Turn on thread page Beta

Jake Livermore watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hull City midfielder Jake Livermore will not be banned after testing positive for cocaine.

    The 25-year-old was suspended by the Football Association and his club in May after failing a drug test, pending the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.

    The England international, who faced a possible two-year ban, tested positive after the death of his newborn child.

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    good decision
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think he should get counselling and support.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    They really should crack down on this kind of thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently the guy was in a bad place, glad to see the FA didn't throw the book at him
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    Apparently the guy was in a bad place, glad to see the FA didn't throw the book at him
    Yeah he took the cocaine following the FA Cup final loss to Arsenal and then the more tragic and saddening loss of his daughter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mud4554r)
    Yeah he took the cocaine following the FA Cup final loss to Arsenal and then the more tragic and saddening loss of his daughter.
    Don't have any problem with the FA laying off. Throw the book at him and it just creates and endless spiral into depression. Guy clearly needs help and it's not fair that joe bloggs on the street will whack out the "What's he complaining about, he's a millionaire playboy footballer" argument. Footballers are humans too.

    Raheem and Grealish hippy crack is a whole different issue though
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    Don't have any problem with the FA laying off. Throw the book at him and it just creates and endless spiral into depression. Guy clearly needs help and it's not fair that joe bloggs on the street will whack out the "What's he complaining about, he's a millionaire playboy footballer" argument. Footballers are humans too.

    Raheem and Grealish hippy crack is a whole different issue though
    Why is it? It's legal is it not?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Snorting cocaine in a nightclub is not how I would mourn a child, but different people do react differently to grief, so although I do find it weird and am not 100% convinced by his excuse I do think it could be the truth. So this was probably the right decision - at least, in the circumstances I do think no other decision should have been taken.

    Though obviously he did know where to get the coke and how it would make him feel, so he'd most likely taken it before. Right decision, but I'd keep an eye on him tbh.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    Raheem and Grealish hippy crack is a whole different issue though
    Nah, they are only harming themselves (Jake too). So long as drugs are not performance-enhancing I don't know why the FA has a big problem with them. Footballers have done much worse to other people which does not get punished by the FA, so they can't even use code of conduct as an excuse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    Why is it? It's legal is it not?
    Indeed they are legal

    The point I was trying to make is in instances like these when drugs (Livermore), Alcohol (Merson) and Hippy Crack, the FA has the right and indeed should have the right to arbitrarily make a ruling or issue a warning. In any case, the circumstance of the individual should help to make an informed decision, glad it has in the case of Livermore. Raheem and Grealish took recreational drugs for the sake of taking them and while legal, as role models, these images strewn out across the Sun sets a very bad example
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    Nah, they are only harming themselves (Jake too). So long as drugs are not performance-enhancing I don't know why the FA has a big problem with them. Footballers have done much worse to other people which does not get punished by the FA, so they can't even use code of conduct as an excuse.
    Don't follow, has any footballer done worse to other people and gotten away with it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    Indeed they are legal

    The point I was trying to make is in instances like these when drugs (Livermore), Alcohol (Merson) and Hippy Crack, the FA has the right and indeed should have the right to arbitrarily make a ruling or issue a warning. In any case, the circumstance of the individual should help to make an informed decision, glad it has in the case of Livermore. Raheem and Grealish took recreational drugs for the sake of taking them and while legal, as role models, these images strewn out across the Sun sets a very bad example
    If the FA tried to step in and punish them for taking a legal drug they should tell them to piss off. How is it any different to going out and having a beer or ten? Until it's made illegal they've done nothing wrong really, the only people who should have an issue with it are their employers if anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    If the FA tried to step in and punish them for taking a legal drug they should tell them to piss off. How is it any different to going out and having a beer or ten? Until it's made illegal they've done nothing wrong really, the only people who should have an issue with it are their employers if anything.
    To be quite honest, I agree with you. Think however of the FA protecting the branding image of the Premier League, doesn't sit well with many.

    I know Sherwood wasn't happy
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    Don't follow, has any footballer done worse to other people and gotten away with it?
    Footballers (off the pitch) have committed grievous bodily harm, rape and death by dangerous driving. These crimes don't lead to playing bans, but snorting coke does? Or, in other words: Snorting coke brings the game "into disrepute" but killing two children while drink-driving does not?

    I think that is retarded.

