Jump to content
Pureblood

Sakho

Selling Sakho  

142 members have voted

  1. 1. Would it be a mistake to sell him?



Recommended Posts

Probably be banned again after he played in tbe Euros.

 

Dodgy handshakes and back stratching from the French FA

 

I'm not sure how if this is correct from L'Equipe

 

L’Equipe reports that Sakho’s lawyer successfully argued that the fat-burning product was not on Uefa’s list of banned substances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how if this is correct from L'Equipe

 

L’Equipe reports that Sakho’s lawyer successfully argued that the fat-burning product was not on Uefa’s list of banned substances.

 

Because they've (UEFA) royally fucked up with this and will want to save their arse. I wouldnt be surprised one bit if this rumbles on for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they've (UEFA) royally fucked up with this and will want to save their arse. I wouldnt be surprised one bit if this rumbles on for some time.

 

 

It will quietly be forgotten about.  Probably release confirmation during start of Euros/Euro final so no-one notices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will quietly be forgotten about.  Probably release confirmation during start of Euros/Euro final so no-one notices.

 

If Sakho makes the French squad, the discussion will be kept in the limelight. With the tournament being held in France, the media scrutiny will be even more intense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BREAKING NEWS: UEFA have admitted that Mamadou Sakho was banned from competitive football in error. The governing body have apologised and commenced an internal investigation. It has also been confirmed that as a result of UEFA's error, Liverpool Football Club will be fined £30m and banned from European competition for the next five seasons.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One on the one hand it's great news he's free to play again, on the other it's fecking annoying that we should have missed him from those matches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to put on my tinfoil cap for a moment.
 

Is this UEFA's way of apologizing for that incompetent fucking referee in the final? "Here, take your player back and let us run our on own investigation of this issue. Also, don't sue us nor lodge any formal complaints over the standard of officiating in the final, thanks."

Fuck them. Whether Sakho would've made a difference or not is not only impossible to know but also irrelevant. I can only imagine that as a player, it's devastating when one of your own teammates that you trust is accused of something like this. Not to mention when he's arguably your best defender who's just scored a crucial goal in helping you to make the final you're going to play in, whilst being in some of the best form you've personally witnessed him have. There's a mental effect on the squad when shit like this comes out.

Then as others have said it's the allegations that stick, people rarely remember settlements. Sakho's lawyers should at the least sue them if he's missed wages or anything like that (I'm not sure of the terms of the suspension). LFC's lawyers have a case that this directly affected the clubs competitiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to put on my tinfoil cap for a moment.

 

Is this UEFA's way of apologizing for that incompetent fucking referee in the final? "Here, take your player back and let us run our on own investigation of this issue. Also, don't sue us nor lodge any formal complaints over the standard of officiating in the final, thanks."

 

Fuck them. Whether Sakho would've made a difference or not is not only impossible to know but also irrelevant. I can only imagine that as a player, it's devastating when one of your own teammates that you trust is accused of something like this. Not to mention when he's arguably your best defender who's just scored a crucial goal in helping you to make the final you're going to play in, whilst being in some of the best form you've personally witnessed him have.

 

Not to mention as others have said it's the allegations that stick, people rarely remember settlements.

 

No.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we ask for compensation or anything like that. Weren't we the ones trying to be clever and banning him before even his b sample had the chance to be checked, I know he refused this.

 

We tried to be clever so his ban would start from when we banned him now it's shot us in the foot, if Sakho played we'd have won the Europa League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can we ask for compensation or anything like that. Weren't we the ones trying to be clever and banning him before even his b sample had the chance to be checked, I know he refused this.

 

We tried to be clever so his ban would start from when we banned him now it's shot us in the foot, if Sakho played we'd have won the Europa League.

Eh, that's pretty commonplace though, at least in US sport. It's based on the idea that the system is probably correct and therefore rather than risk vacating anything you might win with said player playing you just get on with it without him until the investigation is finished.

 

Of course, why anyone still trusts the "system" that is UEFA when they show continuously that they arbitrarily choose which rules get enforced on who and to varying extent at that, plus the evidence of corruption in its higher levels, is another question entirely. I guess the short answer is that they're the only game in town.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, that's pretty commonplace though, at least in US sport. It's based on the idea that the system is probably correct and therefore rather than risk vacating anything you might win with said player playing you just get on with it without him until the investigation is finished.

 

Of course, why anyone still trusts the "system" that is UEFA when they show continuously that they arbitrarily choose which rules get enforced on who and to varying extent at that, plus the evidence of corruption in its higher levels, is another question entirely. I guess the short answer is that they're the only game in town.

This isn't America and Its not commonplace here because it doesn't happen that often, I can only think of 4 cases in the Premiership that is has happened so there's no real prescient set for this situation. If your innocent until proven guilty which to me would be also his b sample also being failed then you have the right to play, we suspended him before he even came out and said that his b sample wouldn't be used.

