40 000 pund i böter för drogtester
Att drogtesta Adrian Mutu var fel. Det har det engelska fotbollsförbundet (FA) slagit fast och dömt Chelsea till böter på 40 000 pund
Chelsea gjorde egna drogtester på några av sina spelare den 12 juli 2004, vilket inte är tillåtet enligt FA. Därför fälls Chelsea, trots att Chelseas misstankar ledde fram till att Mutu fälldes för användande av kokain och sedamera både stängdes av av fotbollsförbundet och sparkades av Chelsea.
Beskedet från FA upprör Chelsea, inte minst eftersom klubben kanske varit den av alla som allra hårdast verkat mot droganvändande. Chelsea har lagt ut följande beska uttalande på sin hemsida med anledning av FA:s dom:
Chelsea Football Club is totally committed to the fight against drugs in football.
While we accept there was a technical breach of the doping regulations in this case, we find it extraordinary that we have been found guilty of trying to undermine the drug testing system. Moreover, the level of fine is simply outrageous and totally unjustified and we will now consider an appeal.
The Football Association would be better served using its resources to increasing the effectiveness of its random testing and applying the toughest penalties available in all drug related cases, rather than punishing those who act genuinely in the fight against drugs.
The FA appears to be more interested in procedure than substance, wasting a huge amount of time and money on lawyers in a case that has taken two years to resolve. During this time hundreds of hours have been spent prosecuting a technicality when common sense should have been applied.
Despite our efforts to find a sensible and speedy resolution, the issue became mired in a bureaucracy that makes a mockery of the claims that the organisation is modernising itself.
Chelsea FC would never contravene any rules in order to cover-up drugs in sport. These rules are in place to punish those who seek to protect drug takers.
Our stance in the Adrian Mutu case proves that our sole intention in conducting a private test was to protect football from a drug taker.
Firstly, we had suspicions that this player was a regular user of a Class A drug and the FA random drug test procedures had failed to confirm this.
Secondly, the player was not privately tested for performance enhancing drugs, only for recreational drugs.
In the circumstances, the test on July 12, 2004 proved negative and an FA approved test was requested later that summer which was positive.
The player's contract was then terminated and during the hearing into this failed test he also admitted to taking cocaine on at least seven occasions, vindicating our actions.
Chelsea's position on drugs is very clear. We adopt a zero tolerance policy towards anybody who fails a drug test and then rejects the chance of help and rehabilitation when offered by the club.
