When engaging in a civil case under Scots Law, where one witness’ testimony contradicts another, a sheriff will rule not just on what witnesses actually say, but on their demeanour, assertiveness, body language and other perceivable traits (I’m no lawyer but I’ve first-hand experience of this).
Alek Tonev’s SFA Appeal panel, faced with contradictory evidence, explained their decision on this basis, “Tonev gave his evidence in a guarded and hesitant manner”, whereas Shay Logan “gave his evidence in a careful and measured manner”.
Alek, Celtic, you and me are free to disagree with this verdict, or cite the fact that the player may have appeared hesitant because he was so uncomfortable speaking English, he attended with an interpreter (who was unused). In these circumstances hesitancy appears normal, I can’t imagine speaking at a hearing conducted in French with anything but hesitancy, so to find against the player on this basis is blatantly incongruous, but that is a side point.
Celtic threatened to take the SFA to the Council of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). My hunch is that before this Appeal was rejected, the SFA’s counsel confirmed that the panel were able to judge on matters of demeanour and manner.
CAS do not re-hear cases. In this instance, they will only determine if the grounds on which the decision was made, and subsequent punishment, were within the rules of the governing body which conducted the appeal. It is inconceivable that the SFA, who employed counsel, would return a verdict which they knew could be referred to CAS, if it broke one of their own rules.
Like you, I don’t have enough information to judge one way or the other on this one, so I’ll offer no view. Don’t be stressed that our reputation will be damaged by the charge. These incidents are so rare at Celtic they are headline news and recalled for decades (literally). This is a good thing.
Will get round to the moves being put on the SFA on other matters shortly, lots to cover this week.
Got your CQN Annual yet? Just over one week until Christmas!
269 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- »
If Celtic take the Tonev ruling meekly our place at the back of the bus has been confirmed.
Despite being the only thing keeping Scottish football going they still treat us with disdain.
Stand up for the champions.
Help wanted guys.
Two Czech friends, a Polish friend and myself want tickets for Milan. None of my mates have been to a Celtic game yet so it is a chance to further indoctrinate them into Timdom.
Can anybody help? Obviously I will pay. Are they available yet?
When will the next player get done for what Tonev was up for? I’ll bet never.These clowns know their own rule is a shambles, and will quietly change it, when nobody is looking.
Right time to settle down and watch one of my all time comedy gold movies on Sky horror channel +1 320 ;) Cowboys and Zombies !!!
Yyyeeee Hhaaaa !! Do roo roo roo roo doo roo roo roo roo roo roo do roo roo !!!
They’ve had a Whyte a Green they’ve got a Micky now they want a Tim lol lol !!!
captain beefheart
21:48 on 16 December, 2014
They’ll need to get in line mate there’s plenty of more ‘ glory hunters’ in front of them :-) HH
Pfayr,
Apols, and congratulations on your podium :))
The Spirit of Arthur Lee
21:33 on
16 December, 2014
https://twitter.com/CelticScoop/status/544964653084708864/photo/1
Hope this works
………………………………………………………….
It did, and I hope the club make representations to the fact.
A lot has been said about being up in front of them 5 times in 3 years, right so.
One of these ocasions have been for a banners that imo the club could, and should have contested, the Bobby Sands one, getting done for that was a feckin joke, the feck uefa one, prob not, but worse can be seen at many uefa games, yet nothing is done.
Same as this tweet shows, we really need to fight this.
No way am I condoning the flares, but no way should we accept this while others clubs are not sanctioned.
Just my take on things.
HH
Forgot to say,
If there is a CQN gathering which would welcome us, I would take them to it.
Captain beefheart
UEFA Europa League
Thu, February 19 2015
Kick-off 20:05
Tickets for this match go on sale to Season Ticket holders from 9am on Wednesday, 17th December.
Tickets are priced £28 Adults, £20 concessions and £16 for Under 13.
Tickets can be purchased online, by calling 0871 226 1888* or by visiting the Celtic Ticket Office.
