Player Watch: Hugo Lloris

[SUIYHA]

Questioning his future at the club is ridiculous, life isn’t black and whites people make mistakes, good people are still capable of doing stupid and even bad things. He’s not the first, he won’t be the last. Ledley King, Jonathan Woodgate, Van der Vaart, Luka Modric, all guilty of criminal offences in the past decade.

Questioning if he should remain as captain, from a purely PR viewpoint, I get. Questioning whether he should continue at the club is borderline hypocritical unless you yourself to have had the exact same attitude for the other players listed.

The only one of those who committed any sorts of offence whilst a Spurs player was King, who wasn't criminally charged but still had the captaincy taken off him for Keane anyway. And regardless, none of them committed a drink driving offence.

I'm heartbroken TBH. Hugo is literally the last player in our squad I'd have expected something like that from. Even if he hadn't been caught doing something asinexcusable, as reckless, as potentially dangerous and as unavoidable as drink driving, the fact remains - what the fuck was our captain doing out at 2.30am on a school night?

He is finished as Tottenham captain. He is likely finished as France captain and I'd be surprised if he is still here this time next year. Players like Firmino, Yaya Toure and Rio Ferdinand have shown that a drink driving offence doesn't necessarily mean the end of a footballers' career, but none of them played for Pochettino and none of them were their team's respective captains when it happened.

If Poch plays the PR smartly he'll tell him to come out and resign from the captaincy to make it look voluntary so he can keep picking him until a replacement is sourced.

A very sad day. As we are unlikely to find many better keepers than Hugo that we can afford and that want to come to Spurs.

 

[MyNameIsNicolaBerti]

No. No. And more no.

If you're stupid enough to not know the strength of an alcoholic drink, don't drink.
If you're stupid enough to not know the legal limit, don't drink.
If you think you may be close to the limit but "one more half-pint wont hurt as that'll only put me 0.01 over the limit" DON'T FUCKING DRINK.

Follow the above rules, and you'll save yourself a lot of embarrassment. It really isn't rocket science.

Yeah. Some folks are so desperate not to have to accept one of their footballing heroes acted like a fuckwit that we get all this apologetic nonsense.

If you're a multi millionaire on a late night out in Central London and you want a drink, get a bloody taxi home. It's that simple. It's what my colleagues and I used to do if we wanted a late night booze up in town. Why can't a millionaire do it?

 

[Martin91]

He is being charged for drink driving. In my opinion that is a pretty much as good indication as you can get that he was caught drink driving.

How is it not black and white?

 

[markiespurs]

While in most cases I would agree with this, this is the one area where you can't really say this. Why? Because when you're arrested for drink driving it's based on machine recorded evidence, and I believe you then have a second test at the police station. So unless the machines are faulty there really isn't much scope for the presumption of innocence.

Pretty sure the machine used at the station is more accurate than the curb side test andthat they also take blood samples as well.

 

[CowInAComa]

He’s been charged, until he’s found guilty, and we know what he’s guilty of, it’s not black and white. On the basis of the limited information we currently have available, for it to be black and white we must 1) be certain that he is guilty of the offence, which we won’t know until 11.9.2018 and 2) know exactly how drunk he was- I.e. was it a case of he had just 1 unit but as a light man who’d had a light dinner, that was enough to push uk his blood alcohol level, or was he blind drunk having just down a litre of vodka.

Drunk driving is unacceptable, but you know what else is unacceptable? Condemning someone without full facts.

We know what he is being charged with. Drink driving.

Of course if it is a big silly mistake and he wasn't drink driving at all any discussion is null and void.

One has to assume it is highly likely that he was indeed caught driving above the limit. And that is a criminal offence.

We all love Hugo, and we know he will ultimately get support from the fan-base but there has to be a punitive response from the club for a player commiting a criminal offence.

So disappointed.

 

[SpursDave88]

No, its an absolute. No one is guilty unless convicted BY A COURT, not the read out from a machine. What if the machine is faulty (as electro mechanical devices can be) or hasn't been calibrated correctly. To many variables. That is why we have a court hearing to determine guilt.

You're reaching here. Although technically right - I think it's pretty clear that he is guilty given the available evidence. A conviction seems like a formality.

 

[Streetspur77]

No. No. And more no.

If you're stupid enough to not know the strength of an alcoholic drink, don't drink.
If you're stupid enough to not know the legal limit, don't drink.
If you think you may be close to the limit but "one more half-pint wont hurt as that'll only put me 0.01 over the limit" DON'T FUCKING DRINK.

Follow the above rules, and you'll save yourself a lot of embarrassment. It really isn't rocket science.

The line is the legal limit. That's when
I agree with this. I meant that the crime is the same, regardless of the punishment.

But neither of you answered the question? What’s the difference between someone on the limit and someone 0.01 over because there certainly won’t be a cognitive difference, so what are we punishing? Not to mention the fact alcohol affects everyone differently. That’s undoubtably a grey area.

