Should Liverpool have been kicked out of the Europa League?

[G B Young]

Listening to the car radio this afternoon I heard mention of a Liverpool player called Mamadou Sakho being banned for failing a drugs test, apparently after their Europa League win over Manchester United. I tend not to pay too much attention to English football these days and was only tuning in to see how Leicester were getting on today, so I must have missed this news when it happened.

Given the drugs furore around athletics and tennis at present, should this not be bigger news? And how come only the player and not the team get banned? In athletics, for instance, I'm sure I recall a whole Great Britain relay team getting stripped of medals because one of them tested positive for drugs.

Now, I gather that the Uefa ruling is that more than two players in a football team need to test positive for the whole team to be punished which strikes me as nonsense. Whether it's one player or all eleven, the team is handed an unfair advantage. Under this ruling the message is basically that it's OK for some of your team to be on drugs. Seems wrong to me.

[SJM]

No, the player should be banned and not the team.

[Michael]

Precedent has already been set as I recall. Teams are not punished for a single case.

[easty]

They should be kicked out.

[NORTHERNHIBBY]

If the rules are that it is the player and not the team then that's what has to happen but rules can be changed. Would be a good rule to bring in though.

[Itsnoteasy]

They should be kicked out.

If 2 players are caught from same team they get kicked out.

But yes they should be kicked out they have cheated & had an unfair advantage over other team.

Let's hope they don't make the final as their fans are animals abroad.

[Pete]

:agree:

Bin them.

[hibby6270]

I'm sure Scouse Hibee will have a view on this.:wink:

Probably arguments both ways but I think there has been no expulsion yet because the positive drugs result on Sakho is still to be ratified. He could still be "innocent". Without his goal in last round against Dortmund, they wouldn't be in the semis, so there is still something to "sort out" if he is definitely guilty IMO.

[Eyrie]

Precedent has already been set as I recall. Teams are not punished for a single case.

Except that Celtc got away with just that when Legia brought on a player who was ineligible due to an administrative oversight in the previous round. The guy played the last few minutes of a tie that was already won but his brief appearance cost Legia their place in the next round.

It's BS to ignore one positive drugs test, particularly when the player in question has had such an influence on the match.

[Hibs Class]

If 2 players are caught from same team they get kicked out.

But yes they should be kicked out they have cheated & had an unfair advantage over other team.

Let's hope they don't make the final as their fans are animals abroad.

You're only embarrassing yourself with posts like that.

[cabbageandribs1875]

nae need likes

[Thecat23]

Nope. I don't like pool but one player shouldn't ruin the chances of the rest getting a medal.

That's like saying if Hibs players were caught with doping should we be punted out the league?

Punish the player not the team.

[Sir David Gray]

I would ban them even without any drug taking incidents taking place, but that's another matter entirely. :greengrin

[Sergey]

Except that Celtc got away with just that when Legia brought on a player who was ineligible due to an administrative oversight in the previous round. The guy played the last few minutes of a tie that was already won but his brief appearance cost Legia their place in the next round.

It's BS to ignore one positive drugs test, particularly when the player in question has had such an influence on the match.

It's yet to be confirmed, but Sakho's failed test is seemingly for a banned diuretic and he's waived the right to have the B test analysed, which is pretty much an admission of guilt.

The only real reason for Sakho to take a diuretic is to mask another drug, as it doesn't really act as a PED. We'll probably never know what that other drug is/was.

He should get a 2 year ban, but will probably plead guilty, cite some lame excuse and get off with 12 months.

[Scouse Hibee]

I'm sure Scouse Hibee will have a view on this.:wink:

Probably arguments both ways but I think there has been no expulsion yet because the positive drugs result on Sakho is still to be ratified. He could still be "innocent". Without his goal in last round against Dortmund, they wouldn't be in the semis, so there is still something to "sort out" if he is definitely guilty IMO.

Yes I do,my view is if the rules say we should be kicked out then fine.

[Scouse Hibee]

If 2 players are caught from same team they get kicked out.

But yes they should be kicked out they have cheated & had an unfair advantage over other team.

Let's hope they don't make the final as their fans are animals abroad.

Yes did you see how they behaved in Dortmund, outrageous.

[hibby6270]

Yes I do,my view is if the rules say we should be kicked out then fine.

Very honest and pragmatic reply. I salute you!! :thumbsup:

[G B Young]

I've now done a bit more reading up on this and the same player went on to score a key goal to keep the tie alive against Dortmund in the next round. That for me is a case for the game being replayed or possibly even forfeited by Liverpool. As I said, I'm really surprised by how lenient the Uefa rules are on this sort of thing. If Liverpool were to go on and win this tournament it would carry a tainted feel about it.

[McD]

I've now done a bit more reading up on this and the same player went on to score a key goal to keep the tie alive against Dortmund in the next round. That for me is a case for the game being replayed or possibly even forfeited by Liverpool. As I said, I'm really surprised by how lenient the Uefa rules are on this sort of thing. If Liverpool were to go on and win this tournament it would carry a tainted feel about it.


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.

[Eyrie]

I've now done a bit more reading up on this and the same player went on to score a key goal to keep the tie alive against Dortmund in the next round. That for me is a case for the game being replayed or possibly even forfeited by Liverpool. As I said, I'm really surprised by how lenient the Uefa rules are on this sort of thing. If Liverpool were to go on and win this tournament it would carry a tainted feel about it.

The rules are inconsistent, given that Legia were kicked out for a brief and irrelevant appearance by one player.

[J-C]

The rules are inconsistent, given that Legia were kicked out for a brief and irrelevant appearance by one player.


Difference being the club knew he was ineligible yet still played him, Sakho did what he did without Liverpool's knowledge, different things.

[Hibernia&Alba]

No, IMO.

[Eyrie]

Difference being the club knew he was ineligible yet still played him, Sakho did what he did without Liverpool's knowledge, different things.

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.

[Pete]

I'm sure Scouse Hibee will have a view on this.:wink:


:agree:

Bin him an'a

[CropleyWasGod]

Difference being the club knew he was ineligible yet still played him, Sakho did what he did without Liverpool's knowledge, different things.

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

[LustForLeith]

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

[Scouse Hibee]

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.

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.

[Scouse Hibee]

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

They are and that is why they suspended him before anyobe else did.

[CropleyWasGod]

They are and that is why they suspended him before anyobe else did.

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.

[Sir David Gray]

I've now done a bit more reading up on this and the same player went on to score a key goal to keep the tie alive against Dortmund in the next round. That for me is a case for the game being replayed or possibly even forfeited by Liverpool. As I said, I'm really surprised by how lenient the Uefa rules are on this sort of thing. If Liverpool were to go on and win this tournament it would carry a tainted feel about it.

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. :wink:

[Scouse Hibee]

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. :wink:

Away and boil yer heed.

[Sir David Gray]

Away and boil yer heed.

:greengrin

[Scouse Hibee]

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]

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]

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 testBenteke 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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.

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 :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

WALK ON YA BASS :na na::na na::na na::na na:

[G B Young]

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 :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

WALK ON YA BASS :na na::na na::na na::na na:

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/blog/2016/apr/29/liverpool-europa-league-mamadou-sakho

[G B Young]

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]

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 :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

WALK ON YA BASS :na na::na na::na na::na na:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Nah just Manchester Utd. :wink:

[Scouse Hibee]

Nah just Manchester Utd. :wink:

:-) 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]

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.