Post by Salem6 on Oct 13, 2003 23:16:36 GMT
Rio Ferdinand faces a charge of misconduct for missing a drugs test in a row that has engulfed English football.
Here are some of the questions that he, his club Manchester United and the Football Association must answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Manchester United allow their £30m record signing to leave the training ground before giving a urine sample?
In other sports, drug testers meet the person concerned and take the sample.
Football is unique in that club doctors or physiotherapists act as intermediaries.
United's doctor told Ferdinand and three other players at their Carrington practice ground they had to take a test after training.
The players are allowed to shower before taking their tests but Ferdinand left before doing so.
The centre-back was finally contacted by his club but it was too late for him to return as the testers had left. He told United he forgot the test as he was moving home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having missed the test, why did it take nearly two days before he finally did give a negative sample?
Newspapers have reported that "United insiders" claim the doping control officers were unable to return to Carrington immediately and the earliest they could was on the morning of Thursday, 25 September.
Is this true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What was Ferdinand doing that afternoon?
Ferdinand claims he "forgot" to return because he was moving house, and he was also photographed shopping.
Dick Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, has made it clear that neither of these excuses are acceptable reasons for not taking a drug test.
Was Ferdinand shopping, moving house or both?
It will help him to have a clear answer on Monday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did the FA take so long to act?
Having missed the test on 23 September, Rio was not informed that he had committed an offence until 3 October - 10 days later.
Why so long if the issue was serious enough to see him dropped from the England squad?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been informed of the likely charge, why did Ferdinand decline the chance to have his meeting with the FA brought forward?
Having already delayed the naming of the England squad once, the FA sought to hold the "interview" with Ferdinand that must precede any official charge from the Monday after the Turkey game to the Monday before.
Why did he reject the chance to get it over with there and then?
The FA claims that its executive director, David Davies, explained the decision to the player on Sunday, 4 October and met representatives from United.
But the FA says neither the club nor the player made themselves available when they requested an interview on Monday in which Ferdinand would be charged with misconduct.
Unable to hold the meeting with Ferdinand, Sven-Goran Eriksson was told that the centre-back must be left out of the squad, with the FA deeming his call-up to have been "inappropriate".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ferdinand had played in the match, could Turkey have appealed against the result on the strength of his inclusion?
This was clearly a consideration in the FA's stance and overlooked by the players in their reaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is the Football Association's stance on drug testing?
It needs to be clarified.
In athletics, there is a distinction made between refusing to give a sample when confronted by officials and failing to make an appointment, although that will disappear next year.
The FA rulebook does not make the distinction and by driving away, Ferdinand was technically in breach of rule E26, which carries a maximum two-year suspension.
However, last season Manchester City player Christian Negouai missed a drugs test, later explaining he had to pick up his mother from the airport.
Unlike Ferdinand, Negouai's name was not released and he was not suspended from play.
He was later fined £2,000 at a secret hearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the Football Association changed its stance since this case?
If so, did it inform the clubs of its revised guidelines?
When FA chief executive Mark Palios took over at Soho Square he promised a hard line on two issues - discipline and drugs.
Backed in his crackdown by Sports minister Richard Caborn, Palios has been true to his word.
As a result, there are some grey areas which need clarifying.
Manchester United's lawyers claim the rules say the FA can take action against a player only if he refuses a test, not if he simply "forgot".
The FA rejects this interpretation.
And Palios admits there is no rule which says Ferdinand had to be banned - that it was his call.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Manchester United decide to release Ferdinand's name?
One of the reasons Ferdinand's team-mates were incensed enough to threaten strike action was the perception his name had become public, leading to people to assume the guilt of such a high profile player.
But it was Ferdinand's club who released it - perhaps as a result of recent pressure from the stock market on listed clubs to release share-price sensitive information.
Palios was pretty conciliatory in his statements last week but he refused to accept the FA was to blame for blowing Ferdinand's cover.
"The player's confidentiality is rightly a key issue. We are very well aware of our duties in this respect and I have no doubt that we have acted entirely properly throughout this difficult and complex issue," he said.
But the FA's policy on this too appears to have changed.
Last season, Rushden & Diamonds goalkeeper Billy Turley tested positive for nandrolone, escaping with a warning and no suspension - and the FA refused to release his identity.
Whatever happens on Monday, the FA needs to clarify the latest rules and regulations to clubs and the public.
