Well, we are looking to strengthen that position now, don't we? Besides, full-backs are not "the foundation", CBs are.
Sakho cleared of doping by UEFA
- Thread starter rurikbird
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Well, we are looking to strengthen that position now, don't we? Besides, full-backs are not "the foundation", CBs are.
Maybe I should have added a smilie ? That aside he said "build from the back" not build from the CBs so we can all put our own interpretation on that 😉
He and the entire French squad could just as easily be watching the finals behind their TV if he had been eligible to play.
Who knows.
And instead of bleating in the media every day about the potential injustice, he's done the right thing and got in with things. Oh and been to Africa this summer to help build schools for the disabled.
Watching behind a tv, though, is a really weird thing to do. You would need drugs to make that worthwhile.
Looks like WADA don't intend this to just end there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...akho-facing-fresh-legal-battle-over-doping-v/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...akho-facing-fresh-legal-battle-over-doping-v/
Also looks like they don't have much of a case. WADA more concerned with the potential repercussions, and possibly future legal challenges to their authority, than whether Sakho was innocent or guilty of a doping offence.
From the Mail:
There are 80 days of Mamadou Sakho’s professional career that he can never get back. They might have been the best days. The days he would revisit most fondly. And they are gone, never to be repeated.
Between April 22, when Liverpool were told Sakho had failed a drugs test in a Europa League tie with Manchester United, and July 10, as his country played Portugal in the Stade de France, Sakho missed the time of his life.
The European Championship final, on home soil, a historic French win over Germany in Marseille, Liverpool’s Europa League final with Sevilla, the semi-final games with Villarreal that took them there: all void in a horrid travesty of justice. UEFA suspended Sakho and then, more than two months later, decided he wasn’t a drugs cheat after all. Too late.
What might have been the pinnacle of Sakho’s career had passed. In the circumstances, his restrained post on Facebook, merely thanking those who supported him and wishing Les Bleus well in Paris, was as humble and dignified as football gets.
He could rightly have been raging at UEFA’s incompetence, at the unfairness of his ban, at the delays and confusion that have denied him so much since it was announced he had tested positive. He didn’t. He posted a picture of the French flag and a young Liverpool fan holding a scarf with the message ‘You’ll never walk alone’. Sakho made no mention of UEFA at all.
Maybe there is a lawsuit in the post. There should be. How could this happen in the modern age? How can UEFA not know with certainty whether Sakho cheated? And if there was any doubt, as there must have been for this final decision to be reached, why was he banned?
UEFA now say the fat-burner that was found in Sakho’s system was not on any prohibited list. How can that be? Either a drug is illegal or it is not and if there is any confusion the benefit of the doubt must surely go to the athlete, whose reputation is at stake.
Instead, on April 28, UEFA issued Sakho with a 30-day preliminary ban, pending an official hearing and what was expected to be a longer punishment. Sakho accepted this and stood down. By the time it became clear there were blurred lines around his failed test and UEFA relented, it was too late for him to be recalled by France.
Didier Deschamps, the coach, had moved on without him. Sakho then watched from the periphery as France progressed — before being vindicated as it was revealed no punishment was necessary.
Too cold. Too careless. Too irreversibly harmful. Sakho did not commit a doping violation but has suffered more extensively than many cheats. There are absolute scoundrels who have been banned but not missed an Olympic Games, yet Sakho has been excluded from possibly the high point of his career, having done nothing wrong.
How could UEFA allow this? How could an organisation find the time to rule on Wales players bringing their kids on to the pitch at the end of matches but be unable to quickly identify whether a supplement is illegal or not? Even if they thought it was, how could they issue a suspension without being sure?
It is not as if there was a hurry. Sakho had already played in Liverpool’s famous victory against Borussia Dortmund, between failing the test in the previous round, and his ban. Why did UEFA have to rush him out of the semi-final and final, if there was still uncertainty?
Perhaps, with a process so flawed, this is why UEFA do not expel clubs from European competition over a positive test. Imagine if Liverpool had been thrown out of Europe at the semi-final stage over Sakho, only to be told belatedly that it was all a mistake.
