looks at the Rio case in the Independent:
RIO IS FA SCAPEGOAT
looks at the Rio case in the Independent:
‘The Rio Ferdinand case was part of a bigger picture. It
should not surprise us that there has been so much written
about so-called "doping in sport" these past several months.
Although it lends its brand name to the International
Olympic Committee medical code which lays down the anti-
doping rules, the only concern of the IOC, that supreme
authority of the Olympic movement, as it styles itself, is
that every four years its "Olympicfest" should grip the
attention of the world for three hectic weeks.
‘Lo and behold, so that football could be kept in the
Olympics Sepp Blatter, the president of Fifa who was so
vocal in his condemnation of Ferdinand at the time of the
original commission, staged a bizarre love-in with Richard
Pound QC, the Wada president. Fifa's medical chiefs
originally expressed reservations about the inflexibility of
the Wada sanctions but, as the Olympics edged ever closer,
it was clear that something had to give.
‘How's this for expediency? The Wada code allows for
exceptional circumstances, so football's world governing
body was granted exemption to deal with doping cases in
whatever manner it sees fit, because, Blatter says, "all
drugs offences are exceptional".
‘Just as Blatter's spectre hung over the first Ferdinand
tribunal, so that of Lord Coe appeared above last week's
appeal. If it was justice for the Football Association's own
doping control expert to pronounce on the eve of the meeting
that he would be "very disappointed" if the "proportionate"
sentence were reduced, then I'm a banana, to paraphrase a
noted courtroom comment. No doubt the eight-month ban was
indeed reasonable if you were seeking to take down a peg or
three a club that is widely perceived as massively arrogant.
And, in comparison with sentences handed down in athletics,
it could not be said to be excessive.
‘But to hit a first offender so suddenly, no matter how
stupidly he behaved, with a suspension that not only bars
him from the European Championship finals in June but also
England's first two World Cup qualifying matches next season
is completely out of sync with punishments given to
Manchester City's Christian Negouai for the same offence and
to proven drugs offenders Jaap Stam and Mark Bosnich. It is,
to my mind, wildly disproportionate. It is akin to Eric
Cantona's ban for assaulting a spectator. "Savage" was the
solicitor Maurice Watkins's apt description.
‘Clause 10.3 of the FA's out-of-competition testing rules
states in the case of missed tests "both the club and its
players may be subject to disciplinary proceedings". Brave
new FA, or convenient scapegoat?’
should not surprise us that there has been so much written
about so-called "doping in sport" these past several months.
Although it lends its brand name to the International
Olympic Committee medical code which lays down the anti-
doping rules, the only concern of the IOC, that supreme
authority of the Olympic movement, as it styles itself, is
that every four years its "Olympicfest" should grip the
attention of the world for three hectic weeks.
‘Lo and behold, so that football could be kept in the
Olympics Sepp Blatter, the president of Fifa who was so
vocal in his condemnation of Ferdinand at the time of the
original commission, staged a bizarre love-in with Richard
Pound QC, the Wada president. Fifa's medical chiefs
originally expressed reservations about the inflexibility of
the Wada sanctions but, as the Olympics edged ever closer,
it was clear that something had to give.
‘How's this for expediency? The Wada code allows for
exceptional circumstances, so football's world governing
body was granted exemption to deal with doping cases in
whatever manner it sees fit, because, Blatter says, "all
drugs offences are exceptional".
‘Just as Blatter's spectre hung over the first Ferdinand
tribunal, so that of Lord Coe appeared above last week's
appeal. If it was justice for the Football Association's own
doping control expert to pronounce on the eve of the meeting
that he would be "very disappointed" if the "proportionate"
sentence were reduced, then I'm a banana, to paraphrase a
noted courtroom comment. No doubt the eight-month ban was
indeed reasonable if you were seeking to take down a peg or
three a club that is widely perceived as massively arrogant.
And, in comparison with sentences handed down in athletics,
it could not be said to be excessive.
‘But to hit a first offender so suddenly, no matter how
stupidly he behaved, with a suspension that not only bars
him from the European Championship finals in June but also
England's first two World Cup qualifying matches next season
is completely out of sync with punishments given to
Manchester City's Christian Negouai for the same offence and
to proven drugs offenders Jaap Stam and Mark Bosnich. It is,
to my mind, wildly disproportionate. It is akin to Eric
Cantona's ban for assaulting a spectator. "Savage" was the
solicitor Maurice Watkins's apt description.
‘Clause 10.3 of the FA's out-of-competition testing rules
states in the case of missed tests "both the club and its
players may be subject to disciplinary proceedings". Brave
new FA, or convenient scapegoat?’