Paolo Guerrero Fails to Lift Doping Ban

[nudge+]

8 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

He's not innocent mate, there is only a claim of ignorance as to the consumption of a prohibited substance which constitutes negligence on his part.  It doesn't matter if it doesn't enhance his physical prowess.  It's about a rule FOR ALL.  It's his fault he finds himself in this situation unfortunately for the Peruvian football followers.

No, according to his mother, that's Pizarro's fault 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Yet there is no actual statement from FIFA regarding the incident? Figured. 

To say that there were people in the courtroom indicating FIFA agreed that he is innocent, is just he say she say. Again, this is really poor evidence and immediately excusable in court. 

What proof we do have, is that the FIFA Disciplinary found him guilty, and suspended him. So that action alone contradicts your he say she say argument. 

 

FIFA aren't going to publicly say he is innocent if the ban is put back in place, which brings me back to the point that the whole thing is really fishy. Sometimes you just have to choose to believe what those people say. I know a few legal experts who also find this whole process just absurd.

Again, if FIFpro step up in this situation, then something is seriously wrong. If he was actually guilty, then they wouldn't have said anything given their history. Its like your work supported a criminal. If he commited fellony, they wouldn't back him.

Guerrero isn't going to the World Cup and that is final but I do think FIFpro are doing the right thing in trying to change the rules a bit. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

He's not innocent mate, there is only a claim of ignorance as to the consumption of a prohibited substance which constitutes negligence on his part.  It doesn't matter if it doesn't enhance his physical prowess.  It's about a rule FOR ALL.  It's his fault he finds himself in this situation unfortunately for the Peruvian football followers.

Also, even if negligience was such a big factor in this compared to all those anti-doping Russians that are getting off, it wouldn't be Paolo's fault but rather the doctors who was on the side. I'm no tea expert but he didn't know there was a contaminated substance, so technically it wouldn't be his fault.

A bit insignificant, but I felt like I needed to get that out 

[Cicero]

Just now, Blue said:

FIFA aren't going to publicly say he is innocent if the ban is put back in place, which brings me back to the point that the whole thing is really fishy. Sometimes you just have to choose to believe what those people say. I know a few legal experts who also find this whole process just absurd.

Again, if FIFpro step up in this situation, then something is seriously wrong. If he was actually guilty, then they wouldn't have said anything given their history. Its like your work supported a criminal. If he commited fellony, they wouldn't back him.

Guerrero isn't going to the World Cup and that is final but I do think FIFpro are doing the right thing in trying to change the rules a bit. 

Actually, FIFA aren't going to say he's innocent because he's not. Everything you've brought up to conspire what really happened, is backed up by literally no reasonable evidence. 

Fifpro is basically a union protecting professional footballers. Of course they will back Guerrero because the punishment is in fact harsh (if we are told to be true he was only using the substance for altitude coping purposes) 

The fact of the matter is, what Guerrero did goes strictly against a governing law. That is something that can't merely be ignored. 

[nudge+]

Jesus Christ. Read the official CAS media release which contains the positions of CAS and FIFA. Nobody there is saying that he's innocent, it's wouldn't make any sense because a prohibited substance was found in his urine samples. What they are saying is that Guerrero didn't intentionally take that prohibited substance, but he still bares a degree of fault/negligence and that is why the ban is applied.

Direct quotes from the official statement:

FIFA's position: "The FIFA AC had considered that Mr Guerrero had been able to establish that the adverse analytical finding had been caused by the ingestion of a tea containing the prohibited substance.The FIFA AC decided that the Player bore some degree of fault or negligence (although not significant) in committing the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and therefore that a proportionate period of ineligibility had to be imposed."

CAS position: "The CAS Panel confirmed the existence of an ADRV committed by Mr Guerrero but also accepted that he did not attempt to enhance his performance by ingesting the prohibited substance. However, the Panel considered that the Player did bear some fault or negligence, even if it was not significant, and that he could have taken some measures to prevent him from committing the ADRV. Considering that, in case of no significant fault or negligence, the sanction should, in accordance with the applicable FIFA rules, be in the range of 1 to 2 years of suspension, the CAS Panel considered that the appropriate sanction would be 14 months in light of the Mr Guerrero’s degree of fault."

