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

[Eeyore]

For me this is down to UEFA using the WADA list of banned substances. It is stupid beyond belief to ban footballers for substances that give sportsmen in other fields an advantage but do absolutely nothing for footballers. Football should have its own list of substances that give footballers an unfair advantage.

[Jake]

Have you been suspended from a cup final in the last three years that wasn't your fault?

The National Crapcident Helpline could help you claim the compensation YOU deserve!

You'll keep 100% of the compensation YOU deserve because the costs are recovered from the other side.

[rocco]

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

They'll get out of it ,gill loop hole

[DonkeyWan]

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.

Nor do I, but they should at least be aware of what the substance is supposed to do, the reason for it being banned, before blanket enforcing it. They don't even have that, apparently.

Imagine if you will it was mangoes they had banned. And Sahko got caught eating mangoes. And pilliored and banned for a month. And at the end of the month, when he shamefacedly admitted to eating mangoes and was awaiting punishment, he then asked, "hey, why can't I eat mangos btw?" and they then replied "no idea, but you were deffo caught eating them..."

That's my beef, they don't even seem to know why they were banned in the first place.

[Alf]

It shows how naive football is to the use of drugs. Athletics and Boxing seem to to be making a concerted effort to identify this while football piggy backs of a banned substance list.

[RainbowFlick]

Just hope he's definitely not getting any charges. While it was silly you can't deny he's been quality for us and is possibly the nicest, most likeable player we've had in ages. Genuinely love seeing him wearing red.

If he does get away from any charges, it is terrible to think the harm it's had on his reputation. He was dropped from Nike sponsorship, removed from FIFA Ultimate Team etc all as a result. I don't know whether a claim against UEFA is necessarily a great idea in case it opens up a can of worms.

[rocco]

Should the club have questioned the banned substance first before dropping him ?

[Alf Garnett!]

The next few days will reveal all,what Uefa will do is dismiss any wrongdoing completely-its how they operate.

Whether that is a fucked up test or a substance on their banned list that shouldn't be there..

The probable outcome is no further punishment(yet) & a full review of the banned substance list is under review,which could leave Sakho under a cloud.

The main confusing part for me is not extending the ban,Uefa dont know if Sakho is guilty or not & have took 30 days scratching their arses & come to this decision.

It could throw up more shit than they could dream of..Sakho plays in the Euro's & scores the winner in the final only for Uefa to confirm it is,and it was a banned substance!

This is Uefa,they fuck up everything..its how they operate.

Fire away! Tic

[Alan_X]

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I expect UEFA to be held account if they've done something wrong.

It would help if people would stop slinging around nonsense about negligence when they have no idea what it means legally.

You're not a lawyer - maybe you should stop giving out legal opinion?

[Alan_X]

Nor do I, but they should at least be aware of what the substance is supposed to do, the reason for it being banned, before blanket enforcing it. They don't even have that, apparently.

Imagine if you will it was mangoes they had banned. And Sahko got caught eating mangoes. And pilliored and banned for a month. And at the end of the month, when he shamefacedly admitted to eating mangoes and was awaiting punishment, he then asked, "hey, why can't I eat mangos btw?" and they then replied "no idea, but you were deffo caught eating them..."

That's my beef, they don't even seem to know why they were banned in the first place.

They are aware of all of that. It's documented and available for download.

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Anti-doping/02/32/17/71/2321771_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Players also get briefings and are issued with leaflets explaining what's legal and what isn't.

[Rouge]

Just happy to have our best defender back for the start of the new season

[DonkeyWan]

They are aware of all of that. It's documented and available for download.

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Anti-doping/02/32/17/71/2321771_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Players also get briefings and are issued with leaflets explaining what's legal and what isn't.

That's just a list of banned substances froma  third party organisation. It doesn't explain what they do, it doesn't offer specific information for a particular sport. It has a degree of credibility because it comes from a state sponsored organisation in WADA, but even WADA has a less than perfect record here.

