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.
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.
That's an absolutely shameful response from Leeds. They've 'acknowledged' that Casilla has been found guilty without accepting it and made sure they talked about 'balance of probabilities' even though civil cases are settled like that every day in the UK, knowing full well that that will stoke up the furies of their fans with its wording. They've deliberately cast doubt on the outcome and failed to acknowledge the hurt that was caused to Leko and the evidence that Charlton provided which was sufficiently convincing that it led to Casilla being judged as guilty. Imagine how Leko feels reading that statement. It's no wonder there's still bloody racism in the game when the player is allowed to keep playing for 5 months and then his club moan about the outcome and deliberately rile up their fanbase about it. Leeds would apparently rather create a 'woe is us the world hates Leeds' narrative than a 'don't abuse people because of the colour of their fucking skin' narrative. Imagine if they now go up; it'll be in a funk of feeling they did it despite the EFL being out to get them (for punishing racism) and off the back of points won by a racist. I hate this planet.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
Am sure I read somewhere... Apparently we had a corner and Casilla said to his team mates to "mark the b***k bloke"
In Spanish that word is "n***o"
Hence the argument was he wasnt being intentionally racist yet was a cultural difference
If it is the case then I think it would be wise for clubs to educate all incoming players on what is acceptable and what isnt, we may then see an improvement
The argument to that is we shouldnt have to, but unfortunately we dont live in a world where we all hold hands and sing kum ba yah
Was not at all what happened and Casilla knows it. Extremely disappointing response from Leeds but not entirely surprising.
I didnt want to ask you on Twitter Olly (as knew Leeds fans would jump on it) but saw your comments in response to the Leeds statement
Did pitchside cameras pick up the conversation? (I know the club use GoPro cameras all the time) or was it from conversations with the players?
Cameras caught the moment, but you can’t hear what’s said. The incident was not at the corner as most believe, but after the ball was cleared. There are no defenders involved, just Casilla and the two relevent Charlton players who heard it very clearly. I obviously won’t post exactly what was said, but the content and the context certainly don’t allow for any excuses relating to the Spanish language. The players involved heard very clearly what he said and, crucially, have absolutely no reason whatsoever to have made it all up.
Which surely leads to the question........how was he found guilty if you can't hear what was said?
Do the cameras clearly show him and he was found guilty by evidence from a professional lip reader?
Or has he been done purely off what Leko and Bonne reported?
Personally i feel the FA have made a complete balls up of the entire case. If you commit a dangerous challenge, abuse a ref, make a gesture to the crowd or anything you'd likely be done immediately and banned within 1-2 weeks of the incident. This case took about 5 months and then a decision reached within a few days...........and yet they haven't actually released what the evidence was, what he said etc.
To top it off, he's ended up with a ban shorter than Sturridge got for tipping off his brother about a transfer! Should have at least been banned for the rest of the season, as now he'll be back just in time to help Leeds potentially win promotion and become a hero.
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.
This publishment moreso shows the FA in poor light. The evidence provided from Leeds players current and old, alude that KC did make a racist comment and even KC agreed he did although albeit, KC didn't fully understand what he was saying.
Makes a mockery of the whole system. Especially after the issues encountered in Bulgaria of which I witnessed first hand. The FA have different priorities it appears.
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.
The Corner was then taken in the 72nd minute of the match, and KC punched the ball
clear. It is alleged by the FA that immediately thereafter KC audibly directed at JL the
words ‘you fucking n***er’. In these Written Reasons we refer to that alleged use of those
words as ‘the Incident’.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
After reading comments from their fans about all this Leeds are turning into my 3rd most hated club behind Millwall and Palarse
Im really confused by this case
Do the cameras clearly show him and he was found guilty by evidence from a professional lip reader?
Or has he been done purely off what Leko and Bonne reported?
Personally i feel the FA have made a complete balls up of the entire case. If you commit a dangerous challenge, abuse a ref, make a gesture to the crowd or anything you'd likely be done immediately and banned within 1-2 weeks of the incident. This case took about 5 months and then a decision reached within a few days...........and yet they haven't actually released what the evidence was, what he said etc.
To top it off, he's ended up with a ban shorter than Sturridge got for tipping off his brother about a transfer! Should have at least been banned for the rest of the season, as now he'll be back just in time to help Leeds potentially win promotion and become a hero.
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.
Wonder if Leeds and Bielsa feel a bit stupid for their statements backing him now?
Makes a mockery of the whole system. Especially after the issues encountered in Bulgaria of which I witnessed first hand. The FA have different priorities it appears.
filth
Cant see how Leeds and their fans can protect him now
Also how did he only get 8 games?