Paddy

[Muttley]

Hearing at 11.00

Lets hope he just turns out to be thick instead of thick and stupid!

 

[Linz]

It'll be interesting to see just how quickly we hear the results... I'd imagine if it were bad news, we'd hear straight away

 

[madeinsheffield]

nowt yet on SSN

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

It'll be interesting to see just how quickly we hear the results... I'd imagine if it were bad news, we'd hear straight away

It may well just be a 'giving evidence' day today, wouldn't surprise me if the verdict is days / weeks away although you wonder what they've been doing for the best part of 4 months.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

nowt yet on SSN

Rio Ferdinand's hearing took 18 hours and lasted 2 days so I'd go and make a brew

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Well as Paddy and his agent got this put back to after the transfer window he better be found not guilty or a small ban. If he is (as has been whispered) bang to rights he should of taken his medicine (excuse the pun)while we had chance to get someone permanent in.

 

[Toronto Blade]

I imagine he will have a good legal team to do his taking for him.If he does get a lengthy ban, putting off his hearing keeps him pulling a wage bill a little longer as a ban might endanger his contract he signed with the Blades.

 

[mattbianco1]

I imagine he will have a good legal team to do his taking for him.If he does get a lengthy ban, putting off his hearing keeps him pulling a wage bill a little longer as a ban might endanger his contract he signed with the Blades.

He's been suspended by the blades, surely that means he's not been paid?

 

[Darren]

He's been suspended by the blades, surely that means he's not been paid?

Employers are generally legally obliged to pay suspended staff. To do otherwise would be seen as pre-judging guilt. Of course, Paddy will only be getting his basic and will be missing out on any potential bonuses.

Theoretically, if he is found guilty and hence in breach of his contract with United, they could sue him for the extra costs they incurred through his breach - i.e. bringing in Bunn. But I doubt they would.

 

[TCsLoveChild]

Employers are generally legally obliged to pay suspended staff. To do otherwise would be seen as pre-judging guilt. Of course, Paddy will only be getting his basic and will be missing out on any potential bonuses.

Theoretically, if he is found guilty and hence in breach of his contract with United, they could sue him for the extra costs they incurred through his breach - i.e. bringing in Bunn. But I doubt they would.

Surely Darren his guilt is not in question, as I thought he had admitted taking said drug. The only question is whether it was deliberate or a mistake. Either way United are suffering extra costs through no fault of their own, though like you I doubt they would sue Paddy for it.

UTB

 

[Darren]

Surely Darren his guilt is not in question, as I thought he had admitted taking said drug. The only question is whether it was deliberate or a mistake. Either way United are suffering extra costs through no fault of their own, though like you I doubt they would sue Paddy for it.

UTB

Yes, but what if, even if he is technically guilty, the FA panel decide there are such extentuating circumstances that he shouldn't be banned (unlikely but possible).

It is safer for the club to pay him and then think about recovering any monies from him after the hearing.

 

[SwissBlade]

Just confirmed on the SUFC text that he's banned from all football for 9 months

 

[EckingtonBlade]

On SSN and Radio Sheff

 

[Muttley]

Not even allowed to train!!!!

 

[dansufc]

on the OS now

 

[Come from away]

Looking to confirm Bunn then, although could risk season loan. Will be hard for Paddy to get back into shape for next year plus he's out of contract (I think).

 

[dj_uk_1234]

Serves him right.

 

[Bladesman]

Hopefully we can sign Bunn perminantly in January.

 

[Houso]

Serves him right.

Yeah, it's totally proportionate to the crime considering the possession of class A drugs only gets you a suspended sentence.

:facepalm:

(For what it's worth, 9 months is probably right and he was stupid)

 

[SotonBlade]

9 Months is fair enough in my opnion. The statement from the FA is very fair, basically stating all the obvious facts that points to Paddy being a numpty

 

[Bladesman]

Paddy is a fool and this will be the end of him at United.

 

[Vancouver]

Think it's damn harsh to be honest. There are players taking coke getting less than this. You'll argue that it's not a performance enhancing drug but surely a footballer is (foolishly) a role model then it's worse. I expected six months, guess we'll never see Paddy in a Blades shirt again.

 

[Houso]

He's stupid, but some of the reaction to him from Blades is a disgrace.

How many years has he been here? And how many big performances has he put in for us?

Sod all that though, it'll be good riddance when he goes.