 

What I don't really get is why if Sakho or his lawyers believed this drug wasn't on the WADA list then why didn't they vehemently deny any wrong doing come out and protest his innocence instead they basically said that "I'm guilty don't bother testing my b sample because I'll fail that also" Seems to me that he thought the drug was banned and has accepted his punishment only to luckily found out it wasn't actually banned, which brings everyone to the opening question what the fuck was he doing taking it in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The re-test is on the same sample - split into A and B - and will return the same positive result in something like 99% of cases so declining to be re-tested doesn't really imply an admission of guilt. The substance will be detected anyway but the question here is whether the substance detected is supposed to have been red flagged or not.

 

If not, then it brings into question UEFA's anti-doping measures.

 

I agree though that it needs to be made clearer as to why Sakho used those fat burners and who was advising him because it certainly wasn't the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't America and Its not commonplace here because it doesn't happen that often, I can only think of 4 cases in the Premiership that is has happened so there's no real prescient set for this situation. If your innocent until proven guilty which to me would be also his b sample also being failed then you have the right to play, we suspended him before he even came out and said that his b sample wouldn't be used.

 

What I don't really get is why if Sakho or his lawyers believed this drug wasn't on the WADA list then why didn't they vehemently deny any wrong doing come out and protest his innocence instead they basically said that "I'm guilty don't bother testing my b sample because I'll fail that also" Seems to me that he thought the drug was banned and has accepted his punishment only to luckily found out it wasn't actually banned, which brings everyone to the opening question what the fuck was he doing taking it in the first place

 

Because the 'Im innocent, honest' plea doesnt wash with anyone when 'failed drugs test' is mentioned.

 

I also dont think not having the B sample tested means or was any indication of guilt. Its the same sample not two different ones that some people seem to think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't America and Its not commonplace here because it doesn't happen that often, I can only think of 4 cases in the Premiership that is has happened so there's no real prescient set for this situation. If your innocent until proven guilty which to me would be also his b sample also being failed then you have the right to play, we suspended him before he even came out and said that his b sample wouldn't be used.

 

What I don't really get is why if Sakho or his lawyers believed this drug wasn't on the WADA list then why didn't they vehemently deny any wrong doing come out and protest his innocence instead they basically said that "I'm guilty don't bother testing my b sample because I'll fail that also" Seems to me that he thought the drug was banned and has accepted his punishment only to luckily found out it wasn't actually banned, which brings everyone to the opening question what the fuck was he doing taking it in the first place

I don't re-call saying it was America. I mentioned that because our owners are American, so it's entirely possible that when it was found out that the test was flagged the owners (or their representative anyway), the clubs lawyers, and Sakho's personal lawyers all decided it's best he doesn't play until the investigation is done.

 

As others have said, the B sample is just a different part of the same sample. It's pretty much a cert it gets flagged again, so now you have "two" samples flagged as opposed to the one and because most people just see A and B and assume they're different the court of public opinion is all the more swayed against the player. Also, as most clubs have found out, ourselves included multiple times, appealing against any FA's ruling without clear evidence that they're wrong is an exercise in futility, and in some cases gets the punishment increased.

 

Innocent until proven guilty is an idea for some of the various court/litigation systems around the world regarding government prosecution. Despite what the governing bodies of various sports around the world might say to the contrary, it never really seems to apply to the way their suspensions are enforced and appealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgetting that uefa imposed a 30 day ban shortly after (a week? Ten days?) we applied the self imposed 'ban' so he was formally suspended by uefa long before the cup final.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Deschamps leaves him out he is a tit. Missing multiple players at the position and he will take Mangala. He has only missed a month or so so s friendly game or two and a few weeks training and he's fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't America and Its not commonplace here because it doesn't happen that often, I can only think of 4 cases in the Premiership that is has happened so there's no real prescient set for this situation. If your innocent until proven guilty which to me would be also his b sample also being failed then you have the right to play, we suspended him before he even came out and said that his b sample wouldn't be used.

 

What I don't really get is why if Sakho or his lawyers believed this drug wasn't on the WADA list then why didn't they vehemently deny any wrong doing come out and protest his innocence instead they basically said that "I'm guilty don't bother testing my b sample because I'll fail that also" Seems to me that he thought the drug was banned and has accepted his punishment only to luckily found out it wasn't actually banned, which brings everyone to the opening question what the fuck was he doing taking it in the first place

 

The reports are somewhat contradictory, but one I've read suggests that, at the time Sakho took the substance, it was on the banned list, so he had no immediate defence against the charge of taking a banned substance, so no point asking for his B sample to be tested as it would show the same thing. It's only since then that his team have, apparently, realised that the substance shouldn't have been on the list in the first place, hence the review into it's properties.

 

But, yes, it seems Sakho was taking a substance that was, however wrongly, banned when he took it, which doesn't reflect well on Sakho and makes any legal argument, never mind moral high ground, hard to sustain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×