Kolo Toure: What happens next?
following his suspension from playing yesterday after testing positive for a banned substance. Here are the key questions facing the 29-year-old defender.
Q: Is there ever an excuse for failing a drugs test?
The principle of underpins the whole of doping policy. What it means in practical terms is that you, the athlete, are responsible for what's in your body regardless of how it got there.
There are mitigating circumstances, but the burden of proof rests on the athlete. In other words, Toure will have to satisfactorily explain how a prohibited substance was found in his sample. Some examples could be proof that drink or food was maliciously spiked by a fellow competitor, or proof the substance was forcibly injected by a third party.
The reason that strict liability is used is to prevent reliance on the obvious excuse of "I didn't know it was in the tablet I took," or "I didn't know what I was taking".
It's a similar to the caveat "ignorance of the law is no defence." It's a tough stance, but it has to be to protect the clean athletes.
Toure faces a battle to clear his name. Photo: AP
Q: Manchester City say the substance found in Kolo Toure's sample was on the "specified list". What does that mean?
The World Anti Doping Agency, produces an .
It's regularly updated, and always under review. New drugs are being found all the time, and understanding of what effect they can have changes. Some categories of drug are a total no-no like steroids, and their use is banned at all times. Others are only banned during competition, and that includes the category of stimulants.
The stimulant section is divided into two, "non-specified" and "specified". The non- specified include things like , which could clearly be performance enhancing.
Specified stimulants, for example ephedrine, fall into a rather more grey area. Ephedrine is found in a lot of cough and cold remedies, and an athlete might be able to argue that its use was not intended to be performance enhancing.
To reflect the fact that there may be an explanation for the presence of these substances which could have a more innocent foundation, the punishments vary from a warning to a two year suspension from any given sport.
In a - who tested positive for a substance on the specified list - accepted that the substance had been taken inadvertently in a dietary supplement and that Mensing had taken steps to check whether the supplement contained any prohibited substance.
Despite those checks and balances, he still committed an anti-doping violation, but his punishment was only a four week ban.
Q: What happens now to Kolo Toure?
When a urine test is taken, it's split into two: an 'A' sample and a 'B' sample.
The 'A' sample is tested and the 'B' sample is stored for cross referencing. Toure can now ask for the 'B' sample to be tested to see if it comes up with the same adverse finding as the 'A' sample, or if it contradicts it. It's very rare for the 'B' sample not to match the 'A'.
Assuming they do match, there's then a process to be followed which will establish if there's a case to answer, then to set a time for a full hearing to take place where the facts and any mitigation can be discussed.
After the hearing, any sanction will be announced. Toure has the right to appeal to the . WADA can also appeal if they feel the case has not been handled properly, or if the punishment isn't appropriate.
Page 1 of 2
Comment number 1.
At 4th Mar 2011, smrfam wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 4th Mar 2011, steviemac14 wrote:Probably an accident I would have thought, I think the rules are too strict. I hope the Citeh squad are prepared for their subsequent tests on Monday morning!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 4th Mar 2011, The Trawler wrote:It strikes me as a bit predictable that this story has already been displaced on the 91Èȱ¬'s sport homepage by the explosive headline that, wait for it, Ferguson is going to appeal against the FA charges.
Still, to be fair to the 91Èȱ¬, that wouldn't have been allowed to happen if a Manchester United player had failed a drugs test.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 4th Mar 2011, george wrote:well done for removing smrfam comment, was never going to last long
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 4th Mar 2011, JamTay1 wrote:3. At 2:26pm on 04 Mar 2011, TheTrawler wrote:
It strikes me as a bit predictable that this story has already been displaced on the 91Èȱ¬'s sport homepage by the explosive headline that, wait for it, Ferguson is going to appeal against the FA charges.
Still, to be fair to the 91Èȱ¬, that wouldn't have been allowed to happen if a Manchester United player had failed a drugs test.
---------------------------------------------
I think the Man Utd players would have to remember to turn up for drugs tests first of all............