The deadline for STH to purchase their ticket is 5pm on Monday, 5th January.
Season Ticket holders will have the opporunity to purchase additional tickets at the general sale price on Wednesday, 7th January January. Subject to availability, tickets will go on general sale on Thursday, 8th January. General sale prices are from £35 Adults, from £25 concessions and from £20 for Under 13.
If we ignore this can the BFA take it to CAS if Tonev approves ?
TET
Flares are cool in the mountains
DISCO
Sipsini
Cheers
I can understand why you and many others are frustrated
It’s the set up that’s wrong
Did Derk get a 30 game ban
TET
Flares …are seem in most continental games …nonsense that we are being hassled for this
PFayr:
Reaction = Proof Positive (sic) then surely they should have hanged Charlie Mulgrew for this has to be A Hanging Offence
Oh! silly me, by the grace of God he wasn’t playing for Celtic at the time….
TV pictures which were ridiculed around the world, and the jersey he wore, saved Charlie that time. As far as Tonev is concerned, it appears to me that the SFA will stoop to any level to smear Celtic and her supporters. But obviously the mountain of historical precedents and evidence state: that – in the balance of probability – I could be wrong on that one.
Yeovil play Manure in the FA Cup.
Cmon you boys in green.
Hoops Hoops
prestonpans bhoys
21:51 on
16 December, 2014
If we ignore this can the BFA take it to CAS if Tonev approves ?
———————————————–
Big Friendly A….? :-)
Big Happy Burfday to the best beerd on the blog…SOAL yir a fekn eejit…but I likes ye :O)
Did Tonev go into the snake pit on his own??
Kitalba
It is PC to hammer racism
Tonev’s case gave them a platform
I still maintain the biggest outrage is the Boyd not proven decision ….outrageous manipulation of the rules
This could be PL ploy to get the bhoy FOC from villa
BMCUW
To be fair, I said Santa probably doesn’t exist. There’s still plenty of room for belief, suspended or otherwise :¬)
Regarding the leader, I respectfully disagree Paul. A little bit of Burns’ Giftie Gie Us is in order at the moment. Standards are slipping, and it does the club no good to pretend otherwise.
Winning Captains,
Sorry if been asked and answered:
You mentioned before that the draw is being made after 5s this week, my questions are: what are my numbers & what is the prize?
H.H
VP
Thanks
SOAL
The charge by UEFA relates to the trouble not just the flare!
Seems some of our fans had a banner with a reference to the chairman of DZ -what the feck is that all about?
Or were they scoring brownie points with their ultra pals?
Seems they think more about them than they do about our club!
HH
pfayr-if you play in a country where flares are set off every game, you don’t get punished if it happens in a European game…….
PF
Aye, I have to wonder who reported us.
HH
…………………………………………
SoAL
Now that would be a ploy and a half.
HH
Looking at the list of cases heard by the SFA Judicial Disciplinary Panel this season – they very rarely return a Not Proven verdict. Kris Boyd must have been very fortunate indeed! (especially given the damning tv evidence).
Interestingly on 23 October 2014, the week before Tonev`s case was initially heard, the SFA Judicial Panel investigated a case against a player from Coldstream FC. This player was charged with a breach of disciplinary rule 73 and the case was proven, however part of the charge worded “and racist” was deleted. I am guessing that the charge related to foul and abusive language and the racist element of the charge was removed as it couldn`t be proven (presumably because as with Tonev it hinged on one person`s word against another).
Interesting that a similar approach was not deployed in the Tonev case heard only a week later by the same body.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Disciplinary/DisciplinaryTribunalOutcomes/Season2014-15/Thursday%2023%20October%202014.pdf
Pfayr:
I maintain that the lack of a need for corroborating evidence opens a Pandora’s Box for evil men with intent.
WEEFRATHETIM
Bollix,apologies.
Call you tomorrow if you’re available.
