Just read quite a bit of it.
The only evidence is JL and MB saying they heard him say what they said he said.
They’ve based their decision on the assumption they are not lying and that KC probably said something but they don’t know what that was.
Not sure where Kiko goes from here. It’s a bad stain on his reputation but if true he deserves the punishment.
It doesn’t reflect well on Casilla at all.
Sad to read that Casilla has made so little effort to learn English that he still needs an interpreter to converse properly with team mates.
Where did the supposed "Mark the black guy" comment come from that everyone believed, as that's very clearly not the case?
It’s strange that only those two heard the phrase. Eddie was in the box and was a witness for the FA. He said:
In his witness statement EN stated
‘[I] noticed [KC] was involved in a bit of back and forward with [JL]. I think that
JL was backing into KC and KC was moving him off him. I think there were a few words which were being said between the two of them, but I don’t recall hearing anything specific as this was just normal behaviour at a corner. I recall that the referee came over to speak to them, but I assumed that this was because of the back and forth that I just described. I couldn’t hear what the referee said to them’.
52) EN also referenced the altercation in his oral evidence. He described having head JL and KC ‘swear at each other ... I just remember hearing swear words ... chit chat throughout the corner being taken’.
Of course the incident was after Kiko had cleared the ball but surely others must have heard?
"The FA would like to express its thanks to the witnesses in this case for their assistance, professionalism and full co-operation throughout the process."
So, was that 22 players, the ref and 2 linesmen?..
Or just a couple that got their story together?..
Something isn't right here but the blame game can always be proved in favour of the person(s) using it!..
And good mates that'll stand by each other!..
Interesting that:
a) Kiko claiming he had never heard of the N word - highly unlikely and therefore seriously undermining his case
b) All LUFC witnesses, BW, TR, MG, etc. come across as unreliable - giving more credence to the CAFC players (JL and MB).
So I can understand the decision.
comment by middlesexwhite (U4520)
posted 16 minutes ago
Interesting that:
a) Kiko claiming he had never heard of the N word - highly unlikely and therefore seriously undermining his case
b) All LUFC witnesses, BW, TR, MG, etc. come across as unreliable - giving more credence to the CAFC players (JL and MB).
So I can understand the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, I agree with you.
Have read the whole thing. Even with my LUFC bias, I accept their decisions - Kiko is not a racist, but did make a racist remark, and was aware he was making it. Case proven.
Hopefully Meslier will keep his place for the rest of the season and Kiko will either come back stronger next year or will have moved back to Spain.
Observers for the FA
Observers (the FA)
Tom Courtney (FA Regulatory Legal Administrator
Barney Ellis (Senior Legal Counsel, West Bromwich Albion FC)
Luke Dowling (Technical Director, West Bromwich Albion FC)
Also
We also considered the submission that, pretty much regardless of the factual conclusions
that we reached in relation to the altercation before the Corner, that altercation was so
minor and insignificant that it could not reasonably have prompted anyone, let alone KC,
to have reacted with the insult alleged. While we agreed that that was a factor to which
weight had to be given, we accepted the FA’s submission that on occasion, and for little
or no apparent reason, a wholly inappropriate reaction can result from the most
insignificant of triggers.
The FA also asked for a 10 match ban, which would suitably impact on the rest of our season to the obvious benefit of teams very close to us in the league at this time
It stinks
"Barney Ellis (Senior Legal Counsel, West Bromwich Albion FC)
Luke Dowling (Technical Director, West Bromwich Albion FC)"
Er, should this sort of thing be allowed, they can vote and it means them voting against a main rival!..
That stinks, these things are against other clubs and should not have anyone on the panel belonging to a rival club!..
Sigh..
Going to let it digest before adding a comment
Read it. Kiko needs sacking. Anything less from the club is an absolute disgrace and akin to the racism in the 70/80s, would hope we’ve moved on from that.
If Kiko is supported by the club, i’d be shocked.
I expect can any club in the EFL can ask to attend these hearings.
