Seems the appeal was thrown out what's the East Fife fans take on this?

This decision has taken the SFA 8 months to arrive at!!!

They are now in for a shock as it will now be taken to the law courts where the SFA will be sued and seriously shown up to be the useless bunch of Derrick Brown's that they are!!!

Source?

By throwing the appeal out they are branding him a racist, don't they realise how serious that is?

That's a bugger, he'll miss the raith game and it might force Baikie to actually play a midfielder who can run in that position.....

Took them long enough, but thats the SFA for you.

Can anyone provide a link or source of some kind?

Given the poor start to East Fife's season this could be a blessing.

Does this mean its alright to call Fotheringham a racist now?

Going by the response of The Fife Gretna fans when I suggest they might have spent a few bob more than the rest of us, I await the replies of 'Ayr have more racists!'

Are you winding folks up Steven. Can't find any source for that. However

This was in the daily record on the 2nd August

Daily record - 2nd august

It was on the official Man U website

Even if this is true, i think it's a bit harsh. And also why did the SFA w**k w**k w**k's take so long to come up with this verdict, Fozzy is adamant that he made no racist remark's. Well tbh nobody really know's apart from Fozzy and Tade.

This is where the problem arises. less evidence can be corroborated, then the chances of a conviction are low. Alternatively, in this case it could be suggested that any evidence from Forfar or East Fife players could be inaccurate as they seek to defend a team-mate. If non of the match officials heard anything, then I don't believe he should have been convicted. Can anyone remember if the incident was mentioned in the referee's match report at the time?

If he has indeed been banned, then I would like to see the evidence on which he was banned upon. There was nothing on BBC Sport last time I checked.

One of the linesman heard the words 'black b*****d' being said but couldn't confimr who said it.

You would think the actual culprit would come forward to save Fozzy getting an unfair ban.

Spot on xbl.Theres seems to be no denying the comment was made by a player or official of the club and if it wasn`t fozzy they are quite happy to let him take the wrap

Exactly if the ref didn't hear anything or anybody else for that matter, it should've been dropped. Evidence is the only way you can be convicted. Apparently these two have had a go at each other since Fozzy was at Raith, Racism is a curse and should be snubbed out. But then again it is used so frequently, I don't think for a second that Fozzy would stoop so low. It is very questionable to say the least.

Which would surely be classed as insufficient.



If nothing could be confirmed, then surely both should escape unpunished if the guy didn't step forward and confess?

Dishonest I know, but there certainly shouldn't be enough to convict Fotheringham in the first place, why risk a ban yourself?

I would need to read the evidence which was presented before making a full judgement, however.

I would have thought so.




If we accept that the linesman did hear the words being said then there's three possibilities. Fotheringham said it to Tade, another East Fife player said it to Tade or the linesman heard an accusation being said - "he called me a black b*****d", "he called him a black b*****d", "I didn't call him a black b*****d".

From what we've heard it doesn't sound like there's enough evidence to be confident about what happened at all.

I'm not sure how much truth there is in this, but apparently Marvin Andrews wrote a letter to the SFA saying that Fotheringham would never do such a thing.

I agree that the whole episode is rather sketchy, It would be very interesting to see what evidence was put forward at the trial. I still can't find any confirmation of this though.

The SFA refused to accept that letter as a character reference I think. Shocking.

i doubt it was the third one.... my guess is fozzy did probably say something, probably unintentional or misheard. if there had been heated exchange or meaty tackles then i think its quite feasible fozzy used the word b*****d... has he denied saying anything? or just nothing racist?

If that's true, the SFA should be held with contempt. Marvin Andrews is imo a very respected figure in Scottish football. This whole thing stink's to high heaven if you ask me, and i for one will defend Fozzy in this case until he is catagorically proven guilty for racism.

Strange that neither big marv or armand one encountered any racist abuse when working alongside mr fotheringham. The Sfa are no doubt hoing to get caught out on this one.

It is more likely that you would abuse a rival than a team mate in my view.

No I'm being serious

Clicky

Make sure you have adobe reader installed before clicking on the link

In all fairness if the Linesman couldn't pinpoint who made the remark, there's little that can be done about it. I'm not saying for a minute that the incident didn't happen but what chance in any court of law never mind an SFA boardroom would a prosecution stand if a witness could not identify the culprit saying "Well I think it's him"

The SFA have got themselves into a minefield here because if they do something then I'm pretty sure EF are going to take them to task and it could get messy and costly especially for the SFA who can not really identify the alledged culprit.

Suspension imposed by Disciplinary Committee 29/01/08. The suspension was appealed and was set aside pending consideration by the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal decided that the Appeal be refused and therefore the player’s suspension is applied with immediate effect (07/08/08).

looks like i'd better take him out of the fantasy team...

I'm sure he is guilty,but I don't think that there is enough evidence to convict him of being a racist.The linesman said that he heard somebody shout "black b*****d"from the EF dressing room,who it was he doesn't know.You surely can't convict someone of an offence based on that.
And yes I've read the evidence.

It could be argued that if it came from the EF dressing room, then the club captain should be held responsible for his team mates behaviour if no-one had the guts to come forward.

How could they refuse that? Coming from Marvin is like coming from God himself

It is definitely true that Big Marv wrote a character reference.

Hopefully one day the true culprit will be know but i doubt it with East Fife, they really are the bottom of the barrell when it comes to standards for a football club.

Marvin Andrews sending in a character reference!!

Let us not forget that this man is a bigot as well. Does he not believe that lesbians are evil and he will help cure them?

IMO one -ism is as bad as the next.