More to the point, if UEFA was serious about anti-doping, they wouldn't just take a list from WADA and say "That will do". WADA are actually a fairly small organisation for what they are trying to do. They are trying to stay on top of all medical advances across a trillion dollar industry for all sports. The result is they engage in generic and catchall bans, putting out lists such as the one above and sorting the wheat from the chafe later. They have little choice since the scale of what they are trying to do is enormous. I have heard nmerous interviews with the head of WADA on Irish radio, he readily admitted the scale of teh challenge they were involved in was so great as to be paralysing. UEFA must be aware of this fact, but don't seem to treat the issue with anything like the rigorous and in-depth approach required.

The result is what we see here; a player gets banned and when his legal team question why, he gets put in a holding pattern until UEFA themselves find out what it is he's done wrong.

No one is suggesting that Sahko has not done something wrong (though whether on purprose or by accident still has to come out in the wash). He could still end up being heavily punished. This is not what people are complaining about. The issue here is that UEFA appear to be making the process up as they go along.

You criticised a poster earlier for using the term 'negligence' and said they weren't lawyers. Well, nor am I, and from a legal perspective I don't know if it is negligence or not. But negligence (as in the every day use of the term) seems to apply here. UEFA issued a list of banned substances, a player contravened it and got caught; this is not in dispute. But now it seems that UEFA don't even know why a product is banned in the first place. Does that fill you with confidence? How many more products are on that list that they know nothing about? How many more are not on the list that should be?

For example, pain-killing injections before a game. Is that performance enhancing? Is that not deleterious to a players health? Why is that not on the list?

To my mind the list UEFA uses doesn't seem well thought out or comprehensive and to add insult to injury, it now seems that they don't even know why certain products are on the list in the first place. And so now a player has to await another hearing until they decide what it is he has done wrong and how to punish him. Does that strike you as an organisation fully committed and invested in anti-doping?

[SerbianScouser]

Mamadou Sakho still set to miss EURO 2016, despite being cleared of doping
Since yesterday, Mamadou Sakho has been given back the right to play professional football.

UEFA, who suspended him until further notice because of a drug test that was taken on the 17th March, after the Europa League encounter between Manchester United and Liverpool, have decided not to prolong his suspension any further, being fully expected not to take any further action against Sakho.

Between now and Tuesday, a committee of UEFA experts are due to meet in order to make a definitive decision in this case. They were leaning yesterday towards a decision not to punish Sakho, taking the player’s English lawyers’s arguments into account.

The 26 year old, who will not make any public statement until an official decision is announced, maintained his claim throughout this case that the products inside the fat burner that he was found to have been taking, were not on UEFA’s official list of banned substances.

Turns out that Sakho was right.

The particular substance found in Sakho’s urine, that was present in the product that the French international was taking, is called higenamine. The presence of this substance in the product was clearly marked on the packaging, according to L’Équipe.

It is a substance that combats asthma but also has the ability to burn fat as well.

This substance is not listed on the AMA’s list of banned substances, even though it belongs to a category, beta-2 agonists, that is banned. A mistake by the authorities, but legally, Sakho has not made a mistake.

What’s more, when one types higenamine into the UKAD and AFLD websites, neither authorities’ page recognises the molecule.

In accordance with article 10 section 2 of the UEFA antidoping regulations, when there is an absence of significant negligence, the sanction is minimum a warning and maximum a two year ban.

Should UEFA, as expected, decide not to punish Sakho further, then it will be because they believe there is an absence of significant negligence on the part of the defender.

However, whatever UEFA’s decision, there is the possibility that the AMA doping agency decides to appeal the decision in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Should UEFA, as expected, imminently announce the relaxation of Sakho’s suspension, then he is technically available for selection by Didier Deschamps for EURO 2016.

However, it seems that this turnaround has come too late for Sakho. Deschamps is almost certainly not going to pick him, mainly due to the fact that he has not played any professional football for an extended period of time…

http://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2016/mamadou-sakho-still-set-to-miss-euro-2016-despite-being-cleared-of-doping/

[HighSix]

So its the opposite of reported yesterday? Not directly listed but part of a banned category so will be added to the list now. 

 Sounds messy if the other orgainsations mentioned can take action. Is there a precedent for this in football? 

[Nessy76]

That makes sense.

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

No-one has ever been willing to give them their address.

[acks]

So its the opposite of reported yesterday? Not directly listed but part of a banned category so will be added to the list now. 

 Sounds messy if the other orgainsations mentioned can take action. Is there a precedent for this in football? 