As it is, the club may feel they were without their best defender when losing 3-1 in the final to Sevilla. Would Liverpool have held their 1-0 lead if Sakho, not Kolo Toure, had played at the back?
The club would have qualified for the Champions League had they won that night, too, and that would have altered Liverpool’s profile in the transfer market this summer at least.
These, however, are intangibles. We will never know how Liverpool would have fared with Sakho. We do know, however, that there will be no repeat of a home European Championship final in Sakho’s professional lifetime.
It is a disgrace that UEFA treated his career and his reputation with such contempt. ‘The truth always comes out in the end,’ said Sakho at the weekend. But, at Liverpool of all clubs, they know the truth is very different to justice.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ou-Sakho-s-career-contempt.html#ixzz4EAZkbJRT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
There are 80 days of Mamadou Sakho’s professional career that he can never get back. They might have been the best days. The days he would revisit most fondly. And they are gone, never to be repeated.
Between April 22, when Liverpool were told Sakho had failed a drugs test in a Europa League tie with Manchester United, and July 10, as his country played Portugal in the Stade de France, Sakho missed the time of his life.
The European Championship final, on home soil, a historic French win over Germany in Marseille, Liverpool’s Europa League final with Sevilla, the semi-final games with Villarreal that took them there: all void in a horrid travesty of justice. UEFA suspended Sakho and then, more than two months later, decided he wasn’t a drugs cheat after all. Too late.
What might have been the pinnacle of Sakho’s career had passed. In the circumstances, his restrained post on Facebook, merely thanking those who supported him and wishing Les Bleus well in Paris, was as humble and dignified as football gets.
He could rightly have been raging at UEFA’s incompetence, at the unfairness of his ban, at the delays and confusion that have denied him so much since it was announced he had tested positive. He didn’t. He posted a picture of the French flag and a young Liverpool fan holding a scarf with the message ‘You’ll never walk alone’. Sakho made no mention of UEFA at all.
Maybe there is a lawsuit in the post. There should be. How could this happen in the modern age? How can UEFA not know with certainty whether Sakho cheated? And if there was any doubt, as there must have been for this final decision to be reached, why was he banned?
UEFA now say the fat-burner that was found in Sakho’s system was not on any prohibited list. How can that be? Either a drug is illegal or it is not and if there is any confusion the benefit of the doubt must surely go to the athlete, whose reputation is at stake.
Instead, on April 28, UEFA issued Sakho with a 30-day preliminary ban, pending an official hearing and what was expected to be a longer punishment. Sakho accepted this and stood down. By the time it became clear there were blurred lines around his failed test and UEFA relented, it was too late for him to be recalled by France.
Didier Deschamps, the coach, had moved on without him. Sakho then watched from the periphery as France progressed — before being vindicated as it was revealed no punishment was necessary.
Too cold. Too careless. Too irreversibly harmful. Sakho did not commit a doping violation but has suffered more extensively than many cheats. There are absolute scoundrels who have been banned but not missed an Olympic Games, yet Sakho has been excluded from possibly the high point of his career, having done nothing wrong.
How could UEFA allow this? How could an organisation find the time to rule on Wales players bringing their kids on to the pitch at the end of matches but be unable to quickly identify whether a supplement is illegal or not? Even if they thought it was, how could they issue a suspension without being sure?
It is not as if there was a hurry. Sakho had already played in Liverpool’s famous victory against Borussia Dortmund, between failing the test in the previous round, and his ban. Why did UEFA have to rush him out of the semi-final and final, if there was still uncertainty?
Perhaps, with a process so flawed, this is why UEFA do not expel clubs from European competition over a positive test. Imagine if Liverpool had been thrown out of Europe at the semi-final stage over Sakho, only to be told belatedly that it was all a mistake.
As it is, the club may feel they were without their best defender when losing 3-1 in the final to Sevilla. Would Liverpool have held their 1-0 lead if Sakho, not Kolo Toure, had played at the back?
The club would have qualified for the Champions League had they won that night, too, and that would have altered Liverpool’s profile in the transfer market this summer at least.
