Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


Banned Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Misodoctakleidist

  • Rank
  1. Did you actually watch us play last season? Carrick was exceptional in the second half of the season. I don't really have any argument to back that up because I just can't understand how someone could watch his performances last season and not think he played well - it's just mind-boggling. Ferguson, who has probably forgotten more about football than any of us will ever know, clearly rates Carrick too. He is the only midfielder who has consistently been in our first choice XI over the last few years, and he'll almost certainly start against Chelsea. There's a good reason for that.
  2. Carrick has only been one of our most important players during the most successful 5 years in our history, why would people cut him any slack? You can tell who understands football and who just repeats the opinions of the herd by what they say about Carrick.
  3. I agree that performance enhancing drugs should be on the list, but you seem to be saying that we should assume everything is performance enhancing until proven otherwise - an impossibility since you can't prove a negative.
  4. If clubs want to ban their players from taking drugs that's up to them, but it is no business of WADA's or the FA's. What if the BMA banned nurses from drinking alcohol whilst off duty? Would you support that?
  5. I am only responding to your arguments. Saying that you'd support WADA if they banned players from taking alcohol suggests that you think it would be a good idea. The reason they shouldn't ban recreational substances (including alcohol and tobacco) is because it has nothing to do with them. WADA exists to prevent players from taking performance enhancing substances. They're not supposed to be moral guardians. You might as well ban joiners from having affairs. It is nonsense.
  6. You rational for wanting footballers banned from taking drugs and alcohol was that they are unhealthy. If that is a good enough reason then they should be banned from doing anything unhealthy. If it is not a good enough reason then they should be allowed to take drugs and drink alcohol. What is the point of mentioning that fact that other people agree with you if you didn't intend it as some sort of validation of your beliefs? You can find people who'll agree with all sorts of nonsense.
  7. It's not. You said you desire for footballers to be banned from doing anything unhealthy must be reasonable because some of those things are already banned. I was pointing out the fallacy in your argument.
  8. So every ban is necessarily reasonable? The Taliban outlawed kite-flying. Was that reasonable?
  9. Obviously his club should fine him for being so unprofessional, but if the drug isn't performance enhancing then it is no business of the footballing authorities. @ham_aka_stam By recreational I just meant not performance enhancing. @Icelander83 Why should the FA force players to be healthy? What else would you enact in your nanny state? Bans for not eating enough salad?
  10. Recreational drugs are none of the FA's business. They've got nothing to do with football.
  11. If he is really that mentally weak (which I don't think he is) then he'll never be good enough for us anyway. Should we be playing Morrison ahead of Cleverley because he probably has more potential?
  12. Why would you want to? If De Gea can't handle a bit of competition then he doesn't have the right mentality to play for us anyway.
  13. I can't see us playing Cleverley and Anderson as the central midfielders against Chelsea. Carrick will surely come back in for that game, and probably the Benfica one too.
  14. If United was still a PLC, ticket prices would probably have risen even faster. PLC's have a legal obligation to maximise profits for their shareholders.