Fined for a positive test

bipedal
bipedal Posts: 466
edited August 2008 in Pro race
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008 ... ierleague1

bet Boonen didn't have to stump up quite this much?!

Comments

  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    bipedal wrote:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/14/chelsea.premierleague1

    bet Boonen didn't have to stump up quite this much?!

    I just dont get this one at all if Chelsea sacked him them for me they are not entitled to compensation. if they had backed him and trotted out the old we will help him line then maybe i could see it but.........

    cheers
    MG
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Moray Gub wrote:
    bipedal wrote:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/14/chelsea.premierleague1

    bet Boonen didn't have to stump up quite this much?!

    I just dont get this one at all if Chelsea sacked him them for me they are not entitled to compensation. if they had backed him and trotted out the old we will help him line then maybe i could see it but.........

    It's a breach of contract issue. They made an investment of 16 million quid when they bought him from Parma, he breached the terms of the contract by testing positive for cocaine.

    It's a win-win for Chelsea. They were able to offload a lame duck of a player and recoup their investment. The story really has nothing to do with drugs... it's all money, money, money.
  • skavanagh.bikeradar
    skavanagh.bikeradar Posts: 1,097
    Which is pretty much the start and finish of football these days. I've fallen out of love with the beautiful game after 37 years of infatuation. It's an irrevocable split.
  • nathanbloke
    nathanbloke Posts: 28
    IIRC, he failed a drugs test which Chelsea FC had organised, which, apparently, is contrary to drug testing rules laid down by FIFA. Currently, unlike in cycling, football clubs are not permitted to test their own players. I presume this is to avoid clubs covering up PED use by their own players.

    Also, IIRC, Chelsea had relegated Mutu to the reserves, and were trying, unsuccessfully, to offload him. They hear a rumour that his drop in form is due to recreational drug use, and then depend on the anti-drugs hype to sweep the fact that their test was contrary to FIFA rules under the carpet in the ensuing flurry of publicity.

    So an underperforming player, with issues outside the sport that are affecting his performance, is not helped, but summararily dismissed, drug use publicly broadcast, and then sued for millions by his employer. It is all so wrong. They didn't "invest" the transfer fee in Mutu, they paid off his last employer.

    Russian oligarchs and their toys, hey?
  • deal
    deal Posts: 857
    that sounds about right....this is the same Chelsea that subjected there players to the perfectly safe and ligimate practice of blood-spinning afterall, if they really cared about players indulging in a little coke they would likely struggle to field a team

Categories