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 4th Mar 2011, P wrote:Having met Kolo Toure and having had a chat with him during his arsenal days I believe this was probably an accident. Kolo has always been a very athletic player and although its has been reported that Kolo at times had to watch his weight (apparently leaking from Arsene's own mouth) I fail to believe he would have knowingly taken a banned substance. And whilst rules are rules, people arn't perfect - the question is where do you draw the line...?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 4th Mar 2011, Biglee33TheGooner wrote:Woah there smrfam, Mr Young cannot be labelled as a racist and against islam just for having an opinion on Mr Diouf!!!!!!
Irrespective of creed, colour or religion, he is as dispicable individual who should be banned from playing all levels of football at any level as he has a proven track record or this sort of behaviour. I would imagine 99% of the population also have a very negative view of his actions on and off the field!!!!! And as for Kolo, i hope it all blows over to be a mistake because i loved it at the gunners. Always played with his heart on his sleeve even when he made the occasional error he was proud to play for the club and would be a shame to lose him to any sort of ban.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 4th Mar 2011, DASomething wrote:Wenger says that Toure took his wife's diet pill...hmmmmm. Now I don't doubt for a second that he was intending to take banned substances but with all the testing and how many times athletes have been banned for "cough" medicines, etc. how dumb is the man to not check.
Secondly, a diet pill is taken to help lose weight, losing weight presumably makes Toure more agile and faster on the pitch, thereby enhancing his performance. Looks like he took a performance enhancing substance. Just a thought
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 4th Mar 2011, kris wrote:As an Arsenal fan I remember Toure suffering quite a lot from malaria towards the end of his career with us. Given that malaria is a reoccurring illness is it plausible that some form of anti-malaria drugs could have contained the banned stimulant?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 4th Mar 2011, steviemac14 wrote:Good point Kris, I think you might be on to something with that.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 4th Mar 2011, IanB2 wrote:It beggars belief that Kolo Toure has taken any banned substance with malice aforethought - surely this has to be a substance contained in an everyday medicine because if it isn't a two year ban isn't enough. I've always thought of golf and football as the cleanest of sports but maybe I live with my head buried in the sand. I genuinely hope not for the sake of any young sportsmen following these events and who hitherto might have been tempted to take the risk!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 4th Mar 2011, coggster wrote:Arsene Wenger just announced that Toure took his wifes diet pills and has been worried for some time about is weight...bless..!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 4th Mar 2011, whatdoiknowaboutanything wrote:I work an 60 hour week and still find time to read that my kids cough medicine "contains elements that could cause you to fail a drugs test." I just cannot understand how professional athletes can not know what they are taking. What planet are they on?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 4th Mar 2011, The Trawler wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 4th Mar 2011, Joe G wrote:Whilst I sympathise with KT if he has made a genuine mistake, I have no sympathy with him from a legal point of view.
The key point can be broken down in very simple terms....
Every single footballer knows certain substances are banned and drug testing is frequent.
Every footballer knows that the punishments for failing a test is usually severe.
Every footballer is familiar with cases in the past in football, athletics, cycling etc of people who have failed drugs tests then used excuses such as 'herbal' remedies, cold/flu medication, over the counter supplements and so on. They will also be aware that usually these excuses do not save the sportsman/woman in question from a ban.
Every Premiership footballer has easy 24/7 access to a medical team who can very easily check any products ingredients lists against the anti-doping list.
The conclusion is ever so simple... Introduce NOTHING into your diet without checking it first. This may seem a cumbersome burden, but it is the price we have learned must be paid to catch cheats.
No-one can be naive enough to think that whilst almost every other sport has been riddled with drugs related cheating, football, with it's money and fame would be free of such cheating. Therefore the punishments must be strict, and consistent.
Unless KT has a VERY compelling excuse that he can catagorically prove, it simply MUST be a lengthy ban.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 4th Mar 2011, Ginger wrote:Wenger suggests he may have taken one of his wife's diet pills, and as we all are lead to believe Arsene knows......
Either way I'm surprised that this seems to happen so infrequently.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 4th Mar 2011, Bellion-Wonderland wrote:A ban than takes him to summer and eventual replacement in the transfer window by an expensive signing would be my guess. Kompany is the rock for City - replacement will not be difficult task.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 4th Mar 2011, oj1os wrote:"Kris" has come up with point which will be the most likely factor that will save Toure. I honestly don't know whether to think it would be a mistake or not, but i would like to think it was a mistake. However, as always with players like this in the spotlight, he will guilty until proven innocent.
It's not like he's hidden away from having the drugs test like Rio.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 4th Mar 2011, Weallfollowunited wrote:It's not like he's hidden away from having the drugs test like Rio.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio actually took another drugs test that day which was clean so there was never any doubt about him cheating. The punishment was for actually missing it in the first place, which given the ridiculous length ban he got is considered worse than actually testing positive in the eyes of the FA. Well if you play for United anyway, the three others that missed their tests were given a slap on the wrists.
We'll see, if he is guilty, what happens to Toure. They'll have to ban him for longer than 9 months surely to seem fair.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 4th Mar 2011, ManCitini wrote:@steviemac14
Good point Kris, I think you might be on to something with that.
----------------------------
Haha, sounds like you've all turned in to the cast of Scooby-Doo.
KT would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling World Anti Doping Agency kids
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 4th Mar 2011, Gassing Pirate wrote:The clubs doctors would have all the medicine that would not break the Anti-doping laws.
Cant really be any excuse for failing a drugs test. The clubs themselves are extremely strict on what a player can and cannot take.
Take the English athletics team, they get given a list of all the medicines that comply with the doping laws. I would have thought a club like City would do something very similar.
Perhaps KT took it upon himself to cure an illness he may have had.
If he did he should really of known better.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:Can you imagine it if it was a United player? Ferdinand proved he wasn't on drugs using hair samples, and still got a 9 month ban
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 4th Mar 2011, steviemac14 wrote:20. At 3:22pm on 04 Mar 2011, ManCitini wrote:
Haha, sounds like you've all turned in to the cast of Scooby-Doo.
KT would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling World Anti Doping Agency kids
**
Haha I smell a murder.....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 4th Mar 2011, The Trawler wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:It was actually Christian Negouai
=====
Christian Negouai, the Manchester City midfielder, was handed a fine of £2,000 by the Football Association at a secret hearing for missing a recent drugs test
=====
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brentus wrote:WADA is way to strict and encroaches far past what it should look for.
It should be looking for performance enhancing drugs only. All recreational drug use should be exempt. (Unless it directly improves performance at that time.)
WADA is only there to stop cheating, its continuing mission creep is abhorrent.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 4th Mar 2011, dave parker wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 4th Mar 2011, Ichi_1 wrote:"I work an 60 hour week and still find time to read that my kids cough medicine "contains elements that could cause you to fail a drugs test." I just cannot understand how professional athletes can not know what they are taking. What planet are they on? "
Well noone cares about whether you or your kids are in tip top shape though. How do we even know it was him who took it by himself? One of the many nutritionists may have given him something and hes hardly going to argue the finer points of whats in it.
I understand they have to be strict in their policies but it does sometimes seem like they are massively heavy handed over things that are completely trivial.
At the end of the day how much effect is something found in a cold remedy really going to have? Is he all of a sudden going to run through walls and turn back time by flying around the globe backwards?
Theres more advantage to be gained from one player eating a slightly better meal before a game than someone on the opposing team than there is in drinking cough syrup
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 4th Mar 2011, Frodo_MUFC wrote:Be careful Gordon, judging by how the moderators have been behaving on this subject today it's a delicate subject in which facts count for nothing.