    I think the FA should just stay out of it altogether tbh. Give no bans at all. Anything illegal should be dealt with by the justice system, and if it's not illegal then "FA bans" are just stupid anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    Footballers (off the pitch) have committed grievous bodily harm, rape and death by dangerous driving. These crimes don't lead to playing bans, but snorting coke does? Or, in other words: Snorting coke brings the game "into disrepute" but killing two children while drink-driving does not?

    I think that is retarded.

    I think the FA should just stay out of it altogether tbh. Give no bans at all. Anything illegal should be dealt with by the justice system, and if it's not illegal then "FA bans" are just stupid anyway.
    Have to say I disagree on a few points
    1. Cocaine is a Class A drug. If you or I can get arrested for possession, I can't see why footballers should be exempt

    2. Using those comparisons between snorting cocaine and killing two children while drink driving in order to suggest that cocaine deserves no punishment is wrong. The FA has a responsibility,not to uphold the law, but to preserve the image of English Football i.e clean and wholesome. In any case, as you said, you break the law, the law will catch up with you as was the was with Luke McCormick, Ched Evans and if Adam Johnson is found guilty. The real question is whether snorting cocaine brings the game into disrepute and according to various doping associations they suggest they are performance enhancing
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    Have to say I disagree on a few points
    1. Cocaine is a Class A drug. If you or I can get arrested for possession, I can't see why footballers should be exempt
    I agree absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the FA.

    2. Using those comparisons between snorting cocaine and killing two children while drink driving in order to suggest that cocaine deserves no punishment is wrong. The FA has a responsibility,not to uphold the law, but to preserve the image of English Football i.e clean and wholesome. In any case, as you said, you break the law, the law will catch up with you as was the was with Luke McCormick, Ched Evans and if Adam Johnson is found guilty.
    Of course. I have no issue with the justice system. The point is that they did not get FA bans (even though I'm sure you'd agree that killing children while on the booze is not "clean and wholesome" behaviour).

    My point is that the justice system is consistent. The FA is not. So I'd just leave it to the justice system in all cases.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The FA lost their dignity on this kind of thing when they banned John Terry for the same thing he'd been cleared of in court.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    I agree absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the FA.



    Of course. I have no issue with the justice system. The point is that they did not get FA bans (even though I'm sure you'd agree that killing children while on the booze is not "clean and wholesome" behaviour).

    My point is that the justice system is consistent. The FA is not. So I'd just leave it to the justice system in all cases.
    1. True, the bans that occur are for breach of anti-doping laws set by various agency's via sporting committees, which does fall under FA jurisdiction in terms of following through with a ban. The ability of the FA to issue bans on arbitrary basis means that repeat offenders can be more adequately punished and in the case of Livermore, extenuating circumstance may be applied. Now whether cocaine can be classified as performance enhancing, I have no clue

    2.Despite our debate, I can assure I agree on your point of clean and wholesome behaviour. In any case, the reason they didnt get banned was because they broke the Law,not in the FA's jurisdiction, they went through those procedures which as you say are consistent. The law is an ass. The fact Livermore can get the help he needs to differentiate him from players like Mutu ultimately suggest FA Bans in this case are justified
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alex0110)
    1. True, the bans that occur are for breach of anti-doping laws set by various agency's via sporting committees, which does fall under FA jurisdiction in terms of following through with a ban. The ability of the FA to issue bans on arbitrary basis means that repeat offenders can be more adequately punished and in the case of Livermore, extenuating circumstance may be applied. Now whether cocaine can be classified as performance enhancing, I have no clue

    2.Despite our debate, I can assure I agree on your point of clean and wholesome behaviour. In any case, the reason they didnt get banned was because they broke the Law,not in the FA's jurisdiction, they went through those procedures which as you say are consistent. The law is an ass. The fact Livermore can get the help he needs to differentiate him from players like Mutu ultimately suggest FA Bans in this case are justified
    Ah OK. I understand the point you make about jurisdiction. Then I think it actually has nothing to do with the image of the game - otherwise other crimes would be relevant because they also affect the image of the game, even if they are also punished by the justice system (sentencing is not a replacement for a ban because FA bans could well be longer than (often only partly served) sentences - they certainly seem to be longer in the case of drug use).

    If it is not about the image of the game, then I agree that these other crimes are not relevant because they don't affect competition which is what the FA is probably concerned about. Instead the question then is whether illegal recreational drugs should be in the FA's jurisdiction if they are not performance-enhancing. I would say no, because if they are not performance-enhancing they don't affect competition. I also don't know if cocaine is classed as performance-enhancing - I thought not, but apparently there is some controversy about this. (Perhaps this is why the FA punish it, to be on the safe side.)
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: September 10, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.