Observers can not vote or have any say in the outcome - only the 3 Commissioners would have a vote.
comment by Afridi14... ( ليدز_يونايتد )You gotta love it!! (U2805)
posted 5 minutes ago
Read it. Kiko needs sacking. Anything less from the club is an absolute disgrace and akin to the racism in the 70/80s, would hope we’ve moved on from that.
If Kiko is supported by the club, i’d be shocked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiko was found not to be a racist, but he did say something racist on the balance of probability. Case closed, but he still denies it. He can take his punishment and the club can take whatever decision.
An independent panel/committee member/advisor etc should be that, independent. This is a serious matter and decisions stand up to scrutiny and not be open to debate because somewhere in the process there is a potential conflict of interest.
I've not read through the FAs findings fully, just skimmed a little thus far.
No one comes out of this with all their integrity intact.
Afridi14... ( ليدز_يونايتد )You go... (U2805)
posted 7 minutes ago
Read it. Kiko needs sacking. Anything less from the club is an absolute disgrace and akin to the racism in the 70/80s, would hope we’ve moved on from that.
If Kiko is supported by the club, i’d be shocked.
------------------------------------------------------------
Afridi like you i believe theres no room for racists at our club , But the report states they have not found KC to be a racist, nor can they prove he said what 2 Charlton players stated,
Page 56
11) We consider KC’s conduct in this case to fit that description. While we accept
a) That KC is not a racist, and
b) That KC’s language was wholly out of character
Was not long ago Wayne Hennessy claimed he didn’t know what the nattzi salute was and he got away with the photograph.
At the time i thought that’s absurd.
Seems Kiko has attempted to go down the same route which is even more absurd. Totally ridiculous claim to say that at 30-odd years of age he’s never heard of the n word.
I’d have doubled the ban on that basis alone
This whole episode dosnt sit well with me at all now
middlesexwhite (U4520)
posted 22 minutes ago
I expect can any club in the EFL can ask to attend these hearings.
Observers can not vote or have any say in the outcome - only the 3 Commissioners would have a vote.
--------------------------------------------------
In the latter parts of that report the FA are providing what i can only see as "guidance" and recommendations to the Panel such as how small altercations in the build up to a corner can lead to more serious things
And the recommendation for a 10 match ban.
"b) All LUFC witnesses, BW, TR, MG, etc. come across as unreliable - giving more credence to the CAFC players (JL and MB)."
Basically means that our players are lying and the Charlton players are telling the truth!..
I wonder if the panel was an independent panel,(not full with West Brom members!)would they have said the Charlton players were telling the truth, why should our players be accused of being unreliable when their players could just as easily be lying?..
Its just another farce that shows the authorities have no idea!..
High,
Agreed that it states he’s not a racist, but a multicultural Goalkeeper played with all races, all of a sudden chooses the most racist term probably used in the English language, this stinks as far as I’m concerned. I’ve read the report and agree with the FA, only conclusion they could have come to.
WBA were present as Leko is their player - so they had an interest. However, they would not have had any say in the outcome.
My comments about LUFC witnesses comes from reading the report and coming to my own conclusions. Couple of examples:
a) the comment about when the LUFC team first heard about the N word - and the different statements from the players
b) KC and MG going to the officials room after the match but do not ask what the whole issue is about - does that ring true?
I do not believe Kiko is racist but reading the report, it is clear that he was riled and said something and the probability is that he did say what the CAFC players said.
Now one could say the report is written to reflect that outcome - but one can only comment on what is available..
Someone put a comment to the effect that Kiko allegedly shouted F****** N***** and only 2 players out of all those on the pitch including officials heard him say it nor did FA footage or Youtube clips show a head on image of Kiko shouting or who he was shouting at.
Also bearing in mind there were probably 30,000 people also making themselves heard at the time it seems pretty remarkable.
Sign in if you want to comment
FA Reasons re Casilla Ban
Page 1 of 3
posted on 3/3/20
well, that settles it
posted on 3/3/20
So he's probably guilty
posted on 3/3/20
Just read quite a bit of it.
The only evidence is JL and MB saying they heard him say what they said he said.
They’ve based their decision on the assumption they are not lying and that KC probably said something but they don’t know what that was.
