Topic: Uefa to hold hearing into Mamadou Sakho’s failed drug test for Liverpool

[B0151?]

So is the reason they think it's very unlikely that he'll be banned at a latter date because of the fact they have said he is free to play now and it'd be strange if they went back and banned him?

Or there's enough contention in what the lawyers have brought up that the ban simply wouldn't be justified?

[keyo]

I don't think we know this either way, weren't L'equipe was saying it wasn't banned when they broke the story this morning?

How can you fail a drugs test for a substance that is not banned?

[Levitz]

How can you fail a drugs test for a substance that is not banned?

Well, that was what kicked all this off. Erroneous test, mistake who knows? It's all very odd.

[Levitz]

What they said first thing would have been based in less information than we have now.

Maybe, but it seemed to be a split between British reports and continental ones. Though I've not seen any later reporting from the French journos.....it's all very curious whatever.

[Alan_X]

How can you fail a drugs test for a substance that is not banned?

We don't know what it is but it is on the banned list. The question is whether or not it should be.

*edit - and if that's the case they may find its a technical offence but waive any penalty.

[Alan_X]

Maybe, but it seemed to be a split between British reports and continental ones. Though I've not seen any later reporting from the French journos.....it's all very curious whatever.

It's not really. Journos will be writing stories based on info for their sources who may only have part of the story. Once there's more information we can all make a better fist of understanding exactly what's gone on.

[Alf Garnett!]

For what? The way anti-doping is set up it's very difficult to get off scot-free if you've taken something. His lawyers appear to be saying he took something but it shouldn't have been on the banned list.

Sakho was banned from playing.

Uefa are seemingly on the back foot over this,if there isn't a 6+ month ban getting handed out it pretty much excuses Sakho.

With no extension of the ban..this says everything for me.

Uefa will spout some shite exonerating themselves from any wrongdoing.

Simple thing is,Uefa accused Sakho of something they cant back up.

Thats how i see it.

[afc tukrish]

I understand feeling angered if it turns out there was no reason for Sakho to have missed the Europa Final...

But as I read the thread, and learned that it's at least possible that he won't be suspended for 6 months, all I could think was:

"Mamadou: fuck yeah!" 

Having him back right from the start would be a huge boost for next season...

[Alan_X]

Sakho was banned from playing.

Uefa are seemingly on the back foot over this,if there isn't a 6+ month ban getting handed out it pretty much excuses Sakho.

With no extension of the ban..this says everything for me.

Uefa will spout some shite exonerating themselves from any wrongdoing.

Simple thing is,Uefa accused Sakho of something they cant back up.

Thats how i see it.

Sakho accepted the result of the test.

[Alf Garnett!]

Sakho accepted the result of the test.

Which at this point is seemingly irrelevant.

I dunno,we'll know more details in the coming week about all the ifs & buts.

[TSC]

People saying that we should sue UEFA

Its a ridiculous situation, but if Sakho gets of scot free, thats a result in itself.

Yep. Time to let it go.  sakho ban never resulted in us finishing 8th.  Being relatively shit does that.

[keyo]

Sakho was banned from playing.

Uefa are seemingly on the back foot over this,if there isn't a 6+ month ban getting handed out it pretty much excuses Sakho.

With no extension of the ban..this says everything for me.

Uefa will spout some shite exonerating themselves from any wrongdoing.

Simple thing is,Uefa accused Sakho of something they cant back up.

Thats how i see it.

UEFA do not make the list of banned substances, that is WADA. So, unless UEFA are working off their own list, or an incorrect list or have made an incorrect interpretation, it is not their error. The test results have not been contested. And UEFA are investigating the list part. Until the outcome is known, we cannot say who is at fault.

[DonkeyWan]

I think UEFA are wrong about many things but how does this show that they don't know what they're doing? Especially as none of us actually know what has happened? 

UEFA tested Sakho

Sakho tested positive

Sakho accepted the tests

Sakho's lawyers have argued it should be in the list based on new evidence (last bit is speculation)

UEFA have accepted there's a reason to review further and have not extended the temporary suspension

Sakho may still be found guilty after review but that seems unlikely on balance.

The anti-doping process appears to have been followed properly.