Case closed. 

Here's the link again https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_5546_decision.pdf

[Guest]

Just now, Cicero said:

Actually, FIFA aren't going to say he's innocent because he's not. Everything you've brought up to conspire what really happened, is backed up by literally no reasonable evidence. 

Fifpro is basically a union protecting professional footballers. Of course they will back Guerrero because the punishment is in fact harsh (if we are told to be true he was only using the substance for altitude coping purposes) 

The fact of the matter is, what Guerrero did goes strictly against a governing law. That is something that can't merely be ignored. 

Well regardless if he's innocent or not, I think we can both agree the punishment is harsh. Worst case scenario he could just have that against his name after serving his 6 months, but he made the whole issue bigger than it is.

I don't agree with SirBalon that its his fault for drinking the tea but it IS his fault for trying too hard to claim his innocence after the ban was reduced. 

Although just keep in mind FIFpro don't back players who consume drugs. Its as you said though, the punishment was harsh even if he was actually guilty or not.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, nudge said:

Jesus Christ. Read the official CAS media release which contains the positions of CAS and FIFA. Nobody there is saying that he's innocent, it's wouldn't make any sense because a prohibited substance was found in his urine samples. What they are saying is that Guerrero didn't intentionally take that prohibited substance, but he still bares a degree of fault/negligence and that is why the ban is applied.

Direct quotes from the official statement:

FIFA's position: "The FIFA AC had considered that Mr Guerrero had been able to establish that the adverse analytical finding had been caused by the ingestion of a tea containing the prohibited substance.The FIFA AC decided that the Player bore some degree of fault or negligence (although not significant) in committing the anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) and therefore that a proportionate period of ineligibility had to be imposed."

CAS position: "The CAS Panel confirmed the existence of an ADRV committed by Mr Guerrero but also accepted that he did not attempt to enhance his performance by ingesting the prohibited substance. However, the Panel considered that the Player did bear some fault or negligence, even if it was not significant, and that he could have taken some measures to prevent him from committing the ADRV. Considering that, in case of no significant fault or negligence, the sanction should, in accordance with the applicable FIFA rules, be in the range of 1 to 2 years of suspension, the CAS Panel considered that the appropriate sanction would be 14 months in light of the Mr Guerrero’s degree of fault."

Case closed. 

Here's the link again https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Media_Release_5546_decision.pdf

Haha, don't get so jumpy Nudge

I read it but I don't get why FIFpro would make a few of those claims after the official TAS document was released. Even so, the ban is harsh as consuming drugs is normally 1 year and negligience should be less. I think thats what they want to change

Jose Angulo is the first example that comes to my mind. Guerrero should have just been happy with 6 months.

[Cicero]

5 minutes ago, Blue said:

Haha, don't get so jumpy Nudge

I read it but I don't get why FIFpro would make a few of those claims after the official TAS document was released. Even so, the ban is harsh as consuming drugs is normally 1 year and negligience should be less. I think thats what they want to change

Jose Angulo is the first example that comes to my mind. Guerrero should have just been happy with 6 months.

You should really stop using FIFpro as a credible reference. 

So we've both found common ground that the punishment is in fact a harsh one. 

However, can we also both agree that what he did strictly went against a FIFA governing law? 

[nudge+]

Just now, Blue said:

Haha, don't get so jumpy Nudge

I read it but I don't get why FIFpro would make a few of those claims after the official TAS document was released. Even so, the ban is harsh as consuming drugs is normally 1 year and negligience should be less. I think thats what they want to change

Jose Angulo is the first example that comes to my mind. Guerrero should have just been happy with 6 months.

It's just gets tiring to read the same shite all over again, I think there have been at least 10 topics about this since last year  

[Guest]

Just now, nudge said:

It's just gets tiring to read the same shite all over again, I think there have been at least 10 topics about this since last year  

That must be Pizarro's fault 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Cicero said:

You should really stop using FIFpro as a credible reference. 

So we've both found common ground that the punishment is in fact a harsh one. 

However, can we also both agree that what he did strictly went against a FIFA governing law? 

I never thought differently but I also never argued that. Think my wording of it was just poor.

