It's been reported in the Observer that Josh missed a drug test on purpose. The report also said that he had taken Columbian marching powder a few days before the test.
Sadly predictable. Some of you may remember when Dermot sent him back to Merthyr for a month. The rumour then was that it was to clean himself out and get him off the booze and the powder. Unfortunately it would appear that any fix was short-lived. I did comment to some at the time that I thought the move to Posh was about the worst thing he could have done. More money and less game time for someone with his issues was always going to be a bad combination.
All that being said, addiction of any sort is an illness and I can't see how a 4 year ban serves to support someone with the issues that he clearly has. Whilst he undoubtedly deserves a level of punishment, 4 years effectively kills his career and for a first offence that seems incredibly harsh. Killing someone's livelihood when they suffer from addiction rarely leads to positive outcomes...!
just to introduce a bit of balance - i am not condoning drug-taking or law breaking & do know the damage it wreaks to individuals & communities - but is there ANY evidence whatsoever that taking these sort of substances is performance enhancing..?
As a younger man i had experience of playing football while under certain influences & can remember team colleagues who were in a similar or related state on occasions... I can guarantee that the experience did not assist skill levels or team cohesion in any way...!
just to introduce a bit of balance - i am not condoning drug-taking or law breaking & do know the damage it wreaks to individuals & communities - but is there ANY evidence whatsoever that taking these sort of substances is performance enhancing..?
As a younger man i had experience of playing football while under certain influences & can remember team colleagues who were in a similar or related state on occasions... I can guarantee that the experience did not assist skill levels or team cohesion in any way...!
Whilst cocaine is not performance enhancing, the counter argument is that professional footballers are a role model to their younger fans and drug taking must be outlawed. i do think that a 4 year ban is to long and effectively would finishhis career at a time when he needs support.
Last Edit: Feb 26, 2019 10:26:56 GMT by ashdownred
Addiction seems to be a recurring theme for some athletes, it’s a difficult moral dilemma, he needs help with the addiction he is a great defender with potential to keep rising up but also what ashdown said is right he is a role model I expect for a lot of young fans. A hard choice for the FA 4 years certainly isn’t going to help him and he may spiral further down the rabbit hole. It should have been kept anonymous from the media.
4 year ban seems very harsh, as others have said effectively destroys a career that appears was on the rocks anyway. IMO something like a one year ban would be more appropriate.
I am guessing the ban comes along with some sort of rehab programme...
...but the process would also benefit if it had a level of incentive attached to support progress, such as reducing the ban when certain milestones have been achieved...(?)
Post by Red, Red & Red on Feb 26, 2019 12:56:57 GMT
Is it harsh? Players know the risks and given the money they are on they could make a choice get help for the addiction or continue with what they are 'better' at playing roulette in Russia. I know some clubs actively look into supporting players 'troubled' but at what point does the player take responsibility?
Is it harsh? Players know the risks and given the money they are on they could make a choice get help for the addiction or continue with what they are 'better' at playing roulette in Russia. I know some clubs actively look into supporting players 'troubled' but at what point does the player take responsibility?
From an EFL perspective, the drug-taking is probably considered a lesser offence than deliberately avoiding the compulsory test.
Is it harsh? Players know the risks and given the money they are on they could make a choice get help for the addiction or continue with what they are 'better' at playing roulette in Russia. I know some clubs actively look into supporting players 'troubled' but at what point does the player take responsibility?
From an EFL perspective, the drug-taking is probably considered a lesser offence than deliberately avoiding the compulsory test.
this. What if he actually has taken some performance enhancer and blood doped? We wouldn’t know
As an ex railway worker, subject of, and subjected too, random drugs tests I have been informed that Cocaine is out of the system within 72 hours (urine tests). I recall the bloke who did the tests looked like the sort of hippy you would be buying the stuff from. I do seem to recall that a by product of the breakdown of cocaine (insert long chemical name here) when consumed with alcohol can remain for longer in your blood. If they test hair you're talking months. Disclaimer. I am not a chemist and thus is not to be taken as gospel.
I also find myself asking how he knew the people knocking on the door were there for a drugs test. The guy who knocked at my door had a little van that was parked thirty yards from my door. Did this tester turn up with a travelling circus or something?
Smacks to me of being a relatively easy target for a draconian punishment, would the authorities have dared to dish that out to a Premier League prima donna?