seagulls99
Active member
- Feb 10, 2012
- 400
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] "You're black and you stink" Rodriquez comment to Bong? - FA say not proven
- Thread starter El Presidente
- Start date
Thanks. Can't read all of that as I don't subscribe, but it says his appeal includes "evidence from a lip-reader testifying that he did not use words attributed to him by Bong"
That suggests that there is footage of his communication with Bong, that the FA had seen before they charged him.
I guess we won't get much more for a while.
Jimmehh
Well-known member
Jay Rodriguez has submitted his appeal against the FA’s misconduct charge as he seeks to avoid a five-match ban for allegedly racially abusing Brighton & Hove Albion’s Gaetan Bong.
The West Bromwich Albion striker is understood to have included character statements from players and managers at several Premier League clubs in addition to his own as part of his submission, as well as evidence from a lip-reader testifying that he did not use words attributed to him by Bong.
Rodriguez has maintained his innocence throughout and described Bong’s claims as a “false allegation” after being charged by the FA last month. Having appealed against the FA charge the 28-year-old’s fate will be determined by a three-person independent disciplinary commission, who under rules introduced in 2013 will hand out a minimum five-match ban if he is found guilty.
Bong has accused Rodriguez of saying “you’re black and you stink”
Rodriguez was charged with using “abusive and/or insulting words which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race,” last month following an incident during West Brom’s 2-0 win over Brighton on January 13.
The Times revealed the day after the game that Bong accused Rodriguez of saying “you’re black and you stink” to him during their second-half altercation, an allegation the Cameroon international repeated in a formal complaint to the FA the following day.
The independent panel will interview both players and other witnesses from both clubs, but have yet to set a date for the hearing. The FA initially gave Rodriguez until February 16 to respond, but later gave him a three-week extension due to the sensitive and unusual nature of the charge. West Brom have supported him throughout.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
Ah, the classic "He's not that type of lad" and "he has black friends"
Let me be clear, I have NO IDEA if he did it or didn't and I wouldn't even speculate as to whether he did......but what is the point of character references? I don't think it would have ANY bearing of indicating if he has said something stupid.
Ron Atkinson. His character reference? A breakthrough manager who brought black players into his team when many other managers would have been scared to. That's the same Ron Atkinson who then said some despicable things about Marcel Desailly. His character reference would have been glowing.
Not going to comment on the evidence of the case, but the "he's not that sort of player" defence tends to get very short shrift among fans and the media when someone's had their leg broken in a horror tackle.
Completely agree. It's a simple case really - he either did or didn't say it (or it'll be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he either did or didn't say it) . A few nice words from a pal of his who wasn't there has no real relevance. I get the lipreader evidence, that makes sense.
Box of Frogs
Zamoras Left Boot
You only have to do a YouTube search for Bad Lip Reading to see how 'useful' the lip readers evidence will be.
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,663
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I thought the three week extension was because of WBA going to Barcelona, not because of the sensitive and unusual nature of the case.
It was because he couldn’t get a taxi to the hearing.
Bob!
Coffee Buyer
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,630
Klaas
I've changed this
- Nov 1, 2017
- 2,663
This has nothing to do with lip reading.
Yes, I know I posted it myself. Still, it is funny.
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
Firstly, the criminal law 'reasonable doubt' requirement is unipolar, in that a person is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have done something. This doesn't mean they are proven beyond reasonable doubt not to have done something. Secondly, this isn't a criminal law case, and so it won't need to proven beyond reasonable doubt that he made racist comments. The case is decided 'on the balance of probabilities', and whatever the eventual outcome, I suspect it won't settle the debate. See John Terry.
That's brilliant
BensGrandad
New member
Wasnt it suggested that his hand obscured his mouth when he spoke so a lip reader couldnt be certain of what he surely.
In the footage we saw we couldn't see, but presumably there's more footage, otherwise him getting a lip-reader would be a waste of time, and the charge would be based on what people at the time heard.
seagulls4ever
New member
- Oct 2, 2003
- 4,338
Is it just me or are we hearing loads about Rodriguez, how he's coping, what he's doing, how the club are sticking by him etc. etc. but naff all anywhere about the actual (alleged) victim of it?
Why do we have to hear what Pardew thinks about it when his man is the one who's been charged?
Why do we have to hear what Pardew thinks about it when his man is the one who's been charged?