Bambo Diaby

From what I remember of the hearing there was no suggestion he was using drugs to enhance his performance, it was just an oversight for something.

I really hope he can come back into football and perhaps he will be offered a trial once his suspension ends.

 

He was up at the club the other week chatting with a couple of the other players. I can see him coming here to trial or at least train although whether that would lead to anything I’ve no idea.

I would say to anyone on here slating him that young team was thrown to the wolves. Look at the improvements in Williams, Sibbick, Andersen etc since then.

Plus he hates the Wednesday. Apparently.

 

We currently have Sollbauer, Sibbick, Helik, Andersen, Halme and Kitching as centre halves. Moon, is also a centre half I believe.

Unless we sell 2 or 3 of those, I don't think centre halves is top of our recruiting list come the summer.

 

Because he wasn’t a good passer, he wasn’t good positionally & he didn’t show much improvement in his first 3 months.

You've almost described Mads before lockdown there.
I reckon he would have benefited from vals guidance and no crowds just like Anderson has.

 

He took a plea deal whereby he accepted that he was unable to identify how the prohibited substance innocently entered his system. The FA agreed not to pursue the charge for intentional consumption on the basis of the deal, but it was definitely not proven or agreed that it was an innocent oversight.

 

"The panel were satisfied that Diaby had not taken the substance intentionally, in which case a four-year ban would have been issued."

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...two-years-after-doping-violation-b861167.html


This is what I was talking about.

 

That's paper commentary and not reflective of the actual decision.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIDhAC&usg=AOvVaw3zrNEryQ44IcpUEBpHnhH-

 

Talking about being pedantic !! It wasn't paper commentary either, it was a quoted statement so clearly via a spokesperson.

‘The FA does not pursue this charge on the basis that Mr Diaby intentionally consumed Higenamine. The FA Anti-Doping Regulation mandate a two-year ban in circumstances where a Participant is unable to show that they meet the strict requirements to sustain a plea of No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or Negligence. In order to do so, the Participant must identify how the prohibited substance entered his system. Mr Diaby has made efforts to identify the source of the Prohibited Substance but, despite these efforts, has been unable to do so. In the circumstances, a two-year ban is mandatory and that is what is imposed, backdated to 17 January 2020 to reflect the period since Mr Diaby’s provisional suspension.


Despite Mr Flynn’s helpful submissions to the contrary, we unanimously concluded that BD should be ordered to meet those costs. We are very sensitive to the difficulties he faces financially until he is able to play again and that there are other family members who depend on him. Even so, he has now admitted a serious charge under the Anti-Doping Regulations even if, as the agreement set out above acknowledges, he did not act intentionally.

 

The bit you quoted doesn't appear to be from a statement. As for the decision, the statement doesn't acknowledge he did not act intentionally. It just says that the FA are not pursuing the charge. It also says that Diaby failed to identify how the substance supposedly innocently entered his system.

Is it pedantic? Maybe, but there's no evidence or determination that his positive sample was an innocent mistake and I'd prefer not to have players who have failed drugs tests without proper explanation playing for the club.

 

Yes.

 

Very true.

Stick Sollbauer and Hellik either side of him and he'd probably be a different player.

Good point

 

Not for me. I thought the mistakes they made were different types of errors. Mads would be ok for 90% of the games & have 1 or 2 shaky moments where as Diaby would regularly get himself into danger from poor touches & heavy passes. It’s sheer size & pace often allowed him to recover from his mistakes. With Mads it seemed more concentration / inexperience issues but with Bambo it seemed more of a lack of technique.

You may be right & he could’ve improved but I think he had a lot more to work on than Anderson did.

 

Not what it says here...

 

But the referenced agreement doesn't actually say that, it says they're not pursuing the charge based on intentional consumption, which is very different to acknowledging unintentional consumption:

‘The FA does not pursue this charge on the basis that Mr Diaby intentionally consumed Higenamine. The FA Anti-Doping Regulation mandate a two-year ban in circumstances where a Participant is unable to show that they meet the strict requirements to sustain a plea of No Fault or Negligence, or No Significant Fault or Negligence. In order to do so, the Participant must identify how the prohibited substance entered his system. Mr Diaby has made efforts to identify the source of the Prohibited Substance but, despite these efforts, has been unable to do so. In the circumstances, a two-year ban is mandatory and that is what is imposed, backdated to 17 January 2020 to reflect the period since Mr Diaby’s provisional suspension.

 

You know that for definite ? Please spill the beans if you have real info , or are you pretending to be Septic peg looking into a crystal ball ?

 

Cavare was a big issue for me mate. Bambo having to cover his arse cos he couldnt or rather wouldn't. track back .
I thought he was improving all the time.
I'd have him back. It was never proven that he took the drug knowingly.

 

T he statement about it didn't attach blame to him, wasn't like he was a deliberate drugs cheat.

 

I’m all for second chances and believe Big Val could make a proper player of the lad.