The point is they have added a substance to their banned list without being fully aware of what it actually does. They have followed WADA guidelines yes, but they should be on top of this themselves rather than adopting third party assurances. It doesn't say much for their testing programme if they include a substance on their banned list without actually knowing why. Even if they do uphold the original ruling, the fact they have to find out why the substance is on the list ion the first place, to my mind anyway, is amateurish.

[Alonso_The_Assassin]

WADA strikes again.

Rather confused by the whole thing, but WADA, ASADA and various other organisation of this magnitude worldwide have a knack of muddying the waters to bring most to this point of confusion.

Glad Mama looks like being cleared but severely pissed off that he missed the cup final.

[Mumm-Ra]

The point is they have added a substance to their banned list without being fully aware of what it actually does. They have followed WADA guidelines yes, but they should be on top of this themselves rather than adopting third party assurances. It doesn't say much for their testing programme if they include a substance on their banned list without actually knowing why. Even if they do uphold the original ruling, the fact they have to find out why the substance is on the list ion the first place, to my mind anyway, is amateurish.

I don't think it's realistic to say that UEFA should have their own labs full of scientists making their own determinations on every one of the thousands of chemical compounds out there. It makes sense that they would outsource that kind of task to an organisation like WADA.

It's hard for us to not feel screwed over. And the fact that the reprieve is coming just in time for him to be selected for France seems... fortunate.

[Reds Flag]

Really hope Sakho has indeed been cleared. Either way, he will have been devastated to miss the final, and regardless of any what if's about the effect on the result, he deserved to be on the pitch after his fantastic performances this season (I won't forget his performance and passion against Dortmund for a long time).

I despise UEFA's crooked top brass as much as anyone, but if reports are true and this has indeed been a bit of a fuck up it seems down to overly draconian and confusing laws drawn up in a sterile boardroom somewhere at WADA over too many executive lunches...

[xbugawugax]

So is the reason they think it's very unlikely that he'll be banned at a latter date because of the fact they have said he is free to play now and it'd be strange if they went back and banned him?

Or there's enough contention in what the lawyers have brought up that the ban simply wouldn't be justified?

that is in my train of thought too.

France should just call him up and let him play in the euros.(he deserves it too). If he plays in the Euros, put UEFA in a tough spot if any action were to be taken later on.

[me76]

WADA strikes again.

Rather confused by the whole thing, but WADA, ASADA and various other organisation of this magnitude worldwide have a knack of muddying the waters to bring most to this point of confusion.

Glad Mama looks like being cleared but severely pissed off that he missed the cup final.

Absolutely - this smacks of WADA ineptitude.  Hope he gets cleared and is free to play for us next season.  It's astounding that someone can get banned before actually being proven guilty - but we just need to move on now.  Roll on next season!

[Ipcress]

This is all rather confusing and I do wonder if it's an attempt by his lawyers and UEFA to find a way to let the host nation play him in the Euros (they have a couple of injuries at centre back I believe) before a lengthy ban.

Now before someone kindly subscribes me up to Tin Foil Hat monthly let's follow the logic based on what we seem to know:

There is a substance that is on the banned list.
As a professional footballer Mamo is supposed to check the list and inform the club as to what he is taking.
He doesn't inform the club, and presumably he doesn't inform WADA or UEFA there is a mistake with their lists.
Mamo takes the substance.
He fails a drug test.
He doesn't send a B sample and voluntarily sits out a game or 2.
UEFA suspend him pending hearing, presuming guilt and preventing his playing for his club and country.
Mamo's Lawyers presumably bring up the defence that the drug shouldn't be on the list.
UEFA do not extend the suspension, presuming innocence, allowing him to play for France in the Euros, while they check.

How long does it take to check? One phone call. Hey WADA, is substance X meant to be on the list, or was it a typo?

I fear UEFA is doing the hosts a favour by the delay and Liverpool will be the ones to bear the brunt.

That said, I hope something new turns up such as he was taking Substance Y which is not on the list but which gives a false positive for Substance X which is on the list.

[An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker]

Negligence by who?  And what's the basis of the lawsuit?

Negligence by UEFA of course for either flagging a test, suspending a player and depriving him of professional opportunities for something which isn't banned, or shouldn't be banned.

Negligence alone is basis enough, but you can add in damages for lost opportunities and reputational damage from being falsely accused and suspended for doping.

