UNDERFIRE FA WANTED 2 YEARS BAN

From the Sun:

Mark Palios and the Football Association have been accused of lying — and also making themselves look ‘silly’.

Former FA chief executive Graham Kelly admits he is stunned Soho Square bosses claimed the three-man panel for Rio Ferdinand’s drugs-test hearing was an ‘independent’ commission.

Kelly insists that under FA rules the commission, which included Colchester chairman Peter Heard, could only be selected from Association figures — and that for it to be truly independent it had to involve people outside the organisation.

Chief executive Palios insisted Ferdinand’s commission was ‘independent’ to make it look more objective — even though ALL THREE members of the panel were senior FA councillors.

Kelly said:

“It gives a lie to the use of the word independent. It was not, so the use of it is a bit disturbing. The rules say commissions must be made up of FA councillors and this made the FA look a bit silly when they suggested it was independent. What they meant by independent is that the decision is not open to scrutiny.

“I have great sympathy for Rio. That whole situation has not been handled as you would expect.”

The Telegraph reports that the FA were calling for a two years ban.

[The prosecution] went on to say that if the tribunal felt they could not give the England defender two years, then under no circumstances should his ban be less than a year.

It was against this draconian demand from the FA that the three-man disciplinary panel - headed by Barry Bright and including fellow FA councillors Frank Pattison and Peter Heard - met.

The tribunal discussed the length of the ban after they had concluded, at around 6pm last Friday, that Ferdinand was guilty of a drug offence. In deciding the sentence the tribunal had to take into consideration the fact that Ferdinand offered to come back the same day and take the test and later took the test two days later and was shown to be free of drugs.

Ferdinand's QC, Ronald Thwaites, made a powerful mitigation plea arguing that Ferdinand's was a case of forgetfulness and not a refusal to take the test, and that he should not be made an example of as the FA had argued. This clearly proved persuasive, for the panel decided they could not give the FA what they wanted and settled on an eight-month sentence.

This revelation will alter perceptions of the case. Until now it has been almost universally believed that the sentence on Ferdinand was severe and far in excess of the three-month ban that had been widely predicted.