Mutu

[Ash]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/t...sea/3973219.stm

I expected alot to be honest , Rio must feel gutted !

[Ric Flair]

I didn't expect any longer, the rules that FIFA set are that a doping offence is a minimum 6 month ban. Then comes in the remorse, the willingness to go to rehabilitation, etc.

I know this doesn't really matter, but you must remember taking drugs such as cocaine aren't going to enhance your footballing game. Infact they will effect it, it will hold you back. Not that there are any performance enhancing drugs that footballers could use and benefit from, but I think 7 months is fair. I think Rio's ban was unfair, I can see the FA's argument when they did give Rio an 8 month ban because a missed drugs test can look like he'd been taking drugs, even though he probably hadn't been.

I think they need to sort their rules out because Mutu has obviously got a drug problem the same as some footballers have a drink problem or gambling, etc. All three of these effect their game, but only one of them results in a ban. I know taking drugs is illegal, but alot of people out of sport take it and if they got addicted and seeked help they possibly wouldn't receive any kind of suspension or loss of job. The same if they admitted having a booze or gambling problem.

Let's hope Mutut sorts himself out as it would be a loss to football if he didn't as he's a class player when he's on form.

[Guest]

I'm going to sound harsh here, but footballers are paid an awful lot of money do a job anyone of us lot would do for free! If a player turns to drink, or drugs, or the bookies, then that's their own doing.

In my contract of employment, it clearly states that if I turned up pissed, or drugged up to the eyeballs, then that is classed as gross misconduct, which is an instant dismissal.

Why should footballers be treated any different?

Is it any wonder they do turn to these vices when everyone treats them like a protected species?

Footballers need to start living in the real world. If your next door neighbour had a gambling problem, would you be as sympathetic as you would with say Paul Merson?

If the bloke down the road had a coke habit, not many people would be encouraging him to seek help?

Same with the drunk in the pub. If it was a footballer, you wouldn't laugh or point at him, or start tutting under your breath at his behaviour, or not as much anyway.

Mutu has got what he deserves, and if FIFA followed the WADA recommendations, he would have a two year ban.

[Shum]

As I said on the other forum, 7 months is too leniant!

Rio got 8/9 months for not actually being found guilty of anything....

I bet Mutu was out last night snorting lines through rolled up £50 notes and Rio Ferdinand must have choked on his spliff when he heard the news!

[Ric Flair]

I'm going to sound harsh here, but footballers are paid an awful lot of money do a job anyone of us lot would do for free!  If a player turns to drink, or drugs, or the bookies, then that's their own doing.

In my contract of employment, it clearly states that if I turned up pissed, or drugged up to the eyeballs, then that is classed as gross misconduct, which is an instant dismissal.

Why should footballers be treated any different?

Is it any wonder they do turn to these vices when everyone treats them like a protected species?

Footballers need to start living in the real world.  If your next door neighbour had a gambling problem, would you be as sympathetic as you would with say Paul Merson?

If the bloke down the road had a coke habit, not many people would be encouraging him to seek help?

Same with the drunk in the pub.  If it was a footballer, you wouldn't laugh or point at him, or start tutting under your breath at his behaviour, or not as much anyway.

Mutu has got what he deserves, and if FIFA followed the WADA recommendations, he would have a two year ban.

33525[/snapback]

Very true! But what I am saying is that footballers are treated differently and it seems acceptable for them to be done for drink driving or to be founf guilty of assault, etc but if they take drugs and admit to having a problem they get sacked from their club and get a ban. There needs to be changes.

Mutu didn't turn up to work drugged up, he was forced to take a drugs test by his club as there was reports that Mutu had been taking drugs. He took the test and was found positive, so basically Mutu had taken drugs within the past 48 or so hours. I just think that most clubs would stick by a player if they had a drink problem or a gambling problem, but Chelsea wanted a way out to get rid of Mutu and they are laughing now. There's no fairness in the way drinking and gambling seems acceptable for players to do and let it effect their lives and the club sticks by them. But drugs it's different, now I know drugs are illegal but we live in a democratical world and people get addicted to drugs and they need to be treated not punished.

Footballers do get paid a shit load of money and to a certain degree I don't feel sorry for them if they get addicted to drugs, gambling and drinking. But as far as human rights is concerned the money they earn and the lives they lead is irrelevant. Mutu's ban is fair, what I think is unfair is how any addiction is treated in football as I think they are all reletively the same especially drinking and drug taking so why not have bans put in place for both of these?

[Guest]

This is true.

I think that all forms of addiction should be treated the same. If Tony Adams had been at Leicester when he went to prison for drink-driving, I personally think he should have been sacked. Drink-driving is socially unacceptable. What does it say about Arsenal for sticking by him?

I refer to my previous comment,

In my contract of employment, it clearly states that if I turned up pissed, or drugged up to the eyeballs, then that is classed as gross misconduct, which is an instant dismissal.

Yes, I'm harsh, but pussy-footing around is not going to help the situation.

