Sorry Whitejock, but your post is clearly missing the point of mine. An honest witness is a credible and reliable one. That's what this means: "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." That means they thought he was honest, credible and reliable. That they also thought he was mistaken is beside the point and merely emphasises that they also found Bellusci to be honest, credible and reliable. As I have repeated a number of times, you can be an honest witness based on what you saw and still be wrong. I have also a number of times stated that I agree that it is disappointing that Jerome has not accepted the verdict. But that's hardly surprising given that the case was one of "one man's word against another's". It's the balance of probabilities thing. Because of the scope for misunderstanding, it is absolutely and entirely plausible that neither are lying and both are honest, credible and reliable. The FA make it quite clear, on that basis, that they do not feel it is a waste of time investigating this. After all, if they hadn't investigated, it would have looked more like Bellusci was racist because there would have been a "no smoke without fire" situation, where everyone raises eyebrows... As I said, you should, on that basis, be delighted. No reason to grind an axe over Jerome because he's basically been told he doesn't understand Italian and that he's (metaphorically) a hypochondriac. He's understandably upset with this assessment. But don't forget a hypochondriac genuinely believes they are unwell. You can't fault someone for honest belief. That's a fundamental tenet of our legal system, which is one of the best in the world. I should emphasise that while I appreciate that you are not necessarily legally trained, criminal or quasi-criminal cases are not really things that can be "won" or "lost". Bellusci didn't therefore really "win". He was cleared. I.e. there was nothing to win or lose as regards the charge (he could only be convicted or cleared, either it happened in the eyes of the law or it didn't). The only thing to really lose is credibility, so they both came out (in the FA's eyes) without losing credibility. In other words, they both won. But Jerome looks like a prat because he can't speak Italian. As I said, the key point is that if you want to accept the FA's verdict on Bellusci's reliability and credibility as an honest witness, then you have to afford Jerome the same. Otherwise it's double standards. Is it one rule for Leeds players and another for Norwich players in your eyes? I really don't understand the fuss - Leeds is completely in the clear. Jerome has been made a bit of a fool of. But now you just sound like you're being malicious and vindictive against someone who honestly believes they're the victim, which is ironic given that you're accusing Jerome of doing it maliciously and vindictively... Double hypocrisy.
We don't believe Jeromes account, we believe that the Case must have been laughable because the the balance of possibilities standard there is always a low bar when judgements are made against LUFC. The FA would have tried any way to make this stick because it is LUFC. It has been this was since 1968 when we the upstarts pissed on the love in that is Manchester United. We forgot our place and won't ever be forgiven, In reality it was always one persons word against another's, and it should have been kicked out as soon as there was no witness or TV coverage of the incident.
But this is what I'm saying: (1) if you don't believe Jerome's account, despite the FA saying that they do believe Jerome's account, how can you demand that Jerome should believe the FA when they say they also believed Bellusci? You can't have your cake and eat it. Either you accept the FA's account on all bases (both Bellusci and Jerome are credible) or you reject it on all. Picking and choosing just makes you sound as malicious as you are accusing Jerome of being. You're being a hypocrite otherwise. (2) Jerome wasn't accusing Leeds. He was accusing Bellusci. Whether there is a real bias or not against LUFC by the FA is irrelevant to this. (3) As I said, kicking out the case would actually have been worse overall I suspect. Bellusci would always be under suspicion. As it is, he has been roundly and decisively cleared of wrong-doing. Better a troubling investigation clearing him than leaving the "no smoke without fire" cloud hanging over him... The phrase is "balance of probabilities". On the panel are professional legal experts. It would not be a case of a low bar for LUFC - that sounds like tin foil hat territory to me
As an example of the special rules applying to LUFC let me point out the treatment of our owner compared to that of Carson Yeung at Birmingham ( improsoned), Karl Oyston at Blackpool. Ours is barred Yeung is ok, and Oyston in a bitter irony sits on the ethics committee. Now pass me the bakofoil.
ok - I don't know anything about those or what's behind me. I don't disbelieve you suggesting that the media play a part in having a go at Leeds - one way or another I do get that impression. And in the ranks of the FA there may well be those who make such ownership decisions who are also that way inclined. But not on the panel for player investigation. They are comprised of independent lawyers. As shown by the fact that they cleared, on what seem like sound grounds, Bellusci. I don't doubt that Leeds and its fans have legitimate other concerns, I just don't think you can conflate the two
And I would disagree, meetings in smoke filled rooms set many an agenda, even for bodies that are supposed to be independent. The football league is corrupt.
