Famara 6 Game Ban (Merged)

[View from the Dolman]

The FA have released the written reasons of the appeal board from 2 weeks ago: http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2018/famara-diedhiou-v-the-fa---appeal-board---16-july-2018.ashx

It's a shame we don't have the original commission's written reasons as it would be more complete if you could read them both fully.

The case wasn't brought as one seen on camera but as one reported by David Davis and Harlee Dean: "This was not an incident that was seen by anyone other than Mr Davis and Mr Dean who made the complaint".

One of the arguments put (amongst others) the commission could not reasonably have come to the conclusion was that: "the Commission by its own admission could not discern a spit from the video footage provided;". We can assume this was in the original commission's written reasons which will have been provided to the player and the club.

Looks like we made a bit of a mistake as a club by opting for a paper hearing rather than taking the opportunity to cross-examine David Davis and Harlee Dean.

[Major Isewater]

5 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

The FA have released the written reasons of the appeal board from 2 weeks ago: http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2018/famara-diedhiou-v-the-fa---appeal-board---16-july-2018.ashx

It's a shame we don't have the original commission's written reasons as it would be more complete if you could read them both fully.

The case wasn't brought as one seen on camera but as one reported by David Davis and Harlee Dean: "This was not an incident that was seen by anyone other than Mr Davis and Mr Dean who made the complaint".

One of the arguments put (amongst others) the commission could not reasonably have come to the conclusion was that: "the Commission by its own admission could not discern a spit from the video footage provided;". We can assume this was in the original commission's written reasons which will have been provided to the player and the club.

Looks like we made a bit of a mistake as a club by opting for a paper hearing rather than taking the opportunity to cross-examine David Davis and Harlee Dean.

Basically their word against Fammy's .

No evidence.

Shocking decision , that could cost the club and the player dear.

Would never have stood if Fammy played for a bigger club.

 

[Guest]

Wow - seems unbelievable to me after reading "During that altercation it was alleged that the Appellant spat in the face of Mr Davis".

Yet no reaction from the player who has been spat at directly in the face at the time?? That would have created a mass brawl.

[Lrrr]

We seem to get the shit end of decisions off the FA, why don't we just start making claims against opposition players and have one of our own back it up 

[ExiledAjax]

11 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Looks like we made a bit of a mistake as a club by opting for a paper hearing rather than taking the opportunity to cross-examine David Davis and Harlee Dean.

Agreed, however it also looks as though we did this in order to expedite the process.  We then submitted that the original Commission prejudiced us in that decision and failed to apply a "heightened standard" of proof.

Reading it through it seems that our original submissions were weak. We did not refer to either the higher standard of evidence required, or to previous test cases, we were also late in submitting new evidence from the Dr that Fam is a sweaty bastard and could have just flicked sweat.

As @Major Isewater says it essentially boiled down to a "he said she said" argument and the Commission decided that it was more likely than not that Fam is guilty.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

On 21/06/2018 at 22:03, BS4 on Tour... said:

It’s very common to hear the FA referred to as ‘dinosaurs’ - it’s a lazy and ill-informed description.....for example, just a couple of months ago the FA appointed Phillippa Kaufman QC and Raj Parker to their judicial panel...which deals with disciplinary matters such as the one being discussed on this thread.

They are both leading lawyers described as amongst the best of their generation, and their specialisms include being very experienced in working on matters involving sport in general and football in particular. For example Raj has worked on the Hillsborough enquiry, sexual abuse within football cases, the suggestion of corruption within FIFA etc and lots of legal processes involving other sports. 

The committees and panels within the FA have changed immeasurably over the years....’dinosaurs’ is an inappropriate term these days....but convenient to trot out when decisions and rulings are not popular...

I don't know why but you seem to have it in for Diédhiou I have quoted a good summing up below.

33 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

The FA have released the written reasons of the appeal board from 2 weeks ago: http://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases/2018/famara-diedhiou-v-the-fa---appeal-board---16-july-2018.ashx

It's a shame we don't have the original commission's written reasons as it would be more complete if you could read them both fully.

The case wasn't brought as one seen on camera but as one reported by David Davis and Harlee Dean: "This was not an incident that was seen by anyone other than Mr Davis and Mr Dean who made the complaint".

One of the arguments put (amongst others) the commission could not reasonably have come to the conclusion was that: "the Commission by its own admission could not discern a spit from the video footage provided;". We can assume this was in the original commission's written reasons which will have been provided to the player and the club.