If that article is true, then Sakho didn't knowingly take a banned substance because it isn't on WADA'S list so i pretty much doubt any organisation can punish him.

[Red_Rich]

Some people need to grow up and get real about this UEFA conspiracy over us thing.

I actually thought that the Hungarian ref gave us everything in the 2nd leg of the semi.

And who's to say Sakho wouldn't have dropped a clanger against Vilarreal and gifted them an away goal.

Nonsense to think they've colluded against us.

[Butcher Knife Roberto]

I doubt there will be any charity afforded to us in terms of fair play Europa League spots, financial compensation or otherwise. I doubt UEFA will even want to hold their hands up and say they fucked up on this one, especially given their recent history. It'll be dealt with in the form of a short, austere statement, with no further response, and the player given the opportunity to resume his career. By rights we should throw the book at them of course, but I keep thinking of that saying 'keep your friends close, but your enemies closer'.

[redgriffin73]

It is a substance that combats asthma but also has the ability to burn fat as well.

So is this stuff in my asthma inhalers? If so, I want to know why it's not burning my fat and if not, where can I get some?

[Ken-Obi]

The UEFA conspiracy against us that kept getting bandied about reminds me of the 'RS  conspiracy' thingy that smaller team across Stanley Park kept going on about - pathetic.

[QwertyQ]

A couple of unrelated random points...

What happened to innocent until PROVED guilty?

Kolo probably replaced him in the final and he was our best player on the pitch.

[pyroparty]

Some people need to grow up and get real about this UEFA conspiracy over us thing.

I actually thought that the Hungarian ref gave us everything in the 2nd leg of the semi.

And who's to say Sakho wouldn't have dropped a clanger against Vilarreal and gifted them an away goal.

Nonsense to think they've colluded against us.

Maybe.

Then again. This is a UEFA charge for fireworks :



While this is not :



I dont think it's a conspiracy but they are a disgrace of an organisation who make it up as they go along.

[IgoDirk]

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

I agree it's not worth worrying about what may have happened if Sakho had played.

But you can't say it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. It would have been a completely different game. Sturridge doesn't score that goal if Sakho plays. We coud have been 3-0 up at half time. We could have been 3-0 down. No knows, and no one will ever know.

[DonkeyWan]

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

It would have made a difference to Sahko.

[SecondComing]

I agree it's not worth worrying about what may have happened if Sakho had played.

But you can't say it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference. It would have been a completely different game. Sturridge doesn't score that goal if Sakho plays. We coud have been 3-0 up at half time. We could have been 3-0 down. No knows, and no one will ever know.

Not to mention the positive impact Sakho must have on the dressing room before a game and at half time.

[Alan_X]

Nor do I, but they should at least be aware of what the substance is supposed to do, the reason for it being banned, before blanket enforcing it. They don't even have that, apparently.

Imagine if you will it was mangoes they had banned. And Sahko got caught eating mangoes. And pilliored and banned for a month. And at the end of the month, when he shamefacedly admitted to eating mangoes and was awaiting punishment, he then asked, "hey, why can't I eat mangos btw?" and they then replied "no idea, but you were deffo caught eating them..."

That's my beef, they don't even seem to know why they were banned in the first place.

So actually, the situation is reversed. He took a performance enhancing substance that wasn't on the list but should be as it's  in the beta-2 agonist family.  WADA states that all beta-2 agonists are prohibited and if a substance is not defined to check with the anti doping organisation.

A quick search on line and higenamine throws up plenty of articles about it being a banned substance in bodybuilding or a substance of concern.

If UEFA wanted to apply the strict wording of the rules then Sakho could probably still be banned.

[dalarr]

It's a shame if he doesn't get picked for the Euros now. Hope that he's mentally strong, I would've been bitter beyond belief!

[Alan_X]

If that article is true, then Sakho didn't knowingly take a banned substance because it isn't on WADA'S list so i pretty much doubt any organisation can punish him.

Read the rules and the guidance given to players. If a substance isn't on the list then it's the responsibility of the player to check with their anti-doping authority and if necessary get clearance.

It's made explicit that just because something doesn't appear on the list, it doesn't mean it's safe to use it as banned substances have different names.

It looks like Sakho's dodged a bullet here. He's taken a fat-burner, presumably without the knowledge of the club doctor, and when it turned up in his sample, he's lucky that the particular one in his sample isn't specifically banned.

