Jump to content

Leeds, Leeds are falling apart again!

Day

By Day
in Football Forum

Recommended Posts

TigerTedd

TigerTedd

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

He got a few gigs as a summariser on a local radio station so don't think what happened to him affected his chances of being the next Howard Stern...or more appropriately Alan Partridge.

My only comment on this would be the response from Leeds saying they didn't agree that the outcome should have been based on the Balance of Probabilities....well tough UK Employment Law is based on the Balance of Probabilities to decide an outcome so has been deemed in Law as being perfectly acceptable to make a decision.

 

Unless every player is going to be miked up, it’s all they’ve really got to go on. Nothing will ever be punished if it has to have airtight, recorded evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Tyler Durden

Tyler Durden

Posted
Posted
Just now, TigerTedd said:

Unless every player is going to be miked up, it’s all they’ve really got to go on. Nothing will ever be punished if it has to have airtight, recorded evidence. 

I agree which is why UK Employment Law uses the same standards.

You can't bleat on about how it was inappropriate to use that basis to make the judgement afterwards that just smacks of not accepting the punishment.

Was unnecessary to even mention that in the statement by Leeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Comrade 86

Comrade 86

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Paul71 said:

For me its still a tough one, would be interesting to read the report on this. Leeds are saying hes been found guilty based on the balance of probability rather than proof.

Do we now automatically assume someone is guilty if accused? I took the time to read the report on the lad from Burton a few years back who was found guilty and the report actually says a number of times about the evidence against him not being very credible, including the person he was accused of racially abusing but they still found him guilty, seemed like they were looking for a reason to find him guilty but not one to find him not guilty.

Anyone who racially abuses someone should be punished heavily, but we should also be sure we don't have a chelsea/clattenburg situation where someone was accused just because a scoreline didnt go their way.

The article I read states that they have a witness statement and that the incident was also detailed in the official's match report. 

Casilla strenuously denied being racially offensive and continues to do so.

But he was charged in November with a witness believed to have supported Leko and referee John Brooks having included details of the incident in his match report.

 If this is correct and there appears to be no reason to doubt it, Leeds' claim that the decision was made on the balance of probabilities is nonsense. They are trying to infer that the match officials have simply guessed at what happened even though the officials themselves, as well as an independent witness have corroborated Leko's claim.

In so much. their statement rather begs the questions, if Leeds really believe that the required burden of proof has not been met, why have they not lodged an appeal? I'd also be curious to know what evidence would actually satisfy them, given that witness statements clearly don't?

It's also worth noting that the FA have most stringent penalty since Luis Suarez  received the same length of ban for his little 'indiscretion' back in 2011. Would this not seem highly irregular if the evidence they have taken into account is as flimsy as Leeds would have everyone believe? To my mind this is simply another example of Leeds believing there should be one rule for them and another for everyone else. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JfR

JfR

Posted
Posted

If anyone wants a read, the FA have published their reasons for Kiko Casilla's ban, which can be found below:
http://www.thefa.com/news/2020/mar/03/kiko-casilla-written-reasons-030320

The big thing that stands out is that whoever came up with the narrative that he had been charged for asking a player to "mark the black one" is a big fibber, he was actually accused of calling Jonathan Leko something that sounds like "you ducking digger"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tyler Durden

Tyler Durden

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, JfR said:

If anyone wants a read, the FA have published their reasons for Kiko Casilla's ban, which can be found below:
http://www.thefa.com/news/2020/mar/03/kiko-casilla-written-reasons-030320

The big thing that stands out is that whoever came up with the narrative that he had been charged for asking a player to "mark the black one" is a big fibber, he was actually accused of calling Jonathan Leko something that sounds like "you ducking digger"

His defense if that's the right phrase was that he didn't understand the meaning of the word he used against the Charlton player which rhymes with digger. Unless he thought that he had accidentally invented a new word in the English language that day or has never listened to an American rap album in his entire existence. Which is fundamentally why he was found guilty as his defense is laughable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
On 29/02/2020 at 17:09, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

The article I read states that they have a witness statement and that the incident was also detailed in the official's match report. 

Casilla strenuously denied being racially offensive and continues to do so.

But he was charged in November with a witness believed to have supported Leko and referee John Brooks having included details of the incident in his match report.

 If this is correct and there appears to be no reason to doubt it, Leeds' claim that the decision was made on the balance of probabilities is nonsense. They are trying to infer that the match officials have simply guessed at what happened even though the officials themselves, as well as an independent witness have corroborated Leko's claim.

How come he was not sent off or even booked if the officials heard it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
G STAR RAM

G STAR RAM

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, TuffLuff said:

Nothing says the officials heard it, they were made aware of it and he noted it down.

The poster was saying it's wrong for Leeds to infer that the officials are guessing at what happened, when it is clear that they are. One mans word against another's as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TuffLuff

TuffLuff

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The poster was saying it's wrong for Leeds to infer that the officials are guessing at what happened, when it is clear that they are. One mans word against another's as far as I can see.

Not really as the referee was told of the incident and he put it in his match report, as he should do. That’s not guessing that’s being responsible. It’s then up to the EFL or whoever to investigate further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of Clough

Ghost of Clough

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The poster was saying it's wrong for Leeds to infer that the officials are guessing at what happened, when it is clear that they are. One mans word against another's as far as I can see.

Without reading in to it too much, it appears Casilla has admitted to saying whatever it is he was accused of, but with the defence of not believing it was racist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...