Coco ban.

The guys reputation is at stake here also, only he knows what he really said. If he said nothing of the kind he is accused off then he has a clear conscience and he’s been had. If he did say something racist then he has to live with this ban and fine and a lesson learnt. Being called ‘black’ in my opinion is not a racist comment in the context and I agree the said player is a snowflake ... maybe just a flake, getting another player banned just because. He also has a reputation and has to live with what he accuses others of, I’d call him a lot worse if he was proved he is telling porkies!!! Justice hopefully will be done as said if we relegate him and his club.
Most of us on here would be getting bans on what we call each other from time to time!! :)

Usual 6 game ban from the assholes at the fa/fl why 8?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by norfolk white

What happened to innocent till proven guilty, no one could prove what he said. Not standing up for him cos if he did say it then the ban is fair, but probability is not enough, I'd probably like to sleep with my next door neighbour, won't ever happen, so I'm not guilty of it ..🤣🤣

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tichi1

Hope the Mrs doesn't read your posts fella..... Spare room for you otherwise - based on probability of course...

---

The next door neighbour might also have something to say about that scenario too - especially if he isn't that way inclined (disclaimer - other genders and self-identified variations are also available).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UbiqueLUFC33

The next door neighbour might also have something to say about that scenario too - especially if he isn't that way inclined (disclaimer - other genders and self-identified variations are also available).

---

The neighbour would be within 'their' rights to complain if the love that shouldn't speak its name was mentioned out loud too.

Especially if in the course of a chat with another neighbour about the fences between you.

I fear we're straying in Eric the Philosopher territory now.

Very good (IMHO) balanced article, good read.

https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....hapman-2042593

A great balanced article by Moscow White also noting the effects/welfare suffered by all parties during the FA long deliberations obviously drawn from his own personal experience with mental health battles ................
Interesting to see how clubs deal with FA findings whether they be John Terry,Suarez or recently Sophie Jones over racial matters.

https://www.theguardian.com/football...m-renee-hector

It's a poor process/decision from a poorly run organization.

Generally, monopolies do a worse job than organizations that have competition. we see this almost weekly with the officiating in the championship (and not just for Leeds). Many of these "refs" should have been replaced long ago. I've seen Sunday beer league officials do a better job than some of these officials. They are often part of the game rather than an official and seem to believe that people pay their hard earned money to see them.

The old saying that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies to the FA as well as many governments and monopolies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spaldy

It's a poor process/decision from a poorly run organization.

Generally, monopolies do a worse job than organizations that have competition. we see this almost weekly with the officiating in the championship (and not just for Leeds). Many of these "refs" should have been replaced long ago. I've seen Sunday beer league officials do a better job than some of these officials. They are often part of the game rather than an official and seem to believe that people pay their hard earned money to see them.

The old saying that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies to the FA as well as many governments and monopolies.

---

Well put spaldy 100% agree ... I like your comment about ref’s, so true.

An independent commission "did not accept" Leeds United goalkeeper Kiko Casilla's claim that he was "unaware of the existence" of the racist word he was found guilty of using.
The Spaniard, 33, was banned for eight matches and fined £60,000 for racially abusing Charlton Athletic forward Jonathan Leko during a Championship game at The Valley in September.
Casilla, who denied the charge, said he only learned of the word's "existence and meaning" when interviewed about the matter almost a month later.
He said he had "learned relatively little English" since his move to Leeds in January 2019 and "generally uses an interpreter to hold a conversation with an English speaker".
The commission said it accepted that Casilla "is not a racist" and that the language "was wholly out of character", but that it was "satisfied on the balance of probabilities" that he had directed a racist remark towards Leko.
The Football Association began an investigation in October and subsequently charged Casilla with a breach of FA Rule E3.
It was alleged the Spaniard's words "made reference to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin", constituting an aggravated breach, and the FA granted Casilla extra time to respond to the charge.
Under rules introduced for the 2019-20 season, the minimum suspension for a player found guilty of an aggravated breach of the FA's discrimination rules is six matches, which can be increased depending on any additional aggravating factors.
More to follow.

I bet he understands what "Phookin useless W@nker " means.

Just read the report/statement from the FA (60+ pages!). Seems it wasnt a very nice thing they have concluded he said, not sure what the club can/should do, as they have said they wont appeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfinyalcabo

An independent commission "did not accept" Leeds United goalkeeper Kiko Casilla's claim that he was "unaware of the existence" of the racist word he was found guilty of using.
The Spaniard, 33, was banned for eight matches and fined £60,000 for racially abusing Charlton Athletic forward Jonathan Leko during a Championship game at The Valley in September.
Casilla, who denied the charge, said he only learned of the word's "existence and meaning" when interviewed about the matter almost a month later.
He said he had "learned relatively little English" since his move to Leeds in January 2019 and "generally uses an interpreter to hold a conversation with an English speaker".
The commission said it accepted that Casilla "is not a racist" and that the language "was wholly out of character", but that it was "satisfied on the balance of probabilities" that he had directed a racist remark towards Leko.
The Football Association began an investigation in October and subsequently charged Casilla with a breach of FA Rule E3.
It was alleged the Spaniard's words "made reference to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin", constituting an aggravated breach, and the FA granted Casilla extra time to respond to the charge.
Under rules introduced for the 2019-20 season, the minimum suspension for a player found guilty of an aggravated breach of the FA's discrimination rules is six matches, which can be increased depending on any additional aggravating factors.
More to follow.

I bet he understands what "Phookin useless W@nker " means.

---

What aggravating factors would that be? A extra two games ... to punish our club perhaps? That’s just a ‘probability’ mind.