I suspect the club will support him in public but they will be roasting him in private for jeopardising the clubs reputation, for being unavailable at a key point in the season and for taking fat burners without the clubs knowledge.

[Nessy76]

So actually, the situation is reversed. He took a performance enhancing substance that wasn't on the list but should be as it's  in the beta-2 agonist family.  WADA states that all beta-2 agonists are prohibited and if a substance is not defined to check with the anti doping organisation.

A quick search on line and higenamine throws up plenty of articles about it being a banned substance in bodybuilding or a substance of concern.

If UEFA wanted to apply the strict wording of the rules then Sakho could probably still be banned.

Is there any source for the actual substance outside of the venerable and respected getfootballnewsfrance.com? Because that seems like a huge scoop for a pretty obscure website.

[Beninger]

For me this is down to UEFA using the WADA list of banned substances. It is stupid beyond belief to ban footballers for substances that give sportsmen in other fields an advantage but do absolutely nothing for footballers. Football should have its own list of substances that give footballers an unfair advantage.

Some fat burners increase aerobic capacity.

[Alan_X]

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.

Ok - here's a good example of negligence:

A professional athlete has to play under anti-doping regime.

The anti doping regime provide a list of specific substances that are banned but also says that if a substance is not listed specifically by name the individual athlete must check whether it's acceptable.

The professional athlete is looking to lose weight and takes a weight burner with a plant extract containing higenamine and when he checks it is not specifically listed as a banned substance.

The substance is however, in the family of beta-2 agonists which are listed as all being banned (except specific asthma medication in specific doses).

Despite the substance not being listed, the athlete does not check with his club or the anti-doping organisation.

In that scenario the athlete has shown some care by checking if it's on the list but has shown a degree of negligence by not following up on the fact that he has a duty to check if it's not listed.

As the article says, the authorities have decided that Sakho didn't show significant negligence and they will probably let him off with a warning.

On the issue of whether UEFA were negligent in not specifically naming higenamine the answer is almost certainly no. They cover all beta-2 agonists as a a catch-all (with named exceptions) and make it the player's responsibility to check anything not listed.

There's a possibly case to answer when the test showed up a beta-2 agonist in the sample. But as all are included in the catch-all definition the individual name would appear to be irrelevant.

Anyway - I have no doubt most will ignore this.

*edit - to be clear this is a hypothetical scenario because none of us know exactly what has happened.

[TepidT2O]

I'd like to know who his lawyer is.

Best defence council since Bob Massingbird

[Alan_X]

Is there any source for the actual substance outside of the venerable and respected getfootballnewsfrance.com? Because that seems like a huge scoop for a pretty obscure website.

You're right - I should have caveated the whole thing but as everyone else is chucking around sweeping and unsubstantiated generalisations I couldn't be arsed.

My stance is that none of us know yet, but  based on what we do know it seems likely that Sakho will get let off with a warning because his lawyers have argued there was no  significant negligence on Sakho's part.

I was expecting something between a six-month and two-year ban, because the anti-doping rules are so tight and don't allow for ignorance as a defence. None of our players should be taking fat-burners which are unregulated and contain all sorts of 'natural' products that can show positive in doping tests.

[HighSix]

The site would get in some legal trouble unless a good knowledge of the case you would expect... A much higher level of detail compared to the reports yesterday.

None of our players should be taking fat-burners which are unregulated and contain all sorts of 'natural' products that can show positive in doping tests.

Controversial.   

[Alan_X]

The site would get in some legal trouble unless a good knowledge of the case you would expect... A much higher level of detail compared to the reports yesterday.

Controversial.   

Bloody predictive text! Corrected.

[Beninger]

Typically if you can't prove it was some sort of specified substance in a tainted supplement they don't want to know. Interesting to see what happens and how the case was made.

[TealC]

I'd like to know who his lawyer is.

Best defence council since Bob Massingbird

Johnnie Cochran?

[Alan_X]

The site would get in some legal trouble unless a good knowledge of the case you would expect... A much higher level of detail compared to the reports yesterday.

Fair point. Locked for a bit until there's a statement from UEFA, the club, the player or a decent source.

It's all hypothetical until we know more and we could all be putting the site at risk.