Author Topic: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA - (Update - Cleared)  (Read 55778 times)

Offline Sir Capon of Debaser

  • #SAUSAGES Pheasant plucking, midget chucking, jazz sax blowing, wannabe mod who'd like to be Danny Dyer's Bitch but too scared to ask in public for a name change, the pussy.....would gladly do one for mouth. Adores cats! RAWK Factor Winner 1897.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 41,594
  • Golly! An Alien Judge!
    • https://murderouskaburdacus.bandcamp.com/

Offline dumbo

  • Main Stander
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #41 on: June 9, 2016, 09:00:54 am »
If it was not on the banned list of substances then why did they test for it or even flag it after the test?
As far as I can tell, what seems to have happened is:
- WADA's list of banned substances is produced to help athletes work out what drugs they cannot take.  The new drug Sakho consumed is not on the list
- but that drug belongs to a class of drugs that is banned by WADA.
- the argument is whether Sakho reasonably should have known the drug was banned.
- separately WADA will be checking facts on this new drug to decide whether it should be banned explicitly (and whether it is supposed to be covered by the current ban)

There's certainly an argument that Sakho couldn't reasonably have known the drug was banned, but UEFA/WADA will obviously be aware that drug cheats will take 'new' drugs and make precisely the same argument /shrug.

Offline PhilV

  • Has difficulty in getting it up, apparently.....
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,786
  • Epic Swindler
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #42 on: June 9, 2016, 09:12:02 am »
Have Nike resumed their contract with Sakho ? Since they are so supportive and lenient with Sharapova, despite her being in much bigger trouble than Mamadou ?

This should be a massive opportunity for Adidas.

Also, I'm done with Nike.

Did they fuck him off?

Offline NaivetyinBlack

  • Suffers from performative anxiety.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,018
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop

Offline Craig S

  • KOP CONDUCTOR
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 5,011
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #44 on: June 9, 2016, 01:07:39 pm »
Yep.

http://www.empireofthekop.com/2016/05/15/liverpool-star-dropped-by-nike/

Misleading headline. The relationship was suspended, until the outcome of any suspension. He wasn't dropped.

Offline RainbowFlick

  • The Test Ticket Tout. Head of the RAWK Vice Squad.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,446
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #45 on: June 9, 2016, 02:48:13 pm »
Bizarre how long it's taking for an official word.

<3 Sakho
YNWA.

Offline bobadicious

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,230
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #46 on: June 9, 2016, 11:16:52 pm »
Bizarre how long it's taking for an official word.

<3 Sakho

They're decision probably has implications for this banned list so once they decide other things will have to updated and issued etc I'd imagine. Sounds more and more like uefa fuck up which they're now having to rectify
Football is a lie

Offline An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker

  • As optimistic as his last post and climax. Statistical and analytical studies of Actual Or Potential Girlfriends reveal.......probably fuck all......we're sure he'd gopher one though.....thinks this profile belongs to him.
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
  • I love whining about my profile being tweaked!
    • Statistician Mother Ship
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #47 on: June 11, 2016, 09:07:46 am »
UEFA screwed up and will do anything to paper it over now. They wrongfully disseminated info that caused LFC and Sakho to take a reasonable action based on that wrong information. Sakho should have been in the final, and I don't care what anyone says he would have made a difference. He would have covered Moreno better, tracked runners better, and been a better passer out of the back that would have gotten the attack started faster.

IMO LFC should have kept playing Sakho until the end of the case, knowing how important he was and what the substance in question was (not an anabolic steroid or HGH or something of that class), but it's easy to say that now. I don't know why LFC is so trusting and light on governing bodies like UEFA and the FA. Maybe someday they'll learn you have to fight for anything you get in this world unless you're part of the corrupt class.

Should be an easy matter. Is it on the banned list or not? No? Off you go, then, and sorry for making you miss what might be one of the most important games of your club career.

Sakho should be preparing a legal case, because you know LFC won't.
Battling Hodgson-esque Stone Agers since 2016!

