Disciplinary chiefs have stated that Rio Ferdinand's eight-month ban for a missing a drugs test in 2003 should not be used as a benchmark for dealing with any future offences.

Any player who misses a test in the future should expect a two-year ban, according to the Football Association's Appeal Board.

In their written reasons for rejecting Paddy Kenny's appeal against a nine-month suspension for testing positive for the stimulant ephedrine, the Appeal Board said Ferdinand's ban could not be used as an argument for a shorter suspension.

Kenny's barrister Jim Sturman QC had argued that failing to co-operate with a drugs test should carry a longer ban than inadvertent use of a banned stimulant.

The Appeal Board, chaired by Nicholas Stewart QC, said in their written reasons published on www.thefa.com: "We see nothing in the other cases cited by Mr Sturman which shows that this nine months suspension was excessive or disproportionate on the facts of this case.

"We do note that this suspension is one month more than Rio Ferdinand received for missing a drugs test.

"However, while we see great force in Mr Sturman's submission that a failure to co-operate with a drugs test should normally attract a sterner penalty than Mr Kenny's offence, we do not know what might have been the particular reasons why Mr Ferdinand was suspended for only eight months.

"We do not see that case as having set some benchmark for missed test offences generally and even less so for an offence such as Mr Kenny's."

The Appeal Board warned that the starting point for players who miss tests should be the same as the maximum ban for a positive test - or two years for a first offence under World Anti-Doping Agency rules.

The Board said: "Though it will be for future regulatory commissions and appeal boards to deal with such cases on their own facts as and when they arise, we should expect the basic starting point as a penalty for a missed drugs test offence to be the equivalent of the maximum penalty for the most serious offence which might have been revealed by the test.

"As always, the actual penalty would be judged on the specific facts of the individual case so that any starting point may very well not be the finishing point or even close to it."

After his failed appeal, Kenny said he feared for the future of his career.

"I am devastated that an honest mistake on my part could cost me my career," Kenny, 31, said.

The Appeal Board accepted that the Republic of Ireland keeper had not intended to enhance his performance.