Breaking news - Casilla

[WhiteRose]

I appreciate it's a difficult one for the authorities, it's an awful offence when done and something that shouldn't happen and must be discouraged but for kiko mentally it must be awful to be accused of something you didnt intend and to be labelled a racist with no realistic hope of aquittal. must be a difficult pill to swallow - The FA dont seem to care less about this side of it though.

[Sara]

Unfortunately it comes down to the word of a black player vs the word of a white player. In the current climate there is only one way it is going to go. That's not a racist statement but it's a lot easier to punish Kiko than say the black player was mistaken

The word of two players, with no other witnesses or direct evidence, hence the balance of probability.

I can understand why the FA want players to feel that their complaints are taken seriously if they feel they have been abused; that has to be the case, but this whole process seems so flawed.

Very good statement from Kiko, though, and I hope there is some way for him to clear his name and move on from this.

[apollo]

So 2 out of approx 15 in the box heard it, hardly balance of probability. This could open a whole can of worms if all you need is yourself and a teammate to make an accusation against an opponent for them to be found guilty. A case like that would be laughed out of court.

[apollo]

Dele Ali is f**ked btw

[Sara]

I wasn't defending the process, just highlighting why I think it's there.

The flipside to what you say is what on earth motive would two Charlton players have for wanting the Leeds goalie banned? Seems too random to attribute it to a malicious accusation.

The most likely explanation is a genuine misunderstanding imo.

[HarryofOz]

Whether or not the correct decision was made, my understanding is that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a standard which is required for criminal cases only.

It does not apply to civil cases - hence why you get successful civil actions after criminal actions have failed, and it would not apply in these circumstances.

[apollo]

I agree a misunderstanding is most likely what is was, but it is still 2 players accusing 1 player without any other evidence, should never ever lead to a conviction.

Look at it like this.

Accuser "their keeper just called me a Black Bas****" "
Other player "really I heard him say something but didn't know what he said"
Accuser " Yeah he called me a Black bas****"

This is quite easily how 2 players can accuse 1. At the end of the day he's his team mate and will back him up even if not sure what happened. But once he backs him he aint gonna admit he didn't hear what was said.

Now i'm not saying this is what happened but the fact that its 2 peoples word against 1 with no other evidence should not lead to a conviction on such a serious issue.

[apollo]

Whether or not the correct decision was made, my understanding is that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is a standard which is required for criminal cases only.

It does not apply to civil cases - hence why you get successful civil actions after criminal actions have failed, and it would not apply in these circumstances.

Racist abuse is a criminal offence is it not?
Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as on the balance of probability

[apollo]

Is it reasonable to believe a player in the noise of a stadium could here the word negro and think he heard the N word, or would that be considered unreasonable?

[Sara]

I agree a misunderstanding is most likely what is was, but it is still 2 players accusing 1 player without any other evidence, should never ever lead to a conviction.

And if it never ever lead to a conviction, there would be no deterrent to prevent racist abuse.

[HarryofOz]

Racist abuse is a criminal offence is it not?
Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as on the balance of probability

The hearing was not in a criminal court.

[apollo]

The hearing was not in a criminal court.

No it wasn't but should be subject to beyond a reasonable doubt which it was not

[apollo]

And if it never ever lead to a conviction, there would be no deterrent to prevent racist abuse.

Absolute nonsense mate, a person should only be convicted when there is sufficient evidence to convict. I can only assume you are in agreement with the decision that an accusation is all that is needed. If I find damage to my car and me and my mate say you caused it without any other evidence, it would be reasonable for you to be convicted because 2 of us said you did and you said you didn't.

[Sara]

I can only assume you are in agreement with the decision that an accusation is all that is needed.

Clearly not.

[Cjay]

Is this the same panel that accepted that 32 year old Wayne Hennessey wasnt making a nazi salute when caught on camera because they believed a 32 year old man had never heard of Hitler?

[rich_leeds64]

This decision has angered me not just because it’s our number 1 goalkeeper but they’re tarnishing a mans reputation with, he “probably “ said something, well what about he “probably “ didn’t. IMO Kiko is being used as a scapegoat to make it look like the FA are dishing out harsh punishments for racist remarks when in all honesty they have a flimsy case. There has been cases in the past which were proved to be racist and the punishments were similar or less harsh It’s the way the case has been dragged on and then announced late on Friday with a 12.30ko the next day, it really does make you feel the FA have some kind of vendetta.

To make matters worse Hull have put a very ill timed post on their website, would they have reminded us of this had Kiko been cleared??

https://www.hullcitytigers.com/leeds-un ... ck-it-out/

[gessa]

Disappointing to read Paul Robinson's comments

[Velotrax]

This so stupid, it just shows how hell bent The FA are on trying to stop us winning anything.....corruption is still more rife than Racism

[danhirons]

I agree a misunderstanding is most likely what is was, but it is still 2 players accusing 1 player without any other evidence, should never ever lead to a conviction.

Look at it like this.

Accuser "their keeper just called me a Black Bas****" "
Other player "really I heard him say something but didn't know what he said"
Accuser " Yeah he called me a Black bas****"

This is quite easily how 2 players can accuse 1. At the end of the day he's his team mate and will back him up even if not sure what happened. But once he backs him he aint gonna admit he didn't hear what was said.

Now i'm not saying this is what happened but the fact that its 2 peoples word against 1 with no other evidence should not lead to a conviction on such a serious issue.

I mean it's an 8 game football ban hardly a "conviction" and so I don't think the evidence threshold really has to be that high...

Seems harsh but I mean they must have their reasons for this decision and I guess in racism cases like this there will very very rarely be hard evidence of it (ie video footage) and so I guess witness testimonies are what they have to rely on...

Awful timing as well... I really hope kiko knew in good time before today!

[BobHirst]

I think you have all got it wrong. The FA want Leeds to be promoted. It's true! They know Bielsa would never drop Kiko......so they decided to help us out a bit.
Thank you FA.