Offline An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker

  • As optimistic as his last post and climax. Statistical and analytical studies of Actual Or Potential Girlfriends reveal.......probably fuck all......we're sure he'd gopher one though.....thinks this profile belongs to him.
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
  • I love whining about my profile being tweaked!
    • Statistician Mother Ship
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #48 on: June 11, 2016, 09:14:08 am »
Have Nike resumed their contract with Sakho ? Since they are so supportive and lenient with Sharapova, despite her being in much bigger trouble than Mamadou ?

This should be a massive opportunity for Adidas.

Also, I'm done with Nike.

Nike products are overpriced and underquality anyway. New Balance really are the best for shoes, been wearing them for years, and any number of companies better for clothes than Nike.

Point in the club's favor to have never done a kit deal with Nike.

Hopefully someone else swoops in with a deal for Sakho, but I imagine him being only "suspended" prevents that from happening right away.
Battling Hodgson-esque Stone Agers since 2016!

Offline Ipcress

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 816
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2016, 11:48:36 am »
UEFA screwed up and will do anything to paper it over now. They wrongfully disseminated info that caused LFC and Sakho to take a reasonable action based on that wrong information. Sakho should have been in the final, and I don't care what anyone says he would have made a difference. He would have covered Moreno better, tracked runners better, and been a better passer out of the back that would have gotten the attack started faster.

IMO LFC should have kept playing Sakho until the end of the case, knowing how important he was and what the substance in question was (not an anabolic steroid or HGH or something of that class), but it's easy to say that now. I don't know why LFC is so trusting and light on governing bodies like UEFA and the FA. Maybe someday they'll learn you have to fight for anything you get in this world unless you're part of the corrupt class.

Should be an easy matter. Is it on the banned list or not? No? Off you go, then, and sorry for making you miss what might be one of the most important games of your club career.

Sakho should be preparing a legal case, because you know LFC won't.

As you seem to know so much about the case, could you explain why Sakho didn't inform his club as to what he was taking as he was obliged to?

If he had done then either he would have asked to stop taking it by the club, or they would have checked, given it the all clear and notified UEFA that there were in error regarding the substance, presenting evidence before Sakho was even tested.

I fear that by failing to be open about what he was taking as he was obliged to, he has undermined his own case, and to quote the Sharapova tribunal, been the sole author of his downfall.
The sort of people that seek power, are exactly the sort that should be kept away from it.

Offline Rouge

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,833
  • Barnes to Molby!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #50 on: June 11, 2016, 10:40:51 pm »
As you seem to know so much about the case, could you explain why Sakho didn't inform his club as to what he was taking as he was obliged to?

If he had done then either he would have asked to stop taking it by the club, or they would have checked, given it the all clear and notified UEFA that there were in error regarding the substance, presenting evidence before Sakho was even tested.

Can someone point me to the article which said the club medical team never knew about the fat burner,

Offline Ipcress

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Kopite
  • ******
  • Posts: 816
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2016, 06:50:15 am »
Can someone point me to the article which said the club medical team never knew about the fat burner,

It's deduction. If he had taken the steps he was supposed to take and informed LFC then LFC would have been up for being charged.

UEFA have never had a problem with charging LFC before.

No mention in his defence+ no UEFA charge against LFC = safe assumption for discussion purposes.

Or are you saying LFC were complicit?
The sort of people that seek power, are exactly the sort that should be kept away from it.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2016, 07:28:35 am »
UEFA screwed up and will do anything to paper it over now. They wrongfully disseminated info that caused LFC and Sakho to take a reasonable action based on that wrong information. Sakho should have been in the final, and I don't care what anyone says he would have made a difference. He would have covered Moreno better, tracked runners better, and been a better passer out of the back that would have gotten the attack started faster.

IMO LFC should have kept playing Sakho until the end of the case, knowing how important he was and what the substance in question was (not an anabolic steroid or HGH or something of that class), but it's easy to say that now. I don't know why LFC is so trusting and light on governing bodies like UEFA and the FA. Maybe someday they'll learn you have to fight for anything you get in this world unless you're part of the corrupt class.

Should be an easy matter. Is it on the banned list or not? No? Off you go, then, and sorry for making you miss what might be one of the most important games of your club career.

Sakho should be preparing a legal case, because you know LFC won't.

