-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
Doping in Premier League
- Thread starter Al Pacino PT
- Start date
Yeah, I expected something totally different. Misleading title. Who the **** is that guy and it was cocaine.
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
clash;3107734 said:
Totally agree. Mutu got railroaded by this too when he was at Chelsea.
For Theo;
I wouldn't suggest that Andy Carroll is a worldwide known English international who plays as a striker. There is only two of them and they both play for the red half of Manchester. One with a history of gambling and the other has also thrown a lot of money about but erm, for different reasons.
Also, Leon Knight, James Beattie and Anton Ferdinand are not all strikers, and none of them are worldwide know.
Also, really who cares. We get up to what we want at the weekend, as long as it doesnt affect our job no one should care. And this is the, right, mindset of the clubs. Doping things are different, performance enhancing stuff is a something a player should be banned for. Recreational drugs do not aid your performance in top-level sport. And that is not what players use them for, so to repeat, who really cares. Lets stop gossiping too.
I wouldn't suggest that Andy Carroll is a worldwide known English international who plays as a striker. There is only two of them and they both play for the red half of Manchester. One with a history of gambling and the other has also thrown a lot of money about but erm, for different reasons.
Also, Leon Knight, James Beattie and Anton Ferdinand are not all strikers, and none of them are worldwide know.
Also, really who cares. We get up to what we want at the weekend, as long as it doesnt affect our job no one should care. And this is the, right, mindset of the clubs. Doping things are different, performance enhancing stuff is a something a player should be banned for. Recreational drugs do not aid your performance in top-level sport. And that is not what players use them for, so to repeat, who really cares. Lets stop gossiping too.
Chelsea paid big bucks for a player who wouldn't pay for them and who they were gonna lost big bucks on his contract and on the resale, so they wanted that money recouped. It's his fault for doing drugs in the first place, his employer lost money and got nothing in return for it, and they wanted that money back. Perfectly legitimate.
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
Disagree completely, you don't "buy" people, and free will means there is inherent risk even if you think you do. Court decision was ******* bull**** IMO, and shows the lack of power players have. Players don't pay their own astronomical transfer fees, and shouldn't be expected to repay a club when they only make a fraction of that in wages. Mutu is basically an indentured servant for the rest of his life because Chelsea thought he was worth 22m and a court railroaded him; this remedy is absolutely ridiculous. And I still don't know what the breach of his contract was; that he didn't play when he was suspended? Please.
Taking drugs? I'm pretty sure there's something in an athlete's contract about not taking drugs which could have him banned from playing. It's his fault Chelsea couldn't play him, they lost money over it, that money should be repayed by the party at fault, that party being Mutu.
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
Mandieta6;3107864 said:
They weren't forced to terminate the contract either. I know that doesn't have to do with the law of contracts, but just in terms of equity and fairness concerns the reason Chelsea lost the entire transfer fee was because they cut him. They could have recouped much of that in the next window, or kept him and demanded he pay for a comparable player on loan for his suspension. Chelsea really couldn't have been bigger cocks about it.
Because it's not just about hard cash, it's about potential revenue and image. Chelsea didn't want to be associated with that kind of thing at all, since the club was being rebuilt, and they'd have to keep paying his wages all while hoping that someone would buy him for a much lowered price after a season without playing AND drugs use. They brought in a player and could no longer use him, and wanted what they were losing there back.
I don't see why they should've treated masked Mutu's behaviour, it's his fault, the club has no reason to protect him. He's put the club's image in danger, not to mention that having one drug abuser in the squad raises the risk of having another, and they made an example out of him, that that sort of thing would not be tolerated.
That other clubs have decided to protect their players so they can sell them on later (basically omitting a big piece of information from future employers) doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Chelsea's stance on this was one to stop this sort of thing to happen, and now every player knows not to do drugs if they're contracted by Chelsea, or they'll pay and pay big.
Mutu did drugs, if he hadn't this wouldn't have happened and acting as if he's injured so that they would lose less money selling him and so he could keep on playing is hardly punishment at all for using illegal drugs.
Demanding that he pay for a different player on-loan is ridiculous. It would require similar judicial process to force his hand, not to mention that getting a player on-loan isn't the same as buying one at all. And Chelsea didn't want Mutu around following his drug abuse, so they cut him. He brought this upon himself and he's paying for it, as he should.
Saying Chelsea were being cocks for taking a hard stance on drugs is ridiculous, you SHOULD take a hard stance on drugs.
I don't see why they should've treated masked Mutu's behaviour, it's his fault, the club has no reason to protect him. He's put the club's image in danger, not to mention that having one drug abuser in the squad raises the risk of having another, and they made an example out of him, that that sort of thing would not be tolerated.
That other clubs have decided to protect their players so they can sell them on later (basically omitting a big piece of information from future employers) doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Chelsea's stance on this was one to stop this sort of thing to happen, and now every player knows not to do drugs if they're contracted by Chelsea, or they'll pay and pay big.
Mutu did drugs, if he hadn't this wouldn't have happened and acting as if he's injured so that they would lose less money selling him and so he could keep on playing is hardly punishment at all for using illegal drugs.
Demanding that he pay for a different player on-loan is ridiculous. It would require similar judicial process to force his hand, not to mention that getting a player on-loan isn't the same as buying one at all. And Chelsea didn't want Mutu around following his drug abuse, so they cut him. He brought this upon himself and he's paying for it, as he should.
Saying Chelsea were being cocks for taking a hard stance on drugs is ridiculous, you SHOULD take a hard stance on drugs.
He could also possibly be banned from football by FIFA, but even if that in'st the case, how would a single player be expected to pay that amount? He would probably have to declare bankruptcy when he retires or is forced to retire, or maybe even face imprisonment?
I'm also wanting to make it clear that i'm not condoning his actions.
I'm also wanting to make it clear that i'm not condoning his actions.
He ****ed up. Big time. But to make him pay his own transfer fee is ridiculous. It basically means that the teams have all the leverage and if the player gets suspended because they themselves pushed for it, he has to be at the complete mercy of the club. It just seems backwards to me.