Simon Jordan on talkSPORTplaceholder image
Simon Jordan on talkSPORT | talkSPORT - YouTube
PNE striker Milutin Osmajic has been banned for nine matches by the FA
Former Crystal Palace owner Simon Jordan has issued his verdict after Burnley’s Hannibal Mejbri was charged with misconduct for alleged spitting.
The charge was confirmedon Tuesday - just four days after the midfielder discovered the outcomeof his racism allegations against Preston North End striker Milutin Osmajic. Eight months after the PNE man was charged, the FA slapped him with a nine game ban after an independent regulatory commission found it to be proven ‘on the balance of probabilities’.
Osmajic had ‘strongly refuted’ the allegations against him and North End, in a statement, said they were‘extremely disappointed’by the outcome. Preston CEO, Peter Ridsdale, then spoke to talkSPORT’s Jordan, and Jim White, on their Tuesday show. The whole topic was brought back up once again on Wednesday morning, following the news regarding Hannibal - who allegedly spat at Leeds United fans during last month’s game.
Speaking on Wednesday’s show, Jordan said: “It’s a strange world where you can stamp on someone’s knee on a football field and maybe avoid a booking. But, if you might’ve said something - that no-one can prove - you can get banned for nine games and your reputation damaged for like. That is a strange conundrum and a strange set of standards that the FA have deployed here.
“If I am Peter Ridsdale, I am sitting there propping up the mentality of, ‘Oh, that was a credible witness you had against my player, given the fact he is now in the dock himself for his own behaviour’. I know the two things are different but if you are going to take people’s evidence as compelling towards an outcome, then part and parcel of that is their character in itself to rely on that evidence.
“We have seen the evidence given was not beyond reasonable doubt, it was balance of probabilities. I would suggest that a large proportion of that was the evidence of the offended player. I would suggest it is (important to keep the two incidents separate) but I wonder if the panel did, and I wonder if the panel took into consideration previous form of a player - in terms of the player that was charged with alleged racism.
“Which, has now been turned into a confirmed instance of racism, in the panel’s mind, because they have convicted him of it. He is now, effectively - and in the minds of most people now - a racist, because he has been charged with it and found guilty of it. So, from my mind, while racism is a blot on our landscape, it should be removed and not taken lightly, it is a very damaging perspective when the balance of probabilities is the reason why people are found guilty of things.
“In this instance of character, I would suggest that the Preston player - and his behaviour previously - might’ve factored into their overall assessment of what kind of person he was. And, the probability that he had the propensity to do these kind of things. If a witness is to be credible in that situation, then he better be beyond reproach himself. I know these two situations are slightly different.
“I do not take lightly, in any shape or form, before people start getting aerated about making an excuse for racism - which is not what I am doing at all. But, a situation now where you’ve got a player now in the dock for doing something that is offensive, allegedly. Whether he has done it or not is open to the balance of probabilities I would assume. The bottom line is let’s hope he gets the same standards deployed to him as the other fella.”
Continue Reading