Osmajic

[Roosterbooster]

It's quite simple, I don't think it should take 4 months and counting to deal with a footballer who racially abuses another footballer and goes on to gloat about it.

It's a very generous reading to assume it is taking the FA a long time because they are doing a thorough job. There is no reason to think that.

1. It should take as long as it takes. Imagine if they rushed it and Osmajic was found not guilty or unproven because the FA had not done their due diligence. That would be inexcusable
2. We cannot assume that he definitely racially abused Hannibal. Currently it is one person's word against another. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he did. And I am confident that Hannibal believes he was racially abused. But he wouldn't be the first person to mishear. As unlikely as it may be, and despite me finding Osmajic a despicable piece of work, he has the right to a fair hearing and for the evidence to be judged accordingly
3. He gloated when he scored against us. And if found guilty this should make his sentence much harsher. It was extremely unwise given the circumstances, and probably a reflection of his appalling character. But he wasn't gloating about racially abusing a fellow professional
4. Why is there no reason to think the FA are not doing a thorough job? Quite frankly this seems the most logical conclusion. He has already been charged. This isn't going away. It won't suddenly just disappear over time. He has an allegation to answer to. What more plausible explanation can you think of as to why it it taking this long?

[quoonbeatz]

He’s unfortunately never getting found guilty unless there’s a tv angle where he isn’t behind Hannibal’s head when he says whatever he says. The pictures we’ve all seen aren’t conclusive at all.

[fatboy47]

It took the various Allied Nations around 5 months to prepare the evidence to try 22 Nazi leaders at Nuremberg in late '45, following umpteen million murders including the holocaust and a massive list of war crimes.

This process will take however long the authorities want it to.

[daveisaclaret]

1. It should take as long as it takes. Imagine if they rushed it and Osmajic was found not guilty or unproven because the FA had not done their due diligence. That would be inexcusable
2. We cannot assume that he definitely racially abused Hannibal. Currently it is one person's word against another. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he did. And I am confident that Hannibal believes he was racially abused. But he wouldn't be the first person to mishear. As unlikely as it may be, and despite me finding Osmajic a despicable piece of work, he has the right to a fair hearing and for the evidence to be judged accordingly
3. He gloated when he scored against us. And if found guilty this should make his sentence much harsher. It was extremely unwise given the circumstances, and probably a reflection of his appalling character. But he wasn't gloating about racially abusing a fellow professional
4. Why is there no reason to think the FA are not doing a thorough job? Quite frankly this seems the most logical conclusion. He has already been charged. This isn't going away. It won't suddenly just disappear over time. He has an allegation to answer to. What more plausible explanation can you think of as to why it it taking this long?

Sorry, this is worthless and pointless. It is clearly taking too long, it is taking longer than previous charges for the same offence and has now reached the point where Osmajic if he so wished could simply walk away from English football and play elsewhere.

When you say "imagine if they rushed it" you are just making something up. They do not need to rush it to deal with a charge within 4 months of it happening as they have demonstrated on multiple occasions in the past.

[Jakubclaret]

Not quite right get your point though, we don’t know what was said we only know what Hannibal thought he heard, doesn’t mean that Odmajic actually said a racial slur though. there has to be evidence for him to be proven guilty and we have a classic his word against mine issue here. There not being evidence doesn’t mean he isn’t protected it just means either Hannibal was mistaken or not enough independent people heard clearly what was said (or the lip reading wasn’t clear maybe)

I agree completely. You are wasting your time with that poster when all this emerged a comment was suggested that some of us would have to pretend not be racist. You have people who want justice but aren't prepared to see out the process to enable that to happen.

[JarrowClaret]

Sorry, this is worthless and pointless. It is clearly taking too long, it is taking longer than previous charges for the same offence and has now reached the point where Osmajic if he so wished could simply walk away from English football and play elsewhere.

When you say "imagine if they rushed it" you are just making something up. They do not need to rush it to deal with a charge within 4 months of it happening as they have demonstrated on multiple occasions in the past.

What is worthless or pointless about roosters post? It is more or less spot on in my opinion at least. If this was a straight forward innocent or guilty then you are 100% correct, but clearly this isn’t 1 of them. The investigation has to do right by Hannibal but it also has to protect Odmajic as well as he very well could be totally innocent and Hannibal could have misheard. How long did Jays case take by the way? However long that was his was fairly straightforward as you couldn’t really prove his intent 1 way or the other, what he said was never in doubt.

In this case the only person who knows exactly what was said is Osmajic and if he said a racial slur he isn’t going to admit it and unless there is independent quantifiable evidence they can’t push it through any quicker. They have to give it the best chance to get the correct verdict but the longer it goes on the more chance there is that it will come back not proven.

