of lesser clubs who have committed similar offenses (which is consistent with remarks you've made in other threads - correct me if i'm misinterpreted your position).

so in summary:

1. arsenal players should not receive stiff punishment for their actions at old trafford because it does not fit fa precedent, even though they are taken by players at a large club.

2. rio ferdinand should face stiff punishment because he is a player at a large club, even though it does not fit fa precedent.

the only way to logically reconcile these two positions is that your only criteria for judging disciplinary measures is choosing the one that hurts manchester united the most. so you must excuse those who call you a wum/abu etc, since from your recent lack of logical consistency, you must certainly see where they are coming from.

of course, i realize that you cited the example of rio and arsenal/old trafford in order to show hypocrisy on account of united fans. if there is hypocrisy on our part (not that i agree, but for arguments's sake), it's quite understandable - people will support their teams, often blindly. but to constantly take the position that is always counter that to the best interests of the supposed club you are rooting for, likewise blindly?

what's your excuse?

 

[Kevrockcity]

Technically they can ban Rio for 2 years and there is nothing an army of Manchester United lawyers can do about it.

technically, they can ban rio for a week and have him sell ice cream to grade school children. you've yet to make (or really attempt) to make an argument as to why one form of punishment is more in order than another.

 

[mu77]

LOL - you don't know sweet feckall about the law then do you you silly prat!

if a company/organization fires or suspends someone and then person/player has every right to take that body to court. be it fifa the fa or proctor & gamble or the gov't. maybe not where you live but everywhere else that is a matter of fact!

you feckin wum

 

[Litmanen]

Kevrockcity, does the word COMPARISON say anything to you???

Your post made absolutely no sense.

 

[Litmanen]

According to the Finnish media?

The Finnish media is more interested in Ice Hockey.. I use BBC, SkySports and Soccernet as the main sources of my football news.

 

[Cal?]

LOL - you don't know sweet feckall about the law then do you you silly prat!

if a company/organization fires or suspends someone and then person/player has every right to take that body to court. be it fifa the fa or proctor & gamble or the gov't. maybe not where you live but everywhere else that is a matter of fact!

you feckin wum

Don't bother, Lit will tell you that Dein's Gang have authority to dock points from United for providing the venue for Arsenal to brawl next.

 

[Cal?]

The Finnish media is more interested in Ice Hockey.. I use BBC, SkySports and Soccernet as the main sources of my football news.

Where exactly did you find this article about Dein's Gang banning Rio for 2 years and United can do nothing about it?

 

[mu77]

LOL - cal you're right. i'm on the clock so i'm getting paid to post with this turd so i don't mind!

 

[Litmanen]

LOL - you don't know sweet feckall about the law then do you you silly prat!

if a company/organization fires or suspends someone and then person/player has every right to take that body to court. be it fifa the fa or proctor & gamble or the gov't. maybe not where you live but everywhere else that is a matter of fact!

you feckin wum

You see FA has it's own rules, FIFA has it's own rules.. and they are free to interpret them in the space given to them by these rules. Unlike in the court of law they are under no obligation to follow precedents if they e.g. decide to take a harder stance on doping violations. Please, check the facts first then preach. As great as the club we support is, it isn't above the FA, nevermind FIFA.

 

[Cal?]

You see FA has it's own rules, FIFA has it's own rules.. and they are free to interpret them in the space given to them by these rules. Unlike in the court of law they are under no obligation to follow precedents if they e.g. decide to take a harder stance on doping violations. Please, check the facts first then preach. As great as the club we support is, it isn't above the FA, nevermind FIFA.

Dein's Gang can do what they like, but United can still take them to court.

Why else do you think Bosman came about? Some player taking Uefa to court. Non?

 

[Kevrockcity]

You see FA has it's own rules, FIFA has it's own rules.. and they are free to interpret them in the space given to them by these rules. Unlike in the court of law they are under no obligation to follow precedents if they e.g. decide to take a harder stance on doping violations. Please, check the facts first then preach. As great as the club we support is, it isn't above the FA, nevermind FIFA.

actually, courts of law aren't obliged to follow precedents, either. if they did, england would still have the same laws and interpretation of laws that it did at the time the magna carta was drafted.

you should probably check your facts before you preach, litmanen.

