• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Poll [Poll] Firmino - Holgate incident update

Prefix for Poll Threads

What will be the outcome of the Firmino - Holgate incident

  • Ban for Firmino

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • Ban for Holgate

    Votes: 9 13.4%
  • No charges for either

    Votes: 52 77.6%

  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.

6TimesaRed

Not a Bot....
Administrator
Roberto Firmino racism allegations from Mason Holgate undergoing same investigation process that led to Luis Suarez getting banned.

Result expected this week

How is this going to go then.. He is going to get Fucked over isn't he?
 
Can't see how they can ban him when there is no evidence whatsoever that shows that he was racist towards him. All he did was call him a son of a bitch.
 
I'm guessing no charges for either. Or hoping anyway.

And how could it result in a ban for Holgate? You can't punish someone for mishearing what was said, and good luck with proving that he did it on purpose - malicious mishearing?

as fucking if
 
I'm guessing no charges for either. Or hoping anyway.

And how could it result in a ban for Holgate? You can't punish someone for mishearing what was said, and good luck with proving that he did it on purpose - malicious mishearing?

as fucking if
How I see it.

Ideally FA will just say racism is bad and not tolerated, but there's no tangible evidence so all parties are golden.
 
I'm guessing no charges for either. Or hoping anyway.

And how could it result in a ban for Holgate? You can't punish someone for mishearing what was said, and good luck with proving that he did it on purpose - malicious mishearing?

as fucking if
Maybe Holgate should be banned for endangering the life of Firmino & the fans in Row 1
 
He's not been charged yet has he? This is just the investigation to see if there is a case to answer. Think I read somewhere that the evidence goes to 3 independent arbiters and they all have to be in agreement for a charge to follow.

If he is charged, he will be found guilty it's an FA kangaroo court on balance of probabilities horseshit.
 
Five weeks tomorrow since the "incident". How can it take so long to investigate?
More stress on the player (Hopefully affecting his form. The entire incident was premeditated). They have been gunning for Our engine for some time now.
 
I think the FA will say they have insufficient evidence, but instead of leaving it at that they'll admonish Firmino anyway just to appease the women's England team, the media and anyone else who has criticised them in the past for failing to act about racism, sexism and child abuse within their own organisation.
 
I'm guessing no charges for either. Or hoping anyway.

And how could it result in a ban for Holgate? You can't punish someone for mishearing what was said, and good luck with proving that he did it on purpose - malicious mishearing?

as fucking if

It wouldn't be that hard to investigate whether Holgate pulled a fast one if they really wanted to. If they took sworn evidence from Firmino about his exact words, as opposed to him answering questions less formally, they'd be obliged to believe that sworn evidence unless anyone could produce conclusive proof that he'd perjured himself. Their job then would be to consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, Holgate's claim that he "misheard" was remotely plausible. They won't, of course, because it doesn't fit their agenda, but it would be by no means impossible to do.
 
Wouldn't the issue with that be then holgate could go under oath and say what he thought he heard

You're making it so (funnily enough) black and white
 
And you're making, as you have from the beginning, an assumption in favour of Holgate's believability which is undeserved. The investigation could go as you describe, but (a) that's no good reason not to carry out the investigation in the first place and (b) as this is a civil matter the standard of proof would NOT be "beyond reasonable doubt" but "on the balance of probabilities". With two conflicting sworn testimonies the FA would have to decide which it believed on the balance of probabilities, and it would be simple enough for the FA to do that by comparing the words Firmino used with what Holgate claimed he heard.
 
And you're making, as you have from the beginning, an assumption in favour of Holgate's believability which is undeserved. The investigation could go as you describe, but (a) that's no good reason not to carry out the investigation in the first place and (b) as this is a civil matter the standard of proof would NOT be "beyond reasonable doubt" but "on the balance of probabilities". With two conflicting sworn testimonies the FA would have to decide which it believed on the balance of probabilities, and it would be simple enough for the FA to do that by comparing the words Firmino used with what Holgate claimed he heard.

But it's once again a he said/she said scenario

And surely its 2 separate cases? Ones the firmino one which clears him, the other is the"is holgate a liar" one, which on probabilities you can't claim he lied?
 
It is "He said, she said", yes, but many disputes of whatever kind boil down to that.

The two cases arise out of the same incident so I wouldn't have thought they could be meaningfully separated. As far as the question whether Holgate lied is concerned, unlike you I'd lay odds that that's exactly what he did in order to dig himself out of the hole he created by his own stupid push on Firmino, but I'd want it investigated before a definite decision was reached, and I've explained how I think the FA could do so if they wanted. Don't worry BTW - they don't, so they won't.
 
If it could be proved he lied then I'd want him punished as far as it could be. But there's no way to do that, even with the balance of probabilities
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom