Tonev The Racist

[AberdeenAngus]

Any allegation requires absolute proof to achieve certainty, and in this case there was no absolute proof, only a decision about who was considered to be the more credible witness.

And for the record I'm a Jags fan, so WTF are you on about when you talk about my club????

I haven't claimed you supported Celtic or at least it wasn't my intention - I got caught out with that a couple of weeks ago.

If players and clubs are encouraged to report these incidents as part of the Kick It Out campaign then the due process has to take place.

I don't think any player would make the allegation lightly or choose to go through that process. Did young Ferdinand not go through something similar with John Terry not too long ago?

Either the game drops the campaign or it takes on every case and judges it on its merits.

As I have stated there are cases in law where civil cases are judged on the same balance of probabilities - as long as the SFA follow the same principles as in law then I can't see the problem. Too many people haven't grasped the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. As this was not a criminal court there is does not require on the SFA to prove beyond reasonable doubt - only on the balance of probabilities after hearing all the testament available to them which went beyond just asking both players.

Wanting the player sacked for a tweet which doesn't contain any abuse or inappropriate language is simply absurd. I;d have preferred he'd not done that but I imagine the club will advise him that it maybe wasn't his brightest idea.

Edited December 16, 2014 by AberdeenAngus

[Fred_Zeppelin]

I haven't claimed you supported Celtic or at least it wasn't my intention - I got caught out with that a couple of weeks ago.

If players and clubs are encouraged to report these incidents as part of the Kick It Out campaign then the due process has to take place.

I don't think any player would make the allegation lightly or choose to go through that process. Did young Ferdinand not go through something similar with John Terry not too long ago?

Either the game drops the campaign or it takes on every case and judges it on its merits.

As I have stated there are cases in law where civil cases are judged on the same balance of probabilities - as long as the SFA follow the same principles as in law then I can't see the problem. Too many people haven't grasped the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. As this was not a criminal court there is not require on the SFA to prove beyond reasonable doubt only on the balance of probabilities after hearing all the testament available to them which went beyond just asking both players.

Wanting the player sacked for a tweet which doesn't contain any abuse or inappropriate language is simply absurd. I;d have preferred he'd not done that but I imagine the club will advise him that it maybe wasn't his brightest idea.

There is a "Not Proven" verdict, which is the appropriate verdict in this case IMHO.

[Maq]

Maybe he had been racially abused, and rather than condemn the abuse, the club of the offender instead tried to portray him as a liar of bad character.

And perhaps now that the appeal jury has also found the offender guilty, he feels he has the right to say GIRFUY to the offender

[AberdeenAngus]

There is a "Not Proven" verdict, which is the appropriate verdict in this case IMHO.

But not in view of 2 SFA panels which are opinions which count.

You can keep on spinning this out as long as you like but Logan, Aberdeen, the referee and the SFA have played everything by the book and your man has been judged to have committed the offence as stated TWICE.

Maybe just maybe the correct decision has been arrived at but you have backed yourself into a corner and can't bring yourself to admit that Tonev may have been in the wrong.

[Fred_Zeppelin]

But not in view of 2 SFA panels which are opinions which count.

You can keep on spinning this out as long as you like but Logan, Aberdeen, the referee and the SFA have played everything by the book and your man has been judged to have committed the offence as stated TWICE.

Maybe just maybe the correct decision has been arrived at but you have backed yourself into a corner and can't bring yourself to admit that Tonev may have been in the wrong.

I've never denied Tonev may be in the wrong. It's perfectly possible he was. It's equally possible he wasn't. There isn't enough proof to decide either way as far as I'm concerned.

[Barney Rubble]

I haven't claimed you supported Celtic or at least it wasn't my intention - I got caught out with that a couple of weeks ago.

OK - my sincerest apologies if I picked you up wrongly on that one.

If players and clubs are encouraged to report these incidents as part of the Kick It Out campaign then the due process has to take place.

I don't think any player would make the allegation lightly or choose to go through that process. Did young Ferdinand not go through something similar with John Terry not too long ago?

Either the game drops the campaign or it takes on every case and judges it on its merits.

As I have stated there are cases in law where civil cases are judged on the same balance of probabilities - as long as the SFA follow the same principles as in law then I can't see the problem. Too many people haven't grasped the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. As this was not a criminal court there is does not require on the SFA to prove beyond reasonable doubt - only on the balance of probabilities after hearing all the testament available to them which went beyond just asking both players.