Looks like we made a bit of a mistake as a club by opting for a paper hearing rather than taking the opportunity to cross-examine David Davis and Harlee Dean.

I think the opportunity was missed at the initial hearing appeals are far to stacked in cases like this in favour of the FA panel that made the decision.   We can only assume because the original reasoning isn't available they charged Diédhiou off the back of oral evidence from both Davis & Dean who in my opinion have been dishonest.  For any fan to constantly call for Diédhiou to be vilified off the back of such a tenuous and late charge is laden with some agenda.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I reckon that the CAS could throw a one word v the other case like that out tbh, having just read those written reasons- really does seem flimsy.

Quote

The burden rests upon the Appellant to establish that the Commission’s decision was one which no reasonable Commission could have come and that the penalty was excessive. That is a high hurdle which is set by the Regulations. In respect of evidential assessments, factual findings and in the exercise of discretion the Commission is entitled to a significant margin of appreciation and its decisions should not be interfered with save where 3 the decision is clearly wrong or wrong principles have been applied. It is not for the Appeal Board to substitute its opinions for those of the Commission unless the decision of the Commission is unreasonable or the sanction is excessive.

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

Basically their word against Fammy's .

No evidence.

Shocking decision , that could cost the club and the player dear.

 Would never have stood if Fammy played for a bigger club.

 

The problem- and the bigger club might have something in it too.

However an undoubted problem with the FA is they just pick on cases to make an example of- at the start of their set piece campaign they penalized Stoke and Leicester, simulation it was Wright and some Everton striker- then they just forget about it, don't bother with it much.

[Fiale]

So the club screwed up in the first place making the task much harder for themselves. We have full time lawyers at Bristol sport now, seems pretty amateurish not to have gone into this from day one suited up ready for action. 6 game ban could costs us vital points as Famara is our No 1 forward/striker.

 

 

The appeal is conducted by way of a review and not by way of a rehearing, as is set out in Appeal Regulation 2.5. The burden rests upon the Appellant to establish that the Commission’s decision was one which no reasonable Commission could have come and that the penalty was excessive. That is a high hurdle which is set by the Regulations. In respect of evidential assessments, factual findings and in the exercise of discretion the Commission is entitled to a significant margin of appreciation and its decisions should not be interfered with save where 3 the decision is clearly wrong or wrong principles have been applied. It is not for the Appeal Board to substitute its opinions for those of the Commission unless the decision of the Commission is unreasonable or the sanction is excessive.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not that I'm bitter but I hope Dean and Davis get a proper hot reception at Ashton Gate this season.

Booed every time they touch the ball, that kinda thing.

[Fatalist]

So in future, any player can accuse another of anything they like and get them banned, just because they say so?

What are the FA letting themselves in for?

[BS4 on Tour...]

29 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

I don't know why but you seem to have it in for Diédhiou....

I certainly haven’t - I was simply describing why I don’t think it’s appropriate to call the FA Disciplinary Panel ‘dinosaurs’ anymore

[Major Isewater]

As an aside, it appears that there was an altercation between the players concerned can't The FA see that two opposition players would take great satisfaction screwing over their counterpart ?

This whole thing stinks like a kipper on a sunbed .

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

I certainly haven’t - I was simply describing why I don’t think it’s appropriate to call the FA Disciplinary Panel ‘dinosaurs’ anymore

Dinosaurs, no.

Decision making process though...throws up a lot of questions.

[BS4 on Tour...]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Dinosaurs, no.

Decision making process though...throws up a lot of questions.

Absolutely agree with you...

[lkntrkljbflrbh3eljth]

43 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The burden rests upon the Appellant to establish that the Commission’s decision was one which no reasonable Commission could have come and that the penalty was excessive

That's the problem right there. As we didn't present any new evidence the appeal was merely procedural in nature, focusing on whether the initial tribunal was conducted properly. It's pretty common in other areas of the law where there is tribunal involvement (e.g. social security law and employment law) and its main function is to stop people gambling on appealing in hope that the appeal tribunal may take a different view of the facts to the initial tribunal. 

It would be rare for a review appeal to lead to a change in the decision unless the initial decision is completely wrong or there was some appearance of bias. Even in the latter case it would be likely that the case would just be sent back to be reheard by a different tribunal. 

And on your CAS point, it's pretty rare for CAS to get involved in such cases as CAS generally trusts that the governing body has properly applied the relevant laws. In any case, it'd take 3-12 months for a result to be reached so the ban would've already ended well before any arbitration award takes effect. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

As an aside, it appears that there was an altercation between the players concerned can't The FA see that two opposition players would take great satisfaction screwing over their counterpart ?

