Should Liverpool have been kicked out of the Europa League?

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's a great shout by the way, I hadn't thought about it like that.

Scouse, our bet's off pal!*

*Disclaimer - Only if Liverpool win the Europa League and Manchester Utd fail to win the FA Cup. If Liverpool fail to win the Europa League then the bet stands.

Away and boil yer heed.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Away and boil yer heed.

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I get that, but.... taking the responsibility to its ultimate, should clubs be testing their own players? Do they ? For self-protection, at least, they should be.

Maybe they should, but until the rules change and one player offending can result in expulsion there is no case to answer.

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not being ignored there is a rule for this situation and it will be applied.You can't change the rule depending on the impact a particular player had on a game. What is so difficult to understand? If the rule is that Liverpool should be thrown out than that is what should happen. It isn't so we will continue and if we go on to win the cup it won't be tainted at all.

I'm aware that the rule is that one player failing a drugs test does not result in any penalty for their club, regardless of the impact that player has had on their games.

What I'm saying is that that is inconsistent with throwing a club out of the competition for an innocent infraction regarding one player that had no outcome on the course of the tie. So my complaint is about the rules and not Liverpool.

[MWHIBBIES]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As mentioned before after the amount of money they spent on Caroll and Benteke I don't think he's the only one who'd fail a drugs test

Benteke is a player IMO, hasn't shown it this season but he will go somewhere else and score goals. Look at Villa without him.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They wouldn't have played him if they'd known he was ineligible. Legia thought that he had served his three game ban during the previous round and in the first leg. Then it turned out that they hadn't listed him for the previous round, so the two games there didn't count against the ban.

The Legia guy played for a few minutes at the end of a tie that was already finished, but Sakho has played a major role in Liverpool making it to the semis so in that respect it is different things.

All I want is consistency and that is not being applied when the effect of fielding a player who has cheated is ignored. Had the Legia result stood then it would be consistent not to punish Liverpool.

Legia management made the mistake not the player, hence why the club was punished and the player wasn't.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There is an argument, though, that Liverpool are responsible for the conduct of their players.

That would leave things open to abuse though.

A club's star player is found (by the club) to have taken PEDs, right before a final/massive game. There's always going to be a temptation to bury it and hope said player doesn't get tested by the authorities, with the amount of money in the game these days.

might be an idea that the authorities do more testing, including in non-match situations, such as training. If players knew they would likely get tested every couple of weeks, they'd (we hope) not be taking anything.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Any more of a tainted feel than a player diving to win a penalty, and getting a key goal?

the rules say the player is to be punished in this situation, not the team.

Yes, I would say it is. With a controversial on-field decision it's the referee's call and is rightly or wrongly part an parcel of the game (until we finally see the introduction of rugby-style TV evidence for use by the referee), but in this case a player seemingly sought to gain an illegal advantage for his team before the teams took the field. I simply feel Uefa need to take a stronger stance on this. With athletics, cycling and to some extent tennis it's hard to be confident results have been achieved legally due to the number of high profile drugs revelations and the message this sends out for football is that it's OK to have a couple of players in your team using performance enhancing drugs because even if you get caught the result still stands.

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Legia management made the mistake not the player, hence why the club was punished and the player wasn't.

Alternatively, their management had left the player out for the two games in the previous round because they thought that was part of his suspension. There was no attempt to gain a competitive advantage when they played him for a few minutes.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That would leave things open to abuse though.

A club's star player is found (by the club) to have taken PEDs, right before a final/massive game. There's always going to be a temptation to bury it and hope said player doesn't get tested by the authorities, with the amount of money in the game these days.

might be an idea that the authorities do more testing, including in non-match situations, such as training. If players knew they would likely get tested every couple of weeks, they'd (we hope) not be taking anything.

If the clubs know that they will be held accountable, then they may do the non-match testing themselves. And if they find a player is guilty, then they can take internal disciplinary measures as well as leaving the player out of games until their system is clear, thus ensuring that there is no competitive advantage.

[J-C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Alternatively, their management had left the player out for the two games in the previous round because they thought that was part of his suspension. There was no attempt to gain a competitive advantage when they played him for a few minutes.


If the clubs know that they will be held accountable, then they may do the non-match testing themselves. And if they find a player is guilty, then they can take internal disciplinary measures as well as leaving the player out of games until their system is clear, thus ensuring that there is no competitive advantage.

I never said they attempted to gain an advantage, the point still stands that the club itself made the error, so the club takes the ban not the player, I just don't understand how you can't see this, you keep trying to make out that the club shouldn't be punished when the rules state they should. Likewise the Liverpool player will take the ban as he was the one at fault and not the club.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yes, I would say it is. With a controversial on-field decision it's the referee's call and is rightly or wrongly part an parcel of the game (until we finally see the introduction of rugby-style TV evidence for use by the referee), but in this case a player seemingly sought to gain an illegal advantage for his team before the teams took the field. I simply feel Uefa need to take a stronger stance on this. With athletics, cycling and to some extent tennis it's hard to be confident results have been achieved legally due to the number of high profile drugs revelations and the message this sends out for football is that it's OK to have a couple of players in your team using performance enhancing drugs because even if you get caught the result still stands.

So it's ok to cheat, but only in certain ways?

[McD]

[QUOTE=Eyrie;4667250]Alternatively, their management had left the player out for the two games in the previous round because they thought that was part of his suspension. There was no attempt to gain a competitive advantage when they played him for a few minutes.