Racism is wrong and unacceptable. It is also a very serious allegation and, in my humble opinion, shouldn't be placed on someone's character on 'the basis of probability'. Such an allegation should be substantiated by clear proof.

Wanting the player sacked for a tweet which doesn't contain any abuse or inappropriate language is simply absurd. I;d have preferred he'd not done that but I imagine the club will advise him that it maybe wasn't his brightest idea.

With respect, I disagree. If it is proven that the posting is true (which has yet to be confirmed), then its tone is totally inappropriate in the circumstances.

[Barney Rubble]

Maybe he had been racially abused, and rather than condemn the abuse, the club of the offender instead tried to portray him as a liar of bad character.

And perhaps now that the appeal jury has also found the offender guilty, he feels he has the right to say GIRFUY to the offender

The point being that whom you term 'the offender' hasn't been found guilty - he's been found to be the less credible witness by the SFA appeals panel.

[Parklife]

The point being that whom you term 'the offender' hasn't been found guilty - he's been found to be the less credible witness by the SFA appeals panel.

He's been found, on the balance of probability, to be guilty.

[AberdeenAngus]

I've never denied Tonev may be in the wrong. It's perfectly possible he was. It's equally possible he wasn't. There isn't enough proof to decide either way as far as I'm concerned.

Are you Celtic's QC?

If not you can't state that as you weren't at the hearing and besides and at the risk of repeating myself this was not a criminal case requiring beyond reasonable doubt proof. Tonev was found guilty because he wasn't believed and Logan was, backed up by circumstantial evidence from the referee.

I would also say if Celtic felt it may be true chasing a 'not proven' is disappointing - we'll never know that though so I'd better not step into the realms of speculating.

[Maq]

The point being that whom you term 'the offender' hasn't been found guilty - he's been found to be the less credible witness by the SFA appeals panel.

He's been banned. Logan probably sees that as justified.

So would I if I'd been racially abused

[Fred_Zeppelin]

Are you Celtic's QC?

If not you can't state that as you weren't at the hearing and besides and at the risk of repeating myself this was not a criminal case requiring beyond reasonable doubt proof. Tonev was found guilty because he wasn't believed and Logan was, backed up by circumstantial evidence from the referee.

I would also say if Celtic felt it may be true chasing a 'not proven' is disappointing - we'll never know that though so I'd better not step into the realms of speculating.

The SFA released the notes and reasons for the the verdict. They believed Logan and didn't believe Tonev. There was no other evidence of what was said. Not proven IMHO.

[Barney Rubble]

He's been found, on the balance of probability, to be guilty.

On the basis of being the less credible witness, but not on absolute proof, Parkie.

[Parklife]

The SFA released the notes and reasons for the the verdict. They believed Logan and didn't believe Tonev. There was no other evidence of what was said. Not proven IMHO.

It's a pity the SFA hired an experienced and well qualified legal professional to adjudicate in the case. Maybe they should've just got a blinkered tim like you to do it and saved a few quid.

[Parklife]

On the basis of being the less credible witness, but not on absolute proof, Parkie.

Every ban in Scottish football is on the basis of balance of probability.

It seems you and celtic are the only folk who think Tonev should have the rules changed for him.

[AberdeenAngus]

I haven't claimed you supported Celtic or at least it wasn't my intention - I got caught out with that a couple of weeks ago.

OK - my sincerest apologies if I picked you up wrongly on that one.

If players and clubs are encouraged to report these incidents as part of the Kick It Out campaign then the due process has to take place.

I don't think any player would make the allegation lightly or choose to go through that process. Did young Ferdinand not go through something similar with John Terry not too long ago?

Either the game drops the campaign or it takes on every case and judges it on its merits.

As I have stated there are cases in law where civil cases are judged on the same balance of probabilities - as long as the SFA follow the same principles as in law then I can't see the problem. Too many people haven't grasped the difference between balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt. As this was not a criminal court there is does not require on the SFA to prove beyond reasonable doubt - only on the balance of probabilities after hearing all the testament available to them which went beyond just asking both players.

Racism is wrong and unacceptable. It is also a very serious allegation and, in my humble opinion, shouldn't be placed on someone's character on 'the basis of probability'. Such an allegation should be substantiated by clear proof.

