Aleksandar Tonev

I presume your quote was specific to the part you bolded - why is that untrue? If your definition of 'fairness' is just to assign blame/quilt without any evidence that is pretty sad.
Speculation is unfair - whichever side of the argument you're on. And that exactly was whole point of my comment - uncorroborated 'evidence' from either party is no evidence at all. Doesn't mean either one is necessarily lying, just that there is nothing to support it either way.
Me? Given that the guy Logan was clearly incensed/aggrieved suggests that HE at least believes something objectionable was said - again, whether misconstrued or true is irrelevant in determining Tonev's guilt.
Another note regarding legal position - Tonev has no obligation to provide corroborating evidence (although would certainly be helpful if it existed!) - it is on those bringing the charge to prove the case against him.
Now - all that being said, this is not a legal matter, but an SFA matter - however if Tonev was to sue the SFA - and Logan - for defamation, in a Scots court - assuming there actually is no corroborating evidence, I think he would win.

Disclaimer: I have no legal training, simply my interpretation of the law.

 

And you are right in my opinion,I hope he takes this to court for without evidence,witness's or any kind of proof Logan should not have a leg to stand on.
I wrote before about Kingston from Hearts calling a referee a racist for giving him two yellow cards,only to find out that the referee was married to a black lady,was Kingston fined or suspended,of course not,was it my business or anyone's * business what colour,creed or nationality the referees wife was,but you see when you call someone a racist,or anti semetic,or homophobic,it is very easy for the accuser,but can be very hard for the accused to clear his name.

I couldn't give a * if Tonev never played for Celtic again,but if he is found innocent in the court of law,I hope Logan gets a far harsher sentence than 7 games,but he wont for it will all be forgotten about,same as Kingston's accusation was,and the same as Geno Smith's accusation was.

 

* like this could ruin a person! Especially when they don't have any evidence everybody will just label him

I dont know why the aberdeen player would make something up like this that makes me think his word counts but in no way should he be guilty over one mans word

 

And that's the thing,I'm sure the players had words but who said what,and why did he say it,or who heard him say it,one mans word against anothers,but that's the way of the world these days,you can try to break a players leg and you get a 2 or 3 match ban,but if that player supposedly called you a bad name,* its 7 games and your own fans want you banished from football ffs,pc gone haywire.

 

I really look up to Logan, that bad man called me a bad name.
Was the little * ever told that football was a man's game and if you have a problem, sort it?

 

If there is no evidence then the appeal should be a success. You cannot hand out a 7 game ban on hearsay.

 

He's bound to have said something, I don't think anyone what carry this on if it was just a basic name calling. Kick him back to villa or Bulgaria. Uneducated idiots are the only folk who go about being racist these days. Plus he's not very good!

 

And there lies the problem,for if Tonev is guilty then fine let him serve his 7 match ban,in fact get rid of the *.

However if Tonev is found innocent it only makes Logan a liar,but it still leaves Tonev with a record of being accused as a racist,very unfair.

Been there.

 

If he is guilty based on definitive evidence then certainly get rid, I agree. But I don't understand the basis of the SFA's conclusion of his 'guilt'. Tonev denies this, Celtic back him, there is no other witness testimony or lip reading that I am aware of. They can't just go on what Logan is claiming?

 

There's no point in keeping him, anyway, ban or not. Forrest will soon be back and the January transfer window opens in a few weeks, in any case.

 

If it's true terminate his loan he's not good enough into the bargain

 

Footballs a mans game that much is true but racism at our club isn't tolerated. Obviously there is no hard evidence to suggest he did say something other than Logan taking Tonev to town (which speaks for itself) but to suggest players should take racist comments and accept them as part of the game is sheer stupidity.

 

Calling someone, allegedly or not, a black * or * etc does NOT make you a man.

 

I'm not assigning blame.

If Tonev denies it & there is no proof then in my eyes he's innocent.

 

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point at all - what are you saying is untrue?

It does not make Logan a liar if he sincerely believed he heard what he 'thought' was said - the only person who apparently has the answer as to what was actually said is Tonev.

I believe we are in agreement that without any corroborating evidence to contrary that Tonev cannot be guilty - but just because he is not guilty does not automatically make Logan a liar.

 

Doing my nut in that the front headline on bbc sport is
Seven Game Racism Ban for Celtic's Tonev

Why? because lets just say that Tonev was actually a Celtic player and not an Aston Villa player and we loaned him out to a club, lets say Aberdeen. While he's at Aberdeen he allegedly says a racist remark to a Dundee United player and gets a seven game ban. The headline would NOT be Seven Game Racism Ban for Aberdeen's Tonev... it would be the exact same as it is now.

Saying he's an Aston Villa player just doesn't get enough huns picking up the paper or clicking on the link, sports media in this country is a disgrace.

 

If he's a racists, sack him.

If it was a one of comment... MEH!

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

Racist, get him to *. It's a loan deal, it's easy enough to send him back surely.

But without any evidence to back up the claims, and having to go on a his word agains his claim, then it's a shocking decision.

I can understand a football association wanting to take a hard stance on racism, but you can't just go punishing folk without any proof.

I'm more to bet there has been a slagging, and via broken English it's been misheard.
The fact there is no evidence on show (that is made public) then it's defamatory towards tonev.

 

Whit?

So if he called him a black * but "honest guvnor it was a one off" that would be alright? How would you even prove that?

What a moronic post.