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

[Uncle Ronnie]

The irony is....

UEFA, as corrupt an organisation as you're likely to find, will not be able to allow common sense to prevail and give him a "time-served" ban but instead have to enforce the letter of the law so that they give the appearance of a body with integrity. They would not for one moment go out on a limb for something that doesn't reward them financially or otherwise.

These things should be looked at by an impartial body given only the facts (mitigating or otherwise) and not the players. They could then make decisions without the fan fare that goes with it.

If it was looked at by an impartial body (e.g. WADA) he'd get a 2 yr ban if not longer.

The fact is that football governing bodies are pretending there's no drug problem, or worse covering it up.

[CraigDS]

If it was looked at by an impartial body (e.g. WADA) he'd get a 2 yr ban if not longer.

The UEFA drug rules are based on that of WADA, so I don't think that's the case at all.

[Uncle Ronnie]

The UEFA drug rules are based on that of WADA, so I don't think that's the case at all.

They still look at it on a case by case basis though. Instead of a blanket ban length for any doping violation. I could be wrong though, but FIFA have certainly gone against WADA. Maybe UEFA are changing their stance.

[Zaffarious]

Depends on the type of fat burning pills and the active ingredients in them.

They are looked at differently for a reason, and that's because they provide little to no direct performance enhancement from taking them.

yeah it really depends what it is. I mean if hes taking some shitty burner off the shelf from his local gym then its nothing, if its ephadrine / clen then we wont see him for a while.

[De La Goal]

The fact is that football governing bodies are pretending there's no drug problem, or worse covering it up.

You're spot on with this. Given that sports with far less money at stake are riddled with dope, why should the world's richest, most popular sport be immune? But the testing regimes at the moment are laughable.

As for a cover-up - well, considering a Spanish judge ordered the destruction of evidence of massive doping across many sports including football, you could be on to something there.

[CraigDS]

They still look at it on a case by case basis though. Instead of a blanket ban length for any doping violation. I could be wrong though, but FIFA have certainly gone against WADA. Maybe UEFA are changing their stance.

UEFA changed their drug policies (and punishments) in 2015 to bring them in line with WADA. It includes a min 2 year ban but then has various reasons this can be brought down to include no ban at all (which I'm fairly sure is also what WADA allow).

[-HH-]

So the disciplinary hearing was today then? And we expect to hear the outcome next week?

Not much more to say really is there? Until we know the outcome it seems mad to be suggesting what the club should do in every possible eventuality.

Just wait and see.

[riismeister]

- If the player can show he is not in any way at fault or have been negligent, there is no ban (or the automatic ban is lifted is more correct).
- If the player can show he is not significantly at fault or have been significantly negligent, sanctions can vary from a reprimand with no ban up to a 2 year ban, depending on the players' degree of fault/negligence.
- To be able to give the maximum ban (4 years) UEFA have to establish that the violation was intentional.


Here's the actual rule book for those interested;
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Anti-doping/01/96/66/07/1966607_DOWNLOAD.pdf

[CHOPPER]

- If the player can show he is not in any way at fault or have been negligent, there is no ban (or the automatic ban is lifted is more correct).
- If the player can show he is not significantly at fault or have been significantly negligent, sanctions can vary from a reprimand with no ban up to a 2 year ban, depending on the players' degree of fault/negligence.
- To be able to give the maximum ban (4 years) UEFA have to establish that the violation was intentional.


Here's the actual rule book for those interested;
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/Anti-doping/01/96/66/07/1966607_DOWNLOAD.pdf

I'm no Rumpole of the Bailey, mate. But them first two are just non starters. However, If they were valid reasons it would add blame to the club and not just the player - something that just isn't going to happen. Or better not.

[CraigDS]

I imagine the best hope is that the banned ingredient was not listed as being in what he was taking. I believe that argument has been used numerous times and is accepted as mitigating circumstances which lowers any ban.

[sminp]

- If the player can show he is not significantly at fault or have been significantly negligent, sanctions can vary from a reprimand with no ban up to a 2 year ban, depending on the players' degree of fault/negligence.