If the clubs know that they will be held accountable, then they may do the non-match testing themselves. And if they find a player is guilty, then they can take internal disciplinary measures as well as leaving the player out of games until their system is clear, thus ensuring that there is no competitive advantage.[/QUOTE]

fair point, especially if, as you say, clubs could be held accountable

[Bad Martini]

What a load of pish. The anti-Liverpool brigade are obviously bored again and out in force to talk pish.

If this was Hibs, would anyone seriously suggest that Hibs be canned because we have one tosser of a player? Behave.

Its the usual excuse to get on the case of Liverpool. Change the rules, make **** up and generally be almost yamishly small minded JUST because it's a Liverpool player.

If and when Liverpool when the cup, I'll dig this one up and give it a big GIRUY to all the haters

WALK ON YA BASS

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What a load of pish. The anti-Liverpool brigade are obviously bored again and out in force to talk pish.

If this was Hibs, would anyone seriously suggest that Hibs be canned because we have one tosser of a player? Behave.

Its the usual excuse to get on the case of Liverpool. Change the rules, make **** up and generally be almost yamishly small minded JUST because it's a Liverpool player.

If and when Liverpool when the cup, I'll dig this one up and give it a big GIRUY to all the haters

WALK ON YA BASS

I've never mentioned Liverpool on this forum so I'm not sure my post qualifies me as 'anti-Liverpool'. I think any team which gains an illegal advantage through performance-enhancing drugs should be heavily punished and that would include Hibs. Found what I think is a decent article on the matter here;

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-mamadou-sakho

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So it's ok to cheat, but only in certain ways?

That's not what I said. Obviously it would be great to stamp all forms of cheating out of the game but until football referees are afforded long overdue TMO-style help then on field mistakes will continue to be made. There's nothing a ref can do, however, about a player or players who knowingly take a performance enhancing substance prior to the match and for me that's something that should be more heavily punished.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What a load of pish. The anti-Liverpool brigade are obviously bored again and out in force to talk pish.

If this was Hibs, would anyone seriously suggest that Hibs be canned because we have one tosser of a player? Behave.

Its the usual excuse to get on the case of Liverpool. Change the rules, make **** up and generally be almost yamishly small minded JUST because it's a Liverpool player.

If and when Liverpool when the cup, I'll dig this one up and give it a big GIRUY to all the haters

WALK ON YA BASS

I also don't think it's possible to just dismiss the controversy as 'ach well it's just one player'. Every player is a key part of team and they win and lose together. As you'll see here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/4790367.stm the whole GB relay team were stripped of their gold and silver medals because one member of the team failed a drugs test. Liverpool, IMHO, are fortunate the UEFA rules are more lax.

[silverhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I get that, but.... taking the responsibility to its ultimate, should clubs be testing their own players? Do they ? For self-protection, at least, they should be.

Clubs do test there own players, whether the club make it public is up to them but I doubt they would make it public.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's not what I said. Obviously it would be great to stamp all forms of cheating out of the game but until football referees are afforded long overdue TMO-style help then on field mistakes will continue to be made. There's nothing a ref can do, however, about a player or players who knowingly take a performance enhancing substance prior to the match and for me that's something that should be more heavily punished.

It it is more heavily punished....a player caught diving gets a yellow card, a player caught taking performance enhancing substances is banned for a lengthy period of time.

also, the Liverpool player has been caught taking a 'fat burner', not quite what most would call performance enhancing.

[G B Young]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It it is more heavily punished....a player caught diving gets a yellow card, a player caught taking performance enhancing substances is banned for a lengthy period of time.

also, the Liverpool player has been caught taking a 'fat burner', not quite what most would call performance enhancing.

I don't mean more heavily punished than a player diving during a game. I mean the punishment for the failed drugs test should be heavier than the one handed out. Being banned for a few weeks isn't enough in my view when it comes to drugs in sport. The Uefa rules may say otherwise but I think the rules are wrong. Liverpool should have been withdrawn from the tournament.

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't mean more heavily punished than a player diving during a game. I mean the punishment for the failed drugs test should be heavier than the one handed out. Being banned for a few weeks isn't enough in my view when it comes to drugs in sport. The Uefa rules may say otherwise but I think the rules are wrong. Liverpool should have been withdrawn from the tournament.

And then what? Reinstate Man Utd and Dortmund who were both eliminated by Liverpool before the drug issue was announced.

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And then what? Reinstate Man Utd and Dortmund who were both eliminated by Liverpool before the drug issue was announced.

Nah just Manchester Utd.

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nah just Manchester Utd.

:-) of course.

[Scouse Hibee]

Sporting Integrity,Liverpool should withdraw and Dortmund be reinstated. Not Manure Utd though they're not good enough to be considered anyway.

[McD]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't mean more heavily punished than a player diving during a game. I mean the punishment for the failed drugs test should be heavier than the one handed out. Being banned for a few weeks isn't enough in my view when it comes to drugs in sport. The Uefa rules may say otherwise but I think the rules are wrong. Liverpool should have been withdrawn from the tournament.

Its hardly a few weeks, it's up to 2 years.

Whether you agree with UEFA's rules or not, the rules are the rules and are being followed. If anything Liverpool have went beyond those rules by opting not to select the player after the result was given to them, BEFORE UEFA banned him provisionally.

Coincidentally, given he's now suspended pending a full investigation, if he is found to be innocent, will you be so keen for Liverpool to get to replay all matches that have taken place over the duration of the suspension? You know, since you're so keen on fairness.