pablo marinero

[Gamma]

the more i think of it, the more i am convinced that the balance of prbablity test is more appropriate for the fa to use than the BARD test, especially if they are serious about dealing with racism in football.

BARD is appropriate for a criminal standard because of the possibility of incarceration upon conviction and the effect taht a criminal record might have on an individual.

[Paul Marin]

the more i think of it, the more i am convinced that the balance of prbablity test is more appropriate for the fa to use than the BARD test, especially if they are serious about dealing with racism in football.

BARD is appropriate for a criminal standard because of the possibility of incarceration upon conviction and the effect taht a criminal record might have on an individual.

Well, my counter to that is that the effect of having one's name reduced to dirt is just as damning as a criminal conviction. If you are a professional footballer and you are accused of racism against a black man, what happens to your £10m contract with Coca Cola when Coke have your picture on nuff billboard througout Africa? Or samething - what if you are a blackman accussed of racism against a chinese man if Coke have your photo plastered all across Asia?

The point to me is that you always have to have the highest standards when accusing anyone of a serious infraction. Things that qualify to me: racism, assault, drug abuse and theft (there may be others). Things that don't qualify would include trying to deceive the ref, certain cases of bringing the game into disrepute and libel, verbal abuse (non-racial, non-homophobic, non ethnic, e.g. calling a man a effing c-word). I am not saying the foregoing is a comprehensive list, just a list of examples.

I always look at these things and try to put myself or one of my kids in the place of the accused and ask "What would be fair?" Usually, that brings me to the right answer.

In Terry's case, I am not sure of the facts leading up to the FA's decision, so I will read their report first before I say anything. As you and I both know, context is very important, but the FA did not apply any modicum of context to the Suarez case so it will be interesting to read the report on this case.

[Gamma]

at least you have a chance to make 100,000. as opposed to not being able to make anything while in jail.

look at michael vick? he came back from a criminal conviction and is moving on with his life .....

[Paul Marin]

at least you have a chance to make 100,000. as opposed to not being able to make anything while in jail.

look at michael vick? he came back from a criminal conviction and is moving on with his life .....

I remind you that Michael Vick was found guilty in a court of law. John Terry was found innocent. Whether they are making $1 or $1m doesn't matter, its that they have been tainted without being tried under the highest standard. Could you imagine the NBA charging Kobe Bryant after his rape case was dismissed and using a lesser standard to find him guilty? The FA has to inject far more careful standards when laying down these judgments. Do you know of ANY COURT ANYWHERE with a 99.5% conviction rate? The whole thing is a joke.

[Gamma]

that is EXACTLY my point. how much worse is the stigma of a criminal conviction than a finding from FA when impacting earning potential?

unfortunately no ..... but most courts that convict use the higher standard

[Paul Marin]

that is EXACTLY my point. how much worse is the stigma of a criminal conviction than a finding from FA when impacting earning potential?

unfortunately no ..... but most courts that convict use the higher standard

Both are damaging but the average man on the street doesn't understand the difference of the two standards. As for the 99.5% conviction rate, no matter which standard you use, it's kangaroo business and cases are tried all the time in the courts on the "balance of probability standard" - what happen you never watch Judge Judy? And if you say no you lie! (Based on the balance of probabilities).

[Gamma]

of course they are damaging! they are intended to be punitive!!! how the person seeks to rehabilitate themselves or not, is the key. that is where the vick example comes in.

they are that good! why not?