Tonev... alleged racist abuse (7 match ban)

[olaftab]

We don't need to do that. We need to trust the process and not not pick because we don't like the outcome.

[paul_e]

We don't need to do that. We need to trust the process and not not pick because we don't like the outcome.

The issue is though, if there's no real evidence and the ban has come on the back of the other players say it's very difficult to trust the process, that's the point people are making.  Back when it came out there were a lot of comments from journalists about how it was unlikely to come to anything because there didn't appear to be any evidence.  It's therefore perfectly acceptable to question what evidence has been used.  No one outside the process has enough details to know what to think but the immediate annoucement that Tonev and Celtic are going to appeal suggests the case is pretty flimsy.

I'm not defending him and I'm not nit-picking, I'm just a touch unsure how they've come to this point based on everything that has been made public.  My worry is he's proven to be an easy target so the SFA can show how seriously they take racism pretty much all of the other big racism cases in top level football in the UK there has been compelling evidence involved for it to lead to a ban, the only allegation I can think of that had absolutely no evidence was the mikel/clattenburg one; which was dismissed for a lack of evidence.

The major concern I have with this is that if they have banned him on the word of the other player that's a dangerous precedent set for the future and could lead to some players having their careers harmed almost entirely through malice.

[JD]

By all accounts Celtic are appealing the decision so maybe the evidence does not totally stack up. I won't make any rash judgements yet.

[rob_bridge]

If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.

Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment

We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic

[supertom]

The trouble is though, whilst it appears to be one word against another, there's no logical reason said victim should have decided to make it up. Tonev has obviously said something to cause offence. It's whether he was misheard, or something was lost in translation I suppose. But Tonev has to prove that if he wants the ban overturned. If it remains it's a big blot on his CV, an even bigger one than his shot accuracy stats.

[paul_e]

The trouble is though, whilst it appears to be one word against another, there's no logical reason said victim should have decided to make it up. Tonev has obviously said something to cause offence. It's whether he was misheard, or something was lost in translation I suppose. But Tonev has to prove that if he wants the ban overturned. If it remains it's a big blot on his CV, an even bigger one than his shot accuracy stats.

You can't base justice on 'why would he lie?'; it just doesn't work that way. Why in this case does it appear as if all of the requirements are on Tonev proving he didn't say something rather than the other way round, that's what doesn't add up for me.

[placeforparks]

We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic

and tonev isn't suarez or john terry...

[Witton Warrior]

If guilty of the offence and he is aware enough to realise what he has done wrong then re-education (that sounds a little too Cultural Revolution but you know what I mean) is the way. If not then he should be let go.

We all do things we shouldn't and it is the way we react that is the measure of the person I feel.

His football "talent" has nothing to do with it, if it was Guzan/Benteke/Weiman I would say the same.

[supertom]

The trouble is though, whilst it appears to be one word against another, there's no logical reason said victim should have decided to make it up. Tonev has obviously said something to cause offence. It's whether he was misheard, or something was lost in translation I suppose. But Tonev has to prove that if he wants the ban overturned. If it remains it's a big blot on his CV, an even bigger one than his shot accuracy stats.

You can't base justice on 'why would he lie?'; it just doesn't work that way. Why in this case does it appear as if all of the requirements are on Tonev proving he didn't say something rather than the other way round, that's what doesn't add up for me.

As far as racism in football goes they're always going to take the word of the accuser initially when it's one word sgainst the other. It's highly likely Tonev said something. Until they publicly reveal just what he allegedly said, it's hard to judge.

But as we've seen in the media recently one persons word against another, with little or no evidence can get someone sent to jail.

Rightly or wrongly they've charged Tonev and given him his ban. I'm not sure they'll overturn, short of him being able to provide some genuine evidence to the contrary. I don't know whether the victim in question had any witness accounts from team-mates, or the ref, or not.
It's not something they're ever going to take lightly so I understand the response. However a seven game ban on one word against another? It's harsh, but the whole case is unclear. It's not like the Terry/Ferdinand case where video was released on Youtube for all the world to see. In all honestly, Terry got off lightly, purely because he's John Terry.

I just wonder if there's more to it than they're letting on.

If some foreign players seem to be claiming they've been misunderstood (The Suarez excuse, which in his case was absolute bollocks) then clubs should be trying to educate players from other cultures in what language could be deemed offensive.

[paul_e]

I'm convinced there's more to it.

As for what he said, apparently it was to call him a 'stupid black ******', I found a few reports from around the internet that all use the same phrase so it's the best guess we have.

[tomd2103]

If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.

Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment

We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic

It was a while ago, but have you seen the footage of when Mark Walters played his first game for Rangers there?

[rob_bridge]

If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.

Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment

We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic

It was a while ago, but have you seen the footage of when Mark Walters played his first game for Rangers there?

It was a long time ago. They were certainly not the only ones dishing out such ignorant bile at the time to black players..

I hope they have moved on aside from the few bone heads which infest most clubs.

[tomd2103]

If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.

Quite right to appeal if they think the verdict is incorrect. Not the punishment

We are not Chelski or Klanfield Liverpool. And neither I hope are Celtic

It was a while ago, but have you seen the footage of when Mark Walters played his first game for Rangers there?

It was a long time ago. They were certainly not the only ones dishing out such ignorant bile at the time to black players..

I hope they have moved on aside from the few bone heads which infest most clubs.

There were also quite a large number of clubs whose fans who didn't behave like that at the time (if you haven't seen the footage, the game had to be halted so they could remove bananas from the pitch).  Like Liverpool and Everton though, that's been airbrushed out of history now and it's widely accepted by SKY types that they are the best fans in the world.

[lovejoy]

He's appealing it apparently so let's not rush to judgement.

[ChicagoLion]

If he's found guilty then he deserves the book thrown at him.

He would volley it out of the ground.