I agree with most of what is being said here. Either the SFA have hard and fast evidence we don't know about, or they have just set themselves up for a major league fall. Obviously we don't know yet, but I am sure transcripts of the panel will be made available in due course.

If he is guilty however, and in no way am I saying he is, he should be banned for a lot longer than 8 games. Racism was something that comes from the dark ages. Unfortunately we are still having to put up with it. Until some radical step is taken it will never stop. Ridiculous punishments like the one Luis Aragones got are hardly going to make a racist think twice about doing it again. Remember it is a criminal offence, and like a lot of things in football different rules apply when you are on the pitch. In my view this is totally wrong. Doesn't matter whether you are on a sports field or in the street the same rules should apply.

Unfortunately I don't think the truth will ever come out in this case, but if he's guilty he should get the book thrown at him, if he's not he should take the SFA to task over it.

That particular view of his is shaped by his religion.

Fotheringham should have said his religion means that he hates black people. He would have won his appeal in no time.

Bear in mind that the linesman's evidence could be corroborating evidence.

I don't know anything about the case, but if the referee saw and heard what went on and the linesman heard the comment too, that could satisfy what the referee thought the culprit had said was correct. I doubt the only evidence was the linesman hearing the comment, then picking the ugliest player in the East Fife team and blaming it on him. That would take too long to decide anyway.

Let's also not get too distracted by a criminal case, as there is a different standard of proof required here.

A player could receive a lengthy ban for using foul and abusive language to an official - doesn't mean they would have to demonstrate sufficient evidence for a breach of the peace charge though.

So the views of a black man, who got to know Fotheringham fairly well over a year, should be discounted because of his religion, and indeed a tabloid misquote? Strange logic that.

The SFA have really ballsed this up badly, but they aren't going to back down now, they've came too far.

I agree with Renton though, it's bad from a selfish perspective if Fotheringham is banned, as Baikie might play a footballer in midfield.

Yeah but there's also a perverse form of racism contained in any character reference by a black person:

'I am a black person and he never abused me, therefore how can he be racist?'

'See, a black person says he's not racist so he can't be!'

1. The linesman could not pinpoint who had said the comment, therefore although he can confirm that the comment was passed, there is no way of attributing the blame to Fotheringham.

2. Why? If it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then Fotheringham simply should not be charged. What would you constitute as a good enough standard of proof in this case?

3. Yes, because this can be confirmed by the said official that such and such a player did abuse them and the incident will be logged in the referee's match report.

The standside linesman said he heard somebody shout "Black b*****d" from down the tunnel, NOT from the East Fife dressing room!!!

In fact none of the match officials were actually in the tunnel or anywhere near the dressing rooms when this alleged comment was supposed to have been said, neither were any of the management teams who were crossing the pitch on their way to the tunnel, but this didn't stop Gerry "Ratface" Britton who claimed to hear and see the whole incident even though he was further away from the supposed action than any of the match officials!!!

His evidence was heard though!!!

Its highly unlikely it was a Stranraer player so ban East Fife FC

if this is true surely it should be the club who are held responsible for the conduct of said players and not the team captain resulting in a club fine of some sort.

That was dated 31st July when I looked earlier

I am quite sure the old firm fans could use that argument for their nonsense. Still doesn't change the fact that it is bigoted

Where did you read this?

Held in contempt of their own "court"?? Let's just run through the ramifications of what you're suggesting. The SFA want evidence, not random stuff from people who weren't there. If they want to take letters from people totally unconnected to the case, why not make evidence admissable from everybody? Bernard Manning says Fozzy is a great guy, it's outrageous that he doesn't get his say. Gordon Brown says the linesman is a fine, upstanding Labour voter who can't be ignored. Spike Lee compares Gregory's struggle to that of Malcolm X. Wullie, some weird fan who foams at the mouth for most of his waking hours, says he "nuvur hurd owt".

Get a grip, it would make a bigger mockery of an already very mockable organisation.



I made this point at the time. This is not a criminal case, first of all. Secondly, it doesn't need direct evidence of someone(s) seeing/ hearing all the events. You can establish the fact that the words were said by an independent witness (the linesman). You can establish the fact that several people reacted immediately toward KF, believing it to be him who said it. You can connect the 2 facts to provide a reasonable burden of proof. It's not a bulletproof argument, but in civil cases it doesn't need to be.

East Fife can talk legal action all the like, ultimately though, as the guy above says the SFA can effectively ban people without the burden of proof needed for courts. They don't need to brand him a racist, which could be defamatory, they just charge him for "unsportsmanlike behaviour" or something and it's a closed case.

What's that got to do with anything, it's more to do with the fact that as a Black man he has come to the defence for a White man accused of racism. His religious view's have no bearing on the case. When Marv wrote the letter in defence of a friend the SFA should have least read it and took it into consideration.

You've just used the "I have black friends" line of thinking. Almost as bad as saying you're not racist because you eat curry.

Also, Gregory Tade is a pretty small chap from what I've heard. Marv and One are probably two of the biggest players to be seen in the SFL in recent years. Armand One would eat you, if he heard you being racist.

Bang on - in my view.

I don't know if Michael has picked me up wrong, but I think King Kebab's post gives a greater insight as to what has happened.

Presumably Gerry Britton, or somebody, has made the allegation (having claimed to have witnessed the event direct) and the linesman was simply testifying to the fact that the comment was made.

There's no way a linesman is going to say he heard a voice down a dark tunnel, then some random player is banned for eight games solely as a result of that. That would be mental!

I think the three points Michael raises have now been answered.