If it's the substance referred to in reports then it's covered by a blanket ban on all beta-2 agonists. The ban includes 'all isomers...' So it won't be named, because no beta-2 agonists are individually named.

If he tested for a beta-2 agonist then they rightly announced it.

And the guidance is also clear that if there's any doubt and something is not on the list, then it's the players responsibility to ensure it's legal. In other words: if you claim you thought something was ok because it wasn't on the list, you have committed a doping offence.

The revelation that Sakho asked for the ban himself is a worry, because it downgrades the relevance of UEFA not continuing the ban. There's no reason to extend the ban because they didn't ask for it in the first place.

And the Sharapova case won't have done Sakho any favours. It has similarities to Sakho's case and UEFA won't want to look soft compared to other sports.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think this is over.  UEFA will be checking their case carefully and considering evidence from Sakho's legal team. If it was cut-and-dried and they were going to let him off we'd gave heard by now.

My gut reaction is that he may get a six-month ban but possibly up to two years.

If you know otherwise I'd like to be reassured that it's all a storm in a teacup. Especially about whether it was or wasn't a beta-2 agonist that he took. If it was then given the way the rules are worded I don't see how he's going to get off scot-free.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline freddwarf

  • Pub bore. See? See? I was right! Gerrard back in C/Mid! Told you all months ago! See? Listen to me! I'm always right! Chose accessorising over a European Final. Gave his wife the trousers.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,732
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2016, 01:01:19 pm »
How can he test positive for a drug that is not on the banned list. When was this substance ever on the ban list. Was it on by mistake. When he 'tested positive' did they then say...'' Oh that shouldn't be on the list''. Or was it on the list when he took said drug, but off it when he 'tested positive'. Did the club think it was on the list because at some point the club must have a copy off the banned list of substances. Did the testers keep up to date with UEFA list update.

Was it that the list fell down the back of the UEFA couch.

Offline SerbianScouser

  • Far from world class.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,869
  • ...All the best
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2016, 01:10:44 pm »
How do you explain them not issuing any ban on him and practically allowing to keep playing football for his team if taking something that belonged to beta-2 agonists is so severe that it might require 6 months to 2 years as you say? It doesn`t add up.

If that report is to be believed there is a mitigating circumstance the size of mount Everest , it would be preposterous if he got anything more than a slap on the wrist.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2016, 01:47:45 pm »
How do you explain them not issuing any ban on him and practically allowing to keep playing football for his team if taking something that belonged to beta-2 agonists is so severe that it might require 6 months to 2 years as you say? It doesn`t add up.

If that report is to be believed there is a mitigating circumstance the size of mount Everest , it would be preposterous if he got anything more than a slap on the wrist.

Usually the authorities don't ban players until their case is heard unless it is a substance where there is no legitimate defence. What is clear though is that there would be repercussions for both the player and Club or Country if they continue to play whilst waiting for their hearing and are found guilty.

As for the mitigating circumstances I am not that sure what they are. According to some reports Sakho is claiming that it is not clear that the substance contained in the fat burning pills he took should be on the banned list. The problem as I see it is that even if that is true Sakho at the time of taking the pills took a substance that triggered a positive drugs test.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline SerbianScouser

  • Far from world class.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,869
  • ...All the best
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2016, 01:56:57 pm »
As for the mitigating circumstances I am not that sure what they are.
If reports are to be believed the substance in question wasn`t on the official banned list which means they can`t charge him with severe negligence, negligence sure but not severe which would stipulate a heavy punishment.

Offline istvan kozma

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,362
  • "We have dreams and songs to sing"
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #57 on: June 12, 2016, 02:38:01 pm »
And the Sharapova case won't have done Sakho any favours. It has similarities to Sakho's case and UEFA won't want to look soft compared to other sports.
To compare the Sakho case to Sharapova's is a lazy comparison.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #58 on: June 12, 2016, 03:12:32 pm »
If reports are to be believed the substance in question wasn`t on the official banned list which means they can`t charge him with severe negligence, negligence sure but not severe which would stipulate a heavy punishment.

A) have you actually read the banned list?
B) have you read the rules about what to do if a substance is not on the banned list?
C) do you know what the substance actually is?

