Baxter Drug Hearing on July 10

[mosbolad]

cant sniff at that dry humour

ban ends week before season , strange how paddy lost a season for a spoon too much cough mixture and it seems class A drugs are,nt as dangerous then
isnt the Law a strange beast

Indeed BTL (tempting to put BLT!). Having said that when you have a cough I bet the remedy that immediately springs to mind isn't Dodo Chesteze in tablet form. You know the one that contains ephedrine, the stimulant and appetite suppressant. Why would Paddy want that?

Other side effects include:-anxiety, high blood pressure, a racing heart and kidney damage. (all these side effects can also be associated with watching any Blades match).

Article below listing its use by soldiers as a stimulant and by bodybuilders trying to cut fat and as a stimulant to aid training.

Of course Paddy just had a cough and was unlucky but an interesting choice of medication all the same.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ephedrine-warning-issued-dangerous-drug-5175215

 

[1889]

Well judgement has been passed and he's available for selection, which has to be good news.

Lets just hope he can start the new season on a high

 

[Ben_1982]

Well judgement has been passed and he's available for selection, which has to be good news.

Lets just hope he can start the new season on a high

I think he'll be buzzing for it

 

[blade too long]

Indeed BTL (tempting to put BLT!). Having said that when you have a cough I bet the remedy that immediately springs to mind isn't Dodo Chesteze in tablet form. You know the one that contains ephedrine, the stimulant and appetite suppressant. Why would Paddy want that?

Other side effects include:-anxiety, high blood pressure, a racing heart and kidney damage. (all these side effects can also be associated with watching any Blades match).

Article below listing its use by soldiers as a stimulant and by bodybuilders trying to cut fat and as a stimulant to aid training.

Of course Paddy just had a cough and was unlucky but an interesting choice of medication all the same.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ephedrine-warning-issued-dangerous-drug-5175215

hindsights a wonderful thing , getting a decongestant in Dinno probably means asking got owt for a snotty cough, the can you you tell me if its on any banned lists 5 years ago might have slipped from the conversation

 

[DifferentClass]

Well judgement has been passed and he's available for selection, which has to be good news.

Lets just hope he can start the new season on a high

He'd better not get caught again or he'll be absolutely stoned.

 

[Bladepicker]

Ricky Lambart said he was never as fit as when he played under Adkins and he was never made to work as hard on his fitness under anyone else.

Poor Jose is probably gutted he's not got another 6 months

 

[Northyorksblade]

Anyone surprised that Fatty Samuels has had a go at the sentence? Thought not.

 

[boo radley]

hindsights a wonderful thing , getting a decongestant in Dinno probably means asking got owt for a snotty cough, the can you you tell me if its on any banned lists 5 years ago might have slipped from the conversation

Who looked after Paddy when he lived there and went to the Willie?

 

[grafikhaus]

I'm just waiting for a certain to make an appearance........

Then wait no longer!

Jose Baxter of Sheffield United tested positive for traces of ecstasy. He claimed his drink had been spiked.

Obviously, there is a difference between an allegation of recreational drug use and performance-enhancing stimulants. One harms the athlete, the other aids — if Baxter is an ecstasy user it is unlikely to be of great help to his club, or his career.

Even so, the Football Association punishment was remarkably light. He has been banned for five months, three suspended.

As Sheffield United took the admirable step of withdrawing him instantly — missing the second leg of their play-off semi-final with Swindon Town — he is already considered to have served his time, mostly in the summer when there were no fixtures.

The FA should merely have said they consider Baxter's case meaningless and had done with it; this illusion of punishment is a joke and a dangerous precedent.

Yours A Fat Bastard.

Certainly is a 'dangerous precedent', fatso. Whatever next? A team wilfully playing two players under third-party ownership, avoiding relegation and the 'defence' being that 'they didn't want to hurt the (Spammers) fans?' A plastic Brit 'forgetting' two drugs tests? Just imagine!

Yes, nothing more important is happening in sport - Sterling, The Ashes etc. Let's print some bile about a meaningless Third Division footballer who happens to play for...

 

[Worksop II]

Fatty is losing his touch, no mention of Steve Kabba

 

[Guesty]

To be fair to him, he managed not to criticise the club.

 

[Bert]

He was only saying that the punishment is very light. Does anybody think that the FA have been too harsh on Baxter?

 

[Bladepicker]

Then wait no longer!

Jose Baxter of Sheffield United tested positive for traces of ecstasy. He claimed his drink had been spiked.

Obviously, there is a difference between an allegation of recreational drug use and performance-enhancing stimulants. One harms the athlete, the other aids — if Baxter is an ecstasy user it is unlikely to be of great help to his club, or his career.

Even so, the Football Association punishment was remarkably light. He has been banned for five months, three suspended.

As Sheffield United took the admirable step of withdrawing him instantly — missing the second leg of their play-off semi-final with Swindon Town — he is already considered to have served his time, mostly in the summer when there were no fixtures.

The FA should merely have said they consider Baxter's case meaningless and had done with it; this illusion of punishment is a joke and a dangerous precedent.

