The Full Report:
The Football Association v (1) Patrice Evra (2) Chelsea Football Club
FA Regulatory Commission: Reasons for decisions made on 5 December 2008
Last updated at 11:52 PM on 17th December 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1097030/The-Football-Association-v-1-Patrice-Evra-2-Chelsea-Football-Club.htmlEveryone on this forum should read this report on EVRA and MIKE PHELAN.
It cant be posted because its over 45000 words in length.
There are just extracts.
1. This is the statement of findings and reasons requested under regulation 9 of the FA Regulations for Football Association Disciplinary Action1 following a Regulatory Commission decision at a hearing on 4 and 5 December 2008. This Commission2 heard and ruled on charges brought by The FA against the Manchester United footballer Patrice Evra and against Chelsea Football Club ("Chelsea").
4. Mr Evra admitted the conduct in (a) and (c) but denied that it had been improper. He denied the conduct in (b) and (d) altogether. Accordingly, the charge was denied altogether by Mr Evra.
Mr Evra described how he had to jump over a lawnmower to avoid any contact with it and says that he stopped and asked the groundsman why he had tried to cut his legs. Mr Evra says he was shocked and angry because he could have been injured. He said that some of the ground staff seemed to try deliberately to get in the Manchester United players' way and that this particular groundsman had suddenly accelerated towards Mr Evra, i.e. with his lawnmower.
17. It does seem that there was some slight tension and mutual irritation developing at this early stage of the warm-down. Manchester United players were at least as responsible as Chelsea ground staff. Gary Neville in particular was behaving in an abusive and provocative manner towards Chelsea ground staff. However, we do not believe there was anything serious at that stage, and certainly nothing dangerous. We find Mr Evra's description exaggerated.
23. Having seen and heard Mr Griffin, Mr Strudwick, Mr Evra given evidence and being cross-examined, we broadly prefer Mr Griffin's account. We were favourably impressed by Mr Griffin as a witness, who came across as frank, calm and sensible. Mr Strudwick we found less reliable. At some point in his evidence he tried to create a slightly misleading impression that Mr Evra had simply intervened between Mr Strudwick and Mr Griffin rather then gone straight for Mr Griffin as the target of his barge. Moreover, though we recognise that demeanour in the witness box may not always closely reflect demeanour and behaviour on other occasions, Mr Strudwick struck us distinctly more likely than Mr Griffin to have become angry and aggressive in their argument on the pitch on 26 April 2008.
24. Probably the argument between the two of them was a little more heated and aggressive on both sides than Mr Griffin described but we reject Mr Strudwick's picture of a discussion in which Mr Griffin was the aggressive and unreasonable one by comparison with Mr Strudwick. However, this finding is not critical anyway in considering Mr Evra's actions. There was no good reason for Mr Evra to have run over and barged Mr Griffin as he did. It was unnecessarily and gratuitously aggressive of Mr Evra. Mr Strudwick expressly told us in his oral evidence that Mr Griffin had not touched him. Mr Evra's suggestion that he was concerned about Mr Strudwick's safety is farfetched. They were two grown men having an apparently strong verbal disagreement but no more than that. The clear implication by Mr Evra that Mr Griffin's pitchfork gave some reason for concern about Mr Strudwick's safety is ridiculous.
25. It is at this relatively early point in his account of these events that we start to reject aspects of Mr Evra's (and Mr Strudwick's) account. We do not accept that the verbal exchange - Mr Evra telling Mr Griffin to put his pitchfork down and Mr Griffin telling Mr Evra in graphic terms exactly where he would put his pitchfork – happened in that way. Some such strong language and probably some such phrases were used by somebody in the course of the overall incident that afternoon. But we do not see from the evidence that Mr Griffin was raising or holding his pitchfork in a way which would have led Mr Evra to ask him to put it down in the first place.
We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and unreliable.
It is an attempt to justify a physical intervention by him which cannot reasonably be justified.
What we do note particularly here is that the very first act of aggressive physical contact by anybody was Mr Evra's barge into Mr Griffin.
It was certainly that barge which sparked off the rest of the unhappy events which then ensued.
It is just not clear enough. Mr Evra denies it but we accept Mr Bethell's evidence that he was struck on or near his right ear and it was clearly Mr Evra who struck him. We note that Mr Evra is right-handed but do not see that as a reason to reject that conclusion.
Mr Griffin also confirmed his written statement that he clearly saw Mr Evra punch Mr Bethell on the side of the head and we have already said that we find Mr Griffin a reliable witness.
But whatever the label we conclude that Mr Evra did strike Mr Bethell on the side of his head. That is violent conduct. Not dangerous and in fact around the bottom of the scale in terms of actual physical impact, but clearly violent conduct within the meaning of that phrase in The FA rules.
30. We have no doubt that Mr Evra was provoked by Mr Bethell but we make two comments on that: First, provocation is not a defence to a charge of violent conduct but only comes in as potential mitigation; secondly, it was Mr Evra's own violent conduct towards Mr Griffin which sparked off what followed. Mr Bethell had not been involved in any way in the Evra/Griffin barging incident.
32. Mr Bethell's ground staff colleague Craig Martin took hold of him. Mr Bethell's ground staff colleague Craig Martin took hold of him. Mr Evra's witness statement says that at that point he "simply started walking away". It was not quite like that. Mr Evra was being escorted away.
The direct altercation between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra continued verbally. Mr Bethell was shouting violent abuse at Mr Evra. "******* idiot", which Mr Bethell thinks was a phrase he used, would not have been the strongest term – though Mr Bethell has never accepted that he used racist language of any sort. Mr Evra was also shouting back, though probably not in as strong terms as Mr Bethell.
38. It is after the first altercation between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra that Mr Bethell is alleged to have shouted at Mr Evra "I'll ******* have you, you ******* immigrant" – an allegation which Mr Bethell has consistently and vehemently denied.
39. The two witnesses who say they heard those words directed by Mr Bethell at Mr Evra are the Manchester United first team coach Mr Mike Phelan and the goalkeeping coach Mr Richard Hartis.
40. There is some confusion and inconsistency in their placing of the alleged racist insult. We should not have expected complete detailed accuracy and consistency in witnesses' recollections of a fast-moving disorderly series of events. However, there are aspects of the evidence of Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis which raise serious questions about the reliability of their claims about the racist remark.
41. Mr Phelan's first signed written statement was dated 17 May 2008, just over 3 weeks after the events. It does not clearly distinguish the first and second altercations between Mr Bethell and Mr Evra but in the light of all the evidence it is clear that he was talking about the second altercation, after Mr Evra had broken free and run back to confront Mr Bethell again. Mr Phelan places the racist remark clearly at a point where Mr Bethell has his right arm raised with his fist clenched as if he is about to throw a punch.
43. Mr Phelan's second signed written statement is dated 3 October 2008, more than 5 months after the events. That statement is slightly longer and more detailed than the first and does distinguish between the first Bethell-Evra altercation and the second renewed altercation. However, the racist remark is placed at significantly different points in time in the two statements: In the first statement Mr Bethell and Mr Evra are already squared up close to each other, in the course of the second altercation, when the remark is made. But in the second statement the remark comes before Mr Evra has even started to run back towards Mr Bethell for the second Bethell-Evra altercation.
44. It should also be noted that in his oral evidence Mr Phelan told us in express terms that at the time the words "******* immigrant" were used, Mr Bethell and Mr Evra were being restrained – which could only have been either: (a) much earlier than is consistent with the rest of Mr Phelan's evidence (if it was part of the first and not the second Bethell- Evra altercation, which it was not, as that was not the overall thrust of Mr Phelan's evidence at all or Mr Hartis's evidence discussed below); or (b) much later (if it was in the course of the second altercation, which means that it was well after Mr Phelan himself places the remark in paragraphs 6 and 7 of his second statement – as he is unequivocally saying there that Mr Evra when ran back to confront Mr Bethell a second time that was after the alleged racist insult).
45. Although, as already stated, we should not have expected entirely consistent recollections on details, such discrepancies on the sequence of key events cast more doubt on the reliability of a witness's evidence. of MIKE PHELAN Man Utd (Ed)
46. When we consider the corresponding evidence of Mr Hartis those doubts are reinforced. His first written statement, dated 19 May 2008, describes the alleged racist remark in word for word the same terms as Mr Phelan's first statement: "I'll ******* have you, you ******* immigrant". .