Croppybhoy
They had his face in a no entry bedsheet
The Battered Bunnet
21:58 on
16 December, 2014
BMCUW
To be fair, I said Santa probably doesn’t exist. There’s still plenty of room for belief, suspended or otherwise :¬)
Regarding the leader, I respectfully disagree Paul. A little bit of Burns’ Giftie Gie Us is in order at the moment. Standards are slipping, and it does the club no good to pretend otherwise.
——————————————–
If Santa doesn’t exist then…..who is it you are referring to when you say “Santa”?
Eh?? :-)
Kitalba
No arguing with that
Of course Santa exists he gave us Sevco………..
BMCUW
Visiting my sis the mo. Talk as usual Fri. :-)) Hope your well. :-)
Weefra HH praying to Wee Oscar.
On an entirely different matter, erra RIFC shares, 2 furra Rouble.
Sorry
your=you’re.
Weefra HH praying to Wee Oscar.
RWE
Apparently, Logan was a credible and reliable witness whereas the “Tribunal was unable to accept him (Tonev) as either credible or reliable.”
The Judicial Panel Appellate Tribunal found that..
“They (the original Disciplinary Tribunal) have explained that he (Tonev) gave his evidence in a guarded and hesitant manner and that his evidence on the understanding of the language that had been used was particularly unsatisfactory. Their impression was of a witness giving a less than full account of his actual understanding of the language used.”
So Tonev lied, according to the Tribunal – which continued.
“The Disciplinary Tribunal had the opportunity to observe how he (Logan) responded to the challenge of his account by cross-examination and he had clearly stood up to that test. No reason why he may have been mistaken had been put to him. Logan’s immediate reaction to the incident and his conduct thereafter in bringing the matter to the attention of his captain, the referee, club staff and other players had been consistent and provided support for the credibility and reliability of his account.”
Therefore, not just Logan’s demeanour in giving evidence was considered, but his demeanour immediately after the incident was important in the mind of the Tribunal. Since Tonev had none of his actions or reaction at the time of or immediately after the incident highlighted in support of his version, the accuser was offered more opportunity to substantiate his allegation than the accused was to defend himself.
In addition, the suggestion that Logan acted like he was genuinely offended and thus he must be telling the truth is a self serving and circular argument, particularly when no one has indicated how an allegedly innocent man such as Tonev should be seen to be acting at this time. If he made no such remark..
How is he supposed to act so that his demeanour is perceived to be consistent with his claim that he is innocent?
How is he supposed to know that his accuser’s outraged behavior at the time will be one of the factors that the Tribunal choose to discredit him and thus label him a liar as well as a racist?
The complaint from Logan is very easy to make but, according to these procedures, extremely difficult to disprove. The Disciplinary and Appellate Tribunals both accepted that, other than Logan’s testimony, there was no real additional burden of proof required to prove the case. However, in enhancing and validating his testimony by referring to his “consistent” behavior at and after the incident, they do precisely that. There is no behavior code or protocol to follow, for a player such as Tonev wrongly accused of racism, so that he can point to how his actions and reaction were consistent with his account of events.
Both Tribunals have elected to ignore the absence of the reasonable corroboration that would be expected to be available in making their decision: no video footage despite numerous television cameras covering the event, no remark overheard by any official, by any player, by any fans, by any stadium staff, no still photograph showing the alleged verbal exchange. They placed great weight on the circumstantial evidence of Logan’s subsequent on pitch actions, but apparently none at all on the lack of similar subsequent actions by Tonev.
The reality is that the Tribunal, by drawing attention to and attaching importance to Logan’s behavior at the time and immediately after the incident, and by making no comment at all about any corroborative behavior by Tonev during this same period of time, appear to have given excess weight to Logan’s account.
“The Tribunal regarded his (Tonev’s) version of events as “an inherently improbable account”.”
Having set this precedent for Scottish Football, the SFA can expect to have some players exploit the Disciplinary Tribunal’s rationale by bringing spurious complaints to the notice of all in sundry during a match. All they have to do to make it stick is act outraged. Simulated outrage beckons.
HH