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

[CHOPPER]

I think UEFA should make everyone eat cream buns in their training camps to make it equal.


And Toffo's. Lots and lots of Toffo's

[jepovic]

Sakho's provisional 30 day suspension has now lapsed, and UEFA have decided not to extend it, however the only statement they have made is that "a decision on the case will be made in the next few days".

Outwith that there are contradicting reports going around.
- Some have said (including the Echo) that Sakho and his defence team are arguing that the substance in question should not be on the list, and that UEFA are looking into this (implying that it was on the list, and that Sakho tested positive for it).
- Some have said that UEFA are still now actually trying to establish if the substance Sakho tested positive for is indeed even illegal/on the banned list as it is not clear.

The investigation is still ongoing, and it's unclear really what will happen next, although a lot of people think Sakho will be cleared (and the reports in France seem to take this stance), although I don't think there's really enough information either way at the moment.

He is now (at least temporarily) available for selection for the Euros, however as squads need to be named by Tuesday and the investigation is still technically ongoing and no further comment is expected from UEFA for "a few days", then it might well be a gamble to include him in the squad.

Thanks for the summary, but I still don't understand how Sakho can test positive for something that isn't banned.
Since he didn't ask for the second test to be analyzed, I guess he's not disputing that the substance was in his body.
But if the substance wasn't on the list, why did Liverpool choose to suspend him rather than challenge Uefa?

I thought there was a list of banned substances, and that was it. Either the substance is on the list, or it's not on the list. How are athletes supposed to adhere to a list otherwise?

[SerbianScouser]

I still don't understand how Sakho can test positive for something that isn't banned.

He was positive for something that is banned it`s just that Sakho`s team seem to have proof it shouldn`t be banned. And by lifting his suspension it seems Uefa agrees with them.

[cptrios]

Here's a bit of info I hadn't seen yet (which doesn't mean it hasn't popped up in this thread, so sorry in that case). It's from this ESPN article.

Sakho submitted his defence to UEFA's disciplinary committee on Monday and, as part of that, his legal team questioned whether the substance in the supplement should even be on the prohibited list given some apparent scientific evidence on its effects.

So if that's true, it's not a matter of the substance not being on the list. His lawyers are arguing that it shouldn't be on the list, because it's not actually performance-enhancing (or something along those lines). I'd think that wouldn't really matter, and it'd be an "if it's on the list, it's on the list" situation.

[WanderingRed]

The provisional 30 day suspension has just expired hasn't it? They technically lifted anything they just have decided not to ban him further pending this investigation they're apparently carrying out.

That's how I've understood it anyway

[MichaelA]

"Uefa have now opted to initiate a separate investigation to establish if the slimming pills do indeed contain illegal substances."

Seems like we may have jumped the gun a bit here.

Where was this quote from mate? It seems to be at the crux of the issue as it appears that he must have tested positive for something. The slimming pills are not on the UEFA list, but the substance(s) he tested positive for is/are on the list. Which gives rise to a variety of possible scenarios;

- the slimming pills have been adulterated
- something else he ingested was adulterated
- he knowingly took something he shouldn't have done
- he unknowingly took something he shouldn't have done
- the tests were wrong
- the list is wrong
- UEFA are a bunch of c*nts

I know where I would place my bet.

[HighSix]

The provisional 30 day suspension has just expired hasn't it? They technically lifted anything they just have decided not to ban him further pending this investigation they're apparently carrying out.

That's how I've understood it anyway

Yep.

But just guessing i would say hes in the clear as he is technically eligible now to play in their flagship international tournament. If charges were going to follow surely they would just extend this holding ban.

[farawayred]

Don't take credit! It was the cat's doing all along. Poor critter, it looks so exhausted...

[TepidT2O]

Where was this quote from mate? It seems to be at the crux of the issue as it appears that he must have tested positive for something. The slimming pills are not on the UEFA list, but the substance(s) he tested positive for is/are on the list. Which gives rise to a variety of possible scenarios;

- the slimming pills have been adulterated
- something else he ingested was adulterated
- he knowingly took something he shouldn't have done
- he unknowingly took something he shouldn't have done
- the tests were wrong
- the list is wrong
- UEFA are a bunch of c*nts

I know where I would place my bet.

