She would be suspended from athletics immediately and like Dwain Chambers, who awaits his fate having tested positively for a banned anabolic steroid, she rightly would face the prospect of an automatic two-year ban. No ifs, no buts.
If the Football Association are serious about football's credibility and if they are mindful of sending out the right message they will judge Rio Ferdinand at today's hearing into his drugs no-show as athletics would.
Ferdinand is not a naive teenager. He is an England international playing for the biggest football club in the world.
Responsibility
At £30million he is by some distance the most expensive footballer in the land, the world's dearest defender and a man who earns more than £60,000 a week for barely two hours work most days.
There is a price to pay for such privilege, one which comes wrapped tightly around that dreaded word - responsibility.
Too often these days the modern footballer accepts the rewards attached to the public's obsession with the world's most popular sport while acting as if nothing is required in return.
A mandatory drugs test is not a photo-shoot, a signing session or any of the other peripheral fripperies which occupy a footballer's mind.
It can't be dodged like nipping out of the back door to avoid a scrum of autograph hunters or put to the back of the mind because something more interesting beckons.
Sadly, drug testing is part of the essential fabric of the sport - one which every player has a duty to treat with professionalism and respect.
In an unseemly example of obfuscation, players' union boss Gordon Taylor has tried to rubbish the administration of the testing procedures. It is irrelevant nit-picking over procedures which may well need to be tightened but have no direct bearing on Ferdinand's folly.
Three other Manchester United players remembered to turn up on time for testing that September day. There were no complaints from them and nor should there have been.
Facts
Which is why those who trot out that old 'trial by media' chestnut and insist Ferdinand is innocent until proved guilty should look at the plain facts.
By Ferdinand's own admission he disappeared from United's training ground without providing the mandatory urine sample.
When Kenya's Olympic 10,000m champion John Ngugi failed to attend a similar test a decade ago he was banned with immediate effect. Zero tolerance.
Ferdinand claims he simply forgot to turn up for his test. So how can Thursday's hearing be to determine guilt? It is to decide the level of punishment.
And while Ferdinand will call on his friend Eyal Berkovic, who he claims was with him at the time he should have been taking the test, plus England manager Sven-Goran Eriksson to act as a character witness among copious attempts at mitigation, the FA must resist any weakness.
Already, in the eyes of many in the footballing world it is a disgrace that Ferdinand has been allowed to play on for Manchester United while his case has gathered dust at Soho Square.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter thinks as much and he has been backed by Eriksson, who is desperate for Ferdinand to be available for Euro 2004.
Hardship
Everyone with the credibility of English football at heart must surely be of the same opinion.
For if Ferdinand came from another country or played in most other sports he would already have begun serving a two-year ban.
A three-month ban, suggested in some quarters, is simply not sufficient.
There is a strong case for the full two-year ban but the least Ferdinand should expect is six months - a punishment which would end his season and bring some realistic hardship to player and club.
Only then could the FA send out the message that it is determined to fall in line with international doping regulations and, in the words of FA chief executive Mark Palios, clean up the game.
True, Taylor argues the problem of drugs in football is not as endemic as other sports and he's probably right. Less than 1% of footballers tested positive last year after 65,000 tests.
There was only one failure for what is commonly termed a performing-enhancing drug when a Football League player proved positive for the banned steroid nandrolone.
'Way forward'
But the player in question was unnamed and received merely a warning, even though in most other sports he would have been ruthlessly exiled for two years.
That does not sound like football is tough on drugs. It sounds more like its administrators have their heads stuck firmly in the sand.
They must now raise their eyes and take a glimpse of the real world. It may be tough on Ferdinand, but it is the only way forward for football.
Have your say.
For all the latest odds, ring BETFRED on 0800 73 11 210
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Where are you getting off! Your opinion is contradictory and clearly biased.
All legal cases are built on precedence. Why are you not calling for the head of the young MCFC player who missed a test. Why was the Rushden & Diamonds keeper 'let off' when testing positive for nandralone and why are you not suggesting that this was outrageous. What about Stam and Davids? Both tested positive and received bans issued by Blatter and FIFA that are not much longer than what is being touted for Rio.
Ferdinand is a footballer and operates within the guidelines dictated by the FA at the time of the offence. These guidelines when broken have carried the recent lenient punishments we have seen given out to lesser known players. Why should Rio suffer a worse fate?
The whole drugs issue does need reviewing in Football, but you cannot treat Rio differently to any other player punished under the current rules. It is unreasonable to do so and I would hope that United and Rio would pursue this as hard and far as is possible should an unfair punishment be handed out.
Whilst I agree that Rio needs to be punished for missing the drugs test I also think everybody is going totally overboard about the length of ban Rio should face. With this, I would like to point out the following:
1) In italy, the players (i.e Stam) that were found guilty of taking banned substances faced bans of around 4 months. Rio has not been charged with taking illegal substances but that of missing a test.
2) If the reports of Rio wanting to return to take the test but Sport UK saying no as it was outside the time limit then this needs to be reviewed. Especially as I believe no start time was given for the test to commence.
3) Precedence has been set in the case of Manchester City player Christian Negouai missing a drugs test and only being fined.
I could continue but the final points I would like to add are that FA chief executive Mark Palios needs to resign as he just has not got a clue and Sepp Blatter needs to keep his nose out our business and his mouth shut. Blatter needs to get FIFA's house in order before criticising anybody else.