[SirBalon]

13 minutes ago, Blue said:

Well regardless if he's innocent or not, I think we can both agree the punishment is harsh. Worst case scenario he could just have that against his name after serving his 6 months, but he made the whole issue bigger than it is.

I don't agree with SirBalon that its his fault for drinking the tea but it IS his fault for trying too hard to claim his innocence after the ban was reduced. 

Although just keep in mind FIFpro don't back players who consume drugs. Its as you said though, the punishment was harsh even if he was actually guilty or not.

The punishment is harsh ethically but law doesn't work via ethics, it functions with facts.

You do know that when you appeal for innocence once you have been initially been found to be culpable of an offence you then risk the punishment being more abundant for obvious reasons that don't need to be explained.

He was obviously badly advised to appeal the judgement in the first place.

[Guest]

Just now, SirBalon said:

The punishment is harsh ethically but law doesn't work via ethics, it functions with facts.

You do know that when you appeal for innocence once you have been initially been found to be culpable of an offence you then risk the punishment being more abundant for obvious reasons that don't need to be explained.

He was obviously badly advised to appeal the judgement in the first place.

I actually feared this would happen when he first appealed the ban. Before all this WADA shit came into place, I had a feeling it was a dangerous move. End of the day, I was right and I can defend him for the tea but not for appealing twice.

[Spike]

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Blue said:

 I know a few legal experts who also find this whole process just absurd.

If in doubt resort to lying 

[nudge+]

[Stan]

9 minutes ago, nudge said:

what a bloody mess this is

[Panna King]

 it's not fair!!! i demand a retrial!  

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Cannabis said:

Which experts have you spoken to @Blue?

Didn't speak directly but saw them saying how absurd it was on Twitter. Well just 1, no need to put it in plural.

[Guest]

The Peruvian government is going to Swiss Supreme Court to try to get Guerrero in the World Cup. There is a slight chance but this has gotten out of hand in my opinion.

Paolo has criticized Swiss Hotel and now he's going to get in trouble for giving the hotel a bad reputation. I've defended him and I still think the punishment is harsh, but his ego has gotten in the way. He should just accept he won't be going to Russia and stay quiet. There is a month before the tournament and the handling of this has been a mess from both Paolo and the FPF. 

I hope Gareca is trying his best to keep the team focused and distract them from all the news, because I'm beginning to fear for our chances in the World Cup due to morale.

This is beginning to get embarrassing. I have no hope the ban will be put on hold either way, my main hope is that the main core stays focused.

[Tommy]

Good news, he's a cunt anyway. 

[Cicero]

Lol good luck with that. If someone breaks a governing law, the likelyhood of it being over turned is a big fat 0%, especially given the evidence. 

I can understand Guerrero's frusturation. But the fact of the matter is, he's not going to Russia due to his own negligence. Wonder why no other players used the illegal substance to deal with the altitude? Oh right, because it's illegal. 

This is just becoming embarrasing. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Lol good luck with that. If someone breaks a governing law, the likelyhood of it being over turned is a big fat 0%, especially given the evidence. 

I can understand Guerrero's frusturation. But the fact of the matter is, he's not going to Russia due to his own negligence. Wonder why no other players used the illegal substance to deal with the altitude? Oh right, because it's illegal. 

This is just becoming embarrasing. 

At this point, I just want him to stay quiet. I love him, but he's not helping himself with these claims.

Like I said I don't care anymore if he goes to the World Cup or not as long as the core is focused and prepared to be the revelation of the tournament, in other words do well in Russia.

Also, just a quick correction, it was before the game away to Argentina. That isn't altitude haha

[Cicero]

7 minutes ago, Blue said:

At this point, I just want him to stay quiet. I love him, but he's not helping himself with these claims.

Like I said I don't care anymore if he goes to the World Cup or not as long as the core is focused and prepared to be the revelation of the tournament, in other words do well in Russia.

Also, just a quick correction, it was before the game away to Argentina. That isn't altitude haha

I thought the substance was primarily used in coping with Altitude levels? 

[Guest]

Just now, Cicero said:

I thought the substance was primarily used in coping with Altitude levels? 

No idea about the substance but I know the it happened before Argentina away.

Think it was to cure a flu or something.