Jonjo Shelvey (now playing for Burnley)

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Do we know he has a witness?

[joeyt]

Do we know he has a witness?

 

Shelvey does yeah

[Parsley]

Do we know he has a witness?

Insofar as it's been reported by the Chronicle.

 

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/jonjo-shelvey-pleads-not-guilty-12186949

[Yorkie]

They have to be absolutely certain that he's done it in order to convict him. There's no evidence and he's pleaded not-guilty so I'll be surprised if he gets a ban.

[Stifler]

Well I was more thinking about other rules and regulations, like the no further disciplinary action if someone has gained a yellow card, then changed to if the player has been spoken too. Too many times they discipline one player for an offence but others get off with it. Like I said this isn't a case of government law, they don't need concrete evidence that something happened, just the belief that it did, even if that belief is down to biased views of a player or the club he plays for. It also leaves open the possibility of allegations which cannot be proven being found guilty and more harshly treated if the focus at the time is on that area. So say in the media racism is a big issue that week, the FA will likely clamp down on allegations of racism without much proof in order to be seen as tackling the issue. A court of law cannot do that, there has to be sufficient evidence that a crime took place before a trial is even granted.

[Stifler]

I’m no legal eagle but how on earth can you be convicted if they don’t have any evidence (assuming that!) and it’s basically your word plus the word of someone else supporting you versus the word of one person?! Why did this Wolves player not react to this supposed racist abuse on the pitch when it happened? I’d be going crackers if I heard someone say it about one of my team-mates!

Because we are not dealing with a court of law here, we are dealing with what is essentially a private group which has it's own rules and regulations and has the ability to deal with it's members how they see fit.

[Paully]

I’m no legal eagle but how on earth can you be convicted if they don’t have any evidence (assuming that!) and it’s basically your word plus the word of someone else supporting you versus the word of one person?! Why did this Wolves player not react to this supposed racist abuse on the pitch when it happened? I’d be going crackers if I heard someone say it about one of my team-mates!

Because we are not dealing with a court of law here, we are dealing with what is essentially a private group which has it's own rules and regulations and has the ability to deal with it's members how they see fit.

 

True - are we able to take it further if he is convicted? He'll be tarnished with it forever if he gets a big ban! The sport of arbitration perhaps?

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

The sport of arbitration for courts IIRC

[Sho Time]

Thought it was the arbitration of courts for sport tbh

[afar]

They have to be absolutely certain that he's done it in order to convict him. There's no evidence and he's pleaded not-guilty so I'll be surprised if he gets a ban.

 

In any other real life situation, I would totally agree with you, but this is the FA and the have a ridiculously successful record in turning accusations into convictions, he's getting banned for sure.

[xLiaaamx]

That's the big thing here like. Its not just a ban. Shelvey will be a convicted racist in the eyes of the public.

[afar]

That's the big thing here like. Its not just a ban. Shelvey will be a convicted racist in the eyes of the public.

 

For sure, I can see him taking it to the courts and easily getting it overturned, but he'll probably have served the ban already but at least his name will have been cleared.

[geordiesteve710]

There's definitely something a bit off about this. Iirc personal hearings are normally convened within a few days and organised/announced pretty much as soon as the accused requests one aren't they? It's like the FA didn't expect him to deny the charge and have a witness to back his story up so they're either thinking "shit we should be backing down now" or they're scrambling around trying to find some additional more concrete evidence.

[bowlingcrofty]

Probably helps that we're in the chanpionship and there's only one man and his dog on camera duty, so much harder to prove.

[Tiresias]

They have to be absolutely certain that he's done it in order to convict him. There's no evidence and he's pleaded not-guilty so I'll be surprised if he gets a ban.

 

In any other real life situation, I would totally agree with you, but this is the FA and the have a ridiculously successful record in turning accusations into convictions, he's getting banned for sure.

 

What is the burden of proof in sporting courts of arbitration? It's not beyond reasonable doubt as would be in criminal court, I think it's slightly higher than just balance of probabilities iirc but there doesn't have to be cast iron proof for them to convict

[madras]

There's definitely something a bit off about this. Iirc personal hearings are normally convened within a few days and organised/announced pretty much as soon as the accused requests one aren't they? It's like the FA didn't expect him to deny the charge and have a witness to back his story up so they're either thinking "s*** we should be backing down now" or they're scrambling around trying to find some additional more concrete evidence.

Got to remember the sort of people on these panels. It'll have taken 6 weeks to find out what Cous Cous was and they didn't know what a nonce was till this week.

