FAI holds up Rovers anti-racism policy as example to all clubs

Printable View

30/10/2009, 2:37 PM
EnglishSource

FAI holds up Rovers anti-racism policy as example to all clubs

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d137/b_uzz/image.jpg

Extra special thanks to Reiteoir and Sheridan for highlighting Rovers policy to the FAI. Much obliged.
30/10/2009, 2:50 PM
roinuj

:rolleyes:big deal:rolleyes:
30/10/2009, 2:59 PM
PartySaint

Wow your fans managed not to shout racial abuse, someone give them a medal:rolleyes:
30/10/2009, 3:36 PM
dfx-

I want to hear what SARI have to say. I do hope they are as quick to publish a press release.

R�iteoir, email them please :)
30/10/2009, 3:44 PM
seand

Where exactly does the "FAI hold[s] up Rovers anti-racism policy as example to all clubs"?
30/10/2009, 4:05 PM
EnglishSource

Quote:

Originally Posted by seand

Where exactly does the "FAI hold[s] up Rovers anti-racism policy as example to all clubs"?

The last sentence of the first paragraph.
30/10/2009, 4:15 PM
Ezeikial

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishSource

The last sentence of the first paragraph.

Afraid it doesn't
30/10/2009, 6:51 PM
R�iteoir

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfx-

I want to hear what SARI have to say. I do hope they are as quick to publish a press release.

R�iteoir, email them please :)

I'd rather not - already had one quite threatening PM from a Rovers fan on here.

Don't be wanting to be receiving others - it's been looked at (as was the initial want) - that should be the end of the matter really
30/10/2009, 8:22 PM
thischarmingman

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishSource

The last sentence of the first paragraph.

Do you have reading difficulties?
20/11/2009, 10:09 AM
Mr A

What would the point of having the same debate again?

It was bad enough the first time round.
20/11/2009, 11:33 AM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

This is fascinating. 150 comments on the original thread, most of them condemning an incident that did not happen.

Bad news travels faster.

And an FAI committee saying that they are "not satisfied that there is conclusive evidence to warrant a sanction" does not mean nothing happened. It doesn't mean much of anything really.
20/11/2009, 12:14 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

I'm afraid it does. It says that the complaint had no merit.

It says nothing of the sort.

Quote:

If this were a criminal case and 150 posts were made condemning someone who was then acquitted and only 8 posts on their not-guilty status, most going so what, the site would be sued.

In Scotland, they make a distinction between not guilty and not proven.

A call to a theoretical lawsuit is one of the least convincing clich�s which pops up in arguments. No, the site wouldn't be sued. And yes, there would be a similar split to the discussion. If anything, there would be more people questioning the result.
20/11/2009, 2:07 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So what you are saying is, that despite the match officials, players and media at the time hearing nothing, the 'evidence' surfacing much later on youtube, someone from outside the country making a complaint wo couldn't possibly have been offended if the event happened and no evidence of any offence found after an investigation, Rovers fans still did it?

I've not been interested in this enough to follow the debate closely, so I can't comment on the quality of the evidence. I do recall reading posts where people claimed that they had heard it at the game and on television. Maybe those people were lying. I'm not making a judgement on whether this happened or not, whether you want to claim I am or not. What I'm saying is that (a) an investigation, particularly one by the FAI, finding insufficient evidence of something is not proof of the negative, and (b) crying because many of us don't take an investigation by the FAI to be worth a damn is pathetic.

Quote:

This is kinda the point I'm making about the culture of this site and why huge sections of the LoI support base avoid it like the plague.
If thats the benchmark

Find me a substantial thread, anywhere on the internet, where someone is attacked for something they later are found not to have done, and where the response to that vindication is (a) positive and (b) more than 20% of the thread. You're looking for something that doesn't happen, and whinging that its absence is proof that you're put upon and everyone here's a big meanie.

What this boils down to is that you don't understand what a lack of conclusive evidence means.
20/11/2009, 2:09 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So what you are saying is, that despite the match officials, players and media at the time hearing nothing, the 'evidence' surfacing much later on youtube, someone from outside the country making a complaint wo couldn't possibly have been offended if the event happened and no evidence of any offence found after an investigation, Rovers fans still did it?

This is kinda the point I'm making about the culture of this site and why huge sections of the LoI support base avoid it like the plague.
If thats the benchmark

The point has repeatedly been made to you that the allegations first surfaced based on the TV4 footage within minutes of the end of the game, and not youtube. You have consistently failed to acknowledge that as it doesn't fit your 'doctored footage' scenario. But it remains fact, regardless of your ignoring it.

You are following the same agenda here with the absolutely ludicrous assertion that not having enough evidence to prove racial abuse happened means that it couldn't have happened.
20/11/2009, 3:02 PM
dong

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So what you are saying is, that despite the match officials, players and media at the time hearing nothing, the 'evidence' surfacing much later on youtube, someone from outside the country making a complaint wo couldn't possibly have been offended if the event happened and no evidence of any offence found after an investigation, Rovers fans still did it?

This is kinda the point I'm making about the culture of this site and why huge sections of the LoI support base avoid it like the plague.
If thats the benchmark

This issue has been flogged to death on another thread. Particularly the "doctored" youtube debate.
You could hear the monkey chants on the live footage, albeit only a couple of people doing it.
Why don't you get back to unsuccessfully attempting to wind up our fans on the cup final thread. Quite funny really.
20/11/2009, 4:05 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So to sum up.

I have no idea of the different between not proving something happened and proving something didn't happen.

Right ho.

You got it now.
20/11/2009, 4:16 PM
Mad Moose

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So to sum up.