The tests may be wrong....

Some molecules are "chiral". They have left and right handed forms..

They may have chemically different effects on the body.  However, they may test identically to the other form.

One of many possible explanations for what has happened.

I had a mate at university who tested falsely positive for speed for this reason.

[killer-heels]

Result.

[youll never walk alone it]

Best news we have had for a while..

[Haggis36]

Thanks for the summary, but I still don't understand how Sakho can test positive for something that isn't banned.
Since he didn't ask for the second test to be analyzed, I guess he's not disputing that the substance was in his body.
But if the substance wasn't on the list, why did Liverpool choose to suspend him rather than challenge Uefa?

I thought there was a list of banned substances, and that was it. Either the substance is on the list, or it's not on the list. How are athletes supposed to adhere to a list otherwise?

Yeah, which is why I'm a little less optimistic than others on here about all of this.

Sakho has tested positive for something - and I'd imagine that it must have to be reported at the time to either Sakho himself, the club, or both what the substance in question was.

If it was a simple as that substance not being on the list of banned items then surely the club or the player could have contested this more immediately and far more strongly? Sakho didn't contest the initial charge at all.

If the argument is now that the test was inaccurate and that no illegal substance was found, then I'd imagine he would be let off. However we haven't heard anything to that effect.

If the argument (as has been reported by several sources) is that the substance found shouldn't be illegal - well then I think it gets much murkier. At the end of the day, as someone above has said, if it's on the list, it's on the list, and if there is evidence that it was in Sakho's system I'd expect that he'll be banned anyway, regardless of whether or not it should be.

[MH41]

Many posters are stating that he would not have made a difference in the Europa League Final, but what about the 5 League games that he missed? He may have made a difference to us qualifying for Europe through that route as well?

[Levitz]

I think UEFA should make everyone eat cream buns in their training camps to make it equal.


And Toffo's. Lots and lots of Toffo's

 

[Upinsmoke]

I know people are saying it would of made no difference with Sakho playing or not but you just don't know that. We might of been able to build attacks better, he might of got his head on a set piece. I mean any decision he would of taken just once that was different to Toure could of altered the game.

If he is cleared it's a real shame to his personal profile, his reputation has been damaged

[So… Howard Philips]

So Sakho's lawyers have raised some doubt/questions, he's now, sorta, on bail but he could still be convicted anyway, depending on further tests and/or legal arguments?

[Red_Mist]

I know people are saying it would of made no difference with Sakho playing or not but you just don't know that. We might of been able to build attacks better, he might of got his head on a set piece. I mean any decision he would of taken just once that was different to Toure could of altered the game.

Would have or would've
Might have or might've
Could have or could've.

Sorry mate, just a pet gripe!

I should of just ignored it

Carry on...

[SerbianScouser]

if it's on the list, it's on the list, and if there is evidence that it was in Sakho's system I'd expect that he'll be banned anyway, regardless of whether or not it should be.

This makes zero sense. Potential new findings prove that a certain substance is not actually performance enhancing which changes everything but then lets ban him anyway. I hope instead of this there`ll be people on that Uefa board with common sense who don`t follow this insane logic.

[DonkeyWan]

FFS, what an amateursih, half-assed approach to anti-doping. Ban the player, then find out if he doped or not. How would the end of Liverpool's season have gone had Sahko been available?

[CHOPPER]

FFS, what an amateursih, half-assed approach to anti-doping. Ban the player, then find out if he doped or not. How would the end of Liverpool's season have gone had Sahko been available?

The same

[reddebs]

Is it possible that when Uefa updated it's list last year, to comply with new WADA guidelines that this substance had been removed by WADA from their list so therefore shouldn't have been on Uefas list??

Seems logical, as these lists are constantly being changed when new scientific info/evidence comes to light.

[Ipcress]

This makes zero sense. Potential new findings prove that a certain substance is not actually performance enhancing which changes everything but then lets ban him anyway. I hope instead of this there`ll be people on that Uefa board with common sense who don`t follow this insane logic.