Answers:

A) the list includes all beta-2 agonists including all isomers. The individual names and trade names are not listed because it's a blanket ban. It wasn't named on the list before or after the list was revised in 2016 because that's not the way the list is worded.

B) if a substance is not on the list - you don't take it. Taking a substance that's not on the list without checking is an offence. Ignorance is not a defence.

C) the substance he's reported to have taken is a beta-2 agonist. See item A above.

If a substance is not on the list you don't take it without checking and if you don't check it's negligence.

Those are the doping rules. The 'reports to be believed' are one French media source (briefed by Sakho's lawyers I assume) which has mentioned the substance and said it's not on the list but that doesn't make any sense of you actually read the rules.

I'll say it one last time:

The substance he's reported to have taken is on the list if it's a beta-2 agonist.

If he took something that's not listed specifically without checking he's guilty of negligence. The guidance given to footballers is clear that it's the players responsibility to check everything and ignorance is no defence.

If someone can tell me that the substance he took is not in fact a beta-2 agonist as reported then I'll feel happier that he'll be ok. If it is then he should be looking for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account.

WADA banned list:

S3. BETA-2 AGONISTS

All beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, e.g. d- and l- where relevant, are prohibited.

Except:

• Inhaled salbutamol (maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours);
• Inhaled formoterol (maximum delivered dose 54 micrograms over 24 hours); and
• Inhaled salmeterol in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommended therapeutic regimen.

The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of
1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic inhaled dose up to the maximum indicated above.


Guidance for players:

Players should be aware that doping controls can be carried out at all times, both in- and out-of- competition. We therefore remind you of Paragraph 2.01b) of the UEFA Anti-Doping Regulations, edition 2015: “It is each player’s personal duty that no prohibited substance enters his body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the player’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method”. Given the disciplinary consequences that a player may face in the event of an anti-doping rule violation, we ask that all players be fully informed of the risks involved in taking any form of medication or food supplement.

From the leaflet issued to all players:

Who is responsible if I commit a doping offence?

It is always your responsibility, whether the offence involves a banned substance in your body when you are tested, a refusal to be tested, a whereabouts violation, or any other type of anti-doping rule violation. Remember, it is your body and your career and you cannot blame anyone else.

Are supplements safe?

Nutritional supplements are not regulated like medicines are, so you can never be sure that the label shows the real contents. Studies have shown that around 15% of supplements bought over the internet could be contaminated with banned substances such as anabolic steroids.

Several players have taken supplements and have then tested positive, even when they had not meant to take banned substances. This still leads to a long suspension from football. Substances such as methylhexanamine (which is also known by other names, including geranamine) are often involved in such cases.

Never trust a supplement that says it is approved by UEFA, FIFA or similar sport organisations. This will never be the case. Be careful – if the packaging claims it will enhance your performance, it probably has a banned substance in it!


http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Anti-doping/02/32/57/15/2325715_DOWNLOAD.pdf

From the UEFA guide to the WADA list

Can prohibited substances be present in nutritional supplements?

Yes. The results of studies recently carried out on nutritional supplements used by athletes have shown that many of these products are contaminated with prohibited substances, including anabolic steroids and stimulants. The ingredient lists on most supplements rarely indicate that they contain prohibited substances.

You should also be aware that some prohibited substances have several different names. For example, there have been many cases in recent years of athletes from several sports, including football, testing positive for the banned stimulant methylhexaneamine, which is commonly found in supplements. Methylhexaneamine is also known as dimethylamylamine, geranamine, Forthane, 2-amino-4- methylhexane, geranium root extract and geranium oil. Although one of these names may be listed in the ingredients of a supplement, the official name of methylhexaneamine will almost certainly not be.

You must be extremely careful with the use of nutritional supplements as you would face disciplinary sanctions in the event of a positive doping test, even if you had accidentally consumed a prohibited substance via the supplement.

What should I do if I have to take any medication or a food supplement?