It is perfectly acceptible to allege misbehaviour at a game and call for an investigation.

When that investigation reports that nothing happened, the body that was requested to do the investigation is incapable and it proves nothing and the allegation stands.

Right ho.

Its not hard to read what the disciplinary commitee have stated. They are not saying it didn't happen. You are saying that they have said so. If they actually stated 'nothing happened' then your free to state that here. They haven't. You know that.

Sorry John83. I am repeating you but there ya go.Sometimes thats what it needs.
20/11/2009, 4:24 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So, for the sake of argument, I can alledge anti-semetic chanting at a Limerick game.

My claim can be investegated and Limerick exonerated, but you can't prove to a definitive degree that it didn't happen, so therefore Limerick have a Nazi problem.

TV4 produced footage from the game on which racist noises were distinctly audible and which could not be interpreted in any other way.

If you could produce footage taken at the Limerick game on which anti-semetic chants were distinctly audible and which could not be interpreted in any other way, I'd accept the claim.
20/11/2009, 4:28 PM
osarusan

Also, BYCTWD, as you are on this site at the moment, will you accept that your claim that allegations of racist abuse didn't surface for days after the event and were based on doctored youtube footage is wrong?

I and others have already pointed this out to you but you have never responded or accepted it, despite it being obvious fact.
20/11/2009, 4:32 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Did anyone actually pick up on anything at the time? I don't honestly know.

In different posts in a different thread, the fact that somebody did has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Here is the post in question, though it's not the first time I've posted it for you.

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=1243025&postcount=77

Quote:

Is the loud booing and monkey sounds directed at Ndo worthy of special mention or does it happen at every ground?
20/11/2009, 4:36 PM
SkStu

yes they did.
20/11/2009, 4:41 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Therefore the onus is on those making the complaint to prove that the incident did happen, and here they didn't. Thats how it works. So the long and short of it is, Rovers fans did not racially abuse anyone.

It's like banging your head against a particularly think wall. For the last time, not having enough evidence to prove something happened is not the same thing as saying that something did not happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Therefore the onus is on those making the complaint to prove that the incident did happen, and here they didn't.

Absolutely correct. They did not prove that it did happen to the satisfaction of those investigating the claim. Neither did they prove, however, that nothing at all happened.

I don't know what you mean by my 'criteria'?
22/11/2009, 7:03 PM
osarusan

There is a basic contradiction in your two arguments. You can't say that the onus is on the person who made the claim to prove the allegations, and then on the other hand say that a claim without any evidence whatsoever to support it should be accepted simply because it can't be disproven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

Therefore the onus is on those making the complaint to prove that the incident did happen, and here they didn't. Thats how it works.

I've already agreed with this post.

Wich makes this one even more illogical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BYCTWD

So you will have no problem with me posting about Limerick's Nazi problem....for the reason you can't prove beyond a definitive doubt that my malicious complaint is total bull.

AS I've already said, if you can show me footage taken from the game on which there is incontrovertible evidence of anti-semetic behaviour on the part of Limerick fans, I'll accept it.

In Rovers case, however, there is footage on which there is incontrovertible evidence (in my opinion, and the opinion of many others) of racist abuse by Rovers fans, but you refuse to accept it. You've tried to argue that the claim wasn't made until after doctored youtube footage had surfaced, but were proven to be wrong, and you and other Rovers fans have explained it as "short-booing", and chants of "Hoops", neither of which are even the slightest bit convincing.
22/11/2009, 7:10 PM
Jicked

If the evidence is 'incontravestible' why do you think the fai threw out the allegation?
22/11/2009, 7:59 PM
osarusan

I'm going to argue the point with you any more, for a number of reasons.

The fact that you are unable to understand or unwilling to accept that a decision not to pursue a claim due to lack of evidence does not equate to proof that nothing happened is one reason.

The fact that you believe, or pretend to believe, that a claim of anti-semitism against Limerick fans without any evidence whatsoever to support it should be considered as valid as a claim of racial abuse against Rovers fans based on actual television footage is another reason.

The fact that you have repeatedly tried to assert that the original claim was made two weeks after the event and was based on a doctored youtube clip, when both of these things have been proven wrong, is a third reason.

I've seen the TV4 footage, and I believe what I heard was racist abuse. The decision by SARI and the FAI doesn't change that. Even a number of Rovers supporters on here accepted that what the footage showed was racism. It's hard for me to believe that anybody could come to a different conclusion, but you, and some other Rovers supporters, apparently can.
23/11/2009, 11:20 AM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jicked

If the evidence is 'incontravestible' why do you think the fai threw out the allegation?

Because of the club involved - simple as. Just like the reaction of the same body to the flares lit and the bottle striking a lino at the same game.

Look, if any poster here wants to carry on dening what some of your own fans accept happened then fine (there is none so blind...) it was a very small minority involved and I would hope not reflective of the majority of hoops supporters BUT it did happen and no amount of denial or FAI fudge will change that.
23/11/2009, 11:46 AM
EnglishSource

Quote:

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Because of the club involved - simple as. Just like the reaction of the same body to the flares lit and the bottle striking a lino at the same game.

You mean the fine of almost two thousand euros issued by the FAI?
23/11/2009, 1:27 PM
marinobohs

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishSource

You mean the fine of almost two thousand euros issued by the FAI?

fairly tame for a lino getting hit by a bottle don't you think ? Any ground in europe would be closed for the same incident. Incidentally bohs were fined about two years back when a small minority of so called "fans" made a racial comment about a bray player, there was no recording of it (unlike the Ndo case) but the FAI still felt the need to fine the club, same standards ??????