Away and boil yer heed.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Results 31 to 54 of 54
-
01-05-2016 08:55 PM #31
-
-
01-05-2016 08:59 PM #33This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
01-05-2016 10:52 PM #34This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.Mature, sensible signature required for responsible position. Good prospects for the right candidate. Apply within.
-
01-05-2016 10:55 PM #35This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-05-2016 06:02 AM #36This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Last edited by J-C; 02-05-2016 at 07:19 AM.
-
02-05-2016 06:40 AM #37This 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.
-
02-05-2016 08:25 AM #38
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Posts
- 5,644
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
02-05-2016 10:19 AM #39This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show QuoteMature, sensible signature required for responsible position. Good prospects for the right candidate. Apply within.
-
02-05-2016 10:50 AM #40This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
02-05-2016 09:09 PM #41This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
So it's ok to cheat, but only in certain ways?
-
02-05-2016 09:12 PM #42
[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
-
02-05-2016 09:24 PM #43
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
-
03-05-2016 09:45 AM #44
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Posts
- 5,644
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-mamadou-sakho
-
03-05-2016 09:50 AM #45
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Posts
- 5,644
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 10:23 AM #46
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Posts
- 5,644
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 11:28 AM #47This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 06:40 PM #48This 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.
-
03-05-2016 08:33 PM #49
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
- Posts
- 5,644
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 08:46 PM #50This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 08:47 PM #51This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 08:50 PM #52This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
03-05-2016 08:55 PM #53
Sporting Integrity,Liverpool should withdraw and Dortmund be reinstated. Not Manure Utd though they're not good enough to be considered anyway.
-
03-05-2016 08:55 PM #54This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks