Mutu

Posted by: Tarquin Maynard - Portly on 05 November 2004

Does drugs, tests positive, seven month ban.
Ferdinand; leaves ground, offers to come straight back ( offer declined ),no test, 8 month ban.


What am I missing? Even Chelski are outraged.

Confused

Regards

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by Bruce Woodhouse
Recreational drug rather than performance enhancing? Still seems lenient to me.

Bruce
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by Alex S.
I can't see why you should be banned by anyone other than your club for taking a performance debilitating drug.
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by NB
I believe that anyone caught using drugs recreeational or performance enhancing should be banned for life.

Then perhaps fewer people would use them, Mutu's sentance is far too lenient.



Regards


NB
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by Alex S.
'Are you Parry in Disguise; Are you Parrrryy in Disguise. . .?'
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by NB
Thats a real insult Alex Big Grin



Regards


NB
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Alex S.:
'Are you Parry in Disguise; Are you Parrrryy in Disguise. . .?'

Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin

Careful Nigel, if the same criteria were applied to forum members you might find yourself talking to yourself.

Steve M
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by seagull
He does anyway.

What percentage of the 'replies' in the Jaw thread were from NB?
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by long-time-dead
Let's face facts - if the majority of us did what Mutu did, we would be dismissed from our employment and probably charged by the Police for possessing the illegal substance.

Why are we debating the rights and wrongs ? He should be jailed for the offence to serve as a notice to others everywhere.

There's F*ck all social about an illegal drug. Illegal to supply, illegal to purchase, illegal to use.
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by Roy T
Must agree with long-time-dead.

I wonder has anyone got access to a copy of his contract with the club?
I reckon it will have a few lines about upholding family values and not bringing the club into disrepute, now in exchange for following these onerous rules he has pocketed a big pile of cash. I think the stance taken by the club is quite correct and inline with that of running a multi-million pound business where club image, product branding and public perception all play a major part in the day to day running of a top flight football club or business.
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by MichaelC
A few thoughts.

Mutu admits guilt - is banned for seven months.

Ferdinand missed a drug test - ok apparently he offered to return for test - but then the maneuvering - is banned for eight months.

At first sight this looks untoward comparing the two offences and the results.

What if a n other player has taken drugs, is then due for a drug test, then conveniently forgets to undertake the test. For avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that this is what Ferdinand did. Looking at the bans received above there should be no funny games by a potentially guilty party.

Am I correct in recalling that a number of Dutch players who were caught having taken Nandrolene (?) got lesser bans. There needs to be more consistency.

Chelsea - I cannot help but think they have deliberately hung Mutu out. If as the various reports suggest that they suspected Mutu of taking drugs why did they not try to counsel and cure him. May be they did and this has not been widely reported. I just get that feeling that Chelsea went out of their way to screw Mutu.

Mike
Posted on: 05 November 2004 by sonofcolin
quote:
There's F*ck all social about an illegal drug. Illegal to supply, illegal to purchase, illegal to use.


Everyone should drink beer and fight instead! Yeah, right. The hypocrisy in society is just amazing.
Posted on: 06 November 2004 by long-time-dead
No. Your total ignorance is amazing.

If you can only associate drinking beer with fighting then I have pity for you.

There is nothing hypocritical about accepting a licenced and taxed product into society and treating it responsibly. Abusing beer IS bad and there are laws in place to protect others as a result of breach of peace, drunk and disorderly, driving under influence etc.

Illegal drugs are totally outwith the norm, their production only causes pain and suffering except for the cartels and drug barons who live a wealthy life.

Get real - don't be so ignorant.
Posted on: 07 November 2004 by sonofcolin
quote:
Illegal drugs are totally outwith the norm, their production only causes pain and suffering except for the cartels and drug barons who live a wealthy life.


Rubbish! What the norm is for you may be very different for others. How can you accept one drug and not another? This for me is the hypocisy. My point is that all drugs have potential risks associted with them, so why tolerate some and not others? Why do governments decide what an individual can or can not do to themselves? (the answer lies in early 20th century US policy, but that's another thread in itself)

I think you are quite right about consequences resulting from the use of a drug and I whole heartedly agree with you, but the consumtion of a drug should not be illegal IMVHO. Do not lay your morals on me!

Drugs will ALWAYS be produced to satisfy demand and this is a 'war' that can never be won. This has been clearly demonstarted and documented so maybe it's time to start looking at the real causes of excessive use and demand and deal with these issues instead of a draconian head in the sand attitude. Drug use has been integrated into societies since the year dot (contrary to your statement:
quote:
Illegal drugs are totally outwith the norm
) With this statement you have demonstarted your ignorance, so lets agree to disagree, smile and respect the wonderfull diveristy of human nature Winker
Posted on: 08 November 2004 by long-time-dead
Nice to see that someone hailing from Washington DC accepts that illegality is OK.

BTW, the world did not start with 20th C US politics - it possibly might end as a result of them.

Governing bodies all over the world have "enforced" the rules for many centuries before the modern-day Americas were discovered.

I could never agree with anyone who could accept that taking an illegal substance is OK - it's no smiling matter.

Could you honestly accept that your kids could be right if you discovered them taking heroin, crack, etc ?
Posted on: 08 November 2004 by sonofcolin
quote:
Governing bodies all over the world have "enforced" the rules for many centuries before the modern-day Americas were discovered.

Not true. Illegal substances have only been illegal for the past 70-80 years and it was the USA which instigated this policy.
quote:
BTW, the world did not start with 20th C US politics - it possibly might end as a result of them.

No arguement here.
quote:
I could never agree with anyone who could accept that taking an illegal substance is OK - it's no smiling matter.

A personal opinion, which I resepct, but one based upon a very narrow perspective of what makes up my personality. Glad I didn't have you as a teacher!
quote:
Could you honestly accept that your kids could be right if you discovered them taking heroin, crack, etc ?

This has nothing really to do with right and wrong and is a question of morality. I would be upset if I found my son had been involved in any dangerous activity, but I would also be extremely upset with myself for not being able to equip him with sound judgement and risk management skills. He fill face many risks in life and to demonize one and not another just isn't sound reasoning and one which many children will pick a hole in immediately!

Societies attitude towards illegal drugs is far more dangerous than the drugs themselves. An excellent resource for info in the uk can be found here:

Drugscope