On Kolo, and I'm now picking my words incredibly carefully as I'm feeling victimised, City have handled this well so far. Until we learn otherwise I think we have to give him the benefit of the doubt that this was a honest, albeit stupid, mistake.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 4th Mar 2011, The Trawler wrote:Christian Negouai, the Manchester City midfielder, was handed a fine of £2,000 by the Football Association at a secret hearing for missing a recent drugs test
------------------------------------------------------------
yep, that's what i've got written down here, only i've spelt his name onouhe for some reason
thought negouai failed the test tbh, but anyway, the difference in the coverage and especially the punishment was way way over what you'd expect, even given ferdinand's higher profile
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 4th Mar 2011, dave parker wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 4th Mar 2011, The Trawler wrote:Ichi_1 wrote:
"I work an 60 hour week and still find time to read that my kids cough medicine "contains elements that could cause you to fail a drugs test." I just cannot understand how professional athletes can not know what they are taking. What planet are they on? "
Well noone cares about whether you or your kids are in tip top shape though. How do we even know it was him who took it by himself? One of the many nutritionists may have given him something and hes hardly going to argue the finer points of whats in it.
I understand they have to be strict in their policies but it does sometimes seem like they are massively heavy handed over things that are completely trivial.
At the end of the day how much effect is something found in a cold remedy really going to have? Is he all of a sudden going to run through walls and turn back time by flying around the globe backwards?
Theres more advantage to be gained from one player eating a slightly better meal before a game than someone on the opposing team than there is in drinking cough syrup
--------------------------------------------------------
it's just a teensy weensy bit more complex than that
for example, how do you know that whatever he took wasn't a known mask for some other substance?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 4th Mar 2011, oj1os wrote:"wife's diet pills"
brilliant. i've heard some excuses in my time..
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 4th Mar 2011, Mr Chelsea wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 4th Mar 2011, dalink wrote:@kapnag
Ferdinand merely proved that there were no traces of drugs in his newly grown hair after he mysteriously shaved the hair off that he had when he "forgot" about the drugs test.
As most drugs which are on the banned list can only be traced in hair for two weeks if you shave off your hair and are tested two weeks later it is highly unlikely anything will show.
This is the same method I believe Brittany Spears used in her custody case.
I am not saying that he or Brittany did use banned substances but it surely raises a question.
However I should stress that as none of us as far as I am aware are anti-doping officials and as such do not have access to the results of KT's test we should wait until the facts are released before passing judgement.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:Theres more advantage to be gained from one player eating a slightly better meal before a game than someone on the opposing team than there is in drinking cough syrup
==
Pasta is not on the banned substances list - whatever was found here, is
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 4th Mar 2011, MrT wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 4th Mar 2011, AllTheGoodNamesWereTaken wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:@22 - As it happens, Rio offered to have his hair follicles tested -after- he was found guilty and was refused. The date of his missed test was September 23rd 2003. The negative result came in March 2004, a convenient 6 months after the missed test. Anything in Rio's system previous to September 2003 would, of course, not have shown up in the hair follicle test. Either way, he has done his crime and served his time.
I'd expect Kolo's ban & fine to be more severe than Rio's, considering he was caught red-handed so to speak. Of course there are mitigating circumstances he could claim, and the matter of Citeh's large wads of cash (aka influence) however now this news is out in the open I suspect the FA will not be keen to be seen to give in on this subject.
Apparently the positive test has came about from some type of 'dietary supplement'.
How often do footballers playing in England get tested over the course of a season then?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)
Comment number 41.
At 4th Mar 2011, FootballManagementConsultant MUFC OK wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 41)
Comment number 42.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:As it happens, Rio offered to have his hair follicles tested -after- he was found guilty and was refused. The date of his missed test was September 23rd 2003. The negative result came in March 2004,
==
That was when the hearing took place - that was a stroke of good fortune that the results came in just as the hearing was due, eh?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 42)
Comment number 43.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:Ferdinand merely proved that there were no traces of drugs in his newly grown hair after he mysteriously shaved the hair off that he had when he "forgot" about the drugs test.
As most drugs which are on the banned list can only be traced in hair for two weeks if you shave off your hair and are tested two weeks later it is highly unlikely anything will show.
==
Well you better get onto the courts then, cos it's good enough for them. If it is this easy to render the results useless, why is it admissible evidence in court?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 43)
Comment number 44.
