A Rotherham player got a 10 match ban for using words.
A hull player got no ban for using cocaine.
while the cir***stances are understandable...are you kidding me? No ban at all ?
big club little club or just the FA or FL can understand that losing a child is a nightmare?
personally I think he should serve a ban and given time for counselling while he is on it.
Quite right to be perplexed Heman, shocked myself, i've all sympathy about Jake Livermore's loss, but thousands of folk go through similar tragedies without resorting to cocaine, and for the FA to adopt this stance is double standards at the very least.
While I sympathise with his loss, how many adults in the UK would respond in the same way to the situation Livermore found himself in? I suspect that the answer would be a small fraction of a percent.
I understand that view Heman. Difficult one this. I think that the powers that be in football get many things wrong. This lads misdemeanour hurt no one but himself and he had mitigating factors. He has suffered already, and he served a de facto ban while suspended. The only reason to punish him further would be to make an example of him so as to send a message to others not to follow his lead, but no one would want to go through what he went through so even that doesn't really apply. On balance and at the risk of being in an unpopular minority I think for a change they have got one right.
I don't think so Ian. He will have been tested a number of times so I doubt he is a serial offender. He would have known he would be tested again and probably caught so that may give us a clue as to his state of mind. I think Heman that you and I may be at cross purposes. I was looking at the Livermore decision in isolation. I still think that on the basis of what we know about it in isolation it is a fair and humane outcome. If you are looking at it in comparison to other offences such as Suarez, Broadfoot and so on and think there is a lack of consistency then that's a different point, and a very fair one if I may say so. Both can be true.
The most shocking thing to me is that a player loses his new born son and the club appear to know nothing about it!...very strange
After giving it some thought and reading smiler's opinion , I agree with him.
Even though it seems lenient, its a compassionate decision and thats a good thing.
Its not a normal response to bereavement but he deserves leniency and lets hope he feels that the best way to respect his baby's memory is to live a decent life and not take drugs.
The most shocking thing to me is that a player loses his new born son and the club appear to know nothing about it!...very strange
After giving it some thought and reading smiler's opinion , I agree with him.
Even though it seems lenient, its a compassionate decision and thats a good thing.
Its not a normal response to bereavement but he deserves leniency and lets hope he feels that the best way to respect his baby's memory is to live a decent life and not take drugs.
A perceptive point from K. I have on occasions sought temporary oblivion. The options are reasonably well known from booze to Cannabis to Opiates. Cocaine is a very odd choice; it's a "party" drug more suited to snorting off a tart's bum but each to their own I suppose.
