Famara 6 Game Ban (Merged)

[JoeAman08]

What an absolute farce that is. Though we always seem too nice a club. We should be pushing this and the Bailey Wright thing further. Two farcicle decisions made but this one really grinds. 

[InCyder]

Shambles. 

It's actually quite funny that the FA take the word of a man that had the worst disciplinary record in the league the season before last and only one booking less last season.

He probably threatened them.

[ZiderEyed]

David Davis spat at Famara.

We have 2 players who will say that he did. Ban him then?

[E.G.Red]

27 minutes ago, wood_red said:

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

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

I presume that the names  of the 2 Birmingham players will never be released

[Port Said Red]

2 minutes ago, E.G.Red said:

I presume that the names  of the 2 Birmingham players will never be released

They already have been, Dean and Davies

[BobBobSuperBob]

14 minutes ago, wood_red said:

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. 

For accuracy Wood they do have evidence , technically an accusation and corroboration from a second witness 

The debate about the strength of the evidence is valid but unless somebody can prove they have lied and their evidence discounted they do ‘ have evidence ‘

 

[Flagon]

Surely this sets a dangerous precedent.

[Sparkz 76]

Can we sue the fa with the lack of evidence and the harsh penalty Famara Diedhou received 

[Port Said Red]

4 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

For accuracy Wood they do have evidence , technically an accusation and corroboration from a second witness 

The debate about the strength of the evidence is valid but unless somebody can prove they have lied and their evidence discounted they do ‘ have evidence ‘

 

And this is the point I was making before the appeal. The way the FA work, we would have to produce clear evidence to prove that the original decision was wrong, the FA will not change their minds without it, they think it shows weakness. 

[JamesBCFC]

5 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

For accuracy Wood they do have evidence , technically an accusation and corroboration from a second witness 

The debate about the strength of the evidence is valid but unless somebody can prove they have lied and their evidence discounted they do ‘ have evidence ‘

 

Very dangerous precedent to set.

20000 or so people there, and 2 people saw it.

One being the 'victim' and one being his team mate.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

For accuracy Wood they do have evidence , technically an accusation and corroboration from a second witness 

The debate about the strength of the evidence is valid but unless somebody can prove they have lied and their evidence discounted they do ‘ have evidence ‘

 

So as said above we (or anyone) can just get 2 players together to accuse any player we/they like about spitting/racial/violence - all off camera of course, and just write to the FA and they will get massive bans?? It may well be classed as "evidence" but I don't see it myself how it can be. But if it is, we can get plenty of this so called "evidence" against anyone we want to - along with any other club.

The FA procedures are so out of date it is ridiculous, so they certainly deserve to be labelled dinosaurs imo. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

33 minutes ago, Olé said:

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.

What the FA seem to do when as you say they have relatively new powers.

For this to happen TWICE in under a year is desperately unlucky. Anyway what the FA seem to do is get new powers or launch new campaigns, pick a few high profile or soft cases then it slips away.

I think we need to push this to the Court of Arbitration for Sport personally.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So as said above we (or anyone) can just get 2 players together to accuse any player we/they like about spitting/racial/violence - all off camera of course, and just write to the FA and they will get massive bans?? It may well be classed as "evidence" but I don't see it myself how it can be. But if it is, we can get plenty of this so called "evidence" against anyone we want to - along with any other club.

The FA procedures are so out of date it is ridiculous, so they certainly deserve to be labelled dinosaurs imo. 

They are not overseen by dinosaurs (specialist sports lawyers, wider range of people to sit in judgement). However this decision reached through this procedure? Disgrace tbh.

In general terms, I get the impression we're not too popular among the FA, SAG, EFL quite probably.

[Olé]

Let's see what the FA do with Mansfield's written statement about Sheffield Wednesday players. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45012587

Presumably in the absence of any counter evidence or audio of said allegations, the FA will simply have to ban Wednesday players for months too.

I'll start holding my breath now.... 

[downendcity]

19 minutes ago, Sparkz 76 said:

Can we sue the fa with the lack of evidence and the harsh penalty Famara Diedhou received 

We'd likely end up with a points deduction if we did!

[downendcity]

18 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Very dangerous precedent to set.

20000 or so people there, and 2 people saw it.

One being the 'victim' and one being his team mate.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that I had a nose on the Brum forum.

On the day of the game there is virtually nothing  posted, other than one fan asked what the fuss was on the pitch. Again, on the day Fammy was charged, most fans that commented seemed unaware that there had been a spitting incident.

Had the tables been turned, and it was a Brum player "alleged" to have spat at one of ours at Ashton Gate, there would have been umpteen posts on here and social media, with mobile phone video of the incident from every part of the ground. Accordingly, it seems more than strange that there is no "conclusive" video as evidence in this case. Had there been no spitting incident then our forum would have been equally barren!

[downendcity]

Had it been one of Frank Lampard's Derby players allegedly spitting, with the same flimsy evidence, do we think he would have received a 6 game ban?

[Lrrr]

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

Had it been one of Frank Lampard's Derby players allegedly spitting, with the same flimsy evidence, do we think he would have received a 6 game ban?

Bailey Wright would have been banned for 3 games instead 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, downendcity said:

We'd likely end up with a points deduction if we did!

Maybe if we sued them through conventional courts.

If we followed correct channels to CAS then they certainly couldn't.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I reiterate and will expand on what I said earlier.