[Benwell Lad]

There's definitely something a bit off about this. Iirc personal hearings are normally convened within a few days and organised/announced pretty much as soon as the accused requests one aren't they? It's like the FA didn't expect him to deny the charge and have a witness to back his story up so they're either thinking "s*** we should be backing down now" or they're scrambling around trying to find some additional more concrete evidence.

Got to remember the sort of people on these panels. It'll have taken 6 weeks to find out what Cous Cous was and they didn't know what a nonce was till this week.

 

Probably a few things going on the back burner down at Lancaster Gate with Southgate and now "Youthcoachgate" to sort first.

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

They have to be absolutely certain that he's done it in order to convict him. There's no evidence and he's pleaded not-guilty so I'll be surprised if he gets a ban.

 

In any other real life situation, I would totally agree with you, but this is the FA and the have a ridiculously successful record in turning accusations into convictions, he's getting banned for sure.

 

What is the burden of proof in sporting courts of arbitration? It's not beyond reasonable doubt as would be in criminal court, I think it's slightly higher than just balance of probabilities iirc but there doesn't have to be cast iron proof for them to convict

 

It's ‘comfortable satisfaction’, which is defined as lying in between the criminal ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and the civil ‘balance of probabilities’. Interestingly they aren't bound by rules of evidence.

[Nobody]

Taking the piss how long this is taking.

[Foluwashola]

FA will want him to do a 3 hour presentation on Moroccans man.

[Guest neesy111]

There's definitely something a bit off about this. Iirc personal hearings are normally convened within a few days and organised/announced pretty much as soon as the accused requests one aren't they? It's like the FA didn't expect him to deny the charge and have a witness to back his story up so they're either thinking "s*** we should be backing down now" or they're scrambling around trying to find some additional more concrete evidence.

Got to remember the sort of people on these panels. It'll have taken 6 weeks to find out what Cous Cous was and they didn't know what a nonce was till this week.

 

Probably a few things going on the back burner down at Lancaster Gate with Southgate and now "Youthcoachgate" to sort first.

 

They haven't been based at Lancaster Gate for over a decade.

[joeyt]

FA will want him to do a 3 hour presentation on Moroccans man.

 

http://www.skibbereeneagle.ie/web/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/father-ted.jpg

[Benwell Lad]

There's definitely something a bit off about this. Iirc personal hearings are normally convened within a few days and organised/announced pretty much as soon as the accused requests one aren't they? It's like the FA didn't expect him to deny the charge and have a witness to back his story up so they're either thinking "s*** we should be backing down now" or they're scrambling around trying to find some additional more concrete evidence.

Got to remember the sort of people on these panels. It'll have taken 6 weeks to find out what Cous Cous was and they didn't know what a nonce was till this week.

 

Probably a few things going on the back burner down at Lancaster Gate with Southgate and now "Youthcoachgate" to sort first.

 

They haven't been based at Lancaster Gate for over a decade.

 

Did they move to Lancashire? Should be helpful if so.

[Benwell Lad]

On the surface it seems like fairly flimsy evidence, though of course no one really knows how credible the accusations and counter accusations really are.

If that really is the case the FA may not wish to go down the road of finding him guilty as such a serious charge would stick and he could claim it would affect his career and future employment, and take civil proceedings. It could get messy for them at a time when they probably don't need extra workload.

That said would a non guilty verdict obligate them to take action against the Wolves players ?

Based on what we know so far I reckon it's 7/10 that he'll be getting off, though of course should the evidence supporting the allegations be more substantial than we are led to believe it could be different.

[geordiesteve710]

On the surface it seems like fairly flimsy evidence, though of course no one really knows how credible the accusations and counter accusations really are.

If that really is the case the FA may not wish to go down the road of finding him guilty as such a serious charge would stick and he could claim it would affect his career and future employment, and take civil proceedings. It could get messy for them at a time when they probably don't need extra workload.

That said would a non guilty verdict obligate them to take action against the Wolves players ?

Based on what we know so far I reckon it's 7/10 that he'll be getting off, though of course should the evidence supporting the allegations be more substantial than we are led to believe it could be different.

 

I can't see why any action should be taken against wolves players. If a player thinks he hears his team-mate being racially abusrd he should report it. I don't think it's been made up from nothing, more likely he misheard something shelvey said?? But even if it is the completely unfounded malicious accusation some seem to think it is, if the only "evidence" is one person's word against another then punishing the wolves player based on that would make about as much sense as punishing shelvey on it.