This whole thing stinks like a kipper on a sunbed .

 

He should have played the race card and got a few mates to back him up and get Davis banned in the process. It seems no evidence is needed, and just a 2 against 1 one scenario, and that is good enough for the FA.

[cidercity1987]

I have never heard of a player being banned where neither a video, the referee, the assistant referee, the other assistant referee nor the 4th official saw anything!

What a dangerous precedent! 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, LegalEagle said:

That's the problem right there. As we didn't present any new evidence the appeal was merely procedural in nature, focusing on whether the initial tribunal was conducted properly. It's pretty common in other areas of the law where there is tribunal involvement (e.g. social security law and employment law) and its main function is to stop people gambling on appealing in hope that the appeal tribunal may take a different view of the facts to the initial tribunal. 

It would be rare for a review appeal to lead to a change in the decision unless the initial decision is completely wrong or there was some appearance of bias. Even in the latter case it would be likely that the case would just be sent back to be reheard by a different tribunal. 

And on your CAS point, it's pretty rare for CAS to get involved in such cases as CAS generally trusts that the governing body has properly applied the relevant laws. In any case, it'd take 3-12 months for a result to be reached so the ban would've already ended well before any arbitration award takes effect. 

Interesting, will look into that a bit more certainly. Feels dubious to me however.

Bias? No, not necessarily. More a potential instance of 'case not proven' I'd say. One word v another, no video footage how the hell is that conclusive?

AC Milan's case in front of CAS seemed to be pretty quick- less than a month from start to finish. On paper this case is less complex so a decent timeframe should be possible.

Indeed my CAS idea isn't so much even about this case in some ways, more how the decision was reached and the seemingly flimsy grounds- perhaps it could set a precedent for future FA hearings?

[BobBobSuperBob]

Interesting

And Finally

All is revealed

On RB Forum LJ has revealed the evidence consisted of written reports by two players saying that Famara spat in Davis’s face

No other evidence just their word x 2

Lee spoke very well about it

[JamesBCFC]

LJ "The only evidence was written reports by 2 Birmingham players. The referee and assistant referee saw nothing, and video evidence was inconclusive."

Later says he wants a reform in how the FA does procedures.

[Guest]

Well that basically says the FA are a ******* joke.

I assume we can do the same next season against one of them.....

[JamesBCFC]

Can we not get 3 players to write that Famara didn't spit, then appeal based on that?

 

That being the evidence is an absolute joke

[Mr Popodopolous]

We have to look at the CAS IMO.

Not just for this case but this system truly needs looking into and ultimately reform. This would set a precedent.

[Olé]

2 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

LJ "The only evidence was written reports by 2 Birmingham players. The referee and assistant referee saw nothing, and video evidence was inconclusive."

Wow. That's one hell of a precedent.

On the basis of writing a report alone you can get other players banned for six matches.

Who do we fancy out then? Can definitely see Britt Assombalonga kicking a small kitten out of view of anyone at AG in 3 weeks.

[Fiale]

After we play them, get 3 players to give written reports that Davis punched Famara.... simples.

[Olé]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not just for this case but this system truly needs looking into and ultimately reform. This would set a precedent.

I haven't noticed a lot of general outcry against FA decisions like this - is it a massive coincidence we've been burned by both this and the Bailey Wright thing? In both cases these are relatively new powers the FA has and in both cases we suffered significantly, and quite unexpectedly.

[JamesBCFC]

4 minutes ago, Olé said:

Wow. That's one hell of a precedent.

On the basis of writing a report alone you can get other players banned for six matches.

Who do we fancy out then? Can definitely see Britt Assombalonga kicking a small kitten out of view of anyone at AG in 3 weeks.

Do you think the FA would get suspicious if we did it after every game?

Although if they did, it would (hopefully) highlight to them how stupid their ruling was.

[BobBobSuperBob]

The telling point for me was the indication that nothing appeared to have been raised at the time 

 

[Guest]

On 21/06/2018 at 22:24, BS4 on Tour... said:

The FA’s judicial panel would not hand out a six game ban with no evidence, they wouldn’t act retrospectively just based on hearsay especially as the panel includes top lawyers experienced in dealing with football cases....they have no obligation to make evidence public knowledge, just as law courts don’t release evidence involved in all the cases on which they pass judgement...if we have a right to appeal then more will be revealed... 

It now seems they certainly have, unless LJ is telling porkies. As I and many others have said, they are a disgrace, and deserve to be labelled dinosaurs imo.