Overall, whilst I think Rio should only be fined a 3 month ban would be a satisfactory compromise for being 'stupid'. If the ban is greater than 3 months then I think Man Utd need to take the FA to a legal court where they would undoubtly win. Law is all about precedence and this has already been set.
The suggested punishments mooted by Frank Malley may or may not be warranted in circumstances where exact guidelines have been clearly laid out, but this does not appear to be the case in this instance where in the past a series of vague punishments have been given for the same (or worse) offence.
I do not believe that British Justice allows for retrospective punishments, so I cannot believe that they can punish so severely without having exact guidelines laid out PREVIOUSLY.
Yet another story by yet another "holier than thou", "halo wearing" hack. If people like Frank Malley are so clever why aren't they in positions of authority and responsibility? The answer is simple, much easier to criticise everyone else from the safety of the sidelines than accept any responsibility yourself. I hope your halo never slips Mr Malley, but if it does, I hope there is an old hack around with a bone to pick who takes you to the cleaners both professionally and personally! The first thing that needs to be recognised in this whole sorry affair is that the procedure for drug testing in football is seriously flawed (if there is indeed a coherent set of guidelines to follow at all). I have been subjected to randon drug testing during my 22 years in the armed forces and the routine is brilliantly simple. The drugs team arrive totally unanounced and produce a list of personnel whom they wish to test. These people then are not allowed to leave the building/complex until such time as they have produced a satisfactory sample. Simple really isn't it? Secondly, why, when Rio offered to return to Carrington did the drugs testing team not excercise a little common sense and flexibity and grant the extra half hour or so to allow him to take the test? The answer seems to be that the person(s) in question were/are little jobsworths who are so drunk with their own importance, they failed to consider the consequences of their hard nosed stance. Perhaps they were trained in the same school for the self rightious as Mr Malley? The extra half hour/hour time lapse would have not affected any sample and if authority needed to be excercised, I presume Rio could still have been fined and warned as to his future conduct for being LATE for the test. Thirdly, I must agree with previous contributors. A presedent has been set, both in the punishments for failing to attend for a test AND actually failing a test. It would not be equitable if Rio were suddenly to receive a sentence much more severe than those already prescribed. The fact that the lad from City was not as high profile a player has no bearing. He plays for a club in the premier league as does Rio! Lastly, when oh! when are we going to have some professional, competent people running what is a multi million pound business instead of the equivalent of a parish council we have now (no disrespect meant for parish councils)? From Utd's point of view, the club must in future ensure that its players do not have lapses of memory again, even if it means detailing off a club official to shadow the player(s) in question to ensure they do not wander off and miss their test. If the worse happens and Rio gets a lengthy ban, we must treat it like a long term injury and use our considerable resources to minimise the effect on this season's campaign. As for Rio, if I were in his shoes and slaughtered by the FA, I may well feel as though I might like to adopt Duncan Ferguson's attitude to future international call ups. A bit churlish you might say, but how will a severe sentence leave Rio feeling towards the FA in the future? Lets not forget the Niel Lennon incident when Alan Shearer (then England captain) threatened to boycott the national side/retire from international foolball if he was charged over the incident and the FA miraculously found obscure video evidence (never seen by anybody else by the way) to exhonerate him!!! As for Sep Blatter, don't you dare set foot inside OT ever again. You are an interfering, meddling, unwanted, unneeded nuisance!
Unfortunately we may not be dealing with Rio anymore. We are dealing with a system that wasn't set up properly, we have an opportunity to take a shot at Manchester United and a new emperor, Marcus Pallios who wants to huff and puff and deflect everything onto the shoulders of an irresponsible but gifted young man.
The politicians will win and Rio will get suspended. One can only hope that a month will satisfy the incompetants at the FA however I have my doubts.
All these people calling for a ban etc etc are forgetting one fact that Rio has not been found to have taken any drugs. I can not believe that the FA is so stupid as to believe that the missing of a drugs test requires any ban from the spport. surely if one is tested and found to positive that requires a ban, but to ban someone who has not tested positive is ridiculous. whoever came up with that idea needs to be banned himself. the FA is so misled with the idea of the drugs story that they are being led by the nose. Has anyone from the FA been submitted for a drugs test ? And before you say that's a stupid idea, think about it, surely those who are making the laws should be made to comply with the laws in the first place.
Lets not jump over board here.... innocent until found guilty. Now this will become more interesting over the next weeks as blapper mouth will try and stick his oar in and the only place this is heading is court.... and I`m for british justice, fifa have no legs to standon.
The IOC ought keep out of football. They have their systems and are welcome to them, but, as I have said before, they are ill-thought out.
Any athlete, footballer, snooker player or whatever should, and rightly so, be suspended immediately they fail to take the test until such time as they take and pass the test. What is disputed is the draconian measures that some people advocate. Players should be suspended until such time as they have taken and passed the test. If they fail, and thus are shown to have cheated, they should be banned for life from all sport. Nobody has argued against this. Rio Ferdinand did not take the test and so should be punished, but no sports govening body is justified in such draconian sentences for that offence. He has not failed a drugs test.
Fine him - he can afford it. Ban him for a reasonable time - two or three months? But for heavens sake let's get this into perspective. If the FA ban him for an excessive period, or if they don't and FIFA butt-in, then there would likely be a case for Rio to take the issue to the courts. Their ruling is binding: remember player contracts and transfer fees?
There is an opportunity for this to be settled reasonably and amicably. Don't let it be sorted by pathetic nobodies kicked upstairs to a level somewhat above their own levels of incompetence.