City fined £35,000 for anti-doping admin error

[MillionMilesAway]

Thanks again, would the admin error mean an absence of any detail or incorrect ie non corrected whereabouts ?
For instance if the player is not contactable to update data would a simple ´´cannot contact him at home or by phone´´ be evidence they would accept or is it the club responsibility to treat him as a missing person and demonstrate our attempts to find the player ?

Wrong/not updated info, I'd say.
I think it's on the player to tell the club, and the club to tell the FA (I think there's an online thing, and that it was reported that the club had until about 9.30 each morning to advise them).
The club's responsibility is to make sure they have the correct info and to pass it on.

The more important thing is that it needs 5 or more players at any one time, so it's not likely to be just the odd person going AWOL one evening - five on the same day seems unlikely. More likely is it being a change to training times or a group outing.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So what happens when a club have the wrong whereabouts details of players when the testers turn up?
It depends. If there are four players or less involved, the club isn’t penalised. Over five players, however, and they get a strike against them. Each missing player would also get a strike against them because they should have provided an alternative testing slot and location. Under FA rules, three strikes in 12 months would lead that player facing a ban – just like in other sports.

On the face of it, isn't this a bit worrying?

We know we've provided wrong info 3 times, and we must have provided wrong info for 5 players or more.

Does this not appear to say therefore that there could be some of these 5 players who have 3 strikes against them and could potentially be banned?

 

[SilverFox2]

On the face of it, isn't this a bit worrying?

We know we've provided wrong info 3 times, and we must have provided wrong info for 5 players or more.

Does this not appear to say therefore that there could be some of these 5 players who have 3 strikes against them and could potentially be banned?

Hi Chippy, I share your concerns and am hoping that the Club is taking the hit from the FA rather than be subjected to yet another player ban and the publicity and speculation this would inevitably cause when bans occur.

Incidentally, is the slate now clean and all the currently affected players back to zero strikes ?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

They're gonna ban the whole of the first team squad for five games! The EDS will have to step up, although, personally I'd play the U15s v Monaco!

 

[moomba]

Few AFL clubs got charged with this last year. Small fine.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

On the face of it, isn't this a bit worrying?

We know we've provided wrong info 3 times, and we must have provided wrong info for 5 players or more.

Does this not appear to say therefore that there could be some of these 5 players who have 3 strikes against them and could potentially be banned?

I don't believe so. They were charged under 14(d):
14. Club whereabouts information:
(a) All Clubs must furnish The FA upon request with any whereabouts information The FA requires from time to time in respect of any Players who are not IRTP Players or NRTP Players. That information shall include as a minimum: (i) training dates; (ii) start and finish times of training; (iii) the address at which such training will take place; and (iv) the home address for a Player and any other address at which a Player regularly resides overnight.
(b) The FA (whether through the Anti-Doping Unit or otherwise) may issue directions from time to time about: (i) the type of whereabouts information to be submitted by Clubs; and/or (ii) the manner and time frame in which such whereabouts information must be submitted.
(c) It shall be a breach of this Regulation 14 for a Club to fail to provide regular details of the times, dates and venues of the Club’s training sessions in the manner directed by The FA. 258 ANTI-DOPING 2016-2017
(d) 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.

I think there are probably two parts to the process.
The actual testing involves the testers turning up at the specified time and place with their list of names. No charge has been laid on that.
To make the above point work, requires the list of times/places to be accurate. This is where the info provided is incorrect.

Missed tests are under Rule 15, and there is no charge relating to that.

Clearly the club need to impress on the players about keeping the info up to date, but it may be that the club changed training times, and it was this that was not conveyed properly.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't believe so. They were charged under 14(d):
14. Club whereabouts information:
(a) All Clubs must furnish The FA upon request with any whereabouts information The FA requires from time to time in respect of any Players who are not IRTP Players or NRTP Players. That information shall include as a minimum: (i) training dates; (ii) start and finish times of training; (iii) the address at which such training will take place; and (iv) the home address for a Player and any other address at which a Player regularly resides overnight.
(b) The FA (whether through the Anti-Doping Unit or otherwise) may issue directions from time to time about: (i) the type of whereabouts information to be submitted by Clubs; and/or (ii) the manner and time frame in which such whereabouts information must be submitted.
(c) It shall be a breach of this Regulation 14 for a Club to fail to provide regular details of the times, dates and venues of the Club’s training sessions in the manner directed by The FA. 258 ANTI-DOPING 2016-2017
(d) 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.

I think there are probably two parts to the process.
The actual testing involves the testers turning up at the specified time and place with their list of names. No charge has been laid on that.
To make the above point work, requires the list of times/places to be accurate. This is where the info provided is incorrect.

Missed tests are under Rule 15, and there is no charge relating to that.

Clearly the club need to impress on the players about keeping the info up to date, but it may be that the club changed training times, and it was this that was not conveyed properly.

How do the authorities know the information is inaccurate if they don't turn up to test? We could have said Sterling was in Iceland to watch the northern lights, and unless the tester happened to bump into him in Sainsburys, how would they know it was inaccurate???

 

[SilverFox2]

I don't believe so. They were charged under 14(d):
14. Club whereabouts information:
(a) All Clubs must furnish The FA upon request with any whereabouts information The FA requires from time to time in respect of any Players who are not IRTP Players or NRTP Players. That information shall include as a minimum: (i) training dates; (ii) start and finish times of training; (iii) the address at which such training will take place; and (iv) the home address for a Player and any other address at which a Player regularly resides overnight.
(b) The FA (whether through the Anti-Doping Unit or otherwise) may issue directions from time to time about: (i) the type of whereabouts information to be submitted by Clubs; and/or (ii) the manner and time frame in which such whereabouts information must be submitted.
(c) It shall be a breach of this Regulation 14 for a Club to fail to provide regular details of the times, dates and venues of the Club’s training sessions in the manner directed by The FA. 258 ANTI-DOPING 2016-2017
(d) 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.

I think there are probably two parts to the process.
The actual testing involves the testers turning up at the specified time and place with their list of names. No charge has been laid on that.
To make the above point work, requires the list of times/places to be accurate. This is where the info provided is incorrect.

Missed tests are under Rule 15, and there is no charge relating to that.

Clearly the club need to impress on the players about keeping the info up to date, but it may be that the club changed training times, and it was this that was not conveyed properly.

Hi MMA,

When we receive our punishment for this clear non conformity, is the record of the individual players involved as well as the Club records returned to zero strikes ?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Chippy_boy
I guess that they check up occasionally as a matter of course to make sure that clubs are doing their job. Otherwise, it could lead to a lot of missed tests which are admin failures rather than attendance failures.

SilverFox2
I don't know for certain, but I suspect that the FA do not record the players involved as a matter of course as the players haven't broken the FA rules. The club gets charged and left to put their house in order. Compare with e.g. cycling, where it is the athlete's job to provide details to the authorities; footballers advise the club who then contact the authorities.
My assumption would be that the strikes count is a rolling score, rather than something that is reset.

 

[SilverFox2]

SilverFox2
I don't know for certain, but I suspect that the FA do not record the players involved as a matter of course as the players haven't broken the FA rules. The club gets charged and left to put their house in order. Compare with e.g. cycling, where it is the athlete's job to provide details to the authorities; footballers advise the club who then contact the authorities.
My assumption would be that the strikes count is a rolling score, rather than something that is reset.

Thanks for reply.

So if your last assumption is correct the Club will probably be charged again if any single violation occurs because we have used up all our warnings.