Wanting the player sacked for a tweet which doesn't contain any abuse or inappropriate language is simply absurd. I;d have preferred he'd not done that but I imagine the club will advise him that it maybe wasn't his brightest idea.

With respect, I disagree. If it is proven that the posting is true (which has yet to be confirmed), then its tone is totally inappropriate in the circumstances.

Seriously?

You'd sack an employee for that tweet?

I can only assume you don't run your own business or are responsible for the hiring and firing of staff.

I don't think he should be tweeting anything about it but all he's done is back the KIck It Out campaign albeit inadvisedly but I can't see which employment law he's broken.

Sad day in our country when we have a person hounded for reporting racism.

[TartanJon]

At the time while the game was going on Logan went ####in nuts when Tonev abused him telling Reynolds,the ref & Derek McInnes (while Aberdeen were celebrating a goal).Reynolds in turn told the linesman and McInnes spoke to John Collins.

Tonev said he didn't know what a khunt meant

That's what Celtic fans are defending

[Barney Rubble]

Every ban in Scottish football is on the basis of balance of probability.

It seems you and celtic are the only folk who think Tonev should have the rules changed for him.

Racism is a serious allegation, Parkie.

Would you want to be branded a racist for life on the balance of probability?

[Fred_Zeppelin]

It's a pity the SFA hired an experienced and well qualified legal professional to adjudicate in the case. Maybe they should've just got a blinkered tim like you to do it and saved a few quid.

I find it amazing that some Scottish football fans have suddenly found absolute faith in the SFA, it's judicial processes and the decisions it makes.

Amazing, absolutely amazing.

[Barney Rubble]

Seriously?

You'd sack an employee for that tweet?

I can only assume you don't run your own business or are responsible for the hiring and firing of staff.

I don't think he should be tweeting anything about it but all he's done is back the KIck It Out campaign albeit inadvisedly but I can't see which employment law he's broken.

Sad day in our country when we have a person hounded for reporting racism.

In the circumstances, that post (if true) was injudicious in the extreme - can we agree on that at least?

[AberdeenAngus]

In the circumstances, that post (if true) was injudicious in the extreme - can we agree on that at least?

Yes.I'd agree though your use of the word extreme is ... well extreme. It was ill advised to invite any further comment on the case in this way.

It does however seem to be the way of the world for some to use social media to express their feelings and as long as it is not unlawful then however much some us don't agree then no crime has been committed.

Don't think he's broken any employment or football law/guideline.

No doubt will have a heap of nutters replying which is why I would think the club will have a quiet word about it.

[Scotunited]

Tonev is 100% guilty, why would Logan make it up? why would he report it to ref teammate and manager, if he was not 100% sure what he heard.? Logan did everything a player should do, the evidence provided by the panel back this up, and still some think Tonev is being punished.

during a match players will slag each other off about lots of things, and none would be reported or cause that much offence. it is the words used by Tonev that caused a natural reaction by someone hearing racist abuse. Simply dening that he said those words is not a credible defence, based on the evidence submitted.

What would the Tonev apologists say if Logan had said after the match and not reported it? if Aberdeen lost it would have been put down to bad loser.

Celtic need to accept the punishment and then take steps to show they take matter serious, instead they go into defence mode, and blame everyone but the loan player!

[Orraloon]

If I was Tonev and innocent, I would take the SFA to a civil court for defamation to try to clear my name.

If I was Tonev and guilty, I would do the same because if I didn't, folk would assume I was guilty.

[Parklife]

I find it amazing that some Scottish football fans have suddenly found absolute faith in the SFA, it's judicial processes and the decisions it makes.

Amazing, absolutely amazing.

Not at all. But your claims that rules in place should be circumvented just because it suits you, is as stupid as it is hilarious.

[Scotunited]

If I was Tonev and innocent, I would take the SFA to a civil court for defamation to try to clear my name.

If I was Tonev and guilty, I would do the same because if I didn't, folk would assume I was guilty.

But Tonev is guilty, the evidence released is clear for a blind mand to see! Tonev would get more respect accepting punishment and apologising to Logan and Celtic for his comments

[Rossy]

The SFA released the notes and reasons for the the verdict. They believed Logan and didn't believe Tonev. There was no other evidence of what was said. Not proven IMHO.

That's fine.

You believe that, and everyone else will quite happily accept the guilty verdict from both panels.

7 game ban for racist remarks, that's the end of it, let's move on.