Forestieri Charged

[WindygrOWLer]

5 hours ago, milanowl said:

The three-game ban was for violent conduct, which Fessi accepted, for the two-footed challenge.

 

He was cleared in court due to a lack of evidence, but FA can rule on balance of probability and the judge made reference to not been convinced of the case against him rather than fully believing in his innocence.

 

That said, it seemed to come down only to one guy's word against another so it's a really difficult one for the FA either way.

Two important words in the FA statement.....both of them are "alleged".

[Costello 77]

4 minutes ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

I want the FA to do their job and investigate any report they receive from a player who alleges he was racially abused. Its boring going over it again and again but look what happened with Terry, I'd say most people think the FA arrived at the correct decision after the courts cleared him. Without this same procedure that wouldn't have happened, and anyone's opinion on here as to either of their innocence is completely irrelevant.

 

The law and the work place are two different things. I hope he's innocent and that they haven't found anything that will suggest otherwise, but they have to go through their processes and investigate. 

First off..thank christ  that the law and the workplace are not two different things today.

I'm pleased that the FA have rigorous processes in place... I really am.

 

I would suggest to you that if the legal system isn't good enough for you then the FA isn't either..

[Sergeant Tibbs]

54 minutes ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

Pots and kettles. And testicles.

Oh. I've been negged. I can't cope.

[The Dukeries Owl]

We have been made scapegoats and made examples of by the League at every possible opportunity since the Kay, Swan and Layne betting investigation in the 1960's. (when every player in the game was probably bang at it)

[upperwinngardensowl]

To be fair the FA have acted with commendable speed...........

 

Who sat down and said “right, let’s drag this up again, that’s good for the game”

[ChinaOwl]

3 minutes ago, The Dukeries Owl said:

We have been made scapegoats and made examples of by the League at every possible opportunity since the Kay, Swan and Layne betting investigation in the 1960's. (when every player in the game was probably bang at it)

 

Not the poor victims line? 

 

This allegation has been made against FF who plays for us, rightfully or wrongfully. No victimisation involved (unless alleged against FF himself, pf course). Folk on here would be lapping it up if the same had happened to a blunt. 

[We are all Wednesday]

4 hours ago, We are all Wednesday said:

As others have said, it’s about the balance of probability in a civil case. Louis Theroux produces a documentary on how civil cases are used in American Universities when a defendant has been found not guilty in a sexual abuse claim. Seems like a blunt instrument but there was cases when it appeared like justice was done as a result.

 

I support our great club and all our players but if any of them are racist and there is a level of certainty then they need to be reprimanded regardless of the fact that they play for SWFC.

 

If people want to question what evidence they have then fine but I don’t like it when people defend potential behaviour like that alleged just because they play for a certain team. It stinks. SUFC did it with Ched Evans and I didn’t like it then. Question the process and evidence fine but don’t say someone is innocent just because they play for your team.

 

I do hope FF is innocent and don’t want him to miss games for him and us but that is different.

To clarify, I meant “some SUFC fans” rather than SUFC above!

[Costello 77]

11 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Not the poor victims line? 

 

This allegation has been made against FF who plays for us, rightfully or wrongfully. No victimisation involved (unless alleged against FF himself, pf course). Folk on here would be lapping it up if the same had happened to a blunt. 

He's not a victim... he's properly been found not guilty in a court of law.

The FA have seemingly added another layer to justice.

They're just a money making business like Tesco.

 

Do you think Tesco..or the FA  should have punishment outside of law?

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

FF, his legal advisors and the club, will no doubt have been served FULL disclosure by the FA in relation to the incident. I am sure, that as they are now in receipt of it, they will be able to drive a bus through the FA's case.

 

If not, then nearly every player playing today, would be guilty of foul and abusive language during a football match !! The allegation of racist language used was not mentioned in the referees report to the best of my knowledge, and was not proven during criminal proceedings.

 

As such, if the FA do have something that conclusively proves FF did use racist language, it would have been incumbent on them to provide it to the Police. Failure to do so, is in itself a criminal act.

 

This whole episode smacks of the FA cocking things up royally again, trying to make it look like they are being the moral guardians of the game . It is abhorrent that racist language is used in the modern game, and the FA quite rightly, should be proactive in investigating and bringing offenders to task  but in FF's case, it matters not, they will arbitrarily rule him guilty and impose what they see as a punitive sentence.

 

Tackle racism when it is there, apparent and witnessed, not on the say so of one person, wholly unsubstantiated by other players and officials present.

 

Apologies for the length of the reply, just finished work and read the BBC report, and am utterly bemused.

 

[Colinwestzicoest]

Almost a year to sort this sh*te out. Any f**ker considering a 'friendly fixture' with Mansfield Town in future wants their head looking at. Proper lower league scum. 

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Costello 77 said:

He's not a victim... he's properly been found not guilty in a court of law.

The FA have seemingly added another layer to justice.

They're just a money making business like Tesco.

 

Do you think Tesco..or the FA  should have punishment outside of law?

 

You have misinterpreted my post. It was in response to a poster suggested this has been done because it is Sheffield Wednesday we are talking about. No, it isn't. This one is all about FF (rightfully or wrongfully).