Given the disciplinary consequences that you may face in the event of an anti-doping rule violation, you should be aware of the contents of the Prohibited List, and before taking any medication or food supplements you should consult your team doctor or your national anti-doping organisation (NADO). You can also ask for advice at anti-doping@uefa.ch.


http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Anti-doping/02/32/57/87/2325787_DOWNLOAD.pdf
« Last Edit: June 12, 2016, 03:43:51 pm by Alan_X »
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #59 on: June 12, 2016, 03:13:19 pm »
To compare the Sakho case to Sharapova's is a lazy comparison.

Explain why?
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline SerbianScouser

  • Far from world class.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,869
  • ...All the best
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #60 on: June 12, 2016, 03:31:11 pm »
B) if a substance is not on the list - you don't take it. Taking a substance that's not on the list without checking is an offence. Ignorance is not a defence.
And what I`m telling you is it`s not the same thing if you take a substance that is clearly on the list of individual banned substances and taking a substance that is not but is part of another group under a blanket ban. That`s why there are different levels of negligence.

He can easily argue none of the substances in the fat burner came up as an individual banned substance which means they can`t accuse him of severe negligence and if they tried to any legal team worth their salt would tear them apart with that one.

Everything that`s been reported on this case indicates he`ll get the minimal punishment at worst.

Offline istvan kozma

  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,362
  • "We have dreams and songs to sing"
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #61 on: June 12, 2016, 03:42:28 pm »
Explain why?
Because the 2 cases are different, UEFA are even investigating if what Sakho took should even be on their banned list. The Sharapova case has come to a conclusion so we know the facts, which isn't the case with Sakho. For you to claim Sharapova's case will have a bearing on what punishment Sakho will get is a lazy comparison.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #62 on: June 12, 2016, 03:43:11 pm »
And what I`m telling you is it`s not the same thing if you take a substance that is clearly on the list of individual banned substances and taking a substance that is not but is part of another group under a blanket ban. That`s why there are different levels of negligence.

He can easily argue none of the substances in the fat burner came up as an individual banned substance which means they can`t accuse him of severe negligence and if they tried to any legal team worth their salt would tear them apart with that one.

Everything that`s been reported on this case indicates he`ll get the minimal punishment at worst.

Err... What? That's already covered under 'specified substances' which you'd know if you'd read the rules and guidance. Beta-2 agonists are group S3 on the WADA list and considered 'specified substances' with maximum punishment up to 2 years rather than 4 years.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #63 on: June 12, 2016, 03:57:58 pm »
Because the 2 cases are different, UEFA are even investigating if what Sakho took should even be on their banned list. The Sharapova case has come to a conclusion so we know the facts, which isn't the case with Sakho. For you to claim Sharapova's case will have a bearing on what punishment Sakho will get is a lazy comparison.

Sharapova's defence was that the substance appeared on the Jan 2016 list and she and/or her team hadn't spotted it. Assuming that it was ok to keep taking it she carried on. She used ignorance and the fact that the WADA list changed as her defence. Her legal team came up with a strategy of admitting it early and trying to frame the debate. The finding was that all that is irrelevant because it's the athlete's responsibility to be aware of the list and to check if there is any doubt. She's got a two-year ban.

Sakho's defence appears to be that the substance wasn't listed by name or shouldn't have been listed (reports are unclear). If it's the substance that's been reported then it falls down for the same reason that Sharapova's defence did - relying on ignorance or oversight as a defence. Like Sharapova he's admitted it and his team have used the media to disseminate stories about what has happened to frame the debate (see the rest of this thread with people talking with absolute assurance about the substance not being on the list etc).

All I'm doing is reading the actual rules and referring to the actual list and the precedents that have been set by other cases. I could be wrong, I hope I am but it would be reasonable (and courteous) to expect people to have taken the same effort and read the documentation before criticising what I've posted.

Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2016, 04:08:46 pm »
If reports are to be believed the substance in question wasn`t on the official banned list which means they can`t charge him with severe negligence, negligence sure but not severe which would stipulate a heavy punishment.

That is the bit I don't really get with Sakho's defence. His sample has triggered a positive, he has admitted taking a supplement of a type that is extremely risky for an athlete to take. He now seems to be arguing about whether the substance that triggered the positive should be on the list or not. If it is the substance that is being reported in France then Athletes have been advised not to take it whilst it's effects are fully investigated.

