Forestieri Charged

[matthefish2002]

Just now, Big Jack said:

Absolutely zero tolerance, however wheres the evidence that FF was racially abusive , because for me if that was the case I would not want him near the club.

 

To me if FF has been racially abusive to another player he should be kicked out of the club.
However the evidence would have to be pretty conclusive for us to do that, beyond reasonable doubt which I don't think will exist in this case.
 

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Big Jack said:

Absolutely zero tolerance, however wheres the evidence that FF was racially abusive , because for me if that was the case I would not want him near the club.

 

But in a "zero tolerance" situation, surely it is right that the incident should be investigated. And from where I sit on the situation, that is now the stage that is reached. Reading the press release outlined in the OP, the FA are merely responding to allegations, made it clear that they are only allegations and issued a charge pending a response from FF. On any of those points, I fail to see that the FA have done much wrong. The only question for me is why it has taken so long for them to get around to dealing with it.

[cowl]

I'd have preferred for the FA to have gone about their business without the blatant PR.

 

They could've waited until after they've reached a verdict.

 

They still get to be seen to be doing something - if that's all they're bothered about - but they also adhere more closely to a principle that many hold dear; that innocence is assumed until found otherwise.

 

The inevitable 'pre-trial' before public opinion is needless, but far worse is that the FA will subject a player to it without any regard to the personal and lasting consequences in the event (and in this case, the likely event) that they'll merely conclude that the evidence is inconclusive.

[Hirstys Salopettes]

17 hours ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Read what it says - the FA conducted a lengthy investigation before exonerating the player!

 

Again, there is nothing to suggest that Forestieri's case will go to a full disciplinary hearing. He has been charged and asked to respond. After hearing his side of the story and looking at the evidence available, the FA will still have the option of dropping the case if they feel it would be in the best interests of fairness to do so.

 

Perhaps you should also read what it says ...

 

The FA conducted a lengthy investigation before deciding there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE Firminio. 

 

Forestieri has ALREADY BEEN CHARGED. 

 

So either:

 

a) The FA has already conducted a thorough investigation and HAS CONCLUDED THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE FORESTIERI, or

 

b) Is applying a different procedure to the handling of the Forestieri case than the Firminio case

 

i know which option my money’s on. 

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

It's not unexpected

 

Apologies if someone else had posted it, but this Guardian article predicted the issue - https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/30/football-double-jeopardy-racism-cases-fernando-forestieri

 

" it boiled down to one man’s word against another and, on that basis, nobody should be surprised it ended as it did: not guilty. Even though – and this bit is important – the district judge, Jonathan Taffe, made it clear in his conclusion that he was not certain whatsoever that Pearce had, as suggested, misheard. “It is possible, albeit in my judgment unlikely,” Taffe said. Yet the fact it was possible meant he could not be satisfied “to a criminal standard” that the offending word was used.

 

And fair enough: Forestieri’s version of events, like Pearce’s, was described as “clear and consistent”. It would have been difficult for any court to convict him without any corroborative evidence and, as Forestieri has subsequently pointed out, the question should probably be asked of the Crown Prosecution Service why it charged him when the judicial system requires cases to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

That is the difference with the Football Association’s disciplinary system, which determines cases on the balance of probabilities and, as such, has a much wider scope to rule in favour of the player making the allegations."

[cowl]

As the word of one man against another, isn't the balance of probabilities 50-50 here?

 

Unless we want to start trying to quantify the likelihood of someone mishearing something in a heated situation...

 

After all, the implied verdict of the case involving Rodriguez and Bong is that Bong misheard - so that's one case straight away - balance that with the Terry case and even if you want to take Terry to have said what he was accused of, then the balance of just these two high-profile cases is still 50-50.

[ChinaOwl]

2 minutes ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

Perhaps you should also read what it says ...

 

The FA conducted a lengthy investigation before deciding there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE Firminio. 

 

Forestieri has ALREADY BEEN CHARGED. 

 

So either:

 

a) The FA has already conducted a thorough investigation and HAS CONCLUDED THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE FORESTIERI, or

 

b) Is applying a different procedure to the handling of the Forestieri case than the Firminio case

 

i know which option my money’s on. 

 

 

 

As I said in a post above, given the issues in Montenegro and the England football team, the FA were always likely to adopt a firmer approach to incidents involving accusations of racist behaviour. They have to be seen to be dealing with the issue and not taking a different path outside the standard operating procedure. The next player brought before the commission was always likely to face a backlash.

 

I will go alone on this one and put my own interpretation on the word "charged" in this context. It is used in the form of "Charged with bringing the game into disrepute" or like Eoin Morgan, "Charged with slow over rates". To me it means nothing more than the player or coach has been informed that disciplinary procedures are likely to follow and for them to prepare a response. It doesn't, in my view, constitute a finding of guilt at that stage.

 

I do not believe that the FA have sufficient evidence to progress this case and it will subsequently dropped after FF's response to the allegations.

[OxonOwl]

I don't think it is likely that it was misheard. I think it is likely that it is made up to justify starting the fracas.

[Dick_Turpin]

1 hour ago, OxonOwl said:

I don't think it is likely that it was misheard. I think it is likely that it is made up to justify starting the fracas.

That's libellous. What's your evidence?

[Hirstys Salopettes]

1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

As I said in a post above, given the issues in Montenegro and the England football team, the FA were always likely to adopt a firmer approach to incidents involving accusations of racist behaviour. They have to be seen to be dealing with the issue and not taking a different path outside the standard operating procedure. The next player brought before the commission was always likely to face a backlash.

