The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

You’re not wrong but prove you’re right… The issue is trust. A decent barrister could ask him to prove he was clean when he reffed games. No accusation has been made but, equally, he can’t prove he was clean. Trust in someone who appears untrustworthy. His character is shot to pieces.

It’s the same as a witness who has been caught lying. Everything they said before, even if it’s the truth, is open to question.

If my employer saw a video of me drunk on a Friday night, and something went to court because of it, would a decent barrister ask me to prove I wasn't ever drunk at work? Knowing I would have no way to prove it either way?

It sounds like the sort of thing a really poor amateur barrister would do, and the defence barrister would make a mockery of him (or the judge)? I'd have thought the only way that question would be asked would be if there was footage of him refereeing a game, where he looked like he was under the influence of something, and then a link could be made between that and the recent private video. Or, a private video of him being under the influence was proved to have taken place shortly before he was a match official.

But, are we now saying that if a referee is ever caught on video drunk, they should be asked if they've been drunk on the job? I'm sure most referees have had too much to drink from time to time, but I don't see why it would be reasonable to link that with them being drunk on the job?

 

[Hobbit]

If my employer saw a video of me drunk on a Friday night, and something went to court because of it, would a decent barrister ask me to prove I wasn't ever drunk at work? Knowing I would have no way to prove it either way?

It sounds like the sort of thing a really poor amateur barrister would do, and the defence barrister would make a mockery of him (or the judge)? I'd have thought the only way that question would be asked would be if there was footage of him refereeing a game, where he looked like he was under the influence of something, and then a link could be made between that and the recent private video. Or, a private video of him being under the influence was proved to have taken place shortly before he was a match official.

But, are we now saying that if a referee is ever caught on video drunk, they should be asked if they've been drunk on the job? I'm sure most referees have had too much to drink from time to time, but I don't see why it would be reasonable to link that with them being drunk on the job?

Every decision he’s made previously would be open to question. How many times has a police officer been found guilty of something and their previous evidence in other cases has been brought up in appeals?

It’s a stretch but it brings up credibility. Was the penalty he gave on xy date influenced by….

 

[clubchamp98]

If my employer saw a video of me drunk on a Friday night, and something went to court because of it, would a decent barrister ask me to prove I wasn't ever drunk at work? Knowing I would have no way to prove it either way?

It sounds like the sort of thing a really poor amateur barrister would do, and the defence barrister would make a mockery of him (or the judge)? I'd have thought the only way that question would be asked would be if there was footage of him refereeing a game, where he looked like he was under the influence of something, and then a link could be made between that and the recent private video. Or, a private video of him being under the influence was proved to have taken place shortly before he was a match official.

But, are we now saying that if a referee is ever caught on video drunk, they should be asked if they've been drunk on the job? I'm sure most referees have had too much to drink from time to time, but I don't see why it would be reasonable to link that with them being drunk on the job?

Drinking is legal.
Snorting coke is illegal.
Have the police actually been involved ?

 

[GB72]

It is a really interesting debate from a legal standpoint, defending the second video is not that difficult. He was just messing about about it was only flour, no drugs at all. Without any evidence from the time, absolutely nothing can be proved and so all you have is a video with some white powder. What action can you take then. Simulating drug taking, I guess, could be bringing the game into disrepute but it would be very hard to justify anything more serious. You could drug test him now if his contract allowed for it I suppose.

Really, all you actually have that can be proved is using foul and abusive language about others in the profession.

 

[PaulMdj]

Every decision he’s made previously would be open to question. How many times has a police officer been found guilty of something and their previous evidence in other cases has been brought up in appeals?

It’s a stretch but it brings up credibility. Was the penalty he gave on xy date influenced by….

Exactly! Being drunk isn’t illegal though and a world away from being caught doing something illegal

 

[Swango1980]

Drinking is legal.
Snorting coke is illegal.
Have the police actually been involved ?

Yeah, drugs are illegal. But, can you be sacked for taking drugs outside of work. From what I understand (from Google), you can only be sacked for taking drugs outside of work if it affects your work performance. So, surely the employer would have to have very strong evidence that taking drugs impacted their performance? One video, I suspect, is probably not enough evidence?

 

[clubchamp98]

It is a really interesting debate from a legal standpoint, defending the second video is not that difficult. He was just messing about about it was only flour, no drugs at all. Without any evidence from the time, absolutely nothing can be proved and so all you have is a video with some white powder. What action can you take then. Simulating drug taking, I guess, could be bringing the game into disrepute but it would be very hard to justify anything more serious. You could drug test him now if his contract allowed for it I suppose.

Really, all you actually have that can be proved is using foul and abusive language about others in the profession.

Making a video of himself snorting flour would just about prove how bad his decision making is imo.

 

[PaulMdj]

It is a really interesting debate from a legal standpoint, defending the second video is not that difficult. He was just messing about about it was only flour, no drugs at all. Without any evidence from the time, absolutely nothing can be proved and so all you have is a video with some white powder. What action can you take then. Simulating drug taking, I guess, could be bringing the game into disrepute but it would be very hard to justify anything more serious. You could drug test him now if his contract allowed for it I suppose.

Really, all you actually have that can be proved is using foul and abusive language about others in the profession.

Hence why it would be better waiting for the outcome.

We are only speculating, but I’m amazed at how relaxed some are to drug use, not judging any individuals on here, but it must be an age or job or social circle thing.

