Chelsea ditch Mutu over drugs test

[Jarrek]

Chelsea ditch Mutu over drugs test

Mutu cost Chelsea $29.3 million in August 2003.

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Chelsea have sacked their Romanian striker Adrian Mutu after he tested positive for cocaine last month.

"Chelsea has terminated the contract of Adrian Mutu for gross misconduct," the English Premier League club said on Friday.

"The decision comes after the player's positive drugs test for cocaine and his admission that he took the drug."

Mutu, 25, faces a two-year ban from football. He is the second player to be sacked by Chelsea for cocaine abuse following the dismissal of Australian goalkeeper Mark Bosnich two years ago.

"We want to make clear that Chelsea has a zero tolerance policy towards drugs. This applies to both performance-enhancing drugs or so-called 'recreational' drugs. They have no place at our club or in sport," the club said in a statement.

"In coming to a decision on this case, Chelsea believed the club's social responsibility to its fans, players, employees and other stakeholders in football regarding drugs was more important than the major financial considerations to the company.

"Chelsea is actively considering all options in relation to any financial loss as a result of this case."

Mutu was one of the first signings of Chelsea' billionaire owner Roman Abramovich when he joined from Parma in August 2003 for 16 million pounds ($29.3 million).

He scored four goals in his first three games to make an immediate impact on the pitch and he admitted to loving London's nightlife.

His performances began to dip and by the end of last season he had fallen out with former manager Claudio Ranieri and was on the sidelines, where he remained under new boss Jose Mourinho who took over in the close season.

Earlier this month Mutu denied taking cocaine but said he had taken "a substance to make me feel better."

[TOMLION]

well done chelsea glad to see them make a stand like that,admittedly they can afford to,i wonder if they could sue him to get the lost monies back.

[runner]

Did they really need to do that, I guess what i am asking is could they not have supported him and helped him through rehab?

Correct me if I am wrong but have there not been cases where players have recently had help with addictions, I am thinking of Paul Merson

[TOMLION]

i think chelsea were trying to make a point of how rich we are that we can right off millions of pounds,but i make them right,its time someone made a stand,although i can understand your reasoning as well i think maybe the fa and prem league had a little bit of a say as well to try and make an example of him.

[runner]

I guess the point I am trying to make is that the Prem League clubs have a reputation for being glory hungry, win at all costs employers.

Chelsea could have gone some way to breaking that image if they had tried to help Mutu, maybe they did, I admit I have not read every report abou this. Also you can bet your bottom dollar there are other young players playing in the Prem League who are either taking recreational drugs or drinking too much booze...these kids might have had the courage to come forward and ask for help if they thought it was available. Now I fear they will continue to hide their habits until, god forbid, someone dies of an overdose

[Massive Attack]

I basically agree with this article on this issue:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's kick hypocrisy out of sport

Footballers and athletes who use recreational drugs aren't cheats

Paul Kelso

Wednesday October 20, 2004

The Guardian

It is hard to feel sympathy for a footballer on £60,000-a-week whose self-indulgent streak has wrecked at least one marriage (his own), and got him arrested for ignoring traffic lights at high speed, and whose all-round fondness for fast living and aversion to training has brought his career to the brink of disaster. In one respect, however, Adrian Mutu, the Chelsea centre-forward who admitted this week that he tested positive for cocaine, can consider himself unfortunate.

As a professional footballer, Mutu is one of a minority of employees in the UK for whom drug testing is a term of their employment. Less than 10% of British industries operate compulsory drug testing for employees, the vast majority of them for reasons of health and safety.

Employees at the other 90% of British companies, however, can rest easy in the knowledge that as long as their indulgence in recreational drugs remains a private matter and does not impinge on their work, it will remain their business. The TUC supports this approach, endorsing the findings of an independent report published earlier this year which concluded that drug-testing at work does not act as a deterrent, and "is in conflict with liberal-democratic values".

Mutu does not enjoy the luxury of private indulgence afforded to the majority, however, and nor should he expect it. As a professional sportsman he knows he is likely to be subject to random drug testing. He should also know - and if he didn't, he does now - that alongside performance-enhancing steroids and blood boosters, recreational drugs from cannabis to heroin are on the banned list. (For evidence that the drug tests do work he needs only look to the example of former Chelsea goalkeeper Mark Bosnich, banned for nine months after testing positive for cocaine in 2002, and still struggling to kick the drugs and rebuild his career.)

By the turn of the year Mutu could find himself banned by the authorities and sacked by Chelsea, his reputation shredded. Far from being a victory for the campaign to clean up football, however, Mutu's case is further evidence of the hypocrisy inherent in the game, and demonstrates sport's confused approach to recreational drugs.

Drug testing in sport exists to prevent cheating through the use of performance-enhancing drugs, not to regulate the personal morality of athletes. Current regulations, however, allow little room for sports' governing bodies to recognise the difference.

With the exception of amphetamines, popular in cycling for decades, recreational drugs have little or no performance-enhancing qualities. They have no place on the list of banned substances, and sporting bodies have no business threatening the careers of athletes because of what they do in their private lives. Thanks to the all-embracing World Anti-Doping Agency code, however, a document heavily influenced by US federal anti-drug policies, individual sports regulators have little choice but to test for drugs that can only harm athletic performance.