[Costello 77]

2 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

You have misinterpreted my post. It was in response to a poster suggested this has been done because it is Sheffield Wednesday we are talking about. No, it isn't. This one is all about FF (rightfully or wrongfully).

I'd say the point stands looking at your previous post.

You really can't juxtapose individual players... clubs...and that's why I don't use that argument.

You tell me why ..in this particular instance that the FA will serve the cause of justice.. rather than the courts?

[Guest The Horse]

5 hours ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

And for some of the other outraged people in this thread, ask yourself this - Were you equally outraged when the FA charged John Terry with the same offence despite being cleared in court? Or was that one OK because he didn't play for Wednesday and you don't like the guy? 

 

No, I wasn't outraged cos I've never even heard of that incident before today because guess what, I follow Wednesday like a madman and don't have much interest in what happens at other clubs.

And you're the one who seems outraged that the decision made in a court of law wasn't the decision you wanted or good enough for you.

Sounds like one of them Remoaners who didn't get the result they wanted.

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Costello 77 said:

I'd say the point stands looking at your previous post.

You really can't juxtapose individual players... clubs...and that's why I don't use that argument.

You tell me why ..in this particular instance that the FA will serve the cause of justice.. rather than the courts?

 

Because, as I've said in several posts, I don't believe that the FA can just turn a blind eye to it and let it pass. They have to be seen to investigate every case of alleged racism that is put their way. I believe they have gone through a set procedure and outlined the allegations. I believe that they have asked FF to respond. I believe that both FF's response and the outcome of the court case will be considered and then the matter will be dropped without further proceedings. The FA can then claim to have taken the matter seriously and put out a warning to others that they will act. I can't see where they have the evidence to do anything other but to do nothing is also not an option for them.

[Whitechapel Owl]

5 minutes ago, The Horse said:

 

No, I wasn't outraged cos I've never even heard of that incident before today because guess what, I follow Wednesday like a madman and don't have much interest in what happens at other clubs.

And you're the one who seems outraged that the decision made in a court of law wasn't the decision you wanted or good enough for you.

Sounds like one of them Remoaners who didn't get the result they wanted.

 

Well if you weren't outraged then why bother answering the question? And for the 8 millionth time, I've got no opinion as to his guilt or innocence. 

[coopswfc76]

10/11 months to get to this stage

[Costello 77]

15 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Because, as I've said in several posts, I don't believe that the FA can just turn a blind eye to it and let it pass. They have to be seen to investigate every case of alleged racism that is put their way. I believe they have gone through a set procedure and outlined the allegations. I believe that they have asked FF to respond. I believe that both FF's response and the outcome of the court case will be considered and then the matter will be dropped without further proceedings. The FA can then claim to have taken the matter seriously and put out a warning to others that they will act. I can't see where they have the evidence to do anything other but to do nothing is also not an option for them.

Yes.. I noted your previous.. including the remarks about poster's having a different opinion if  the other player were a blunt.

Btw.. you're another one who thinks that large corporations have legal powers that don't exist.

They don't.

They "govern" a game..a sport..by consent... that's all they do.

 

Edited June 6, 2019 by Costello 77

[Guest The Horse]

Here's the racist Fernando who invited his best mates from the squad, the black Lucas João and the Muslim Adthe Nuhiu to his son's first birthday bash at Fox Valley.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

I want the FA to do their job and investigate any report they receive from a player who alleges he was racially abused. Its boring going over it again and again but look what happened with Terry, I'd say most people think the FA arrived at the correct decision after the courts cleared him. Without this same procedure that wouldn't have happened, and anyone's opinion on here as to either of their innocence is completely irrelevant.

 

The law and the work place are two different things. I hope he's innocent and that they haven't found anything that will suggest otherwise, but they have to go through their processes and investigate. 

 

But in the Terry case, as has been said numerous times, the words were clearly used and there was clear evidence of this. The criminal courts found him not guilty on the basis that in his version of events, he used the words to confirm to the player that he hadn't called him that. The FA banned him on the basis that those words shouldn't have been uttered on the football pitch at all.

 

In this case Forestieri has denied using racist words and the courts found no evidence to suggest that any such words were used. Surely the FA don't have any evidence to the contrary as this would have to have been submitted as part of the criminal trial.

 

Of course the FA should conduct their own investigation into what happened but surely it is better to invite both parties to submit evidence/their testimonies as to what happened in detail rather than charging a player then giving him the chance to respond if there is seemingly no clear evidence in support of what has been alleged?

 

[ChinaOwl]

4 minutes ago, Costello 77 said:

Yes.. I noted your previous.. including the remarks about poster's having a different opinion if you were a blunt.

Btw.. you're another one who thinks that large corporations have legal powers that don't exist.

They don't.

They "govern" a game..a sport..by consent... that's all they do.

 

 

They have rule books and codes of practice that are different from legislation. Sometimes by necessity, law and legislation impinge on rules and codes of practice but they are not the same. Neither are court cases (criminal or civil) and disciplinary procedure. The are lots of examples where people have been found not guilty in court cases but subject to disciplinary action and vice versa.

Edited June 6, 2019 by ChinaOwl