So for me his actions are somewhere between extremely naive and wilfully negligent. 

"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline SerbianScouser

  • Far from world class.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 15,869
  • ...All the best
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #65 on: June 12, 2016, 04:13:45 pm »
So for me his actions are somewhere between extremely naive and wilfully negligent. 
His legal team are probably the best the money can buy so if they`re arguing the substance is not on the list of individual banned substances then there`s a very good reason why they`re doing so.

People can argue there`s no difference if it`s a part of another group of substances under a blanket ban but his team wouldn`t be bothering if that really was the case.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #66 on: June 12, 2016, 04:17:59 pm »
Sharapova's defence was that the substance appeared on the Jan 2016 list and she and/or her team hadn't spotted it. Assuming that it was ok to keep taking it she carried on. She used ignorance and the fact that the WADA list changed as her defence. Her legal team came up with a strategy of admitting it early and trying to frame the debate. The finding was that all that is irrelevant because it's the athlete's responsibility to be aware of the list and to check if there is any doubt. She's got a two-year ban.

Sakho's defence appears to be that the substance wasn't listed by name or shouldn't have been listed (reports are unclear). If it's the substance that's been reported then it falls down for the same reason that Sharapova's defence did - relying on ignorance or oversight as a defence. Like Sharapova he's admitted it and his team have used the media to disseminate stories about what has happened to frame the debate (see the rest of this thread with people talking with absolute assurance about the substance not being on the list etc).

All I'm doing is reading the actual rules and referring to the actual list and the precedents that have been set by other cases. I could be wrong, I hope I am but it would be reasonable (and courteous) to expect people to have taken the same effort and read the documentation before criticising what I've posted.



My understanding if it is the substance that is being reported in France is that it is a naturally occurring molecule from fruits and plants and that whilst it appears to have effects similar to beta-2 agonists it isn't clear whether it does or not. Fat burners are usually concoctions created from natural wonder substances that may or may not live up to the claims of the snake oil salesmen who market them.

Sakho has been incredibly stupid taking a supplement whose affects are unknown but I think it is far from clear whether the substance in question is definitely a beta-2 agonist.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #67 on: June 12, 2016, 04:23:06 pm »
That is the bit I don't really get with Sakho's defence. His sample has triggered a positive, he has admitted taking a supplement of a type that is extremely risky for an athlete to take. He now seems to be arguing about whether the substance that triggered the positive should be on the list or not. If it is the substance that is being reported in France then Athletes have been advised not to take it whilst it's effects are fully investigated.

So for me his actions are somewhere between extremely naive and wilfully negligent. 

I still don't get how it can be argued that the substance should or shouldn't be on the list.

The substance is higenamine. Higenamine is a beta-2 agonist. Beta-2 agonists are covered under S3 of the WADA list:

http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/

All the guidance is emphatic that a trade name or alternative name not being on the list is not a defence for taking a substance.

Can someone tell me what I'm missing here?
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #68 on: June 12, 2016, 04:25:13 pm »
His legal team are probably the best the money can buy so if they`re arguing the substance is not on the list of individual banned substances then there`s a very good reason why they`re doing so.

People can argue there`s no difference if it`s a part of another group of substances under a blanket ban but his team wouldn`t be bothering if that really was the case.

His legal team will be getting very well rewarded either way so I wouldn't read too much into their defence. His defence even if he is proven guilty will also act as mitigation anyway. The crux of the issue though is that Sakho shouldn't of been gambling with his career by acting so stupidly.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #69 on: June 12, 2016, 04:36:58 pm »
I still don't get how it can be argued that the substance should or shouldn't be on the list.

The substance is higenamine. Higenamine is a beta-2 agonist. Beta-2 agonists are covered under S3 of the WADA list:

http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-in-competition/prohibited-substances/

All the guidance is emphatic that a trade name or alternative name not being on the list is not a defence for taking a substance.

Can someone tell me what I'm missing here?

The issue is the amount of research into higenamine. It hasn't definitively been shown that higenamine is indeed a beta-2 agonist. If it was definitely a beta-2 agonist then it would of been put on the WADA list. Instead athletes were advised not to take it whilst further investigations were undertaken.

