Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] "You're black and you stink" Rodriquez comment to Bong? - FA say not proven





Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
I just don't see how anything can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rodriguez made a racist remark - its just one mans word against another. The video footage is inconclusive. If it hasn't (or can't) be PROVED, then he'll have to be found innocent. They've rightly charged him, as you have to be seen to be going through due process with a serious allegation such as this, and it must be investigated as thoroughly as possible.

But unless there has been some evidence brought to light that we are not aware of, I can't see how this charge can be upheld.

A case in a criminal court has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but because it's an FA disciplinary hearing, it is just a probable.
The FA heard from the referee & decided to charge Rodriguez so must have read/heard more than just Bong's allegation.
 


dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Mar 27, 2013
52,005
Burgess Hill
If anybody cannot open the link the hearing is at Wembley today and Pardew is to give evidence on behalf of Rodriguez.
"He's a lovely fella, nice guy, not a racist bone in his body, fully involved in the club's charity work blah blah blah"


Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk
 


BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
A case in a criminal court has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but because it's an FA disciplinary hearing, it is just a probable.
The FA heard from the referee & decided to charge Rodriguez so must have read/heard more than just Bong's allegation.

that is correct the FA do not require 'beyond reasonable doubt' the law of probability tends to prevail especially as any appeal cannot be taken to a legal challenge as it has been said previously they are autonomous.
 










Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,673
Location Location
A case in a criminal court has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, but because it's an FA disciplinary hearing, it is just a probable.
The FA heard from the referee & decided to charge Rodriguez so must have read/heard more than just Bong's allegation.

You'd think so.

I don't see how they can find him guilty of racist abuse by deciding that he "probably" said it. But then the FA are a law unto themselves. John Terry was cleared by a magistrates court of giving racist abuse to Anton Ferdinand - yet the FA still charged him of the offence, and subsequently found him guilty (I think he admitted to using racist language, but as a "challenge" to what he thought had been said to him).

If Rodriguez is found guilty by the FA, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes it to court.
 












BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
You'd think so.

I don't see how they can find him guilty of racist abuse by deciding that he "probably" said it. But then the FA are a law unto themselves. John Terry was cleared by a magistrates court of giving racist abuse to Anton Ferdinand - yet the FA still charged him of the offence, and subsequently found him guilty (I think he admitted to using racist language, but as a "challenge" to what he thought had been said to him).

If Rodriguez is found guilty by the FA, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes it to court.

He cannot as the high court have ruled that the FA is autonomous and every player agrees to abide by their decisions
 


Da Man Clay

T'Blades
Dec 16, 2004
16,254
You'd think so.

I don't see how they can find him guilty of racist abuse by deciding that he "probably" said it. But then the FA are a law unto themselves. John Terry was cleared by a magistrates court of giving racist abuse to Anton Ferdinand - yet the FA still charged him of the offence, and subsequently found him guilty (I think he admitted to using racist language, but as a "challenge" to what he thought had been said to him).

If Rodriguez is found guilty by the FA, I wouldn't be surprised if he takes it to court.

Because civil trials (and the FA process) is based on balance of probability. If the FA think he probably did it that’s good enough. Nothing he can take to court.
 












Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,673
Location Location
He cannot as the high court have ruled that the FA is autonomous and every player agrees to abide by their decisions

Because civil trials (and the FA process) is based on balance of probability. If the FA think he probably did it that’s good enough. Nothing he can take to court.

So he could be found guilty in a kangaroo court at Wembley of "probably" racially abusing someone, and he has no recourse ?

Blimey.
 









Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here