Luis Suarez's union boss and his movable goalposts on justice.
As Chief Executive of the Professional Footballers' Association for the last 30 years, you would expect Gordon Taylor to be experienced, firm and clear on the matter of justice.
And so he was on 17 October 2011, when one of the most prominent players represented by his union -- Luis Suarez -- was accused of racial abuse:
"Only by having a full inquiry on such matters can we get to the bottom of it and try to make sure that such problems don't arise again in the future."
A discussion, an apology -- not enough. Only a "full inquiry" would suffice. Then, if necessary, a tribunal and a ban (which indeed Taylor later endorsed.)
Fine. Now we're clear on Taylor's philosophy on justice -- firm, thorough, formal, right? Not necessarily.
On 19 December 2002, after Reading's English defender John Mackie was not only accused of racial abuse, but admitted it, no such "full inquiry" -- or resulting action -- was necessary, according to Taylor:
"Obviously we were very concerned about the comments that were made but it's to John Mackie's credit that he has subsequently reacted in this way and apologised. We would expect Carl Asaba to accept that apology, which was unreserved, and do not feel there is any reason for the FA to take any action in this case."
So, what's the difference? Can't just be the admission and the apology. "Honesty" can't trump racism. And the low-profile transgressor doesn't mean it's less important. To find a pattern we need another data point.
So let's go to 1994, when high-profile England player Stuart Pearce was accused of racially abusing Paul Ince. Taylor gives us our pattern. It happened:
"in the heat of the moment...Stuart regrets what he said, and he'll be ringing Paul to apologise. Hopefully that will be the end of it."
So unless racism just wasn't as important until this year, the main variable in Taylor's inconsistent take on justice seems to be nationality. No need to investigate unless the accused is a foreigner.
But there's more to it than that.
This very week Taylor himself was at the mercy of justice, summoned to Manchester Magistrates Court to answer multiple charges of speeding offences.
Taylor didn't deny the charges. In fact, he didn't even show up. Instead he sent Nick Freeman, "the celebrity lawyer known as 'Mr Loophole'" who pointed out minor errors in the letters sent to Taylor by police:
"He said the Jaguar car was registered to the PFA at its offices at 20 Oxford Court in Manchester but the Notice of Intended Prosecution letter, and a reminder, were both sent to number 30 - which does not exist. The lawyer, known for getting acquittals for celebrity clients in seemingly water-tight court cases, said further letters were then sent directly to Mr Taylor, naming him as the registered keeper directly."
The case was dismissed and the state -- that is, us -- paid for the celebrity lawyer's costs.
That's what Taylor thinks of justice -- something to pontificate on when a nasty South American is in the dock, something to wriggle out of when it's a commonsense Englishman. Or yourself. Certainly it was legal -- clever, even. But is it appropriate for someone who seeks to impose higher standards on others, and gets paid handsomely to do so?
Suarez was tried by three old white men with no linguistic expertise and reporting to the Chief Executive of the club for whom his accuser played. He's being tried again in the press by moral-free writers who have found their villain, know their audience and are crafting the story. And he's represented by a long-in-the-tooth union official who moves the goalposts on justice depending on how it suits him personally.
The work of the three old white men will be judged in the appeal process. The work of the journalists is something we can only try to keep highlighted and in check.
But the work of Gordon Taylor -- its there in the public record, and it's open for those self-same journalists and the players who pay dues to his union to examine and expose.
Seems like a good time to do exactly that.
http://bit.ly/upDfjs http://bit.ly/uyMlgf http://bit.ly/u9Mlde http://bbc.in/uC5MJX
As Chief Executive of the Professional Footballers' Association for the last 30 years, you would expect Gordon Taylor to be experienced, firm and clear on the matter of justice.
And so he was on 17 October 2011, when one of the most prominent players represented by his union -- Luis Suarez -- was accused of racial abuse:
"Only by having a full inquiry on such matters can we get to the bottom of it and try to make sure that such problems don't arise again in the future."
A discussion, an apology -- not enough. Only a "full inquiry" would suffice. Then, if necessary, a tribunal and a ban (which indeed Taylor later endorsed.)
Fine. Now we're clear on Taylor's philosophy on justice -- firm, thorough, formal, right? Not necessarily.
On 19 December 2002, after Reading's English defender John Mackie was not only accused of racial abuse, but admitted it, no such "full inquiry" -- or resulting action -- was necessary, according to Taylor:
"Obviously we were very concerned about the comments that were made but it's to John Mackie's credit that he has subsequently reacted in this way and apologised. We would expect Carl Asaba to accept that apology, which was unreserved, and do not feel there is any reason for the FA to take any action in this case."
So, what's the difference? Can't just be the admission and the apology. "Honesty" can't trump racism. And the low-profile transgressor doesn't mean it's less important. To find a pattern we need another data point.
So let's go to 1994, when high-profile England player Stuart Pearce was accused of racially abusing Paul Ince. Taylor gives us our pattern. It happened:
"in the heat of the moment...Stuart regrets what he said, and he'll be ringing Paul to apologise. Hopefully that will be the end of it."
So unless racism just wasn't as important until this year, the main variable in Taylor's inconsistent take on justice seems to be nationality. No need to investigate unless the accused is a foreigner.
But there's more to it than that.
This very week Taylor himself was at the mercy of justice, summoned to Manchester Magistrates Court to answer multiple charges of speeding offences.
Taylor didn't deny the charges. In fact, he didn't even show up. Instead he sent Nick Freeman, "the celebrity lawyer known as 'Mr Loophole'" who pointed out minor errors in the letters sent to Taylor by police:
"He said the Jaguar car was registered to the PFA at its offices at 20 Oxford Court in Manchester but the Notice of Intended Prosecution letter, and a reminder, were both sent to number 30 - which does not exist. The lawyer, known for getting acquittals for celebrity clients in seemingly water-tight court cases, said further letters were then sent directly to Mr Taylor, naming him as the registered keeper directly."
The case was dismissed and the state -- that is, us -- paid for the celebrity lawyer's costs.
That's what Taylor thinks of justice -- something to pontificate on when a nasty South American is in the dock, something to wriggle out of when it's a commonsense Englishman. Or yourself. Certainly it was legal -- clever, even. But is it appropriate for someone who seeks to impose higher standards on others, and gets paid handsomely to do so?
Suarez was tried by three old white men with no linguistic expertise and reporting to the Chief Executive of the club for whom his accuser played. He's being tried again in the press by moral-free writers who have found their villain, know their audience and are crafting the story. And he's represented by a long-in-the-tooth union official who moves the goalposts on justice depending on how it suits him personally.
The work of the three old white men will be judged in the appeal process. The work of the journalists is something we can only try to keep highlighted and in check.
But the work of Gordon Taylor -- its there in the public record, and it's open for those self-same journalists and the players who pay dues to his union to examine and expose.
Seems like a good time to do exactly that.
http://bit.ly/upDfjs http://bit.ly/uyMlgf http://bit.ly/u9Mlde http://bbc.in/uC5MJX