Is it just performance enhancers that are banned? Aren't a number of substances banned because they can act as a masking agent?

That said, I'm a bit confused. I thought the original report in L'Equipe said that the substance was not on the list. However, if it is on the list, I don't see why they are not continuing the ban until the investigation is over.

[Ipcress]

Is it possible that when Uefa updated it's list last year, to comply with new WADA guidelines that this substance had been removed by WADA from their list so therefore shouldn't have been on Uefas list??

Seems logical, as these lists are constantly being changed when new scientific info/evidence comes to light.

That makes sense. Do we know what substance he was using, and, more importantly, does it work?

[Haggis36]

This makes zero sense. Potential new findings prove that a certain substance is not actually performance enhancing which changes everything but then lets ban him anyway. I hope instead of this there`ll be people on that Uefa board with common sense who don`t follow this insane logic.

How is it insane logic?

Go to a state in the US where weed is still illegal and spark up in a public place - when the police officer comes to arrest you, just kindly explain that weed is scientifically proven to be far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and point out that that's one of the reasons it's now been legalised in certain other states. Maybe the police officer agrees with you, maybe he thinks that in 6 months time the laws may well change. Guess what? He's still gonna arrest you and it's still going on record, because you broke the rules.

Why can a sportsperson be banned for 2 years for taking a banned substance they had absolutely no idea they had even ingested? Because the governing bodies take the view that it is each person's responsibility to ensure that they comply with the rules and don't take any banned substances. So if indeed Sakho has tested positive for a banned substance (likely completely unintentionally) why would they let him off on the basis that well, he thinks the substance wasn't actually performance enhancing therefore there should be no issue?

It doesn't work that way. Whatever the substance was may well be completely innocuous and in no way performance enhancing, but if it's on the list of BANNED substances and you take it (intentionally or unintentionally) then there is a pretty good chance you'll be banned.

[reddebs]

That makes sense. Do we know what substance he was using, and, more importantly, does it work?

Don't think they've ever released the name of it, it's always been reported as fat burners or slimming pills.

It just seems weird that his defense was it shouldn't be on the list and now they're investigating why it was or if it should be.

[jepovic]

He was positive for something that is banned it`s just that Sakho`s team seem to have proof it shouldn`t be banned. And by lifting his suspension it seems Uefa agrees with them.

OK, so something might be on the list that shouldn't be there?
Incredible if it's true. What a mess.
And a couple of days before the euro squad deadline.

[georgiejones]

I think UEFA should make everyone eat cream buns in their training camps to make it equal.


And Toffo's. Lots and lots of Toffo's

Is that the fruit flavoured toffos or the normal

[Redinho]

Uefa incompetent as usual.

[Djimi Smicer34]

For now he's got a lifeline and there's some hope he will be able to play for us again, let's just wait and see how the rest of it unfolds and what findings UEFA make in looking at whatever scientific evidence that Sakho and his lawyers have presented.

[Nessy76]

OK, so something might be on the list that shouldn't be there?
Incredible if it's true. What a mess.
And a couple of days before the euro squad deadline.

As someone suggested earlier, could be something that has been removed from the WADA list but was still on the UEFA one. But we don't know and won't know until something concrete comes out.

[CHOPPER]

Is that the fruit flavoured toffos or the normal

I was gonna say the mint ones, but you could end up bulimic with all that mint. Plain is best I reckon.

 

[MH41]

Don't think they've ever released the name of it, it's always been reported as fat burners or slimming pills.

And this is what I have found extremely strange about the situation, right from the start.
Usually there will be an announcement that 'sample A was found to have traces of the banned substance X'. It was simply referred to as a fat burner, and over 1 month later, we are no clearer to what the 'substance'was.
I have found the whole issue, bizarre from the start.

[Alan_X]

Is it just performance enhancers that are banned? Aren't a number of substances banned because they can act as a masking agent?

That said, I'm a bit confused. I thought the original report in L'Equipe said that the substance was not on the list. However, if it is on the list, I don't see why they are not continuing the ban until the investigation is over.

