[情報] 私自藥檢也要被罰....

看板Chelsea作者JamesCaesar (首席百人隊長)時間19年前 (2006/09/01 16:27)推噓3(3推 0噓 0→)

留言3則, 3人參與討論串1/1

http://212.95.232.145/fapl/html_gb/news/2006/news_4137.html 切爾西私下藥檢違例英足總獨立紀律委員會〔下稱紀委會〕裁定，切爾西兩年多前私下替球員進行藥物測試，違反相關藥檢條例，判處罰款四萬英鎊。英足總就此發表聲明：“切爾西在2004年7月14日擅自替麾下幾名球員進行藥物測試，現已被紀委會裁定觸犯相關藥檢條例。”切爾西不服判決，隨即提出上訴，更重申該俱樂部致力打擊禁藥的立場。這次禁藥測試的結果，亦導致樣本呈陽性反應的羅馬尼亞前鋒穆圖被切爾西解雇，及後該球員亦因此而遭受禁賽處分。另邊廂，英足總卻反對俱樂部私自執行藥物測試，以防俱樂部預先賣走犯禁的球員，又或者協助該球員瞞天過海。 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.chelseafc.com/article.asp?hlid=413349 Chelsea hits out at FA over drugs test rap Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 Chelsea Football Club has issued the following statement after the club was found guilty of breaching Football Association rules for conducting private drug testing in relation to the Adrian Mutu case. The statement says: Chelsea Football Club is totally committed to the fight against drugs in football. While we accept there was a technical breach of the doping regulations in this case, we find it extraordinary that we have been found guilty of trying to undermine the drug testing system. Moreover, the level of fine is simply outrageous and totally unjustified and we will now consider an appeal. The Football Association would be better served using its resources to increasing the effectiveness of its random testing and applying the toughest penalties available in all drug related cases, rather than punishing those who act genuinely in the fight against drugs. The FA appears to be more interested in procedure than substance, wasting a huge amount of time and money on lawyers in a case that has taken two years to resolve. During this time hundreds of hours have been spent prosecuting a technicality when common sense should have been applied. Despite our efforts to find a sensible and speedy resolution, the issue became mired in a bureaucracy that makes a mockery of the claims that the organisation is modernising itself. Chelsea FC would never contravene any rules in order to cover-up drugs in sport. These rules are in place to punish those who seek to protect drug takers. Our stance in the Adrian Mutu case proves that our sole intention in conducting a private test was to protect football from a drug taker. Firstly, we had suspicions that this player was a regular user of a Class A drug and the FA random drug test procedures had failed to confirm this. Secondly, the player was not privately tested for performance enhancing drugs, only for recreational drugs. In the circumstances, the test on July 12, 2004 proved negative and an FA approved test was requested later that summer which was positive. The player's contract was then terminated and during the hearing into this failed test he also admitted to taking cocaine on at least seven occasions, vindicating our actions. Chelsea's position on drugs is very clear. We adopt a zero tolerance policy towards anybody who fails a drug test and then rejects the chance of help and rehabilitation when offered by the club. The FA statement said: At an Independent Disciplinary Commission hearing today, Chelsea FC were fined ￡40,000 and issued with a warning after a charge of breaching FA Rule E25 was found proved. Chelsea were charged in relation to the independent private drug testing the club conducted on some of its players on 12 July 2004. The Commission found that, in conducting such tests, the club had breached The FA's Doping Control Regulations. Chelsea had denied the charge and requested a personal hearing. Note: FA Rule E25 states that "A Participant shall comply with the provisions of any doping control regulations as shall be in force from time to time as determined by the Council." The definition of Participants under The FA's Rules includes clubs. -- “沒有幾人能像他一樣在37歲就累計過百億的財富，沒有幾個人能像他一樣狡黠。” by 俄羅斯《真理報》記者謝爾蓋 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.129.121.141