Leeds to face racism probe

ForeverAddickted said:

Just gonna put this out there... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37876911

Calvin Andrew got a bigger suspension for elbowing a player

I would have thought it generally correct that an act of physical violence draws a bigger suspension. 

SuedeAdidas said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Just gonna put this out there... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37876911

Calvin Andrew got a bigger suspension for elbowing a player

I would have thought it generally correct that an act of physical violence draws a bigger suspension. 

 Hmm 50/50 on this.
 Physical violence is of course poor, but can be understood at times. Racism is unacceptable and impossible to understand how anyone believes it to be acceptable.

why couldn't the FA release the evidence the same day as releasing the punishment? by not doing that they have give Leeds scum a chance to put doubt into it. by the time they do most journalist and the football world would of moved on from this. 

they took fucking ages to come to a verdict and when they reach it they fuck it up which then undermines their so called anti racism stance. 

hate to post this on here but a spanner 'mate' of mine sent me this from their forum: 
https://millwall-forum.vitalfootball.co.uk/threads/kiko-casilla-8-match-ban-n-w.41116/

I know not the greatest representation of football fans but straight away they see balance of probabilities, evidence not released along with the words used at the time of the incident and the fact its taken 5 months to reach a verdict means they don't believe it.

all of which could be settled by the FA doing their job properly and Leeds to release a statement befitting a club that's apparently anti racist. (they banned a fan for life recently for racist remarks)

the whole affair has been handled appallingly. leaving so much room for doubt that they might as well not have bothered at all in the first place. 

Arsenetatters said:

North Lower Neil said:

guinnessaddick said:

Addickted said:

I'd give him another two game ban for spelling behaviour incorrectly

Plus a couple more for the different fonts used.

Yeah reminded me of a menu at a rubbish restaurant.

It reminded me of the letter my dear ex left me to say he had buggered off with someone half his age. It started well but when he got to the tricky bit the font went down to Times Roman 6pt - about the size of his knob from memory.

What's worse is that he was 24 at the time.

se9addick said:

ForeverAddickted said:

I agree with Leeds' fury about the decision happening less than 24-hours before a game

Especially when the inquiry happened at the start of the week

Really? So we should just have “Racist Sunday’s” when the bans for players adjudged to have used racist language are issued to make sure the clubs of the guilty players have as long as possible to prepare for their absence? 

Give over, the FA can issue their verdict whichever day of the week works best, if you don’t want to be disrupted by a ban then don’t have racists in your team. 

The response from the Leeds fans on a Twitter has been appalling - people often say that Liverpool fans have a victim complex but I’ve never seen anything like this before. 

If you read through this whole thread you will see a “ victim complex” displayed by many Charlton fans anticipating that the verdict would go the other way with the complicity of the league.

I think a few opinions may be altered once the FA publish their evidence and verdict.

I thought there was some kind of video evidence of the most of the incident? Was this not used in the investigation or is that part of the reason for the delay?
Im really confused by this case

guinnessaddick said:

Addickted said:

I'd give him another two game ban for spelling behaviour incorrectly

Plus a couple more for the different fonts used.

That's just because the statement was put together by a committee keen to try and limit the damage. My suspicion is that publication of the actual wording will make this statement look even more obviously a desperate cover-up than it already does. 

The points below are very relevant to what Leeds fans seem to be complaining about re burden of proof:

19) The standard to which the FA must prove the Charge – and thus each of those matters - is the balance of probabilities: FA Disciplinary Regulations: General Provisions - Regulation 8).

20) We heard submissions as to the approach that we should adopt (as a number of previous Regulatory Commissions have adopted) when considering whether the FA had proved the Charge to that requisite standard:

a) First, that the civil burden of ‘balance of probabilities’ should be applied ‘flexibly’, such that the more serious the allegation and/or the more serious the consequences if the allegation is proved, the stronger (or more cogent) must be the evidence before the tribunal should find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities: see R(N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Regions) & Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1605 @ paras 62-64 per Richards LJ

b) Secondly, that the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that it occurred i.e. the inherent improbability of an event should be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether on balance an event occurred: see In Re H and Others (Minors) [1996] AC 563 @ 586 per Lord Nicholls:

i) That dictum has been clarified in subsequent authorities 11

ii) Contrary to what was suggested for a period after In Re H, Lord Nicholls was not saying that a ‘heightened standard of proof’ was applicable where allegations were serious. In Re H simply establishes that, if an event is inherently improbable, it will take better evidence to persuade a tribunal that it had happened than would be required if an event was a commonplace one: see for example Re B (Children) [2009] 1 AC 11 @ paras 13-15 per Lord Hoffman; Re S-B [2009] UKSC 17 per Lady Hale

iii) A tribunal must take care when working out what in a particular case is inherently probable or improbable: see for example JSC BM Bank v Kekhman [2018] EWHC 79 per Bryan J

                (1) ‘when considering what is or is not probable it is necessary to have regard to the facts of the particular case’,4 since those facts may well modify what otherwise would have been an ‘inherent probability’ or ‘inherent improbability’ [paragraph 57]
                (2) ‘it is generally correct that, absent other information, 5 the more serious the wrongdoing, the less likely it is that it was carried out, because most people are not serious wrongdoers’ (emphasis added by us) [paragraph 50(3)].

21) In light of the above, we confirm that our assessment of the evidence presented to us proceeded on the basis

a) That the standard of proof that we were to apply was the balance of probabilities, but

b) That given the gravity of the allegation and Charge (which we accept are of a serious nature, with potentially serious consequences for KC, his reputation and his career) we were obliged to ask ourselves

i) Whether there was an inherent improbability that KC would have used the words attributed to him

ii) If so, whether there was any relevant contextual information or material which might cause us to modify our view as to what was/was not inherently probable or improbable in this case, and in any event 

iii) Whether the evidence was sufficiently cogent and compelling for us to find the Charge proved in light of the guidance in cases such as R(N) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (Northern Regions) & Others. 

----------------------------------------

So assuming they read into the report, the "balance of probability" thing Leeds fans are complaining about should be put to bed by this.

I believe that the list of character and witness statements meant this independent panel acted accordingly with section 21, wherein they acknowledge it's serious, acknowledge that contextual info is acceptable, and whether everything - all told - meets an acceptable standard of proof.

Lucky to get just an 8 game ban really, that's as blatant as you can get.

Wonder if Leeds and Bielsa feel a bit stupid for their statements backing him now?

I haven't waded through the whole thing yet, but it's interesting that Eddie Nketiah is listed as a witness for the FA. I wonder if that still would have been the case if he'd still been on loan at Leeds.