++++++
Domestic bcoz I'll NEVER 4give England players 4 threatening 2 strike. JT dun well IMHO ;D
Here are some of the questions that he, his club Manchester United and the Football Association must answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Manchester United allow their £30m record signing to leave the training ground before giving a urine sample?
In other sports, drug testers meet the person concerned and take the sample.
Football is unique in that club doctors or physiotherapists act as intermediaries.
United's doctor told Ferdinand and three other players at their Carrington practice ground they had to take a test after training.
The players are allowed to shower before taking their tests but Ferdinand left before doing so.
The centre-back was finally contacted by his club but it was too late for him to return as the testers had left. He told United he forgot the test as he was moving home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having missed the test, why did it take nearly two days before he finally did give a negative sample?
Newspapers have reported that "United insiders" claim the doping control officers were unable to return to Carrington immediately and the earliest they could was on the morning of Thursday, 25 September.
Is this true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What was Ferdinand doing that afternoon?
Ferdinand claims he "forgot" to return because he was moving house, and he was also photographed shopping.
Dick Pound, head of the World Anti-Doping Agency, has made it clear that neither of these excuses are acceptable reasons for not taking a drug test.
Was Ferdinand shopping, moving house or both?
It will help him to have a clear answer on Monday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did the FA take so long to act?
Having missed the test on 23 September, Rio was not informed that he had committed an offence until 3 October - 10 days later.
Why so long if the issue was serious enough to see him dropped from the England squad?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having been informed of the likely charge, why did Ferdinand decline the chance to have his meeting with the FA brought forward?
Having already delayed the naming of the England squad once, the FA sought to hold the "interview" with Ferdinand that must precede any official charge from the Monday after the Turkey game to the Monday before.
Why did he reject the chance to get it over with there and then?
The FA claims that its executive director, David Davies, explained the decision to the player on Sunday, 4 October and met representatives from United.
But the FA says neither the club nor the player made themselves available when they requested an interview on Monday in which Ferdinand would be charged with misconduct.
Unable to hold the meeting with Ferdinand, Sven-Goran Eriksson was told that the centre-back must be left out of the squad, with the FA deeming his call-up to have been "inappropriate".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Ferdinand had played in the match, could Turkey have appealed against the result on the strength of his inclusion?
This was clearly a consideration in the FA's stance and overlooked by the players in their reaction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What exactly is the Football Association's stance on drug testing?
It needs to be clarified.
In athletics, there is a distinction made between refusing to give a sample when confronted by officials and failing to make an appointment, although that will disappear next year.
The FA rulebook does not make the distinction and by driving away, Ferdinand was technically in breach of rule E26, which carries a maximum two-year suspension.
However, last season Manchester City player Christian Negouai missed a drugs test, later explaining he had to pick up his mother from the airport.
Unlike Ferdinand, Negouai's name was not released and he was not suspended from play.
He was later fined £2,000 at a secret hearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has the Football Association changed its stance since this case?
If so, did it inform the clubs of its revised guidelines?
When FA chief executive Mark Palios took over at Soho Square he promised a hard line on two issues - discipline and drugs.
Backed in his crackdown by Sports minister Richard Caborn, Palios has been true to his word.
As a result, there are some grey areas which need clarifying.
Manchester United's lawyers claim the rules say the FA can take action against a player only if he refuses a test, not if he simply "forgot".
The FA rejects this interpretation.
And Palios admits there is no rule which says Ferdinand had to be banned - that it was his call.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did Manchester United decide to release Ferdinand's name?
One of the reasons Ferdinand's team-mates were incensed enough to threaten strike action was the perception his name had become public, leading to people to assume the guilt of such a high profile player.
But it was Ferdinand's club who released it - perhaps as a result of recent pressure from the stock market on listed clubs to release share-price sensitive information.
Palios was pretty conciliatory in his statements last week but he refused to accept the FA was to blame for blowing Ferdinand's cover.
"The player's confidentiality is rightly a key issue. We are very well aware of our duties in this respect and I have no doubt that we have acted entirely properly throughout this difficult and complex issue," he said.
But the FA's policy on this too appears to have changed.
Last season, Rushden & Diamonds goalkeeper Billy Turley tested positive for nandrolone, escaping with a warning and no suspension - and the FA refused to release his identity.
Whatever happens on Monday, the FA needs to clarify the latest rules and regulations to clubs and the public.
++++++
Domestic bcoz I'll NEVER 4give England players 4 threatening 2 strike. JT dun well IMHO ;D