47. Mr Hartis's second statement is dated 3 October 2008. Although it is not very precise on the sequence of events, it is crystal clear that it places the alleged racist remark after Mr Evra has been led away from the first Bethell-Evra altercation. He also expressly confirmed in his oral evidence that the remark was made before Mr Bethell and Mr Evra came together the second time.
48. The inconsistencies in Mr Phelan's evidence about the sequence of events are not just the normal expected uncertainty about detail. They cast serious doubt on the reliability of their overall evidence.
49. If Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis are right in their recollection, then it is in the first place surprising that Mr Evra himself did not hear the remark. According to Mr Hartis's oral evidence, Mr Bethell and Mr Evra were about 4 yards apart when the remark was made. If the remark was made it was specifically directed at Mr Evra.
Of course, English is not Mr Evra's first language and when he gave evidence to this Commission it was apparent that his own spoken English is far from fluent. But according to Mr Phelan's and Mr Hartis's timing of the remark, Mr Evra would have been standing facing Mr Bethell when Mr Bethell directed the remark at Mr Evra. Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis both say they were about 6 metres away from Mr Bethell when the racist remark was made.
50. Even if we disregard the fact that Mr Evra has never claimed to have heard such a remark on that day, it is notable that there were several other people far nearer to Mr Bethell at the critical point in time than were either Mr Phelan or Mr Hartis. Nobody else has come forward with an allegation of any such remark. Mr Martin and one of the Chelsea stewards were right next to Mr Bethell: see photographs 3, 4 and 5. Two Chelsea stewards Mr Michael Headley and Mr Joseph Quartey-Cofie, were not as near but can be seen in photographs 1 and 2 trying to restrain Mr Evra. They are both English and 15 both black. We consider that one or both of them would have picked up the alleged remark, if it was made at all in the terms and anywhere close to the time alleged by Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis. Despite whatever understandable loyalties might otherwise exist among Chelsea staff, we do not consider it plausible that if either of them had heard the remark he would have withheld that allegation and attended to give evidence to this Commission on behalf of Mr Bethell.
51. When Mr Bethell gave evidence before this Commission, we found his firm denial of the racist remark convincing.
52. Mr Griffin was the very first witness before us. The next two were Mr Phelan and Mr Hartis. Even before hearing the rest of the witnesses, we did not feel able to place strong reliance on their evidence. Mr Phelan particularly did not impress us. He supported his contention that he heard the racist remark by telling us that throughout the renewed incident following Mr Evra's running back towards Mr Bethell, his Mr Phelan's attention was directly focussed on Mr Bethell. That is not the precise point at which he claimed in his statement to have heard the racist remark but it nevertheless reinforced our doubts about Mr Phelan's evidence. We were also not convinced by Mr Hartis, who claims to have heard the same remark from a position at a similar distance from Mr Bethell. We prefer the evidence of Mr Bethell himself. 16
53. For the reasons summarised above, our finding is the alleged racist remark by Mr Bethell (calling Mr Evra a "******* immigrant") was not made. That takes out of the first charge against Chelsea the ingredient of racist conduct and/or language by its employee Mr Bethell, which is not proven.
54. There is an important point to stress: The allegation of the racist remark is completely irrelevant to the charges against Mr Evra. He has never claimed to have heard any such remark. It follows that he claims no provocation by any racist remark or any justification for his actions as a result of any such remark.
62. The charge of breach of FA rule E3 against Mr Evra is proven.
His conduct was improper in that during the warm-down session on 26 April 2008 he: (a) pushed Mr Jason Griffin, Head Groundsman of Chelsea, with his chest; and/or (b) struck Mr Sam Bethell, a groundsman at Chelsea, on the side of his head; and/or (c) ran to confront Mr Bethell; and (d) became involved in a physical altercation with Mr Sam Bethell. It is a single charge containing those four elements though any one of the four, proven on the evidence, would have sustained the charge as proven.
64. We make it clear that we are punishing only Mr Evra for his own individual actions which constituted misconduct in breach of FA Rule E3 and Chelsea FC for its own failure to discharge its own responsibility under FA Rule E20. Manchester United FC was never charged in relation to the events on 26 April 2008 and Mr Sam Bethell is no longer charged since the dismissal of the case against him personally.