The thing is the snake oil salesmen marketing fat burners have largely removed higenamine from their supplements because of it's reputation and moved onto this weeks new wonder ingredient. Subsequently there is little point in putting huge amounts of money into research when higenamine is basically dead in the water.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #70 on: June 12, 2016, 04:40:41 pm »
My understanding if it is the substance that is being reported in France is that it is a naturally occurring molecule from fruits and plants and that whilst it appears to have effects similar to beta-2 agonists it isn't clear whether it does or not. Fat burners are usually concoctions created from natural wonder substances that may or may not live up to the claims of the snake oil salesmen who market them.

Sakho has been incredibly stupid taking a supplement whose affects are unknown but I think it is far from clear whether the substance in question is definitely a beta-2 agonist.

Thanks - some sense at last. From my reading higenamine is shown to be a beta-2 agonist and it has shown beta-2 agonist effects in animal studies. It's not tested or approved for human medicinal use as I understand and is sold in natural medicines and other quackery as a fat burner.

So essentially the hope is that Sakho will get off because he took something that is untested and unapproved. He's jeapordised his own career and got banned for the end of the season due to his own stupidity. However if the WADA/UEFA scientific team find that it is included as a Beta-2 agonist he could be up for a 12 month to two year ban.

If he gets off he's a very lucky boy. He took something he shouldn't have without (I hope) the knowledge of the LFC medical staff and may get off on a technicality.

Let's see how it turns out.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #71 on: June 12, 2016, 04:52:28 pm »
Thanks - some sense at last. From my reading higenamine is shown to be a beta-2 agonist and it has shown beta-2 agonist effects in animal studies. It's not tested or approved for human medicinal use as I understand and is sold in natural medicines and other quackery as a fat burner.

So essentially the hope is that Sakho will get off because he took something that is untested and unapproved. He's jeapordised his own career and got banned for the end of the season due to his own stupidity. However if the WADA/UEFA scientific team find that it is included as a Beta-2 agonist he could be up for a 12 month to two year ban.

If he gets off he's a very lucky boy. He took something he shouldn't have without (I hope) the knowledge of the LFC medical staff and may get off on a technicality.

Let's see how it turns out.

I think Sakho should be okay because unlike Meldonium the drug which Sharapova took the chances of clinical trials for Higenamine are pretty remote as it doesn't do anything that existing medications don't already do.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #72 on: June 12, 2016, 04:52:42 pm »
If it was definitely a beta-2 agonist then it would of been put on the WADA list.

Because of the way the WADA list is worded, if it's shown to be a beta-2 agonist then it's on the list automatically. It seems that his legal team are splitting hairs over whether it's actually a beta-2 agonist, despite it testing as a banned substance, acting like a beta-2 agonist and having beta-2 agonist effects in animal trials.

Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #73 on: June 12, 2016, 05:14:04 pm »
Because of the way the WADA list is worded, if it's shown to be a beta-2 agonist then it's on the list automatically. It seems that his legal team are splitting hairs over whether it's actually a beta-2 agonist, despite it testing as a banned substance, acting like a beta-2 agonist and having beta-2 agonist effects in animal trials.



Yeh Al but the only way they could do that is if there were medical trials that categorically showed that Higenamine was a beta-2 agonist. Given that previous trials in animals have only shown mild properties there is no way a drug company is going to fund trials. That would mean WADA investing huge sums in clinical trials in humans. Even if they had the funds I don't think they would ethically be able to do that.

Unless there is a huge upsurge in Higenamine usage which is unlikely given it's limited benefits and pretty severe potential side effects then my guess is that WADA will let it slide. The cheats will be working on undetectable substances and the companies producing pre-workout supplements and fat burners will be looking for their next wonder ingredient. 
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 53,376
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #74 on: June 12, 2016, 05:25:52 pm »
All fair points. Whichever way this turns out Sakho needs a kick up the arse not lionising and put forward as the next captain.