I posted the list of banned substances, which is very extensive and the guidance from UEFA to players. It lists substances by their types and effects including masking agents. None of our players should be taking anything that's not been approved by the club doctor.

People are making assumptions based on third hand reports. The L'equipe report said that his lawyers had said the substance shouldn't be on the list, which is not the same as not on the list.

[rawcusk8]

At work so cant really go through the thread but what have I missed? If somebody can kindly fill me in I would appreciate it.

[Alan_X]

...But we don't know and won't know until something concrete comes out.

Exactly.

[Nessy76]

At work so cant really go through the thread but what have I missed? If somebody can kindly fill me in I would appreciate it.

Sakho's 30 day ban from UEFA has ended and will not be extended.

His team argued that the substance he took should not be on UEFA's list.

There will be a hearing next week.

(Other than that, it's all speculation and conjecture with some tin foil hat stuff about UEFA conspiracies and all sorts of opinions expressed from people who still have no idea what has gone on or will happen next.)

[Alan_X]

How is it insane logic?

Go to a state in the US where weed is still illegal and spark up in a public place - when the police officer comes to arrest you, just kindly explain that weed is scientifically proven to be far less harmful than alcohol and tobacco and point out that that's one of the reasons it's now been legalised in certain other states. Maybe the police officer agrees with you, maybe he thinks that in 6 months time the laws may well change. Guess what? He's still gonna arrest you and it's still going on record, because you broke the rules.

Why can a sportsperson be banned for 2 years for taking a banned substance they had absolutely no idea they had even ingested? Because the governing bodies take the view that it is each person's responsibility to ensure that they comply with the rules and don't take any banned substances. So if indeed Sakho has tested positive for a banned substance (likely completely unintentionally) why would they let him off on the basis that well, he thinks the substance wasn't actually performance enhancing therefore there should be no issue?

It doesn't work that way. Whatever the substance was may well be completely innocuous and in no way performance enhancing, but if it's on the list of BANNED substances and you take it (intentionally or unintentionally) then there is a pretty good chance you'll be banned.

Correct. And the reason is obvious if people stop to think about it. Anti-doping is not there to catch people for things they didn't do. And we know that people do dope and will go to great lengths to get away with it.

If you allow wiggle room then the real dopers will use it to get off when they're caught.

Ignorance is not a defence because the anti-doping people at UEFA go to great lengths to explain the rules.

[An Ex-Pessimistic Monkey Spanker]

Sounds like what has happened up to now was negligence, but whatever happens after may not be.

Clearly UEFA has an interest in making themselves look not totally incompetent now. Do you really expect them to say "oops we made a mistake that cost Sakho and Liverpool his availability in our competition's championship game"?

Regardless of how this turns out, Sakho and the club should already have the lawsuit drafted. I don't even know how you quantify the potential damage this has caused. How much is Klopp getting the club back into the Champions League in year 0 worth? How much is that marketability worth, how much is that carrot to attract players worth? 100 million? At least that I'd say. See what they're willing to offer to avoid court, because there's no doubt they screwed up here, one way or another.

It would be unbelievable if it wasn't UEFA. It's totally believable. FIFA is corrupt, but UEFA is just incompetent -- incompetent referees, incompetent administrators.

I feel like Sakho and the club had something stolen from them. No doubt in my mind Sakho makes a huge difference just like he did against Dortmund. The attack is a lot different with him making the first pass into and sometimes through midfield.

[Doc Red]

So even though he failed a drug test for a banned substance, he might be let off because the banned substance shouldn't have been banned in the first place?
Am I getting it right?

[Johnny B. Goode]

Argh, these conspiracy theories and 'everyone hates us' attitude is fucking embarrassing. If you go on any other message board ever you will see opposite fans saying the same thing about their teams. Let's knock it off, eh?

UEFA are a rotten, corrupt organisation. But there is very, very little reason to think they would do this to Sakho 'on purpose' just to harm us. It's just one of those things, and, yes, I hope Sakho sue the fuck out of them. But let's not make this into another paranoid meltdown.

It is quite serious that a player should have this happen to him. He missed out on an European final and may very well have missed out on the Euros. Absolute clusterfuck and should not be taken lightly at all.