I agree with others the limit should be 0 and then be taken on a case by case basis as to whether there should be further punishment I.e if the drink was yesterday and trace amounts were left over

 

[tooey]

Or maybe drink driving genuinely angers people. Maybe people on here have been personally affected by it in the past.

There's no maybe about it, it's an emotive subject that many people have been affected by. People have a right to be angry...once he's been convicted and the facts are released.

 

[dirtyh]

just no excuse whatsoever. stupid is as stupid does.

gutted for poch really, a huge slap in the face.

 

[MyNameIsNicolaBerti]

But that's not what's being discussed is it? You're the holier than thou type I'm referring to. Get in the real world, people fuck up, all the time. We don't know how drunk he was or the circumstance around it, so untill then I'll keep the pitch fork and petrol soaked effigie in my shed.

Oh bugger off with the "holier than thou" crap.

I have a few brain cells left rattling around in my aged head. They tell me that if you want a drink on a night out it's best not to drive. No risk of being over the limit. No risk to other road users and pedestrians. Full stop. It's that effing simple mate.

 

[Shadydan]

How melodramatic are some of you lol, Jesus he fucked up, he's not the first professional to do it and won't be the last.

The club will deal with it as it sees fit which would probably mean a demotion as captain and a fine, I'm disappointed but as long as it doesn't affect his or our performances as a team then we should move on.

 

[MyNameIsNicolaBerti]

There's no maybe about it, it's an emotive subject that many people have been affected by. People have a right to be angry...once he's been convicted and the facts are released.

"The facts"? Dear oh dear. Are you honestly arguing that the roadside and police station breathalyser tests are lying?

Come on mate.

 

[Saoirse]

How melodramatic are some of you lol, Jesus he fucked up, he's not the first professional to do it and won't be the last.

The club will deal with it as it sees fit which would probably mean a demotion as captain and a fine, I'm disappointed but as long as it doesn't affect his or our performances as a team then we should move on.

Pretty hard to imagine how going out and getting drunk the night before training, then spending seven hours in a cell, wouldn't affect his performance.

 

[amathews3416]

What type of punishment is Hugo looking at in court of law? Not familiar with the U.K. Over in the States lose your license for a bit and have to go through classes and such for a few months on a first offense.

I doubt this ends his days at Spurs. Athletes get nailed for DUI's all the time in the States and generally face a short suspension. I can't imagine Spurs will do anything severe here as he has been a good employee to date and this is his first offense.

 

[Metalhead]

There's no maybe about it, it's an emotive subject that many people have been affected by. People have a right to be angry...once he's been convicted and the facts are released.

Absolutely, he's entitled to a hearing unless he holds his hands up to it but in a a general sense, I can't see any need to drink and drive when there a taxis and ubers.

 

[MyNameIsNicolaBerti]

Pretty sure the machine used at the station is more accurate than the curb side test andthat they also take blood samples as well.

Ah well, I didn't know that. So that even further reduces the room for doubt.

 

[hughy]

But neither of you answered the question? What’s the difference between someone on the limit and someone 0.01 over because there certainly won’t be a cognitive difference, so what are we punishing? Not to mention the fact alcohol affects everyone differently. That’s undoubtably a grey area.

I agree with others the limit should be 0 and then be taken on a case by case basis as to whether there should be further punishment I.e if the drink was yesterday and trace amounts were left over

Sorry to use this example, but that's like saying what's the difference between sexual activity with someone one hour under the legal age of consent, and sexual activity with someone one hour over the age of legal consent. There is fuck all difference and both are morally as bad as each other, but there is a line put in place, and that line is the law.

 

[Jules_PF]

Yep.

This is why I'm personally in favor of a limit of 0. If that was the case it would be unambiguous. You've either go alcohol in your system, or you don't. It would also minimize the chances of people miscalculating, and dissuade people from risking whether they're over the limit or not.

The human body produces alcohol as a by product of digestion. An over ripe apple has alcohol in it. How can you be 100% sure that glass you had at the bar wasn't washed properly and has small amounts of alcohol in your coke?

 

[Johnny J]

But neither of you answered the question? What’s the difference between someone on the limit and someone 0.01 over because there certainly won’t be a cognitive difference, so what are we punishing? Not to mention the fact alcohol affects everyone differently. That’s undoubtably a grey area.

I agree with others the limit should be 0 and then be taken on a case by case basis as to whether there should be further punishment I.e if the drink was yesterday and trace amounts were left over

Amy subjective difference is irrelevant to whether it's a crime. The circumstances dictate the level of punishment (in the courts).

 

[Shadydan]

Pretty hard to imagine how going out and getting drunk the night before training, then spending seven hours in a cell, wouldn't affect his performance.

You don't know that until said performances take place...