@Hobbit demoting him isn’t meant as a slight against teams outside the Prem, it’s how the PGMOL deal with some issues now, it’s more about taking the official out of the limelight.

 

[Swango1980]

Every decision he’s made previously would be open to question. How many times has a police officer been found guilty of something and their previous evidence in other cases has been brought up in appeals?

It’s a stretch but it brings up credibility. Was the penalty he gave on xy date influenced by….

Every decision any referee can be pen to question. Someone else said that Michael Oliver has links to Abu Dabi, can his decisions be linked to that connection and Man City!?

As for alcohol (mentioned by others as well). It may not be illegal, but it impacts a person's judgement. It is why companies don't just have a drugs policy, but it also includes alcohol. So, a video of any referee very drunk comes out, do we then link that with every decision they have ever made? I don't think so.

 

[clubchamp98]

Yeah, drugs are illegal. But, can you be sacked for taking drugs outside of work. From what I understand (from Google), you can only be sacked for taking drugs outside of work if it affects your work performance. So, surely the employer would have to have very strong evidence that taking drugs impacted their performance? One video, I suspect, is probably not enough evidence?

Where I worked a guy was sacked for failing a drugs test in work that he had consumed outside of work because it stayed in his system into his working hours.

Any mistake could cost someone on the ground their life, it just wasn’t tolerated.
We all knew that as it was part of your contract of working onsite.

 

[Swango1980]

Hence why it would be better waiting for the outcome.

We are only speculating, but I’m amazed at how relaxed some are to drug use, not judging any individuals on here, but it must be an age or job or social circle thing.

@Hobbit demoting him isn’t meant as a slight against teams outside the Prem, it’s how the PGMOL deal with some issues now, it’s more about taking the official out of the limelight.

Not sure I picked that up from anyone. I thought it was more a conversation about whether someone should be sacked for it or not, rather than giving a thumbs up to drugs users?

 

[Swango1980]

Where I worked a guy was sacked for failing a drugs test in work that he had consumed outside of work because it stayed in his system into his working hours.

Any mistake could cost someone on the ground their life, it just wasn’t tolerated.
We all knew that as it was part of your contract of working onsite.

I've no doubt any referee would get sacked for the same thing. But, I'm not sure there has been any suggestion that any "evidence" we have seen shows he was under the influence during his work? But, the conversation seems to be trying to suggest that could be the case because of the video we have seen, which seems a stretch

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Not sure I picked that up from anyone. I thought it was more a conversation about whether someone should be sacked for it or not, rather than giving a thumbs up to drugs users?

There does seem a modern thing to be relaxed about drugs

When someone says- just a line of coke , it’s saying that it’s nothing to serious and just like having a pint

 

[clubchamp98]

Not sure I picked that up from anyone. I thought it was more a conversation about whether someone should be sacked for it or not, rather than giving a thumbs up to drugs users?

Yes we’re just speculating.

But although legal alcohol can cost you your job.
My mate a lorry driver lost his licence the morning after a night out driving to work at 6am.

But a professional driver should not be getting drunk the night before an early start.

 

[PaulMdj]

Not sure I picked that up from anyone. I thought it was more a conversation about whether someone should be sacked for it or not, rather than giving a thumbs up to drugs users?

Maybe go back and read the post by Bdill (69561)joking about half of london being fired or Orikoru(69599) saying how common it is! Or GB72 (69587)mentioning high pressure jobs!
I didn’t say anyone supported or agreed with drug use, just how it almost seems normal to some in some walks of life!

 

[clubchamp98]

I've no doubt any referee would get sacked for the same thing. But, I'm not sure there has been any suggestion that any "evidence" we have seen shows he was under the influence during his work? But, the conversation seems to be trying to suggest that could be the case because of the video we have seen, which seems a stretch

I know in world cups players are tested.
Do refs get tested ?

But I think filming yourself snorting white powder with a $100 bill isn’t such a stretch.

 

[GB72]

I know in world cups players are tested.
Do refs get tested ?

But I think filming yourself snorting white powder with a $100 bill isn’t such a stretch.

I suspect if there are not already, we will shortly find that going forward refs are subject to drug testing.

 

[GB72]

Maybe go back and read the post by Bdill (69561)joking about half of london being fired or Orikoru(69599) saying how common it is! Or GB72 (69587)mentioning high pressure jobs!
I didn’t say anyone supported or agreed with drug use, just how it almost seems normal to some in some walks of life!

it never seems normal but I am a realist and I do know that it exists and is far more wide spread than many realise. In my prefession, it is just a change in substance of choice. It used to be rife with alcohol abuse but the generations that are younger than me seem to have swapped that for cocaine and other such substances. I do not support it, I do not condone it but I am a realist and I can see that the issue is there and it has been there for a pretty long time, taking over from the abuse of alcohol in pressured positions from the 70s.

 

[Neilds]

You’re not wrong but prove you’re right… The issue is trust. A decent barrister could ask him to prove he was clean when he reffed games. No accusation has been made but, equally, he can’t prove he was clean. Trust in someone who appears untrustworthy. His character is shot to pieces.

It’s the same as a witness who has been caught lying. Everything they said before, even if it’s the truth, is open to question.

How would he prove he was clean in the past?

 

[GB72]

How would he prove he was clean in the past?

That is the point, on any legal scale whether it be beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities or even based on the opinion of the man on the Clapham omnibus, it is always for the prosecution or accuser to prove wrongdoing and not the accused. As such, there would never be a need to prove you were clean in the past unless as a rebuttal of tangible evidence that you were not.