65. We have decided to suspend Mr Evra for four matches, with effect from Monday 22 December so as to give him and his advisers the opportunity of considering an appeal and take such action as they might think appropriate for a further stay of the suspension. We also fine Mr Evra £15,000. 13 FA Handbook page 303. 19
66. We do not consider that a fine, with or without a reprimand or warning, comes near being an effective and adequate penalty to punish and mark the seriousness of Mr Evra's offence. It is clear to this Commission that a suspension is required.
67. It must be borne in mind that Mr Evra's proven misconduct on 26 April 2008 involved the following: (1) he was the first person in the whole incident physically to assault another person, when he barged into Mr Griffin; (2) that assault was unprovoked and unjustified (and was nothing to do with anything passing between Mr Evra and Mr Bethell, which came afterwards and was actually triggered off by Mr Evra's barge on Mr Griffin); (3) Mr Evra then committed a further separate assault by striking Mr Bethell, a member of the Chelsea ground staff; (4) although we have regard to Mr Bethell's own aggressive and provocative conduct, that does not justify Mr Evra's action which, although the blow was slight, constituted violent conduct under The FA Rules; (5) Mr Evra then broke away from restraint and deliberately ran back towards Mr Bethell to become involved in his third physical altercation of the overall incident; (6) although Mr Evra was subject to strong provocation by Mr Bethell, that does not justify his action in going back into the fray, especially following the two assaults already committed by him.
68. It was submitted by Mr Watkins in mitigation on Mr Evra's behalf that when it came to the question of penalty Mr Evra's offence was comparable to offences involving aggressive barging committed by Ryan Giggs and Cristiano Ronaldo during a match in December 2003, which he briefly described and for which they were fined £7,500 [*Check – was it £7,500 or £3,500] and £4,000 respectively with a reprimand or warning in each case. One member of the Commission was already reasonably familiar with the details of those two cases. They are nowhere near comparable to the overall misconduct of Mr Evra as summarised above. This Commission listened to Mr Watkins's submissions that Mr Evra should be punished by a reprimand or warning only or, if that were not the Commission's view, then with at most a fine and a reprimand or warning. The submission was so unrealistic that it 20 gave us no useful help. It had become obvious to every member of the Commission that a punishment which did not include suspension from matches would be clearly inadequate to reflect Mr Evra's totally unacceptable and unprofessional conduct.
In any case, more directly to the point is that the proven charge against Mr Evra includes his involvement in the three distinct physical altercations described in these reasons. That is reflected in the form of the charge, where (a) is the assault on Mr Griffin, (b) is the assault by striking Mr Bethell and (c) and (d) together are the further altercation as a result of Mr Evra breaking free and going back into the fray. In our judgment a 4 match suspension is required to mark the overall seriousness of Mr Evra's misconduct. The addition of a fine of £15,000 is in Mr Evra's case a relatively minor penalty for him15 and is a further mark of our firm and public disapproval of his misconduct.
73. Under 8.8. of the FA Regulations for Football Association Disciplinary Action16 each party bears its own costs of bringing or defending the charges. All the separate costs incurred in relation to the holding of this Regulatory Commission, including the specific matters mentioned in 8.8(b) are to be paid as to half each by Mr Evra and Chelsea FC.
74. We remind the parties that under 1.2 of the FA Regulations for Football Association Appeals17 they have 14 days from the date of these written reasons for lodging of any Notice of Appeal. 16 FA Handbook page 304. 17 FA Handbook page 308 22
Nicholas Stewart QC (Chairman)
Barry Bright
Roy Carter
David Pleat
12 December 2008
Three Years Ago
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1097030/The-Football-Association-v-1-Patrice-Evra-2-Chelsea-Football-Club.html#ixzz1hI3aQvaEThe inclusion of descriptions against Mike Phelan and Evra make interesting reading.
Unreliable witnesses. Not credible.
Who is
really behind this then?
PS 5 REASONS MATE. The LFC Statement gave as many why NOT so get your finger working and tell us all why ......
Were waiting and were listening .....................