These, however, are intangibles. We will never know how Liverpool would have fared with Sakho. We do know, however, that there will be no repeat of a home European Championship final in Sakho’s professional lifetime.
It is a disgrace that UEFA treated his career and his reputation with such contempt. ‘The truth always comes out in the end,’ said Sakho at the weekend. But, at Liverpool of all clubs, they know the truth is very different to justice.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ou-Sakho-s-career-contempt.html#ixzz4EAZkbJRT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
World Anti Doping Agency won't rule out appeal as Mamadou Sakho is cleared
Another twist as Liverpool defender looks to clear his name
The World Anti Doping Agency have not ruled out an appeal against UEFA’s decision to clear Liverpool’s Mamadou Sakho of taking a banned substance, according to the Liverpool Echo.
The defenders’s fight to clear his name of doping allegations remains in the air as the WADA have refused to rule out a potential appeal.
Sakho was alleged to have taken higenamine, but it is still unclear whether the substance is on the banned list.
A molecule derived from a variety of fruits and plants, higenamine is usually used because of its anti-asthmatic properties – but the same mechanism which helps dilate the bronchial tubes also has fat burning properties.
Sakho had apparently checked against Wada’s banned list to ensure the substance was legal.
According to a report in Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph, the director of the Wada-accredited laboratory in Cologne which tested Sakho’s doping sample is said to have determined higenamine NOT to be a banned substance.
But, after double-checking with Wada, he was then told that the agency did, in fact, deem higenamine to be prohibited.
When asked whether Wada intended to exercise their right of appeal, a spokesman told the Telegraph: “We are awaiting the reasoned decision as it relates to this one.”
Sakho has threatened legal action against Wada after he missed Liverpool’s Europa League final and France’s European Championship campaign as a result of his failed test.
Sakho’s original 30-day suspension was not extended when UEFA learned that not all Wada labs test for higenamine, while UEFA’s disciplinary body was also told by the lab director he had not considered higenamine a doping substance until instructed to report it as such by Wada.
Last week, Uefa’s disciplinary body finally concluded the evidence for higenamine being a banned substance did not stand up to scrutiny.
But Wada may still react to their authority being challenged on the issue.
If Wada exercise their appeal an acrimonious legal battle could follow – with Liverpool caught in the crossfire.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/world-anti-doping-agency-wont-11601911
Another twist as Liverpool defender looks to clear his name
The World Anti Doping Agency have not ruled out an appeal against UEFA’s decision to clear Liverpool’s Mamadou Sakho of taking a banned substance, according to the Liverpool Echo.
The defenders’s fight to clear his name of doping allegations remains in the air as the WADA have refused to rule out a potential appeal.
Sakho was alleged to have taken higenamine, but it is still unclear whether the substance is on the banned list.
A molecule derived from a variety of fruits and plants, higenamine is usually used because of its anti-asthmatic properties – but the same mechanism which helps dilate the bronchial tubes also has fat burning properties.
Sakho had apparently checked against Wada’s banned list to ensure the substance was legal.
According to a report in Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph, the director of the Wada-accredited laboratory in Cologne which tested Sakho’s doping sample is said to have determined higenamine NOT to be a banned substance.
But, after double-checking with Wada, he was then told that the agency did, in fact, deem higenamine to be prohibited.
When asked whether Wada intended to exercise their right of appeal, a spokesman told the Telegraph: “We are awaiting the reasoned decision as it relates to this one.”
Sakho has threatened legal action against Wada after he missed Liverpool’s Europa League final and France’s European Championship campaign as a result of his failed test.
Sakho’s original 30-day suspension was not extended when UEFA learned that not all Wada labs test for higenamine, while UEFA’s disciplinary body was also told by the lab director he had not considered higenamine a doping substance until instructed to report it as such by Wada.
Last week, Uefa’s disciplinary body finally concluded the evidence for higenamine being a banned substance did not stand up to scrutiny.
But Wada may still react to their authority being challenged on the issue.
If Wada exercise their appeal an acrimonious legal battle could follow – with Liverpool caught in the crossfire.
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/world-anti-doping-agency-wont-11601911
I would say that they have clarified the rules. WADA that decides what is prohibited or not have said that higenamine is prohibited.
