Leeds keeper banned for racist comment

[Billy Horner]

When Suarez was banned for racist comments towards Evra it was claimed by plenty of people that it was “one person’s word against another”. However, when the judgment was published you could see that they’d taken into account witness statements of other players and officials, television footage, etc.

Even if those other pieces of evidence don’t conclusively prove what happened or was said, they can go a long way to corroborating or disproving one party’s version of the exchange.

 

[TeaCider]

His punishment is he will always be regarded as a racist.

So when talks to team members it should be in their thoughts.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try to shift him in the summer.
33, he's not ripped up trees, and he's now a unsavoury controversial figure at a controversial club.

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

Yeah I get all that but at the end of the day it's one person's word against another.

We don't actually know that though - the panel found that it was more likely to have happened than not, which suggests it was more than 'one persons word against another'.

 

[DCI_Gene_Hunt]

We don't actually know that though - the panel found that it was more likely to have happened than not, which suggests it was more than 'one persons word against another'.

Yes but we don't know how they panel came to that conclusion & on what evidence? Not yet anyway, hopefully it's all clear (& conclusive) when they do report.

 

[Liamo]

It would be very easy to put out a statement with the logic behind the decision at the same time as the decision is announced without having to issue the full transcript which could come later though?

The logic behind the decision can be found in the statement already issued - they found, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that he used abusive and/or insulting words towards an opponent and that it was an aggravated breach of FA Rules because his words also made reference to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin.

A full accounting of the evidence and facts to back that up will be contained in the "written reasons" document.

 

[Liamo]

The written reasons have now been published. Among other things, these show that it wasn't just one person's word against another as two Charlton players reported separately to the referee, immediately after the incident, that they heard exactly the same thing. It mentions further that Casilla's evidence in his own defence just wasn't credible (he claimed, for instance that he couldn't have used the 'n-word' because he didn't know what it meant).

As they also point out:

"... it is important to note that the QC led independent Regulatory Commission stated it was satisfied of the evidence in excess of the balance of probabilities when it said in paragraph 102 of the written reasons that:

‘… we were satisfied to the requisite standard [the balance of probabilities] – and in reality, to a degree well above the requisite standard’

In relation to the 'standard of proof' which various people have referred to, they said the following:

The FA wishes to provide clarity regarding the standard of proof used in its disciplinary proceedings, which is the civil standard.
[...]
This civil standard of proof is widely used in civil and regulatory forums, including the Civil Courts, Family Courts and professional regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council. It is also used by other Sports Governing Bodies. As such, it is applied industry wide and is the most appropriate standard for the tribunal-based forum in which FA cases are determined.