Yours A Fat Bastard.

Certainly is a 'dangerous precedent', fatso. Whatever next? A team wilfully playing two players under third-party ownership, avoiding relegation and the 'defence' being that 'they didn't want to hurt the (Spammers) fans?' A plastic Brit 'forgetting' two drugs tests? Just imagine!

Yes, nothing more important is happening in sport - Sterling, The Ashes etc. Let's print some bile about a meaningless Third Division footballer who happens to play for...

He actually praises us for our actions but has a go at the F.A.

For what it's worth I agree with him but the main point is this is not a dig at United.

 

[Jonboy60]

He actually praises us for our actions but has a go at the F.A.

For what it's worth I agree with him but the main point is this is not a dig at United.

Not fussed who he praises or doesn't praise, if he makes a valid point or not. The bloke is a grade A twat.

 

[Northyorksblade]

Ref SUFC, that's what I initially thought, but is he perhaps being sarcastic? After all, Baxter only actually missed one game for his two month ban.

 

[UnitedBlade]

The FA have pretty much followed their "rules" - non performance enhancing drugs, out of competition, first offence is "normally" a 3 month ban.

Baxter contested (which is his right) and it looks like they sort of believed his defence. Otherwise he'd have got 6 months.

5 months, 3 suspended looks within the limits of consistency to me.

It might be galling to people that it actually isn't many games (1 in fact). I can't see how you can adjust this because it was just before the close season unless you make the punishment measured in number of games.

I'm not a Baxter fan because of the way he sloppily gives the ball away time and again. I hope he might improve his professionalism but if not, get rid. We have enough midfield players and we need all of them giving everything next season.

 

[Worksop II]

he might improve his professionalism

If I were Adkins I would say to Jose "what are you waiting for ?"

"25 years old, playing football, getting paid ................ for fucks safe youth, what are you waiting for ?"

 

[mosbolad]

If I were Adkins I would say to Jose "At this moment in time what are you waiting for ?"

"25 years old, playing football, getting paid ................ for fucks safe youth, moving forward, what are you waiting for ?"

There you are, fixed it for you.....

 

[Darren]

The FA have pretty much followed their "rules" - non performance enhancing drugs, out of competition, first offence is "normally" a 3 month ban.

Baxter contested (which is his right) and it looks like they sort of believed his defence. Otherwise he'd have got 6 months.

5 months, 3 suspended looks within the limits of consistency to me.

It might be galling to people that it actually isn't many games (1 in fact). I can't see how you can adjust this because it was just before the close season unless you make the punishment measured in number of games.

I'm not a Baxter fan because of the way he sloppily gives the ball away time and again. I hope he might improve his professionalism but if not, get rid. We have enough midfield players and we need all of them giving everything next season.

It's an interesting point as to why the FA should wade in at all on this. Baxter committed a crime that does not give him an unfair advantage in the game. The FA bans him for that. Ched Evans committed a crime that did not give him an unfair advantage in the game, yet the FA said they had no power to stop him playing.

On any level taking a recreational drug is a less serious crime than rape, so why does the FA have the power to ban for the former, but not the latter?

 

[Newbury Blade]

Extremely fortunate for him ,but very costly for his employers and us poor sods ,maybe he would have made the difference in the most important games of the season ,however I doubt it going on the previous 46 . Cant believe how this nob still gets the adoration he does after virtually taking the piss out of us for the past 12 months ,in 5 years time he will be looked at as the Paul Richardson/Jonathan Hunt/ Bruno Ribeiro /Willie Falconer/Brian Howard of his time.

... except none of those finished the season as our joint leading goalscorer, as Baxter did last season. (He's also got more talent than any of them.)

 

[sitwell]

... except none of those finished the season as our joint leading goalscorer, as Baxter did last season. (He's also got more talent than any of them.)

Take away the penalties ,hardly prolific for a striker with this supposed talent ,tell me when hes going to show this talent because I haven't seen it yet.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I reckon we steer into the skid, rename the away end the MDMA stand and play acid house when the players come out

Ebenezer Goode. (Starring Jerry Sadowitz.)
Includes the chorus "Es are good" - which passed me by completely till someone pointed it out about five years later.
This record was Number 1 in the Hit Parade I believe.

 

[UnitedBlade]

It's an interesting point as to why the FA should wade in at all on this. Baxter committed a crime that does not give him an unfair advantage in the game. The FA bans him for that. Ched Evans committed a crime that did not give him an unfair advantage in the game, yet the FA said they had no power to stop him playing.

On any level taking a recreational drug is a less serious crime than rape, so why does the FA have the power to ban for the former, but not the latter?

It is an interesting point but the FA has long established drug testing procedures which it has agreed with WADA and FIFA. There's a 66 page document if you are interested .

So, they have to cover recreational drugs and out of competition testing.