 

[Sensiblade]

will this be back dated to when he last played?

 

[dansufc]

back dated to july 22nd

 

[Santos]

Pretty fair to be honest. Could have been a lot worse, and not a lot better. 9 months from 22nd July. Using my fingers I think that means he's able to come back on 22nd April, although I couldn't imagine him playing any part of the season even after that.

What do people think? Will we sack him? I'm undecided. One side says he's been stupid and has let the club down, who knows if this didn't kick off maybe Walker would still be our player. But the other side says after his ban he'll still have a few years of good service to give to a team atleast at this level. I just don't want us sacking him, being unable to bring in a better keeper come next summer and watching him flourish for Preston, Boro or Forest next season.

I wonder if it would be possible for us to not pay him whilst suspended but then carry on his existing contract once the ban is over. Having him suspended on full pay grates a bit, baring in mind I'm led to believe he is probably in the top bracket of highest earners.

 

[Bladesman]

He's stupid, but some of the reaction to him from Blades is a disgrace.

How many years has he been here? And how many big performances has he put in for us?

Sod all that though, it'll be good riddance when he goes.

The bloke is a muppet and he knows the situation regarding taking over the counter drugs.

Great keeper and it will be a big loss to us but its down to his stupidity.

I have no sympathy for him.

 

[Unstone Blade]

Bit of a minefield all this.

Pro footballers are effectively self employed, hence long term fixed contracts. It will be part of his contract that should he do this that or the other he won't be entitled to such and such....like being paid.

His "offence" is clear gross misconduct so he should be sacked although United can still hold his registration (which is the bit that clubs pay transfer fees for)

As he is out of contract in the summer we will have to sack him otherwise we would have to start contract negotiations with a drugs cheat.

At the end of the day Paddy has been stupid but hat's nothing new.

A shame to end his Blades career in this way but even my ten year old wouldm't be that daft

 

[shorehamview]

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

 

[Samantha]

For those who can't access OS....

Keeper suspended for nine months
Posted on: Mon 07 Sep 2009

At a Regulatory Commission hearing today Sheffield United goalkeeper Paddy Kenny was suspended from all football for a period of nine months.

Kenny was charged under FA Rule E25 in relation to Regulation 2 of the FA Doping Control Programme Regulations in that the presence of a prohibited substance (Ephedrine) was found in a routine sample following the match versus Preston North End FC on 11th May 2009. Mr Kenny was suspended by the Club (Sheffield United FC) on 4th June 2009 and then from all football and football activities by The FA from 22nd July 2009.

Having admitted the charge, the Members of the Commission heard and considered expert evidence and detailed submissions. Taking into consideration all that it heard and read, it reached the following decisions:

1. Mr Kenny committed a doping offence, namely the presence in his urine sample of ephedrine at a concentration of greater than 10ug/ml
Article continues

2. That Mr Kenny's use of ephedrine was not intended to enhance sporting performance

3. The appropriate penalty imposed for this doping offence is a period of suspension from all football and football activities for a period of nine months

4. The suspension to become effective from the date The Football Association suspension of the player, namely 22nd July 2009

5. He shall be subject to 'target testing' for a period of two years with immediate effect

6. The hearing fee was retained and he was ordered to pay costs of the hearing

The Regulatory Commission Chairman Christopher Quinlan stated after the hearing: "The Regulatory Commission considered carefully the evidence and the submissions from both parties. Whilst we found that the Player satisfied us on the balance of probabilities that the substance was not taken with the intention of enhancing sporting performance, his admitted conduct displayed significant fault.

"A professional sportsman including a football player has a strict responsibility to ensure prohibited substances do not enter his/her body. In this instance Mr Kenny knowingly ingested an over-the-counter medicine above the prescribed dosage without reading the accompanying package or leaflet and without reference to his club's doctor or other medical staff.

"It is incumbent upon all professional footballers to understand the perils and dangers of so doing and to act in the way he did, contrary to the Doping Control Programme delivered by the FA and in any event what should be a matter of common sense for a professional sportsman, showed in our judgment a complete disregard for those responsibilities."

"In this instance Mr Kenny knowingly ingested an over-the-counter medicine above the prescribed dosage without reading the accompanying package or leaflet and without reference to his club's doctor or other medical staff."

So he didn't even take the recommended dosage - he basically overdosed (that's how I read it anyway).

Twonk.