UEFA vs WADA or LFC vs WADA/UEFA

[Sir X]

However, Uefa has decided not to extend that suspension, which is due to expire on Saturday, as it has launched its own investigation into whether the fat-burning substance the centre-back took should even be on the banned list.


Rather than set a date for a hearing to consider the defender’s case, Uefa has instead ordered its own disciplinary body to first look into whether the substance should be on the World Anti-Doping Agency list. Liverpool have declined to comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/football...her-doping-ban

Can we sue for the Europa Cup ( C.L ) spot ?

[Rockman]

Taking banned substance is HUGE,always did wonder why Pool and Sakko just accepted the charge(one that now appears frivolous)when that club was so quick to defend a serial biter in allegations of other wrongdoings.
These are the possibilities I came up with:
God told them to defend Suarez.
Liverpool regrets its handling of the Suarez matter.
Sakko is not from Uruguay.
Sakko is a known offender.
............................................. .

Unuh throw de yute unda de bus.

[Paul Marin]

Taking banned substance is HUGE,always did wonder why Pool and Sakko just accepted the charge(one that now appears frivolous)when that club was so quick to defend a serial biter in allegations of other wrongdoings.
These are the possibilities I came up with:
God told them to defend Suarez.
Liverpool regrets its handling of the Suarez matter.
Sakko is not from Uruguay.
Sakko is a known offender.
............................................. .

Unuh throw de yute unda de bus.

Are you sure you couldn't come up with more possibilities? You were on to something I'm sure.

[Sir X]

Mamadou Sakho - UEFA decision raises key questions

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport...aises-11399116

[Jangle]

I hope they find scientific proof that the substance does not aid an athlete in his performance. It's time somebody start challenging these quacks at WADA.

[Sir X]

Its a time bomb

https://www.walmart.com/reviews/product/10449752

http://www.health.com/health/gallery...7273_6,00.html

[Rockman]

Two questions:
1)Is it your opinion that the real reason isn't listed among the four possibilities. ..?
2)Do you think Sakho should be defended?

[Sir X]

1) How do you know it wasn't the real reason? 2) Sahko was defended ,we argued " it should not have been on the banned list"

[Paul Marin]

Two questions:
1)Is it your opinion that the real reason isn't listed among the four possibilities. ..?
2)Do you think Sakho should be defended?

Surely you don't expect me to answer your first question. I will leave that to you and your own devices. As for Sakho being defended, anyone who is charged with any kind of "crime" or rule breaking deserves to be treated as innocent until PROVEN guilty.

[Rockman]

let the process takes its course,but then that would not explain Liverpool reacting differently in the Suarez matter.
The Suarez matter was potentially too explosive to ignored,but that would only attest to Sakho being left to fend for himself because the issue is not great enough to warrant Liverpool's involvement..

If what is being reported is true then it is even clearer that Sakho is innocent than the other matter in which Pool was quick to assert the innocence of one if its players..

[Paul Marin]

let the process takes its course,but then that would not explain Liverpool reacting differently in the Suarez matter.
The Suarez matter was potentially too explosive to ignored,but that would only attest to Sakho being left to fend for himself because the issue is not great enough to warrant Liverpool's involvement..

If what is being reported is true then it is even clearer that Sakho is innocent than the other matter in which Pool was quick to assert the innocence of one if its players..

How do you know:

1. That Sakho is being left to fend for himself? (when you are not on the inside)
2. Sakho is innocent? (when the process is not completed)
3. What was Liverpool defending Suarez from? (be careful not to make a stupid statement, because the charge against him and the perceptions that people make (as painted in the press) is highly nuanced and quite frankly, ridiculous).

And I have a question for you. Why was John Terry tried in a court of law and Suarez tried by an FA tribunal?

Tenk you.

[Rockman]

Maybe we will avoid the guessing if you tell me what you think the real reason is.

At best what you challenged is the sanction and not the act deemed an offence.
In blistering speed Sakho AND Liverpool entered a plead of guilty.

[Paul Marin]

Maybe we will avoid the guessing if you tell me what you think the real reason is.

At best what you challenged is the sanction and not the act deemed an offence.
In blistering speed Sakho AND Liverpool entered a plead of guilty.

Those of us real Reds who understand the core values of the club can answer that better than a turncoat. Him nah go mek no sense and anything him seh, ago try defen' fi him fcurkery. Have you considered:

1. LFC admitted guilt at blistering speed because Sakho actually took the substance?

2. LFC defended Suarez at blistering speed because the charge against him was fraudulent?

KMT.

[Rockman]

Look,when fighting a case,it is prudent to do so with the expertise of a lawyer.Sakho acceptance of the charge does not indicate he had access of the legal resources available to his club.

Sakho innocence is assumed until the case has been determined.

Suarez was being defended by Pool on a matter in which it would be harder to determine innocence than what Sakho is being accused of.

There was that one time the powers that be(UEFA) changed its rules,it was to facilitate Pool,not Chelsea.
Evidence of Pool's undue influence,maybe Terry's problem is he wasn't a player from Pool.

[Rockman]

Gosh,where is the evidence of indoctrination having attended Sir X's University as it pertains to me?

The issue is not taking the substance,it is whether taking it constitutes to a violation ,that is the things legal minds handle.

So the charge against Sakho is not even more clearly fraudulent?