At 4th Mar 2011, Arsenes_little_grey_cells wrote:I reckon this is an accident. Toure is a model pro, and although its hard to gauge what goes on in these sheltered players' private lives, I doubt Toure has taken a prohibited substance deliberately.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 44)
Comment number 45.
At 4th Mar 2011, bearded_shrimper wrote:thanks for the blog explaining, i had no idea what it was all about
Complain about this comment (Comment number 45)
Comment number 46.
At 4th Mar 2011, HardWorkingHobbes wrote:"It's regularly updated, and always under review. New drugs are being found all the time, and understanding of what effect they can have changes."
This could cause problems for sportsmen, everyone has their favorite cure for coughs, colds, hangovers etc. So a player could have been taking something for years without a problem but because the authorities find that there is a enhancing side affect they add it to the band list.
The player takes it as usual when he gets a sniffle without a second thought because when he first started taking it he checked and it was fine and then suddenly he fails a dope test.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 46)
Comment number 47.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:Why have other comments appeared (after moderation) when mine is still not visable???
Complain about this comment (Comment number 47)
Comment number 48.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:Great forum for debate!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 48)
Comment number 49.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 49)
Comment number 50.
At 4th Mar 2011, dalink wrote:@43
It is admissible in court because it is the only evidence that they have at the time. Plus I am sure it is fairly difficult for the courts to trawl through the bins of all the barbers in Manchester on the off chance that they find some hair that used to belong to Rio.
The courts can only work with what they have available to them at the time and as he had shaved his hair they could not take a sample from the hair he removed.
Logical really.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 50)
Comment number 51.
At 4th Mar 2011, bosworthgeordie wrote:I'd like a stand to be taken against players taking performance inhibiting drugs.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 51)
Comment number 52.
At 4th Mar 2011, hooper wrote:Maybe Toure should claim he ate some Spanish meat like Contador did (but then again he hasn't got a government to back him up on it ...)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 52)
Comment number 53.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 53)
Comment number 54.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:Can you pls explain why comment 39 has not yet been moderated?! I put a lot of effort into that and there was no swearing or libel??
Complain about this comment (Comment number 54)
Comment number 55.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:What a joke
Complain about this comment (Comment number 55)
Comment number 56.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:Meanwhile Kapnag can continue with his Utd biased comments without riposte. Great debate
Complain about this comment (Comment number 56)
Comment number 57.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:Brandyrecovery, with 3 messages in the space of 2 minutes, perhaps your powers of deduction will tell you the moderators aren't happy with something in it?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 57)
Comment number 58.
At 4th Mar 2011, Chicharitois14 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 58)
Comment number 59.
At 4th Mar 2011, AllTheGoodNamesWereTaken wrote:Such sympathy for a man who FAILED a drugs test when RIO missed one and 7 years later your still banging on about it amazing MUFC
Complain about this comment (Comment number 59)
Comment number 60.
At 4th Mar 2011, carryongooner wrote:Being an Arsenal fan, I have always had a lot of time for Kolo Toure and I really cannot see him deliberately taking any banned substance. However, as has been pointed out, it is his duty as a professional sportsman to check what he is taking. I have no doubt Citeh, with all their squillions, have access to the best medical minds in the country, probably the world, so there really is no excuse for him not having checked that anything he was taking (be it his wife's diet pills or not) was ok. I would say that it seems he is guilty of being naive and monumentally stupid but not of deliberate cheating.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 60)
Comment number 61.
At 4th Mar 2011, MrT wrote:Why isn't comment 37 moderated? No breech of house rules or anything?
Clearly this blog isn't really reactively moderated.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 61)
Comment number 62.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:Yes and I don't understand why. I basically said that
Ferdinand was harshly treated
The FA did so to prevent themselves from accusations of bias
Football doesn't have a drug problem
WADA should keep their nose out.
I think the moderators have gone to ther pub cos it can't take half an hour to sort that out!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 62)
Comment number 63.
At 4th Mar 2011, MrT wrote:Why are some comments moderated reactively and some not - even from the same poster?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 63)
Comment number 64.
