Seems harsh seeing as it doesn't seem to be proven. "We note that the outcome was determined on the 'Balance of Probabilities' rather than one that is 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'," the club added.
'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' applies to criminal law, 'Balance of Probabilities' applies to civil law, it’s the standard terminology for someone found guilty in a case like this.
I guess the question is whether its more than a "He said, she said" situation. The reports suggests Omajic denies that he said anything. Hannibal says he did. I suspect this is just that the report is uninformed as there must be more to it than that to be judged as balance of probabilities; especially with the length of suspension.
‘The FA said that following the hearing, an "aggravated breach", where using abusive and/or insulting words which included reference to colour and/or race, was found to be proven’. They haven’t released the full ruling yet, but the statement above suggests more than he said, she said, particularly based on the length of ban (as you’ve said).
It sounds like there us some substance, but why use the phrase "proven on balance of probabilities" which to most people would mean "unproven". This potentially redefines the word proven again in your quoted statement. I don't doubt that they have sufficient proof, but why the **** don't they just say that in plain English.
It was his own club who released the statement that mentioned 'balance of probabilities' as if it was something unusual