 

[Gutsy]

You see FA has it's own rules, FIFA has it's own rules.. and they are free to interpret them in the space given to them by these rules. Unlike in the court of law they are under no obligation to follow precedents if they e.g. decide to take a harder stance on doping violations. Please, check the facts first then preach. As great as the club we support is, it isn't above the FA, nevermind FIFA.

"WE support" stop now, your killing me... my sides are splitting..

Oh, i know your taking the piss and joking and all that, but just for one second lets try and be serious. Firstly the FA and FIFA are supposidly a PROFESSIONAL authority, they are not petty little children, useless yes, completely stupid i am not so sure. The FA cannot afford financially or publicity wise a long drawn out legal battle. Only you are the one claiming they dont have to follow precedents, could you link to resource you base this on? Personally i prefer facts to some mad Fin whos grasp on reallity is nothing short of slim at best. What evidence do you have to back up your claims????

And for the record, Rio ISNT being charged for doping violations, he wasnt taking anything he just missed an appointment. Or do you Fins work on a guilty until proven innocent system out there?

 

[Kevrockcity]

Kevrockcity, does the word COMPARISON say anything to you???

Your post made absolutely no sense.

oh, i understand the comparison quite clearly. to be consistent, in your mind, people must support using precedent in deciding punishment for both arsenal/old trafford and rio. but you're not being consistent, either, in advocating the use of precendent (and ignoring the "big club" argument) for the arsenal players and then ignoring precedent for rio, saying that since he is from a big club, he has to be held to a higher standard.

does this makes sense to you?

your continuous argument on behalf of punishments, regardless of circumstance, that always seem to be the ones that most hurt the team that you supposedly support is puzzling.

 

[redinsyd]

litmanen, your response to this issue is somewhat perplexing...

All Litmanen's posts are perplexing because his sole objective on here is to wind people up. He must be due his comeuppance soon when the mods get the banning stick out and send the cnut back to his sad and lonely existance.

They say that lonely people often take an aggressive stance towards strangers because it is a way of establishing some kind of a relationship with someone else. Even a relationship where everyone else is abusive towards you is the acknowledgement of some kind of relationship.

I think that Litmanen is a very sad and lonely individual, and this is the reason why he acts in the way he does. For this I feel sorry for him.

 

[Kevrockcity]

All Litmanen's posts are perplexing because his sole objective on here is to wind people up. He must be due his comeuppance soon when the mods get the banning stick out and send the cnut back to his sad and lonely existance.

They say that lonely people often take an aggressive stance towards strangers because it is a way of establishing some kind of a relationship with someone else. Even a relationship where everyone else is abusive towards you is the acknowledgement of some kind of relationship.

I think that Litmanen is a very sad and lonely individual, and this is the reason why he acts in the way he does. For this I feel sorry for him.

i'm certainly beginning to get that impression. i'm all for the redcafe being an open forum to express dissenting opinions, but litmanen's relentless anti-united posturing is raising a lot of question aout how up front he is about his loyalties.

great psychoanalysis, by the way. i propose that maybe his mother did not hold him enough as a child.

 

[fjred]

Everything in this country is subject to the Law, including the FA. It makes no difference what they say if, in law, it is not seen to be reasonable, fair and equitable. If the FA ban Rio for 2 months and taking the precedent of the city player into account can be, on balance of probability, seen to be following the wishes of Fifa with no account of the actual circumstances of the case, then the FA can be taken to court.

The FA cannot act without reasonable process and banning Rio for a lengthy period without account to the circumstances will be seen to be unreasonable. It is not in the FA's interests to ignore it's own precedents, but if it does, it is then up to MUFC. I doubt the FA would take the chance that we wouldn't do anything. A heavy fine!