They believed someone who has a record of crying wolf... No doubt the explanation was presented to Jerome before it went to a hearing yet he decided to proceed meaning he didn't accept the explanation so he still believes he was racially abused, Jerome wanted to make a meal out of nothing wasting everyone's time.
No doubt. "In arriving at our decision, the commission reiterates that we found Mr Jerome to be a truthful witness who honestly believed that he had been racially abused. He may well continue to do so." If you heard something, you are likely to believe that you heard it. After all, you heard it. The Commission found it likely that Jerome "misinterpreted" it. Not surprising, if you don't speak Italian. I find myself misinterpreting them all the time! There was a brilliant advert years ago that showed how different visual perspective can be. All witnesses saw the truth, but the truth wasn't the whole picture. You can tell the truth and yet get it wrong. That's the problem with witness statements. It's even harder when it's spoken, let alone if it's in a foreign language. Then, finally, you have to understand that there is legal barrier. The level is "on the balance of probabilities" as quoted by the FA panel. That's strange, because crimes are assessed "beyond all reasonable doubt", which is a much higher bar than "on the balance of probabilities". So that means that Bellusci still might have said something racist, but it cannot be proven. However, the FA have clearly stated they believe that Jerome made an honest mistake. In other words, they've judged the bar, and put a percentage likelihood on Bellusci having been racist. From their statement, it sounds like Bellusci was well under 50% (the balance) likely. Good. The suggestion that Jerome should be punished is as ludicrous as saying that any victim of a crime that reports it to the police should be punished if the accused is found innocent. No, obviously they shouldn't. They should only be punished if they have (a) lied or (b) wasted police time. The Commission have made it quite clear that Jerome did neither (a) nor (b). I quite agree that it is disappointing that Jerome is not prepared to accept the FA's assessment, but then he heard what he heard. But if you're going to complain about Jerome not accepting the FA's assessment of whether Bellusci racially abused Jerome, you are also going to have to accept the FA's assessment that Jerome honestly and legitimately made the complaint. Do you see? Otherwise you are simply exercising double standards. I don't really understand that. Your club, and the player, is demonstrably "in the clear". You should be happy and move on. Let Jerome grind his teeth over everyone believing he needs to clean his ears out (or learn Italian).
He was dishing out foul and obstructive play and as the ref didn't see it the fa should call him in and give him a ban. Whatever misunderstanding only occurred once Jerome had cheated..... The bloke is clearly a bit of a chance, and it will catch up with him one day. At least it will add some spice to the rerun fixture.... I suspect he is likely to be dropped for the game.
If you banned every player for "foul and obstructive play" not seen by the referee most matches would be played by U21s! Not actually a bad idea then... He has been dropped to the bench recently. I doubt this will have much impact on whether he will be in the squad against you, but I would expect that there will be some listening ears for anything abusive from the sidelines. We know how the media like to pick on Leeds fans!
But when the fa become aware of foul play the ref misses? This isn't one of those special rules that only apply to Leeds United.
Sky made a big issue of this for days after the incident, reporting Bellusci was being charged and Cellino stating any player being found to be a racist would be sacked from the club. Reporting certainly tainted Belluscis character but I haven't heard sky reporting on the matter now. This could have ended a players career. Let's see what action is taken against Chelsea and their scum reporters in what is a genuine racist attack in the train station. I would guess nothing as they are one of the pl and European super powers
Evening Mike, don't think Jerome will get the warmest of receptions on his next visit to elland rd. I can only think of Beckford and Simon Grayson that would!
Rob, you clearly missed a very important point that Ristac made immediately before your quoted post above. Either that or you chose not to interpret it correctly, in a Jerome-like manner. The nub of the matter is that Bellusci provided a clear & consistent body of evidence to the hearing, and that is what won him the case. This information was made available to Jerome, and despite it's plausibility, he decided to ignore it & persist in proceeding with the case, wasting everyone's time. Not the actions of a reasonable person. More likely the actions of a self-styled vigilante. You must also be clear that the FL simply labelled Jerome 'an honest witness', yet signally failed to mention his credibility or reliability. In other words, he believed what he wanted to believe, yet refused to believe Bellusci's defence, which was far more credible.
**************BREAKING NEWS************** The Football League have charged Massimo Cellino with the murder of Lucy Beale Leeds have also been docked 10 points also