I'd imagine this is what we're looking at then based on the limited information we have

[riismeister]

I'm no Rumpole of the Bailey, mate. But them first two are just non starters. However, If they were valid reasons it would add blame to the club and not just the player - something that just isn't going to happen. Or better not.

Does it have to add blame to the club, though? The "blame" could be on wrong and/or insufficient labeling of whatever product Sakho used. Or it could be a doctor and/or other person with expertise giving Sakho wrong advice.

[Nessy76]

So the disciplinary hearing was today then? And we expect to hear the outcome next week?

Not much more to say really is there? Until we know the outcome it seems mad to be suggesting what the club should do in every possible eventuality.

Just wait and see.

Exactly. The speculation helps no-one.

[CHOPPER]

Does it have to add blame to the club, though? The "blame" could be on wrong and/or insufficient labeling of whatever product Sakho used. Or it could be a doctor and/or other person with expertise giving Sakho wrong advice.

The club will give dietary advice to him and also they will know the do's and don'ts for him. I dare say they will ask the players to declare any supplementary food stuffs that each player is taking, whilst also giving specific dietary advice. If he's stood up in the hearing and said " I told the club" what I was taking, then the club themselves will be culpable to an extent.

Lets not kid ourselves here - dietary recommendations on how the players nourish and re-hydrate themselves is a massive part of a players day to day. For him to go out of that, or the club to oversee that, is an indictment on either of them, or both.

Its a bitter pill to swallow(no pun intended) but he at the very least will receive a ban, if it moves on to the club, then who knows where that may end up.

[Bobinhood]

Mama, Mama Mama Mama.

A pill? Really. Some thing, in pill form.

Oatmeal Porridge, All Bran cereal and Prune juice can take a four eleven, 101 pound Grandmother down 3.5 pounds in 12 hours. Its been go-to for thousands of years.


They don't teach the kids a damn thing these days.  Sports science my arse.

[Mullalove]

I love the guy buy they're going to throw the book at him, what with all that's happening in athletics at the minute with doping.

If so, his career playing for the Liverpool country will surely be over, doesn't make sense to pay a player for (upto)  2 years for nothing.

[Alf]

So the disciplinary hearing was today then? And we expect to hear the outcome next week?

Not much more to say really is there? Until we know the outcome it seems mad to be suggesting what the club should do in every possible eventuality.

Just wait and see.

[Smellytrabs]

I love the guy buy they're going to throw the book at him, what with all that's happening in athletics at the minute with doping.

If so, his career playing for the Liverpool country will surely be over, doesn't make sense to pay a player for (upto)  2 years for nothing.

He is young and incredibly talented. 2 year ban is the worst case scenario, and it certainly wouldn't end his career. I would imagine we would have something in his contract that should he receive a lengthy ban for taking a  banned subsistence, he would not be getting paid.

[exino]

What I want to know is why on earth was Sakho taking fat-burning PED's to begin with? He's skinny enough as it is.

[Solomon Grundy]

What I want to know is why on earth was Sakho taking fat-burning PED's to begin with? He's skinny enough as it is.

Because Rodgers told him he was overweight. He's hardly 'skinny' either.

[Funky_Gibbons]

What I want to know is why on earth was Sakho taking fat-burning PED's to begin with? He's skinny enough as it is.

Helps to wean him of the crack.

[semit5]

Does anyone know how long these hearings normally last?

[houkura]

They still look at it on a case by case basis though. Instead of a blanket ban length for any doping violation. I could be wrong though, but FIFA have certainly gone against WADA. Maybe UEFA are changing their stance.

The new UEFA rules were written in conjuction with WADA and the adjudication process is overseen by WADA. I read the new rules and one thing in Sakho's favour is that there is a clause for quickly admitting to the violation. The rules speak of a "mandatory" 4 year ban and then they go on to list ways to reduce it by half and even quarter. Swift admission of guilt is one of the mitigating circumstances that are listed.

[Romeo Sensini]

What I want to know is why on earth was Sakho taking fat-burning PED's to begin with? He's skinny enough as it is.