[BeautifulGame91]

This is all rather confusing and I do wonder if it's an attempt by his lawyers and UEFA to find a way to let the host nation play him in the Euros (they have a couple of injuries at centre back I believe) before a lengthy ban.

Now before someone kindly subscribes me up to Tin Foil Hat monthly let's follow the logic based on what we seem to know:

There is a substance that is on the banned list.
As a professional footballer Mamo is supposed to check the list and inform the club as to what he is taking.
He doesn't inform the club, and presumably he doesn't inform WADA or UEFA there is a mistake with their lists.
Mamo takes the substance.
He fails a drug test.
He doesn't send a B sample and voluntarily sits out a game or 2.
UEFA suspend him pending hearing, presuming guilt and preventing his playing for his club and country.
Mamo's Lawyers presumably bring up the defence that the drug shouldn't be on the list.
UEFA do not extend the suspension, presuming innocence, allowing him to play for France in the Euros, while they check.

How long does it take to check? One phone call. Hey WADA, is substance X meant to be on the list, or was it a typo?

I fear UEFA is doing the hosts a favour by the delay and Liverpool will be the ones to bear the brunt.

That said, I hope something new turns up such as he was taking Substance Y which is not on the list but which gives a false positive for Substance X which is on the list.

That conspiracy theory goes to waste because UEFA has confirmed a decision on the case will be made within few days .
So even if he is again found guilty he will be banned even before Euros starts .

[Ipcress]

That conspiracy theory goes to waste because UEFA has confirmed a decision on the case will be made within few days .
So even if he is again found guilty he will be banned even before Euros starts .

That makes sense.

How much is a subscription to Tin Foil Hat Monthly nowadays? ;-)

[Alan_X]

Negligence by UEFA of course for either flagging a test, suspending a player and depriving him of professional opportunities for something which isn't banned, or shouldn't be banned.

Negligence alone is basis enough, but you can add in damages for lost opportunities and reputational damage from being falsely accused and suspended for doping.

Do you know what negligence means?

[RedorRed]

I've been blaming Sakho in part for the defeat against Sevilla in the final. Couldn't help but think his telescopic leg would've cut that cross out which lead to the first goal. He had been playing great with Lovren in recent weeks.
To find out he could've played but was banned incorrectly will be a bitter pill to take. I know Sevilla deserved it in the end..... But it we had survived the first 10 mins who knows what might have happened.

Gutted....

[An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker]

Do you know what negligence means?

Carelessness which results in damage or injury to another or another's property. Seems pretty much spot on for this case.

[TepidT2O]

Carelessness which results in damage or injury to another or another's property. Seems pretty much spot on for this case.

Hmm..

Huge risk of jumping to conclusions here...

We know few details...

Sometimes cases come up that test rules in ways that had never been considered.

The response that UEFA is negligent is as knee jerk as the immediate response that Sakho should have been sacked...


You may be right of course, but there is absolutely no way of knowing either way with the information available.

[Red Raw]

Not sure what can be made of any it to be honest, but it appears that the likelihood of Sahko being available next season has improved and that has to be good.

As for fruit flavoured Toffos, they were a crime against confectionery and should definitely be on the ASDA banned list.

[Alan_X]

Carelessness which results in damage or injury to another or another's property. Seems pretty much spot on for this case.

What exactly was the act of carelessness that caused the injury? And who was responsible for it?

Was the test administered carelessly?
Was the list of banned substances drawn up carelessly?
Was the procedure for notifying the player followed carefully, and have the agreed rules and regulations been applied? 

And I don't think you appreciate what 'taking care' means in a legal sense. It's about behaving in a way that a reasonable person would in the same circumstances.

[markedasred]

In my view the correct response to this is to be delighted for the man and the club.


I never doubted his intentions, could not think him a cheat. I hope the quick to judge are having a word with themselves, though I expect that is unlikely, but I would like to see public apologies from the media folks who made public statements condemning him.
All the rest is for handing over to the legal people to sort, whilst we entertain ourselves with the football thing.

[wolves76]

There are a ton of unanswered questions and what ifs but one thing is clear.  The chances of the best centre half we have at the club continuing his career at Liverpool from next season have significantly improved since UEFAs statement yesterday.   So Im not celebrating yet but have increased hope with regard to Sakhos future and the defence of his personal integrity.