Quite wrong, Rob. How can you be credible & reliable when you are mistaken? Making mistakes is in no way reliable! And your credibility must surely be busted when you insist in going forward with a case when a credible defence is presented to you before the hearing - and you ignore it! Given his previous record for bringing these cases (and failing), I cannot believe for a minute that he is either credible or reliable. Let me pose a situation for you to illustrate this: Imagine Jerome was checking his lotto numbers, and mistakenly believed he'd won. Imagine this was checked by the Lotto people for him: it was pointed out that he didn't have the right numbers, and he must have misheard the numbers announced. Imagine he ignored this advice and went public via the media to insist that the Lotto should pay him as he definitely heard his numbers announced. Questions: Is it reasonable for him to proceed with his claim when it's been made clear to him that he was indeed mistaken? Was he reliable when he incorrectly checked his numbers? Can he be relied on to correctly check his numbers in future? Can he be considered credible when it's been made abundantly clear to him that he's made a mistake (before approaching the media)? Can he be considered credible when it becomes clear that he's made similar claims before? I think we all know the answer should be 'no' in every case. Perhaps apart from an apologist like you, Rob. IMHO, it just smells like someone on a misguided vigilante-like mission.
You really shouldn't pick on a bloke whilst he trying to figure out how to put his six digits into a glove.
I can't believe it. The T and A wont be running the story of how Bradford was in a time warp with millionaires running round in rolls royces years before they existed.... Shame I can see the headline now........... "Time travel invented in tinpot town".
You are mistaking: (a) credibility as a witness; and (b) credibility of evidence The FA panel decided that the credibility of the evidence stood with Bellusci's description. The FA panel decided that both witnesses were credible as a witness. But the key is you are ducking the two hypocrisies: (1) you can't tell Jerome to listen to the FA's view of Bellusci's evidence, but refuse to listen to the FA's view of Jerome's credibility as a witness. Which one is it? Are the FA correct or are they incorrect? If they are incorrect, fine, you can sling insults at Jerome, but you can't tell him to listen to Bellusci's account. (2) you are saying that Jerome is doing this maliciously. Yet you lot are actively campaigning for a malicious attack on Jerome. So are you happy with malicious attacks or not? It sounds to me very much like you believe everyone should be morally upstanding, but Leeds fans can do what they want... Fine, but you lose "credibility" yourself. You just sound like you're all on a slightly bizarre campaign against Jerome. Surely you should just be happy that Bellusci and Leeds are in the clear and you would prefer this whole incident is forgotten? Particularly as it has really only made Jerome look a bit foolish. Win, win. Until you start a malicious campaign yourself and no doubt the anti-Leeds FA, media, God, etc., will clamp down on you for that...
Classy! I try to debate nicely and explain nicely from a legal perspective, and you wonder why Leeds fans get picked on... Look, I came here in peace you don't have to agree with what I've said, but if you disagree it would be nice to see why and petty trolling isn't really furthering your point
Rob, forget gloves, buy mittens. It might give more time to find someone who gives a toss.... Jerome got caught bullshitting, and the FA are too gutless to take him on. You won't find anyone here who thinks different. Run along its boring now.
We debated back and you have turned into war and peace, we have a low boredom threshold. I don't wonder why we get picked on, it's what makes us what we are. It's also why lil ol norwich will always be a won nothing club. Zzzzzzzz
I was responding to whitejock. Not grumpy little trollikins. I see lil ol norwich has been linked to Byram again in the summer, btw. Is he having a poorer season? (PS, we might not have won much, but at least give us credit for our League Cups. You can't take that away from us. And our famous win against Bayern )