After the furore of Evans, the FL (or the FA I can't remember which) said they had set up a commission to look into powers following these types of sexual offences. I haven't seen any findings but it wouldn't surprise me if they do create some sanctions. It would be very interesting if those would include banning a player for life. I'm absolutely sure any action would only follow the correct judicial process. I guess Baxter could have been prosecuted for a drugs offence but that isn't the way things are set up currently (and what a waste of taxpayers money any trial would be in Baxter's case).

In the Evans instance it would have helped United if the authorities had ruled on this. We could then have avoided blundering through new territory in arbitrating on whether he could train, play again and all the shit that flew around at the time. I didn't want Evans back at all but I have no objection to him playing elsewhere some time in the future. Not everyone agrees. Any club taking him on must realise all the non-football consequences now.

 

[Darren]

It is an interesting point but the FA has long established drug testing procedures which it has agreed with WADA and FIFA. There's a 66 page document if you are interested .

So, they have to cover recreational drugs and out of competition testing.

After the furore of Evans, the FL (or the FA I can't remember which) said they had set up a commission to look into powers following these types of sexual offences. I haven't seen any findings but it wouldn't surprise me if they do create some sanctions. It would be very interesting if those would include banning a player for life. I'm absolutely sure any action would only follow the correct judicial process. I guess Baxter could have been prosecuted for a drugs offence but that isn't the way things are set up currently (and what a waste of taxpayers money any trial would be in Baxter's case).

In the Evans instance it would have helped United if the authorities had ruled on this. We could then have avoided blundering through new territory in arbitrating on whether he could train, play again and all the shit that flew around at the time. I didn't want Evans back at all but I have no objection to him playing elsewhere some time in the future. Not everyone agrees. Any club taking him on must realise all the non-football consequences now.

It's interesting as it does seem to be a contradictory policy. Obviously, it makes sense to have internal sanctions for players who do things that unfairly enhance their performance whether that action is criminal or not.

However, where a player commits a criminal offence (as both Baxter and Evans did), it would seem that a consistent policy would be either (a) It's nothing to do with us guv, it's up to the criminal justice system to deal with that sort of thing (even if, as in Baxter's case, they decide to take or no action) or (b) any criminal offence can lead to internal sanctions as bringing the game into disrepute. It seems weird that some criminal offences attract internal penalties and some don't -n especially when the one attracting penalties is the least serious.

I wonder if Jean Hatchet has noted the Baxter case - it's a great point for her "football authorities think taking a tab of ectasy is more serious than rape"

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

So he's basically got away with it then? (Not that I'm complaining)

The consistency from the FA is ridiculous. Paddy Kenny got longer for taking cough medicine than Baxter get's for taking ecstasy?

Paddy knowingly took the medicine, and his substance was considered performance enhancing, which is the difference.

I think the FA have been uncharacteristically consistent.

 

[Guesty]

It's an interesting point as to why the FA should wade in at all on this. Baxter committed a crime that does not give him an unfair advantage in the game. The FA bans him for that. Ched Evans committed a crime that did not give him an unfair advantage in the game, yet the FA said they had no power to stop him playing.

On any level taking a recreational drug is a less serious crime than rape, so why does the FA have the power to ban for the former, but not the latter?

I admit I'm not sure of the details of the Baxter case, has he actually been convicted or charged with a crime? Or is it just the drug test he has failed?

Obviously taking ecstasy is illegal but I wondered if it had become a criminal case or not.

 

[Bert]

Apart from suspending him for one game United don't appear to have punished or even reprimanded him.

 

[Darren]

I admit I'm not sure of the details of the Baxter case, has he actually been convicted or charged with a crime? Or is it just the drug test he has failed?

Obviously taking ecstasy is illegal but I wondered if it had become a criminal case or not.

It hasn't become a criminal case, but the point I was making is that Baxter has possibly done something (voluntarily taking drugs, though he denies it) which is criminal but non football related. It seems very strange that he should be suspended by the FA and Evans not

Baxter: possibly committed (but not convicted) a minor criminal offence (non football related): FA suspends him
Evans: convicted of a serious criminal offence (non football related). FA says they can't do anything to stop him playing.

I appreciate that the FA's rules may well allow them to suspend for a drugs offence and not rape, but that is a weird scale of values.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

voluntarily taking drugs, though he denies it) which is criminal but non football related

Really? Which law would that be?

My understanding is that possession of drugs is illegal, sale of drugs is illegal, allowing premises to be used for consumption of drugs is illegal, but drug taking is not (and never has been) illegal (and yes, I do realise I'm having this conversation with a criminal lawyer)

 

[Darren]

Really? Which law would that be?

My understanding is that possession of drugs is illegal, sale of drugs is illegal, allowing premises to be used for consumption of drugs is illegal, but drug taking is not (and never has been) illegal (and yes, I do realise I'm having this conversation with a criminal lawyer)

It's difficult to see how one can take drugs without being in possession of them

If Baxter did voluntarily take drugs, he would almost certainly have been in possession of them and thus would have committed a crime.

It would be an interesting point as to whether one could be said to be in possession of drugs if someone popped the drug in question in your mouth and you swallowed it straight down. Would the split second before you swallowed it count as possession?