It seems that the lab director didn't double-check with WADA and that messed everything up. IMO if WADA appeals they will win if as they say higenamine is prohibited.
It seems that the lab director didn't double-check with WADA and that messed everything up. IMO if WADA appeals they will win if as they say higenamine is prohibited.
It isn't that simple. If their decision is tested in court they'll have to show that it was a reasonable one. Given their obvious internal chaos, they won't find that easy.
And, if the reports of how he was first advised are correct, he can, presumably, complain that he was advised otherwise. Given the kind of serious, sustained and cynical instances of drug cheating in sport are said to be prevalent these days, this seems over the top. The player has already had a major and eventful period in his career wasted, and still this is dragging on in a seemingly chaotic manner. Just get on with it and sort it out once and for all.
I mean, these sentences don't make any sense at all to me. If the first sentence is correct, did he miss it or wasn't it on it? If the first and second sentence are correct, why is it Sakho's fault? It's bad reporting or a bewilderingly incoherent situation. Or both.
Last edited:
Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the mechanism of action of this substance isn't validated. Other beta-2 agonists like salbutamol, clenbuterol and ephedrine are on the banned list. If this molecule also acts through beta-2 activation it stands that it should also be banned. But it hasn't been studied sufficiently and so Sakho's lawyer was able to argue against a suspension on the basis of inadequate evidence
There needs to be a much sharper focus on the most egregious forms of serious and sustained drug taking in sport, with more distinctions down the list in terms of what are undeniably performance enhancing substances, what are the degrees of this and what sanctions should be attached to each level. For years now it's been far too crude a process of classification and conviction, with too little connection with the degree, length and effects of the abuse. I don't know if it's still the case but a few years ago you couldn't even take a squirt of sudafed up your hooter without getting done for doping. The focus should be much more on the most significant and systematic cases of drug taking instead of totalling up a whole series of relatively trivial cases mainly to make the stats look good. And as footballers seem to be getting even thicker, improbable though such an achievement might sound, then I guess clubs are going to have to be much, much more assiduous in their education and monitoring of them.
IMO clubs monitor the players much better now, more tests. Most probably a few long term injuries is fake but they report that the player is injured when the truth is that he got cought in a test.
Tennis players have been able to use that method for years.
Tennis players have been able to use that method for years.
Echo reporting he will miss the start of the season with an Achilles injury.
He's not doping.
Don't know how anyone could think our club is involved in doping - players get injured all the time and play like shit when they are healthy. If we are doping we're fucking terrible at it
I don't know why so many people have sympathy for him. Illegal or not, he went behind the club doctors back and took drugs. Also (and I can't stress this enough) he's been here for 3 years and been good in about 30% of the games he's played. Lets sell him and get someone good please.
I don't think it's helpful to bundle up the two issues into one. 'I can't be bothered to look into the case seriously but I don't like him so he's guilty'. I know that's the norm now as a stance for septuagenarian light entertainment celebs, but all the same...
The sad thing about the scattershot way that doping is monitored these days (bung absolutely everything, no matter how minor and contentious, on to a great big list and let's see what fish we hook) is that it further infantilises players who already had been receding into depressing passivity and docility. It's important to clean up sports and keep them clean, but now we have players, in their twenties for chrissake, some of them married with kids, who are encouraged to call the doctor whenever they want to use a nasal spray or a headache tablet. It won't be long before they need help using an electric oven or buying groceries.
I'm not sure what the solution is - it would take a degree course for every player to make them capable of negotiating their own way reliably through the current minefield - but surely there's a more sensible way. Maybe this is why Doc Zaq left the club - he was sick to death of players phoning up all day and night asking if they could take some Lem-Sip.
He didn't take a cough medicine or the like though. He took diet pills, which really is stupid for a professional athlete of his standing.
See the way my post stands the test of time, whereas yours looks stupid ?
I guess it's hoping for too much for you to start behaving like a decent, mature, sensible adult individual instead of the silly little trollling twat that you appear so pleased to seem. Time will tell as to this topic and the evaluation of any particular responses, although your silence in recent days has been as telling as it's been welcome.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