[Steven]

Firstly I would like to say that I do not in any way, shape or form condone the behaviour of Mutu.

However there is far too much hysteria over this. If there is an underlying problem of daily drug taking by the individual, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that this impacting on their work, then they should be sacked. To my way of thinking this would include alcohol and my personal bete noir, smoking.

Now if it was a one off then should he have been sacked - probably not. However if there is abuse, with the caveat above, then a sacking is justified.

This brings me to the hysteria. I do not understand why Mutu has been so vilified when there are professional players who smoke cigarettes on a daily basis. This will cause as much as or more physical damage than snorting cocaine yet we do not see players getting the sack for smoking.

Surely all drugs (legal or not including fags and booze) should be graded on the basis of the physical damage they do and that players should then get bans according to the danger the drug poses.

[Guest]

Firstly I would like to say that I do not in any way, shape or form condone the behaviour of Mutu.

However there is far too much hysteria over this. If there is an underlying problem of daily drug taking by the individual, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that this impacting on their work, then they should be sacked. To my way of thinking this would include alcohol and my personal bete noir, smoking.

Now if it was a one off then should he have been sacked - probably not. However if there is abuse, with the caveat above, then a sacking is justified.

This brings me to the hysteria. I do not understand why Mutu has been so vilified when there are professional players who smoke cigarettes on a daily basis. This will cause as much as or more physical damage than snorting cocaine yet we do not see players getting the sack for smoking.

Surely all drugs (legal or not including fags and booze) should be graded on the basis of the physical damage they do and that players should then get bans according to the danger the drug poses.

33538[/snapback]

Interesting....I agree. It's not good when you see a player running around for 90 minutes, and what's the first thing they do when they've finished? Spark up.

If I had the chance to play football professionally, I'd happily give up the booze for 10-15 years.

[Ric Flair]

Firstly I would like to say that I do not in any way, shape or form condone the behaviour of Mutu.

However there is far too much hysteria over this. If there is an underlying problem of daily drug taking by the individual, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that this impacting on their work, then they should be sacked. To my way of thinking this would include alcohol and my personal bete noir, smoking.

Now if it was a one off then should he have been sacked - probably not. However if there is abuse, with the caveat above, then a sacking is justified.

This brings me to the hysteria. I do not understand why Mutu has been so vilified when there are professional players who smoke cigarettes on a daily basis. This will cause as much as or more physical damage than snorting cocaine yet we do not see players getting the sack for smoking.

Surely all drugs (legal or not including fags and booze) should be graded on the basis of the physical damage they do and that players should then get bans according to the danger the drug poses.

33538[/snapback]

Interesting....I agree. It's not good when you see a player running around for 90 minutes, and what's the first thing they do when they've finished? Spark up.

If I had the chance to play football professionally, I'd happily give up the booze for 10-15 years.

33540[/snapback]

I ****in wouldn't and why should you! Aslong as it doesn't effect your game then there's not a problem. Footballers are so fit (nothing gay) that booze and fags don't effect them unless they do it constantly, Paul Dickov smokes and look at him! Possibly the most energetic footballer in the world.

[Guest]

I ****in wouldn't and why should you! Aslong as it doesn't effect your game then there's not a problem. Footballers are so fit (nothing gay) that booze and fags don't effect them unless they do it constantly, Paul Dickov smokes and look at him! Possibly the most energetic footballer in the world.

33548[/snapback]

The odd drink now and then does no harm, granted, but everyone knows the long term effects of smoking, even if smoking a handful a day.

Everything in excess is bad for you!

[Steven]

I ****in wouldn't and why should you! Aslong as it doesn't effect your game then there's not a problem. Footballers are so fit (nothing gay) that booze and fags don't effect them unless they do it constantly, Paul Dickov smokes and look at him! Possibly the most energetic footballer in the world.

33548[/snapback]

This argument would apply to most substances, including cocaine. For what reasons should a substance be banned :?:

[Ric Flair]

I ****in wouldn't and why should you! Aslong as it doesn't effect your game then there's not a problem. Footballers are so fit (nothing gay) that booze and fags don't effect them unless they do it constantly, Paul Dickov smokes and look at him! Possibly the most energetic footballer in the world.

33548[/snapback]

This argument would apply to most substances, including cocaine. For what reasons should a substance be banned :?:

33551[/snapback]

I don't know, there's pro's and con's of having certain substances banned but then things like this crop up. If you read Steve Howards article about Mutu in The Sun today it's very good, for once I agree with the cretin.

[Alexikokopops]

The Sun (that's right, I read it yesterday) made a good point.

Well, one guy did in his column, while the rest said Mutu should be burnt alive.

He said that it was sensible to give Mutu a ban of less than Rio's, because if Mutu had been given a lengthier ban, then players who've been taking performance-enhancing drugs/regular drugs etc and knew they'd be found out in the test, would just skip the test and get a shorter ban, rather than get a lengthir ban and be shamed.

At least this way if players skip the test then they know they'll get a lengthier ban than if they go and get found out.