There are "fat burning" SARMs, that can help regain or increase endurance. Someone coming off an injury layoff or in need of quick fitness could take them. Short half life and get out of the system quickly.

It's impossible to know anything without the actual substance being revealed. The term "fat burner" is very vague. It could literally be a diet supplement or a phrase being used by the club/his camp to make it seem less incriminating.

[Crosby Nick]

Because Rodgers told him he was overweight. He's hardly 'skinny' either.

Can't blame anyone else for this (not saying you were!).

[Fiasco]

He's hardly 'skinny' either.

Well, he wasn't until he started taking the pills

[Giono]

He has missed the Europa Cup Final.


He is going to miss the Euros in his home country.


Certainly they have to take that into consideration when giving him a ban.

[deFacto please, you bastards]

He has missed the Europa Cup Final.


He is going to miss the Euros in his home country.


Certainly they have to take that into consideration when giving him a ban.

Why should they?

[sminp]

Why should they?

Why wouldn't they? That's how it normally works. A ban usually starts from the date the temporary ban started

[CraigDS]

Why wouldn't they? That's how it normally works. A ban usually starts from the date the temporary ban started

I think the poster was more commenting on the fact they are big games, so the duration of a ban should be less than if he just missed league games, for example.

Any ban will almost certainly back date to when we suspended him.

[AaronSingh25]

Six month ban and we'lll put up with it. Nine months and we'll have to think long and hard about it. Anything more than a year and i'm afraid he may well be sacked.

One possibility is that he may be sued by the club to recover the costs they have invested into him. Chelsea sued Adrian Mutu for fourteen million didn't they, and won.

But i do hope it doesn't get that far. A very likeable personality and a good talent, such a shame this - but no excuses.

[BeautifulGame91]

UEFA has said no hearing was scheduled for yesterday and most likely will only happen next week

[B0151?]

Because Rodgers told him he was overweight. He's hardly 'skinny' either.

Yes it's all Rodgers fault. I mean we know fuck all about what happened and who said what, and Rodgers had been gone for over 6 months by the time he failed a drug test, but yes, definitely his fault.

[pyroparty]

What I want to know is why on earth was Sakho taking fat-burning PED's to begin with? He's skinny enough as it is.

Going by his snapchat he's obsessed with staying fit (and scouse dogs), he's always exercising, running on the beach or whatever on days off by the look of it, maybe he just took it too far, fuck knows.

[Sinos]

The club will give dietary advice to him and also they will know the do's and don'ts for him. I dare say they will ask the players to declare any supplementary food stuffs that each player is taking, whilst also giving specific dietary advice. If he's stood up in the hearing and said " I told the club" what I was taking, then the club themselves will be culpable to an extent.

Lets not kid ourselves here - dietary recommendations on how the players nourish and re-hydrate themselves is a massive part of a players day to day. For him to go out of that, or the club to oversee that, is an indictment on either of them, or both.

Its a bitter pill to swallow(no pun intended) but he at the very least will receive a ban, if it moves on to the club, then who knows where that may end up.

I'd doubt we did any of that that because we've just bought in this German woman and she doesn't appear to be directly replacing anyone in the backroom staff

[Upinsmoke]

Reports Sakho will be given no further sentence and clear of doping

[Nessy76]

Reports Sakho will be given no further sentence

Ah, "reports". Given that by all accounts the hearing hasn't even taken place yet, there's got to be a good chance that's bollocks.

[Upinsmoke]

Ah, "reports". Given that by all accounts the hearing hasn't even taken place yet, there's got to be a good chance that's bollocks.

L'equipe, and apparently the fat burner was not on the banned list of substances

[Welshred]

I'd doubt we did any of that that because we've just bought in this German woman and she doesn't appear to be directly replacing anyone in the backroom staff

Of course the club would have given dietary advice. All professional clubs do. Just because we didn't have a specialist member of staff for it doesn't mean it didn't happen

[Nessy76]

L'equipe, and apparently the fat burner was not on the banned list of substances

Actually that's so daft there might be something to it!