Not sure where Kiko goes from here. It’s a bad stain on his reputation but if true he deserves the punishment.
posted on 3/3/20
It doesn’t reflect well on Casilla at all.
posted on 3/3/20
Sad to read that Casilla has made so little effort to learn English that he still needs an interpreter to converse properly with team mates.
posted on 3/3/20
Where did the supposed "Mark the black guy" comment come from that everyone believed, as that's very clearly not the case?
posted on 3/3/20
It’s strange that only those two heard the phrase. Eddie was in the box and was a witness for the FA. He said:
In his witness statement EN stated
‘[I] noticed [KC] was involved in a bit of back and forward with [JL]. I think that
JL was backing into KC and KC was moving him off him. I think there were a few words which were being said between the two of them, but I don’t recall hearing anything specific as this was just normal behaviour at a corner. I recall that the referee came over to speak to them, but I assumed that this was because of the back and forth that I just described. I couldn’t hear what the referee said to them’.
52) EN also referenced the altercation in his oral evidence. He described having head JL and KC ‘swear at each other ... I just remember hearing swear words ... chit chat throughout the corner being taken’.
Of course the incident was after Kiko had cleared the ball but surely others must have heard?
posted on 3/3/20
"The FA would like to express its thanks to the witnesses in this case for their assistance, professionalism and full co-operation throughout the process."
So, was that 22 players, the ref and 2 linesmen?..
Or just a couple that got their story together?..
Something isn't right here but the blame game can always be proved in favour of the person(s) using it!..
And good mates that'll stand by each other!..
posted on 3/3/20
Interesting that:
a) Kiko claiming he had never heard of the N word - highly unlikely and therefore seriously undermining his case
b) All LUFC witnesses, BW, TR, MG, etc. come across as unreliable - giving more credence to the CAFC players (JL and MB).
So I can understand the decision.
posted on 3/3/20
comment by middlesexwhite (U4520)
posted 16 minutes ago
Interesting that:
a) Kiko claiming he had never heard of the N word - highly unlikely and therefore seriously undermining his case
b) All LUFC witnesses, BW, TR, MG, etc. come across as unreliable - giving more credence to the CAFC players (JL and MB).
So I can understand the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, I agree with you.
posted on 3/3/20
Have read the whole thing. Even with my LUFC bias, I accept their decisions - Kiko is not a racist, but did make a racist remark, and was aware he was making it. Case proven.
Hopefully Meslier will keep his place for the rest of the season and Kiko will either come back stronger next year or will have moved back to Spain.
posted on 3/3/20
Observers for the FA
Observers (the FA)
Tom Courtney (FA Regulatory Legal Administrator
Barney Ellis (Senior Legal Counsel, West Bromwich Albion FC)
Luke Dowling (Technical Director, West Bromwich Albion FC)
Also
We also considered the submission that, pretty much regardless of the factual conclusions
that we reached in relation to the altercation before the Corner, that altercation was so
minor and insignificant that it could not reasonably have prompted anyone, let alone KC,
to have reacted with the insult alleged. While we agreed that that was a factor to which
weight had to be given, we accepted the FA’s submission that on occasion, and for little
or no apparent reason, a wholly inappropriate reaction can result from the most
insignificant of triggers.
The FA also asked for a 10 match ban, which would suitably impact on the rest of our season to the obvious benefit of teams very close to us in the league at this time
It stinks
posted on 3/3/20
"Barney Ellis (Senior Legal Counsel, West Bromwich Albion FC)
Luke Dowling (Technical Director, West Bromwich Albion FC)"
Er, should this sort of thing be allowed, they can vote and it means them voting against a main rival!..
That stinks, these things are against other clubs and should not have anyone on the panel belonging to a rival club!..
posted on 3/3/20
Sigh..
Going to let it digest before adding a comment
posted on 3/3/20
Read it. Kiko needs sacking. Anything less from the club is an absolute disgrace and akin to the racism in the 70/80s, would hope we’ve moved on from that.
If Kiko is supported by the club, i’d be shocked.
posted on 3/3/20
I expect can any club in the EFL can ask to attend these hearings.
