FA’s burden of proof over racism may need a higher standard

Travel may broaden the mind but some trips are definitely not for the faint-hearted. A navigation of the world of the Football Association’s website containing the explanations behind its disciplinary judgments in racism cases opens a window on to an unedifying world and is possibly best left to intrepid explorers.

On second thoughts, perhaps everyone should make the journey. Maybe all fans got to study the arguments, sometimes complex, exposing the fine details behind Jonjo Shelvey’s five-game ban and £100,000 fine for racially abusing Romain Saïss of Wolves in 2016 and Sophie Jones’s similar suspension for creating monkey noises at Renée Hector last spring.

The time seems right to initiate a debate on whether the FA’s burden of proof – currently the civil standard of “on balance of probabilities” instead of the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt” – remains appropriate. https://www.maxbetsbobet.org/ agen sbobet terbaik dan terpercaya

At a time when racism is on the increase the FA does much laudable add increasing tolerance, with a part of that role quite properly involving intolerance of abuse underscored by severe sanctions for offenders. it’s imperative victims are taken seriously and justice is seen to be done.

Yet during a sensitive sphere when the damaging repercussions for the guilty are often personally and professionally far-reaching and cases are often extremely confusing and contradictory, nagging fears about this proof-level linger.

With Shelvey and Jones adamant their convictions were wrongful, might the ruling body’s justice system gain greater credibility by adopting the hybrid “comfortable satisfaction of guilt” standard employed by the court of arbitration for sport in doping cases?

Angus Kinnear, Leeds United’s director, would like “beyond reasonable doubt”. His club’s goalkeeper, Kiko Casilla, is shortly scheduled to face an FA independent commission tasked with deciding whether to uphold the charge that he racially abused Charlton’s Jonathan Leko. Should the panel find him guilty of an offence Casilla denies, he can expect to be banned for between six and 12 matches, potentially jeopardising Leeds’s promotion hopes.

“We fully support such a significant allegation being subjected to disciplinary process,” Kinnear says. “Our concern is that the burden of proof for an FA hearing isn’t ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. We believe that, in cases of this seriousness, the upper standard of proof is more appropriate; one man’s reputation is at stake.”

He could have some extent. Newcastle’s Shelvey was accused of calling Saïss – a French midfielder of Moroccan heritage – “an Arab or Moroccan prick or cunt”. Jones, a former Sheffield United Ladies striker, was said to possess made monkey noises at the mixed-race Hector. In both instances the shortage of corroborative evidence dictated that the Crown Prosecution Service would are unlikely to think about initiating criminal proceedings.

Football must do more to tackle racism, says Downing Street

The alleged abuse occurred shortly after Rüdiger was involved within the incident that led to Son being sent off.

Damian Collins MP, who chaired parliament’s culture, media and sport committee, said players must be made conscious of their right to steer off the pitch if they face racist abuse. He said: “I think players [should be made] cognizant of what their rights are – that if they’re unhappy with the behaviour of individuals within the crowd and unhappy that behaviour has not been stopped, that if they prefer to come off then they’re going to be protected by the football authorities in doing so.”

The incident at the Tottenham ground was the newest of several racist incidents to mar English football over the past 12 months. The Manchester derby sparked a furore after a City fan seemed to make a monkey gesture at United’s player Fred, while on an equivalent day a League Two game between Scunthorpe and Forest Green Rovers was halted after allegations of racist abuse. In October an FA game between Haringey Borough and Yeovil was replayed after racist abuse from the gang.

Kick It Out’s George Starkey-Midha echoed the PFA’s involve the govt to require action. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s imperative on everyone involved in football, on the govt, or anyone in any quite position of authority, to start to require this much more seriously and appearance at how we will begin to form inroads, because clearly you’ve now got a situation where every single week there seems to be another incident and it’s a significant, significant issue.” https://www.agensbobet888.online/ agen sbobet 888 online

Starkey-Midha said there needed to be “far more robust” reporting procedures and “far more comprehensive sanctions”, including within football, to reply to racism. When asked if the PFA was accurate when warning of the “blatant racism that’s currently rife within the UK”, Starkey-Midha replied: “Yes, absolutely. i feel it’s undeniable that racism remains a really significant issue during this country.”

He added: ““I think people wish to look abroad to Italy, Russia and Bulgaria when incidents happen there and that i think we’re right to criticise once we see it, but there are serious levels of racism during this country still too. Unless we awaken thereto fact, we won’t tackle it properly.”

The former cabinet minister David Mellor involved fans to try to to more to uproot racism at football matches in Britain. Mellor told PA Media: “Fans cannot escape responsibility for clearing racism out of the sport. Somebody must know who this idiot or these idiots are.

“Fans cannot just travel by on the opposite side of the road, they need to get up and be counted otherwise we’ll get on a slippery slope and it’ll cause matches being abandoned, stadiums being closed and games being played behind closed doors.”

Mellor, who presented BBC radio’s 606 football phone-in programme for nine years, added: “What we cannot do is disagree with racism when British teams play in eastern Europe then ignore incidents up here. Fans can’t be morally neutral about this.”