At 4th Mar 2011, njclarkson wrote:Are we not in danger of giving footballers too much benefit of the doubt. He is paid nearly £200k a week to do something that the average person would love to do, and if one of the "drawbacks" of this is that he has be meticulous about his diet and any supplements that he takes, I think thats the least any football fan can expect.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 64)
Comment number 65.
At 4th Mar 2011, Brandyrecovery wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 65)
Comment number 66.
At 4th Mar 2011, dmc4manu wrote:Easy as it is. These guys have team Doctors. Consult him if you are ill, consult him if you want to loose weight. He should be able to prescribe "legal" drugs and supplements.
No defence whatsoever.
And if a Manu player tests positive, he will be in the same boat.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 66)
Comment number 67.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 67)
Comment number 68.
At 4th Mar 2011, Bertie Button wrote:Brandyrecovery wrote:
Sorry Chic, it's you that doesn't understand the logic. Ris missed the test (the rest of ur points are just waffle).
Missing a test needs to have the same penalty as being caught for the worst substance. otherwise, people will miss tests rather than take tests and suffer punishments?
Comprende??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, good point.
I believe the City fans will support Toure through this setback and with the emergence of Lescott (playing much better) over the last month City should have adequate cover.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 68)
Comment number 69.
At 4th Mar 2011, The Trawler wrote:Not sure what some of you lot are on about re Ferdinand
the player took an official drugs test the following day (24/09/03) and passed it, just as he had passed every single routine test before that and just as he has passed every single routine test since then as well
Complain about this comment (Comment number 69)
Comment number 70.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:@58 - The two hours in which Rio was outside of the training complex was ample time to clear and re-fill his bladder of urine, so by the time he had returned there would be no clear way to tell whether or not the urine sample he produced was the same.
It's a shame this blog has been hijacked by United fans with their 'ABU' paranoia.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 70)
Comment number 71.
At 4th Mar 2011, AllTheGoodNamesWereTaken wrote:the moderation thing is frustrating!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 71)
Comment number 72.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:I said you lot cos I've got one guy saying it was doctored hair provided for the test, you saying "it's only a maximum of 30 days it works for anyway". I take it you have records, including the length of hair tested, to come out so convinced that it was a "staged" test
Also, your 6 months argument that you started with is incorrect. 6 months after October is April. And you're ignoring Rio's pleading with the testers for him to come back and take the test (as his phone records show). Not the sharpest tactic if you were trying to get out of a test, wouldn't you agree?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 72)
Comment number 73.
At 4th Mar 2011, Kapnag wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 73)
Comment number 74.
At 4th Mar 2011, A1986N wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 74)
Comment number 75.
At 4th Mar 2011, joelking wrote:I personally dont believe that a professional footballer earning 100,000/week if not over would risk everything over a banned substance.
I reckon it was a mistake and after all, we all do make mistakes
Complain about this comment (Comment number 75)
Comment number 76.
At 4th Mar 2011, Bertie Button wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 76)
Comment number 77.
At 4th Mar 2011, Bertie Button wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 77)
Comment number 78.
At 4th Mar 2011, Quinny74 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 78)
Comment number 79.
At 4th Mar 2011, Nigel Cliff wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 79)
Comment number 80.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 80)
Comment number 81.
At 4th Mar 2011, Ian B wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 81)
Comment number 82.
At 4th Mar 2011, Bladeforce wrote:What does my head in more is how many times does Wenger have to stick his nose into affairs NOTHING to do with him? Sick of it, on his high horse all the time then turns a convenient blind eye to anything that he doesn't want to see by his own players. Wenger stick to your own team!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 82)
Comment number 83.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:@73 - The point is no one really knows his actions in those two hours other than he was in a shopping area in Manchester, that is the exact reason a re-test a couple of hours later would not have been allowed.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 83)
Comment number 84.
At 4th Mar 2011, dogeared wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 84)
Comment number 85.