It may be uncomfortable but it is a fact that increasing numbers of men and women across Britain take drugs every weekend with minimal impact on their ability to do their jobs. Only in sport are they hung out to dry for what is increasingly common behaviour, as Graham Wagg can attest. On Monday, this promising all-rounder was banned from cricket for 15 months for taking cocaine. His employer, Warwickshire, promised to provide "the best possible support" - but they still sacked him, and at 21 his career could be over.

Defenders of the current system point to the poor example that drug use sets to young people who idolise footballers, and certainly it would be preferable for kids to emulate Gary Lineker rather than Bosnich. But that argument would be more persuasive if clubs and regulators took a similarly firm stance over the regular abuse of alcohol, on-field aggression, open disrespect for authority, and allegations of sexual aggression, that have become a feature of the game.

The Football Association, following consultation with the Professional Footballers' Association, a TUC member, has recently recognised that there is a difference between taking drugs socially and taking them to cheat, the former being by the far the most common cause of failed tests in football. The FA now offers counselling as an alternative to a ban, as long as the offender admits the offence and agrees to seek rehabilitation.

The FA must now prove that it recognises the realities of the modern world rather than the idealised values of sport, and give Mutu a second chance. It would be nice to think Chelsea would do the same; but no one, including Mutu, will be holding their breath.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1331327,00.html

[juaninho]

Yes, I agree with the article too. I think Chelsea's stand is too tough. I ask the question, do professional athletes need to be held to a much higher standard of accountability then the average citizen? I would hate to work in any organization that has such a zero tolerance policy towards mistakes, be they professional or personal. Oh wait a second, I have.

How is it possible to learn from your mistakes if you can not illustrate the ability to rise above them? Should we then view people not for the good they have done, but only the mistakes that have tarnished them? Such a zero-tolerance policy is much too rigid and inflexible to accept the vagaries of life. What if Mutu turned to coke because of personal problems? Should his 'weekness' be penalised so dramatically? This Chelsea action may set a bad precedent in the future for Chelsea, such as when another player tests positive, but does not have the zero-tolerance policy thrown at them because they have either a better character or are not the hell-bent on putting self before club. Then the question will be asked why does zero-tolerance all of a sudden have different meanings.

[runner]

Good article by Paul Kelso and also good points raised by Juaninho

The point is well made that Cocaine is not a performance enhancer on the field. The FA really does need to wake up to the reality of the situation, I agree that pro sports players should be subject to no notice drug testing to combat cheating, however when one tests positive for a recreational drug the employer should have a duty of care to offer support and help. I am not just talking about rec drug use but also alcohol. Look at all of the careers either cut short or ruined by booze, Best, Greaves, Adams, Merson to name a few

[Gordon]

Can't help but to think that if Mutu were starting and scoring that Chelsea would have found it socially responsible to "help" and "support" Mr. Mutu in his "courageous battle" against his addictions. Looks like they stumbled across an opportunity to dump a large salary and took it.

[Cheeta]

Not just the salary, I'm sure they've found an out for a big hunk of the transfer fee too.

[runner]

Mutus gets seven months, Ferdinand got eight months for missing( not failing) a drug test. Typical FA crap

Peter Kenyon slams the FA saying it has been too lenient, no doubt he would rather see Mutu hung drawn and quartered. He failed because of Cocaine abuse you dimwit, not a performance enhancer by any stretch of the imagination... Kenyon should be ashamed of himself

[juaninho]

ugh, this is getting acrimonious. No longer people these footballers, just chattel moved around, bought, sold, investment appreciates, investment depreciates. Kenyon's response is dissapointing, but is it Abramovich or Kenyon? I only say this as apparently, Abramovich's son liked Mutu most of the Chelsea motley crew. Go hard on offender, teach son a lesson? This may seem like perverse logic, but hell, when you've got billions, anyone can be used to make a lurid example for one of life's many lessons. Winners don't do drugs, unless they're scoring sack loads of goals, then the problem is treated as a 'rehabilitationary measure' rather then tossing the coke eating sod on the streets. Yeesh, standards these days. When i was 9 years removed from being a zygote, my pop made me take a few puffs from a cigar, to illustrate how vile smoking is. To this day remain a non-smoker. Maybe Ambramovich should give his.. son... some.... blow..., no wait, THAT'S JUST WRONG!!

edit: sp.

[Loud Mouth Soup]

Ferdinand missing a test is as bad as failing. He could have gone down even longer if he was caught with performance-enhacing drugs in his system instead of recreational drugs, which do not contribute to any form of 'cheating'.

Rio got what he deserved as well. Live with it.

[runner]

I am not complaining about Rio's ban I just think the FA needs to get it's act together about the whole business of drugs. BTW Did RF not pass the test 24 hours later?

[Loud Mouth Soup]

Doesn't matter if you pass a test 24 hours later. Some drugs can pass in that time.

Also doesn't matter if he 'came back'. He missed the scheduled test the club was fully aware of. End of.

[Cheeta]

Think the FA took a pretty harsh view of the missed drug test based on the practice of private drug testing results and how atheletes react to their scheduled tests based on how the private tests come back.

I'm not saying RF was waiting for some alleged private test results to come back before planning his next move. That would be a pretty big leap of faith (or lack of faith?). Just saying I've heard it's been the thing to do for years now and the FA must be well aware of it and so acts suspiciously towards people and billion dollar clubs who "accidently" miss an all important drug tests.