If he knew all that about Higenamine before hand then he was playing with fire and the reputation of the club. If he didn't know he should have been nowhere near the stuff.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Eeyore

  • "I have no problem whatsoever stating that FSG have done a good job.".Mo Money, Mo Problems to invent. Number 1 is Carragher. Number 2 is Carragher. Number 3 is Carragher. Number 4 is Carragher. Likes to play God in his spare time.
  • Campaigns
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,191
  • JFT 97
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #75 on: June 12, 2016, 06:01:04 pm »
All fair points. Whichever way this turns out Sakho needs a kick up the arse not lionising and put forward as the next captain.

If he knew all that about Higenamine before hand then he was playing with fire and the reputation of the club. If he didn't know he should have been nowhere near the stuff.

Agree completely Al.

He is just lucky what was in the supplements because frankly it could of been anything. Sportsmen taking untested supplements created from a cocktail of ingredients is reckless beyond belief, especially considering the stress they already put their body under.
"Ohhh-kayyy"

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 19,741
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #76 on: June 13, 2016, 09:32:00 am »
Minor point, but you can't tell what the target/class of a molecule is by doing whole animal studies. If they wanted to study the molecule in question, a lab would likely test the molecule specifically at its presumed target. So the question of clinical trials doesn't necessarily come into it. In fact, even before it was tested in animals, any group looking to make money off the drug would have to have characterised the actual pharmacological activity of this molecule. I haven't really read much about this case, but it doesn't make much sense to be honest.


Edit: Had a quick look, and there is a study that has apparently identified that this molecule does act as an agonist at the Beta2 adrenergic receptor. But it don't look the most convincing I've ever read.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 09:36:52 am by jooneyisdagloomy »
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline naka

  • Lennart Skoglund Ultra
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,647
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #77 on: June 13, 2016, 09:41:53 am »
any idea when the decision will be made as to the illegality or otherwise of the supplements

Offline An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker

  • As optimistic as his last post and climax. Statistical and analytical studies of Actual Or Potential Girlfriends reveal.......probably fuck all......we're sure he'd gopher one though.....thinks this profile belongs to him.
  • Anny Roader
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
  • I love whining about my profile being tweaked!
    • Statistician Mother Ship
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #78 on: June 13, 2016, 11:00:45 am »
If this was cut and dried, it would have been done by now. You wouldn't have a ban run out with no resolution. That just shows that UEFA doesn't know what to do.

There is very little doubt they screwed up somewhere and now are grasping at straws.

I don't know what repercussion there could have been for playing Sakho during this time that wouldn't have been worth being in Europa or even Champions League, and Sakho being in Euro 2016 with France (I'm sure they'd rather have him than Adil Rami).

I don't know anything about the chemistry or beta-2 this or that. I just know UEFA's uncharacteristic inaction is a dead cert for an organization that knows they screwed up and are trying to figure a way out of it.
Battling Hodgson-esque Stone Agers since 2016!

Offline Jookie

  • Ruptures, then repairs the tears
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 8,685
  • Muted Al 666's posts for my own sanity
Re: Mamadou Sakho asked for ban, say UEFA
« Reply #79 on: June 13, 2016, 11:24:59 am »
Minor point, but you can't tell what the target/class of a molecule is by doing whole animal studies. If they wanted to study the molecule in question, a lab would likely test the molecule specifically at its presumed target. So the question of clinical trials doesn't necessarily come into it. In fact, even before it was tested in animals, any group looking to make money off the drug would have to have characterised the actual pharmacological activity of this molecule. I haven't really read much about this case, but it doesn't make much sense to be honest.


Edit: Had a quick look, and there is a study that has apparently identified that this molecule does act as an agonist at the Beta2 adrenergic receptor. But it don't look the most convincing I've ever read.

Completely agree with this.

I’m struggling to understand how there is any ambiguity around whether Higenamine is a beta-2 receptor agonist. There are in vitro beta-2 assays that can be utilised to understand the pharmacologically activity of Higenamine. Whether it is a beta-2 agonist or not should be relatively easy to define. I can’t see this being the reason why this is any ambiguity around it usage.

Whether Higenamine has performance enhancing properties is probably ill-defined through a lack of evidence. And this is where some of the ambiguity may be coming from.
I think Jookie might just be the best fisherman on this thread.