 

I will go alone on this one and put my own interpretation on the word "charged" in this context. It is used in the form of "Charged with bringing the game into disrepute" or like Eoin Morgan, "Charged with slow over rates". To me it means nothing more than the player or coach has been informed that disciplinary procedures are likely to follow and for them to prepare a response. It doesn't, in my view, constitute a finding of guilt at that stage.

 

I do not believe that the FA have sufficient evidence to progress this case and it will subsequently dropped after FF's response to the allegations.

 

Thats a fair take on it ...

 

i do however think that the reported summing up from the Judge (and I say reported because this initially came via The Stir’s reporter, it would be interesting to read the actual transcript) will taint the hearing 

[cognacbarnowl]

15 hours ago, kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

. The incredible lack of minority representation of coaches and managers being afforded the opportunities to progress.

 

I could go on, but I am sure most have been bored reading this, and not reached this far.

 

 

On the issue of minority representation in the coaching and management fields ; surely it is down to the individual to go out and get whatever qualifications are required to do the job in the first place. I have never seen nor heard of a member of an ethnic minority being denied the chance to obtain the necessary qualifications needed to become a manager or coach in football. Then when the necessary qualifications have been achieved it is up to the individual concerned to apply for any jobs that become available and should expect to be employed if they are the best candidate.

 

 

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Hirstys Salopettes said:

 

Thats a fair take on it ...

 

i do however think that the reported summing up from the Judge (and I say reported because this initially came via The Stir’s reporter, it would be interesting to read the actual transcript) will taint the hearing 

 

I say this from my own perspective because I obviously don't know what will happen but I believe that FF will provide a response drafted by a legal representative and then the matter will end. I think the FA have to follow the procedure because they cannot be seen to do nothing or make concessions. They have issued allegations and reports regarding Montenegro. That leaves them very little room for movement in terms of any racist incidents that they have to deal with. They would however, still need to prove a case against FF and, given the information in the public domain, I cannot see that any proof against FF actually exists. Again, what I say may or may not be accurate but only time can determine that.

[kobayashi]

The same evidence could result in different outcomes because of the differing burdens of proof.

A criminal conviction required "beyond reasonable doubt", which clearly could not be met hence his acquittal.

However, a civil charge and/or a professional charge may well be met as it will only require the lower standard of "on the balance of probability" to be met.

Edited June 7, 2019 by kobayashi

[Hookowl]

1 minute ago, kobayashi said:

The same evidence could result in different outcomes because of the differing burdens of proof.

A criminal conviction required "beyond reasonable doubt", which clearly could not be met hence his acquittal.

However, a civil charge and/or a professional charge may well be met as it will only require the lower standard of "on the balance of probability" to be met.

One persons word against another persons words doesn't really give much credence to an "on the balance of probability" verdict though.

[darra]

Surely Forestieris defence will be that an English court of law given the evidence could not definitively establish without doubt that a racist comment was used and therefore found our client not guilty. Therefore we put it to you that the charges should be dropped due to no further evidence being forthcoming

[Burnsie]

3 minutes ago, A12owl said:

Havnt they  had enough time already? Nearly a year to bring charges.  Why?

 

 

Waiting for the criminal charges to be sorted first, I assume

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

3 hours ago, cognacbarnowl said:

 

On the issue of minority representation in the coaching and management fields ; surely it is down to the individual to go out and get whatever qualifications are required to do the job in the first place. I have never seen nor heard of a member of an ethnic minority being denied the chance to obtain the necessary qualifications needed to become a manager or coach in football. Then when the necessary qualifications have been achieved it is up to the individual concerned to apply for any jobs that become available and should expect to be employed if they are the best candidate.

 

 

Look at the number of BME players that are in teams. Then look at how many go onto coaching and manager roles. There is a clear disproportionately of those from BME making the step up. There must be a reason, they cannot all not harbour ambitions to progress when their playing days come to an end.

 

It has been the same in American sports, which recently introduced the Rooney Rule, in an attempt to get more BME candidates getting interviews for posts. If the FA are serious about getting their house in order, it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement the same rule over here

[kobayashi]

3 hours ago, Hookowl said:

One persons word against another persons words doesn't really give much credence to an "on the balance of probability" verdict though.

May be not but it could if they give more credence to one over the other. That's the point they don't have to be certain they just have to believe it was probable.

[matthefish2002]

25 minutes ago, kendoddsdadsdogsdead said:

Look at the number of BME players that are in teams. Then look at how many go onto coaching and manager roles. There is a clear disproportionately of those from BME making the step up. There must be a reason, they cannot all not harbour ambitions to progress when their playing days come to an end.

 

It has been the same in American sports, which recently introduced the Rooney Rule, in an attempt to get more BME candidates getting interviews for posts. If the FA are serious about getting their house in order, it wouldn't be a bad idea to implement the same rule over here

 

Think they have announced the 'Rooney Rule' will be used over here next season when you have to interview 1 BME person for a managers position.

Not sure how this will work in practice as you dont really have a formal interview for a job as you would in normal life.

[ChinaOwl]

4 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

May be not but it could if they give more credence to one over the other. That's the point they don't have to be certain they just have to believe it was probable.

 

Aye, but even in a civil matter, the case has to be proved to a point that it can be described as "in all probability" or "most likely". Unless there is a reliable and sufficiently independent third party (e.g. the referee) that can corroborate the allegations made against FF, how can it be sufficiently proven? The best that could be achieved would be a guess based on one version of events against another. It would be wrong, wholly wrong if they use a guess or assumption to find Forestieri guilty of the alleged breaches.