At 4th Mar 2011, Born_Again wrote:Rio got a bigger ban than Mutu did. Read into that what you will.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 85)
Comment number 86.
At 4th Mar 2011, Clintffc wrote:If Kolo is concerned about his weight, do some training and watch what you eat? Some "athlete"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 86)
Comment number 87.
At 4th Mar 2011, POW - Right in the kisser wrote:Can anyone shed some light on how often players are tested? I assume they are still testing urine and not blood samples?
David James said in 2009 that 1600 players from the entire football league, womens & youth football were being tested each year. That, to my mind, is not really enough.
Arsene Wenger also said in 2009 that some of his players had never been tested in the 5-6 years they had been at the club - seeing that Toure had been with Arsenal since 2002 that may have even put him in that bracket.
Perhaps FIFA could re-invest some of that 1.2bn they have in the bank into stricter anti-doping regs. But that is not in anyone's interests so perhaps not.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 87)
Comment number 88.
At 4th Mar 2011, tractorville wrote:Is his wife overweight?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 88)
Comment number 89.
At 4th Mar 2011, AllanB wrote:So many comments on how sincere and nice he is.. But he's obviously a complete idiot!
Why would he take his wifes diet pills?? (if that really is the case) If he wanted to lose weight he should have gone to his club and request it. They could have then decided if it would benefit him and if so adapt his training or put him on medication checked over by the right people so it doesn't contain any banned substances..
This should be simple for any professional footballer (especially one at the top of the game!). So there is NO excuse whatsoever!
If Ferdinand can get a 9 month ban for not turning up to a test then someone of just a high profile should get a similar or longer ban for actually failing one.. common sense surely?!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 89)
Comment number 90.
At 4th Mar 2011, CoalitionOfTheWilting wrote:A positive B test and it should be maximum ban under football's already weak doping rules.
These are people who are paid astronomic sums as professional sportsmen and they should not under any circumstances be taking anyone else's pills, even the wife's.
I really am dumbfounded by the apparent leniency shown by some on this blog - it's a very simple and easy-to-follow rule and needs to be strictly enforced - more strictly than is currently allowed under current football rules - in order to protect the integrity of the game.
Rank stupidity really should be no excuse.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 90)
Comment number 91.
At 4th Mar 2011, RedWhiteandermblue wrote:#26, couldn't agree more. The laudible goal of keeping athletics free of performance-enhancing drugs has become in the US at least an excuse to go on fishing expeditions in children's bloodstreams just to see what turns up. It's particularly galling since the US Bill of Rights specifically bans such searches without a warrant. Surely this is utter madness. Yes, you have to test for performance-enhancing drugs, but no, this can't include drugs which have never been found to be performance-enhancing, even if they happen to be illegal.
I'm also mystified how they come up with these lists, and believe they ought to let substances both common and legal go unless unless it's at least conceivable that there could be a problem. Has anyone ever won a gold medal or scored three goals because they took a diet pill or smoked a joint?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 91)
Comment number 92.
At 4th Mar 2011, kris wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 92)
Comment number 93.
At 4th Mar 2011, Keelan wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 93)
Comment number 94.
At 4th Mar 2011, dogeared wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 94)
Comment number 95.
At 4th Mar 2011, LondonsFinestClub wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 95)
Comment number 96.
At 4th Mar 2011, vasilis wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 96)
Comment number 97.
At 4th Mar 2011, U11966120 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 97)
Comment number 98.
At 4th Mar 2011, EazilyGrizly wrote:This seems to follow closely the Shane Warne excuse which was he was given the pill by his mother.
Doesn't really work.
I imagine that there is a list of excuses for various positive findings, ie it was in my cough medicine, it was in my meat, the dog gave me one of his worming tablets and soon.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 98)
Comment number 99.
At 4th Mar 2011, ------k wrote:IF kolo took this pill and did not know about the banned substance then there is no case and life goes on but that is a big if
Complain about this comment (Comment number 99)
Comment number 100.
At 4th Mar 2011, U11966120 wrote:Dear lord, Trigger happy mods......?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 100)
Page 1 of 2