Guest Stephen927 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Sheffield United keeper Paddy Kenny has been suspended from all football for nine months for failing a drugs test. The 31-year-old tested positive for a banned substance, ephedrine, following last season's Championship play-off semi-final second leg against Preston. And while a statement read "its use was not intended to enhance performance", Kenny was found guilty by the Football Association's Regulatory Commission. The suspension dates back to 22 July, meaning he can return in April, 2010. In addition, Kenny will be subject to target testing for a period of two years, while he was also ordered to pay the costs of the hearing. Commission chairman, Christopher Quinlan, said: "Whilst we found that the player satisfied us on the balance of probabilities that the substance was not taken with the intention of enhancing sporting performance, his admitted conduct displayed significant fault. "A professional sportsman has a strict responsibility to ensure prohibited substances do not enter his/her body. "In this instance Mr Kenny knowingly ingested an over-the-counter medicine above the prescribed dosage without reading the accompanying package or leaflet and without reference to his club's doctor or other medical staff. "It is incumbent upon all professional footballers to understand the perils and dangers of so doing and to act in the way he did showed in our judgment a complete disregard for those responsibilities." However, United manager Kevin Blackwell hinted the club could well appeal against the length of the suspension. "The Commission accepted he didn't take the drug for performance enhancing, it was a course of tablets to relieve his chest - so we're a little surprised he's been done for nine months. "I don't understand the length of the ban. It's unbelievable. "The reasoning will be submitted to the powers that be in the next 48 hours and we'll have a look at it. There is every chance of appealing against this, but at the moment we'll look at all our options. "Paddy's devastated. At no time did he think it would come to this - it's a major lesson to every sportsman or woman out there. This case shows that before a player takes anything out of his medicine cabinet he has to check it intently." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/sheff_utd/8242926.stm Seems a bit daft. Thoughts? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisJbarnes Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 very stupid of him. very fair punishment, and very bad for sheff utd, so good for us! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgarve Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 bit harsh but it being backdated means the ban isnt that long in reality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 He knowingly bought a prescription drug that contained a banned substance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 They have recognised he didn't buy the drugs to enhance his performance, yet he gets a harsher punishment than Rio Ferdinand who missed a drugs test, which to me suggests Rio had something to hide. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Idiotic "mistake" to make. The punishment is fully justified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgarve Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 did he know it contained the banned substance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Liam Liam O Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 did he know it contained the banned substance? He shouldn't be taking any medication without checking first tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 did he know it contained the banned substance? No idea. He will say no, but he took it without informing the clubs medical staff or checking the packaging for instructions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgarve Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 alreet then, about rio though, i think he had probly taken a rec drug, that seems most likely Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 alreet then, about rio though, i think he had probly taken a rec drug, that seems most likely His excuse was he was moving house and forgot the day the drugs test was on. It was probably drilled into the entire team that one of them would be chosen for a drugs test, incredibly stupid or guilty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andover Bluebird Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Ban him because he plays for a team in red and white stripes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.S.R. Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 He was on cake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 We'll probably try and get him in on a 3 month emergency loan now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmk Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 Is he their first choice keeper? Good new for us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 He was on cake. FUKD AND BOMBED Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 no wonder he lost so much weight using that substance. surely he could have done it with training and diet?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Soundas Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Most likely be reduced on appeal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
silph Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Undoubtedly Kenny took a performance enhancing drug and was tested positive for it. However did he take the drug for enhancing his performance? I'd want to believe it's not the case. That being said, he still has to be punished for taking the drug although he might not have taken it intentionally. 9 months is too harsh though. I hope that the FA can reduce the ban to something more reasonable like 1 month or less. It will be a reminder for soccer players to be more mindful when taking medicine which contain drugs which could be considered under the act of doping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Undoubtedly Kenny took a performance enhancing drug and was tested positive for it. However did he take the drug for enhancing his performance? I'd want to believe it's not the case. That being said, he still has to be punished for taking the drug although he might not have taken it intentionally. 9 months is too harsh though. I hope that the FA can reduce the ban to something more reasonable like 1 month or less. It will be a reminder for soccer players to be more mindful when taking medicine which contain drugs which could be considered under the act of doping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elbel1 Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 They have recognised he didn't buy the drugs to enhance his performance, yet he gets a harsher punishment than Rio Ferdinand who missed a drugs test, which to me suggests Rio had something to hide. The punishment for missing a drugs test MUST be harsher than failing a test Otherwise you can get smacked out of your tits on whatever you choose then simply not turn up for a test and get a smaller ban than if you actually turn up and fail the test Therefore Rio didn't have anything to hide Common sense really Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen927 Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 They have recognised he didn't buy the drugs to enhance his performance, yet he gets a harsher punishment than Rio Ferdinand who missed a drugs test, which to me suggests Rio had something to hide. The punishment for missing a drugs test MUST be harsher than failing a test Otherwise you can get smacked out of your tits on whatever you choose then simply not turn up for a test and get a smaller ban than if you actually turn up and fail the test Therefore Rio didn't have anything to hide Common sense really Right, now point out where I said that missing a drugs test should come with a shorter ban than testing positive for performance enhancing drugs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobby_solano Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 sheffield united in whinging again 'shocker'. he should have sought advice before taking any medication Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elbel1 Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 They have recognised he didn't buy the drugs to enhance his performance, yet he gets a harsher punishment than Rio Ferdinand who missed a drugs test, which to me suggests Rio had something to hide. The punishment for missing a drugs test MUST be harsher than failing a test Otherwise you can get smacked out of your tits on whatever you choose then simply not turn up for a test and get a smaller ban than if you actually turn up and fail the test Therefore Rio didn't have anything to hide Common sense really Right, now point out where I said that missing a drugs test should come with a shorter ban than testing positive for performance enhancing drugs? The use of the word yet suggests that you are surprised at the length of the bans handed out to Rio and Paddy. I was simply explaining why Rio got a harsher ban and that it does not make it likely that Rio had anything to hide Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 They have recognised he didn't buy the drugs to enhance his performance, yet he gets a harsher punishment than Rio Ferdinand who missed a drugs test, which to me suggests Rio had something to hide. The punishment for missing a drugs test MUST be harsher than failing a test Otherwise you can get smacked out of your tits on whatever you choose then simply not turn up for a test and get a smaller ban than if you actually turn up and fail the test Therefore Rio didn't have anything to hide Common sense really Right, now point out where I said that missing a drugs test should come with a shorter ban than testing positive for performance enhancing drugs? The use of the word yet suggests that you are surprised at the length of the bans handed out to Rio and Paddy. I was simply explaining why Rio got a harsher ban and that it does not make it likely that Rio had anything to hide Can you read? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now