These 2 individuals Dean and Davis?

Hope Ashton Gate boos every last touch by those 2. Perhaps the 'banker' chant too. Sane got a proper reception for a lot less in that 2nd leg. These 2? Give both barrels! 

[BobBobSuperBob]

37 minutes ago, wood_red said:

So as said above we (or anyone) can just get 2 players together to accuse any player we/they like about spitting/racial/violence - all off camera of course, and just write to the FA and they will get massive bans?? It may well be classed as "evidence" but I don't see it myself how it can be. But if it is, we can get plenty of this so called "evidence" against anyone we want to - along with any other club.

The FA procedures are so out of date it is ridiculous, so they certainly deserve to be labelled dinosaurs imo. 

I agree

but what I’m merely saying their is ‘evidence’ for them to consider

Whether we all believe that evidence is irrelevant - it’s the infamous FA panel that matters

In a criminal court you certainly can but would do well to convict purely based on two eye witnesses 

However , like all non criminal courts ,  the FA work on a balance of probabilities 

Its certainly a dangerous precedent as many have highlighted 

 

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

33 minutes ago, Olé said:

Let's see what the FA do with Mansfield's written statement about Sheffield Wednesday players. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45012587

Presumably in the absence of any counter evidence or audio of said allegations, the FA will simply have to ban Wednesday players for months too.

I'll start holding my breath now.... 

Plenty of video of that one Rob

Two separate mass rucks

[BobBobSuperBob]

43 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

Very dangerous precedent to set.

20000 or so people there, and 2 people saw it.

One being the 'victim' and one being his team mate.

Tbf the number of people there is somewhat irrelevant James

Any spectator or anyone outside the pitch would do well to spot any (alleged) spit

[BobBobSuperBob]

I’d like to know if either player complained to the referee at the time

Im (assuming)  from what’s been said that they didn’t 

That for me , if so is the telling single fact

[CyderInACan]

1 hour ago, JonDolman said:

Unbelievable! Johnson just said the evidence is that 2 players wrote a written statement! How on earth can someone be guilty from zero evidence!?

Their statements are evidence. Don’t confuse evidence with cold hard facts. 

[jimmyb]

3 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I agree

but what I’m merely saying their is ‘evidence’ for them to consider

Whether we all believe that evidence is irrelevant - it’s the infamous FA panel that matters

In a criminal court you certainly can but would do well to convict purely based on two eye witnesses 

However , like all non criminal courts ,  the FA work on a balance of probabilities 

Its certainly a dangerous precedent as many have highlighted 

 

 

In the real world this wouldn’t get as far as a criminal court though would it. No way the CPS would prosecute on the strength of this only. No physical or independent evidence to back up the claim. Just a bloke and his mate.

Two things strike me. 

Firstly, as experienced and specialist lawyers as the FA panel may be they don’t understand the game. Spitting is generally considered the most heinous of crimes on the pitch and there is no way it happens in these circumstances, i.e. face to face, without it kicking off.

Secondly, we don’t seem to have run the original hearing well. Maybe we thought there was nothing to it so weren’t worried but that seems naive to me, particularly off the back of the Wright case. Lesson to learn for the future, take a proper hearing and use the opportunity to at least muddy the waters.

[BobBobSuperBob]

2 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Their statements are evidence. Don’t confuse evidence with cold hard facts. 

I don’t know whether you’re having a (fair) rant or making an observation

But it’s a very good and actually crucial hub of any matter / evidence  

Very few accepted ‘facts’ in most cases

 

[BobBobSuperBob]

8 minutes ago, jimmyb said:

In the real world this wouldn’t get as far as a criminal court though would it. No way the CPS would prosecute on the strength of this only. No physical or independent evidence to back up the claim. Just a bloke and his mate.

Two things strike me. 

Firstly, as experienced and specialist lawyers as the FA panel may be they don’t understand the game. Spitting is generally considered the most heinous of crimes on the pitch and there is no way it happens in these circumstances, i.e. face to face, without it kicking off.

Secondly, we don’t seem to have run the original hearing well. Maybe we thought there was nothing to it so weren’t worried but that seems naive to me, particularly off the back of the Wright case. Lesson to learn for the future, take a proper hearing and use the opportunity to at least muddy the waters.

But ITS NOT A CRIMINAL COURT

AGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

Ill say it again

ALL COURTS and tribunals , etc etc outside the Criminal Courts don’t work on that proof threshold

Thats the ‘real world’ whether you (Or I or anyone else)  like it or not

 

Out of interest

Would  you like every tribunal or court hearing to have the same burden of proof as of  a criminal court ?

 

 

 

[Olé]

19 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

Plenty of video of that one Rob

Two separate mass rucks

But presumably no actual recorded evidence of the "racism". So similar to the spitting accusation - a very serious one made in a written statement by players.

Let's see what they do on the basis of a statement and whether a Mansfield players statement has the same impact as a Birmingham City players statement.

[CyderInACan]

5 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

I don’t know whether you’re having a (fair) rant or making an observation

But it’s a very good and actually crucial hub of any matter / evidence  

Very few accepted ‘facts’ in most cases

 

Not a rant, there just seems to be a lot of people confusing evidence with truth. I could quite easily make a statement saying that City play in blue and that our goalie is Gordon Banks. That would be my evidence. Whether it’s truthful or correct is for others to decide, of course. Some don’t seem to understand the distinction.