Holgate and Firmino incident !

Nope, that happens in law courts. In this case it was he said/he said with no corroborating evidence either way so no one person has been tarred.

 

Like what, people get pushed into hoardings all the time?

 

No it doesn't. A tribunal is supposed to be a quasi civil court - the assumption of innocence applies there too, just as much as if you were accused of wrongdoing in the workplace.

Edit - the last bit is of course aimed at Diego.

 

You mean like the sweeping assertions that someone did or didn't say something

 

For the last ****ing time, even workplace tribunals/investigations have to abide by quasi-judiciary rules lest they infringe upon civil law. An assumption of innocence is a tenet in both civil and criminal law - which part of this is difficult?

 

the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence - Holgate said it, the burden of proof is on proving it.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Ooo anger, you have said that twice since I posted the comment you replied to, if you had posted it before I would have agreed.
You do know courts have been known to close a case for insufficient evidence without ruling either way?

 

Yes.

 

This is disingenuous. Despite laying out the evidence - or lack of it- the FA's summation does not treat both players equally, and the inference is that Firmino got away with it through lack of presentable evidence, rather than there being no case against him.
Wouldn't it have been better if they had said something like "We are satisfied that Holgate made the claim in good faith, but we are equally satisfied with Firmino's assertion that he did not say the word(s) he is accused of, and the evidence supports this."?

 

Good, then we agree.

 

Yep, would have been much better for all concerned though I do suspect that "some" people would then automatically assume Holgate had made it up and got away with it.

 

The FA are bent and twisted, and all its members should suffer summary execution by drowning without trial. They should then have a show tribunal over their coffins to confirm the pre-arrived at verdicts of guilty before they are cremated, and only when their ashes are scattered on a dung heap in Salford should any of the evidence against them be examined.

 

I can only guess(based on your belief in Holgate)that you believed Ian Wright when he said he was racially abused by Schmeichel (spelling), but Fergie gave a sweeping statement of the keeper's innocence before the FA hearing despite him not hearing what got said, Holgate had plenty of witnesses by comparison and nobody heard what he alleged.

 

Then it should have been dead simple to prove

 

Many people will see the outcome that they choose to see, but the statement makes it perfectly clear that the FA see Holgate's claim as being in good faith whereas they don't show the same degree of support for Firmino response.
Take a look at some of the wording in the sports headlines to see how easy it is to make inferences. Instead of being found out to be racist, he's being made to look like a racist who got away with it - not much of an improvement.

 

Of course, but he couldn't prove it or Firmino would now be hung drawn and quartered and his head would be on top of a pole outside FA Headquarters.
That's why it seems strange you're giving Holgate the benefit of the doubt despite the obvious lack of evidence.