Observers can not vote or have any say in the outcome - only the 3 Commissioners would have a vote.
posted on 3/3/20
comment by Afridi14... ( ليدز_يونايتد )You gotta love it!! (U2805)
posted 5 minutes ago
Read it. Kiko needs sacking. Anything less from the club is an absolute disgrace and akin to the racism in the 70/80s, would hope we’ve moved on from that.
If Kiko is supported by the club, i’d be shocked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiko was found not to be a racist, but he did say something racist on the balance of probability. Case closed, but he still denies it. He can take his punishment and the club can take whatever decision.
posted on 3/3/20
An independent panel/committee member/advisor etc should be that, independent. This is a serious matter and decisions stand up to scrutiny and not be open to debate because somewhere in the process there is a potential conflict of interest.
I've not read through the FAs findings fully, just skimmed a little thus far.
No one comes out of this with all their integrity intact.
posted on 3/3/20
Afridi14... ( ليدز_يونايتد )You go... (U2805)
posted 7 minutes ago
Read it. Kiko needs sacking. Anything less from the club is an absolute disgrace and akin to the racism in the 70/80s, would hope we’ve moved on from that.
If Kiko is supported by the club, i’d be shocked.
------------------------------------------------------------
Afridi like you i believe theres no room for racists at our club , But the report states they have not found KC to be a racist, nor can they prove he said what 2 Charlton players stated,
Page 56
11) We consider KC’s conduct in this case to fit that description. While we accept
a) That KC is not a racist, and
b) That KC’s language was wholly out of character
posted on 3/3/20
Was not long ago Wayne Hennessy claimed he didn’t know what the nattzi salute was and he got away with the photograph.
At the time i thought that’s absurd.
Seems Kiko has attempted to go down the same route which is even more absurd. Totally ridiculous claim to say that at 30-odd years of age he’s never heard of the n word.
I’d have doubled the ban on that basis alone
This whole episode dosnt sit well with me at all now
posted on 3/3/20
middlesexwhite (U4520)
posted 22 minutes ago
I expect can any club in the EFL can ask to attend these hearings.
Observers can not vote or have any say in the outcome - only the 3 Commissioners would have a vote.
--------------------------------------------------
In the latter parts of that report the FA are providing what i can only see as "guidance" and recommendations to the Panel such as how small altercations in the build up to a corner can lead to more serious things
And the recommendation for a 10 match ban.
posted on 3/3/20
"b) All LUFC witnesses, BW, TR, MG, etc. come across as unreliable - giving more credence to the CAFC players (JL and MB)."
Basically means that our players are lying and the Charlton players are telling the truth!..
I wonder if the panel was an independent panel,(not full with West Brom members!)would they have said the Charlton players were telling the truth, why should our players be accused of being unreliable when their players could just as easily be lying?..
Its just another farce that shows the authorities have no idea!..
posted on 3/3/20
High,
Agreed that it states he’s not a racist, but a multicultural Goalkeeper played with all races, all of a sudden chooses the most racist term probably used in the English language, this stinks as far as I’m concerned. I’ve read the report and agree with the FA, only conclusion they could have come to.
posted on 3/3/20
WBA were present as Leko is their player - so they had an interest. However, they would not have had any say in the outcome.
My comments about LUFC witnesses comes from reading the report and coming to my own conclusions. Couple of examples:
a) the comment about when the LUFC team first heard about the N word - and the different statements from the players
b) KC and MG going to the officials room after the match but do not ask what the whole issue is about - does that ring true?
I do not believe Kiko is racist but reading the report, it is clear that he was riled and said something and the probability is that he did say what the CAFC players said.
Now one could say the report is written to reflect that outcome - but one can only comment on what is available..
posted on 3/3/20
Someone put a comment to the effect that Kiko allegedly shouted F****** N***** and only 2 players out of all those on the pitch including officials heard him say it nor did FA footage or Youtube clips show a head on image of Kiko shouting or who he was shouting at.
Also bearing in mind there were probably 30,000 people also making themselves heard at the time it seems pretty remarkable.
Page 1 of 3