[An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker]

Hmm..

Huge risk of jumping to conclusions here...

We know few details...

Sometimes cases come up that test rules in ways that had never been considered.

The response that UEFA is negligent is as knee jerk as the immediate response that Sakho should have been sacked...


You may be right of course, but there is absolutely no way of knowing either way with the information available.

Well one of three scenarios have to be true.
1. UEFA incorrectly accused Sakho of something that isn't on their banned list
2. UEFA's banned list was faulty and caused them to accuse Sakho of doping for a substance that isn't performance enhancing.
3. They suspended Sakho, let the suspension expire, then re-suspend him after making a determination that the listed substance is rightly on the banned list, using goodness knows what criteria at this point.

Any of those invite more questions. And by questions, I mean questions asked by lawyers.

[Waka]

Sakho playing in the Europa final would not have made an ounce of difference. Stop torturing yourself

[An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker]

What exactly was the act of carelessness that caused the injury? And who was responsible for it?

Was the test administered carelessly?
Was the list of banned substances drawn up carelessly?
Was the procedure for notifying the player followed carefully, and have the agreed rules and regulations been applied? 

And I don't think you appreciate what 'taking care' means in a legal sense. It's about behaving in a way that a reasonable person would in the same circumstances.

I don't know what you have against the idea of hoping UEFA accountable but playing death by a thousand cuts doesn't interest me. I'm not a lawyer for the club or Sakho.

A reasonable person would know why they have the things they have on their banned list, and know whether they are actually performance enhancing or not rather than suspending people willy nilly, holding them out of critical games that impact their futures and that of their club, and then asking questions later (or more specifically, being asked questions later). A reasonable person would have their crap together before they accuse someone of cheating.

No matter what the resolution is, there are going to be significant questions. If Sakho is cleared, he's been wronged to have been sat out. If he's not cleared, then the questions surround the so-called investigation of the substance's status on the ban list. Either way, there's room for legal involvement to benefit the club.

[An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker]

Sakho playing in the Europa final would not have made an ounce of difference. Stop torturing yourself

I don't know how anyone could think that if they've seen the team. He's not only one of the team's best defenders, but his passing is also a major impact on the attack (because he's neither Can nor Milner are great volume passers), and his attacking headers could have been a threat that either directly or indirectly had an effect as well. Sakho passes as well as most defensive mids, and that has a massive effect on the way the team plays.

[Anthony]

Didn't see this until this morning - wow!

Some thoughts...

1) Removing the ban now means it's not served during the close season - could hurt us disproportionately if this drags on to, say, October. (Noted that there could still be a decision this week which would be sensible in the interests of justice)

2) Could France not name him in the 23 and then replace him if he's re-banned?

3) re the confusion, suppose he has taken a substance 'Alanxamide' - this is not specifically on the list but could fall under 'other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).' Sakho does not deny taking 'Alanxamide' but argues it does not have a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect. (I am aware of the need to check anyway but this is where the areas get grey)

[kasperoff]

Hmm..

Huge risk of jumping to conclusions here...

We know few details...

Sometimes cases come up that test rules in ways that had never been considered.

The response that UEFA is negligent is as knee jerk as the immediate response that Sakho should have been sacked...


You may be right of course, but there is absolutely no way of knowing either way with the information available.

Indeed. If recent history has taught us anything, it's to STFU for a while and make a considered move forward. Not to roll the lawyers in and make the issue sensational. I'm happy with how the club have handled this. Of course it would be a kick in the nads if it prove the list is incorrect, but not worse than engaging in a war against UEFA then being proven wrong.

[HighSix]

Negligence by UEFA of course for either flagging a test, suspending a player and depriving him of professional opportunities for something which isn't banned, or shouldn't be banned.

Negligence alone is basis enough, but you can add in damages for lost opportunities and reputational damage from being falsely accused and suspended for doping.

In general any player is still taking a huge stupid risk taking something without the clubs knowledge thats on the banned list... If it should or should not be banned is a completely different subject. 

[rocco]

So if UEFA have been made a mistake , where do we we stand besides Sahko not banned anymore ?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

If he should have been available then LFC should sue their fucking twat arses all the way to the High Court.

[Red_Potato]

So if UEFA have been made a mistake , where do we we stand besides Sahko not banned anymore ?

Replay!