Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Jake Livermore tests positive for cocaine

13

Comments

  • http://youtu.be/KWmD_HcOcfU

    "If your thing is gone, and you wanna ride on - cocaine".

    Good old Jake must have been listening a little too much to JJ Cale. :wink:

    Or a bit too much to this
    http://youtu.be/mJ5k6udvyec


  • Anything that increases Sunderland's chances of survival cannot be condoned
  • Riviera said:

    In a post match drugs test cocaine IS CONSIDERED A PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG. If his B-sample proves positive then he faces a 6 year ban. Career over.

    This is what Darren Fletcher said on 5Live, not me. He was referring to the world drugs in sport authority whoever they are and their rules supersede the FA and all others.
  • Should be given a zero ban for something that isn't performance enhancing, and a 3 month ban for being a twat and risking what should be such a fantastic life

    And a further 9 month ban for that bloody moustache.
  • Cocaine can give you supreme confidence. I know someone who uses it before and during pool matches and he says it makes him feel like he can't miss. I don't think the effects last all that long though, maybe half an hour.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    In a post match drugs test cocaine IS CONSIDERED A PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG. If his B-sample proves positive then he faces a 6 year ban. Career over.

    This is what Darren Fletcher said on 5Live, not me. He was referring to the world drugs in sport authority whoever they are and their rules supersede the FA and all others.


    I doubt they supersede the fa rule book riveria tbh, not saying that you are wrong but there would be no.point the fa having any rules around drug use like this, unless the rule said we would accept any punishment that the world drugs in sport authority deem acceptable,


    As much as an idiot the kid has been a mistake like that shouldnt cost you your career, the only person your hurting in a physical nature is your self, this is the sort of mistake that we should encourage rehabilitation as the answer and punishment,

  • If I know the rules right, It's something like a 6 month ban if its an out-of-competition test. 2 years if its a post-match test.
  • Riviera said:

    Riviera said:

    In a post match drugs test cocaine IS CONSIDERED A PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUG. If his B-sample proves positive then he faces a 6 year ban. Career over.

    This is what Darren Fletcher said on 5Live, not me. He was referring to the world drugs in sport authority whoever they are and their rules supersede the FA and all others.


    I doubt they supersede the fa rule book riveria tbh, not saying that you are wrong but there would be no.point the fa having any rules around drug use like this, unless the rule said we would accept any punishment that the world drugs in sport authority deem acceptable,


    As much as an idiot the kid has been a mistake like that shouldnt cost you your career, the only person your hurting in a physical nature is your self, this is the sort of mistake that we should encourage rehabilitation as the answer and punishment,

    So it's not worth having laws made in the UK Parliament because they can be overruled by European courts?
  • If only it was that simple Riviera
  • Might have been mentioned elsewhere but Jose Baxter & Aaron McCarey have also tested positive for banned substances

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32770268

    &

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/32770690
  • Sponsored links:


  • "Tip of the iceberg"...
  • edited August 2015
    I don't see how they can make a special case just because of the very unfortunate circumstances that have now come to light.

    We would then need to 'weight' mitigating circumstances versus the punishment.


  • I agree - but I was thinking more about how you would judge between different unfortunate circumstances....

    ie death of a child vs death of another family member or divorce etc.

    Which of these unfortunate events would be constitute reasonable grounds for reduced punishment?

    The line would need to be drawn somewhere.

  • edited August 2015
    I think if one of my kids died it would put me over the edge.
    i think we should have a lot of sympathy with him.
    It's not as if he went out and killed someone while on
    it unlike other footballers i could name.
  • I think if one of my kids died it would put me over the edge.
    i think we should have a lot of sympathy with him.
    It's not as if he went out and killed someone while on
    it unlike other footballers i could name.

    We should absolutely have sympathy for him mate.

    The question is how much the circumstances should affect the punishment and how to keep it in line once the precedent has been set.

    All cases should be taken on merit - but it would be very difficult to legislate for how each type of mitigating factor should be weighted against the punishment.
  • Very sad what happened to Jake and his partner,
    But why would you take Cocaine for the 1st time ?
    if you were grieving for the loss of a baby ?
    Why would you want a high ?
    Explain it to me ?
  • Very sad what happened to Jake and his partner,
    But why would you take Cocaine for the 1st time ?
    if you were grieving for the loss of a baby ?
    Why would you want a high ?
    Explain it to me ?

    This is also true, could've been on it/tried it prior. Real difficult one. I think the FA will just apply the letter of the law, regardless of the extenuating circumstances. There would be so much inconsistency otherwise. I think my original point was that to me, I don't see this as big as of a deal to other incidents, particularly those that could end a players career. Fashanu elbowing Mabbutt, Challinor I already mentioned. Thatcher taking out Mendes. For me they are worse than taking cocaine
  • Sponsored links:


  • cabbles said:

    Be interesting to see what the punishment is http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33931338

    Not condoning what he did but upon hearing that he lost his new born child that must be hell and a horrible feeling. I know Jason Euell lost his and he didn't turn to cocaine, and everyone suffers personal lose. What I am interested in is the punishment. I actually see things as Dave Challinor's reckless challenge on Pringle all those years back as worse than what Livermore did, even though Livermore broke the law. That's my subjective opinion, I'm sure others see it differently.

    Interesting viewpoint, and of course it could be argued that Challinor, Muscat & other on-field thugs also broke the law...
  • edited August 2015

    Very sad what happened to Jake and his partner,
    But why would you take Cocaine for the 1st time ?
    if you were grieving for the loss of a baby ?
    Why would you want a high ?
    Explain it to me ?

    I couldn't imagine losing a child, so what I say is speculation but perhaps some people turn to different things in grief for escapism. Getting charged up maybe made him feel better for a short moment.
  • edited August 2015
    Given the personal circumstances, that he did not harm anyone else with his actions and it is not considered a performance enhancing drug then i would say the FA should not ban him at all, give him some sort of suspended ban and more regular tests so if another one comes back positive then give him that long punishment.
  • When my baby died it made me think a whole lot of stuff and I can understand how some people can go off the rails so I do sympathise with him to be fair. It really messes your head up especially if you don't talk to someone about it.
  • jakecafc said:

    When my baby died it made me think a whole lot of stuff and I can understand how some people can go off the rails so I do sympathise with him to be fair. It really messes your head up especially if you don't talk to someone about it.

    Sorry to hear that Jake, can't imagine how painful it must be.
  • Footballers are warned about this type of thing all the time and they know they could be tested for drugs. He is an idiot for choosing Charlie as his escape from awful personal stress. He let his team-mates down very badly and they got relegated.
    If he has not been caught before he should get a ban long enough to prevent other players from thinking it is worth the risk. I dunno...six months, with a huge fine?
    We supported Bowyer with his dodgy baccy bust, gave Chandler the boot ...but I can't recall what we did with Jamie Stuart. Was he sacked? Threats of a 6 years ban are totally bonkers.
  • Serious question: are there any legal implications for Livermore?
  • edited September 2015
    Hull midfielder Jake Livermore will face no suspension after testing positive for a prohibited substance due to "the specific and unique nature of the circumstances surrounding the case", the Football Association has announced.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!