Social media lit up on Wednesday evening when the FA announced it had charged Manchester City with a violation of its anti-doping regulations.
But while Twitter whipped itself into a frenzy imagining all kinds of serious potential violations and punishments, the truth is considerably more mundane.
Goal understands City are unlikely to contest the charge, and sources believe they would only face a relatively minor sanction, most likely a fine, in the event that they are found guilty.
Here's the low down...
It is alleged by the FA that City contravened regulation 14(d) of their anti-doping rules.
Regulation 14 stipulates that clubs under the FA's jurisdiction must maintain up-to-date records of training sessions, including start and end times and locations, as well as the current home or hotel address of its players.
This information should be regularly uploaded to a database which is accessed by anti-doping agents, who then visit training grounds to conduct tests.
Section 14(d) of the governing body's code, which City have allegedly contravened, is explained thus:
"It shall also be a breach of this Regulation 14 by the Club if the information contained in such reports is either initially inaccurate or has not been updated by the Club as necessary to ensure it remains accurate."
It is understood, therefore, that City failed to properly maintain their records and any punishment forthcoming would be relating to an administrative error.
The FA operates on a "three strikes and you're out" basis regarding its anti-doping policies and it is believed this is where City have fallen foul.
League One side Fleetwood were also hit with the same charge as City at the same time.
City have not commented on the charge but it is expected the club would receive a fine if found guilty, even though the alleged failure to maintain their records may have resulted in players missing a doping test.
Manchester United defender Rio Ferdinand was banned from playing for nine months and fined £50,000 in 2003 for missing a drugs test, with the FA acting on the basis that a missed test was as serious as a failed test.
The difference in this case, however, is that the FA adjudged Ferdinand to have missed the test despite being told he must provide a sample.
Regarding City, it is understood any players who may have been absent when testers were at the training ground - as a result of any administration error - would not have been aware of their obligations.
As a result, it is the club that have been charged, rather than any individual players, and it is City's record keeping which is under the spotlight.
No comments:
Post a Comment