[daveisaclaret]

What is worthless or pointless about roosters post? It is more or less spot on in my opinion at least. If this was a straight forward innocent or guilty then you are 100% correct, but clearly this isn’t 1 of them. The investigation has to do right by Hannibal but it also has to protect Odmajic as well as he very well could be totally innocent and Hannibal could have misheard. How long did Jays case take by the way? However long that was his was fairly straightforward as you couldn’t really prove his intent 1 way or the other, what he said was never in doubt.

In this case the only person who knows exactly what was said is Osmajic and if he said a racial slur he isn’t going to admit it and unless there is independent quantifiable evidence they can’t push it through any quicker. They have to give it the best chance to get the correct verdict but the longer it goes on the more chance there is that it will come back not proven.

It is worthless and pointless as it's just made up. Thinking they are doing a good job because it is taking them ages is just as silly as thinking there is more chance it will come back not proven because it is taking them ages. Literally just made up.

Jay's case took three months to the day, but given you have totally mischaracterised it as a case where there was no doubt about what he said I don't really think you know anything about this.

There is some reason you are keen to argue the FA is doing a good job even though you don't care about the result and I will not speculate as to what that reason is.

[JarrowClaret]

It is worthless and pointless as it's just made up. Thinking they are doing a good job because it is taking them ages is just as silly as thinking there is more chance it will come back not proven because it is taking them ages. Literally just made up.

Jay's case took three months to the day, but given you have totally mischaracterised it as a case where there was no doubt about what he said I don't really think you know anything about this.

There is some reason you are keen to argue the FA is doing a good job even though you don't care about the result and I will not speculate as to what that reason is.

Not once have I said they are doing a good job, I couldn’t as I have no evidence to back that up I have merely pointed to a reason that this could be dragging on. When did I say I don’t care about the result by the way? I care about the correct result being presented although sadly I suspect we will get the same as Jays (not proven) which helps nobody.

Talking of Jays maybe my memory is failing me but I was under the impression that Jays was always about his intent rather than what he said. Maybe I am wrong but I seem to remember both sides versions of what was said being similar it was just how Bong took it was different to Jays meaning. Ie Jay said he has smelly breath and Bong thought he had said he smells because he is foreign or something like that.

You seem to have decided that Osmaric is guilty from some of your posts, where as I firmly believe that Hannibal thought he heard something bad but currently there is no proof so Odmajic could actually be innocent.

[Papabendi]

1. It should take as long as it takes. Imagine if they rushed it and Osmajic was found not guilty or unproven because the FA had not done their due diligence. That would be inexcusable
2. We cannot assume that he definitely racially abused Hannibal. Currently it is one person's word against another. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he did. And I am confident that Hannibal believes he was racially abused. But he wouldn't be the first person to mishear. As unlikely as it may be, and despite me finding Osmajic a despicable piece of work, he has the right to a fair hearing and for the evidence to be judged accordingly
3. He gloated when he scored against us. And if found guilty this should make his sentence much harsher. It was extremely unwise given the circumstances, and probably a reflection of his appalling character. But he wasn't gloating about racially abusing a fellow professional
4. Why is there no reason to think the FA are not doing a thorough job? Quite frankly this seems the most logical conclusion. He has already been charged. This isn't going away. It won't suddenly just disappear over time. He has an allegation to answer to. What more plausible explanation can you think of as to why it it taking this long?

Sorry, but 'takes as long as it takes' doesn't quite cut it. If you are the victim of a crime, there is a certain expectation that the evidence is looked at and a conclusion reached over a certain period. If something serious happened in your life would you be happy for an investigation to go on indefinitely. I doubt it.

[Jakubclaret]

Sorry, but 'takes as long as it takes' doesn't quite cut it. If you are the victim of a crime, there is a certain expectation that the evidence is looked at and a conclusion reached over a certain period. If something serious happened in your life would you be happy for an investigation to go on indefinitely. I doubt it.

It can't be assumed he is a victim of a crime because of the small detail that the other bloke is denying it. The expectation should be ascertaining if he is victim & then proceeding from that point onwards. As it currently stands you have 2 people saying conflicting things & nothing really corroborating things differently.

[Row x]

Sorry, but 'takes as long as it takes' doesn't quite cut it. If you are the victim of a crime, there is a certain expectation that the evidence is looked at and a conclusion reached over a certain period. If something serious happened in your life would you be happy for an investigation to go on indefinitely. I doubt it.

I'd be happy as long as the correct decision is made.

[Jakubclaret]

I'd be happy as long as the correct decision is made.

Thing is you wouldn't even know it if it wasn't. There's only 2 people that really know what went on that day.

[JarrowClaret]

Thing is you wouldn't even know it if it wasn't. There's only 2 people that really know what went on that day.

I would say only 1 person knows exactly what was said to Hannibal and in what context the rest is conjecture and opinion.

[Jakubclaret]

I would say only 1 person knows exactly what was said to Hannibal and in what context the rest is conjecture and opinion.

I'd say 2 people but there's a possibility whatever MO allegedly said it's open to misinterpretion. On that basis I don't see how it can be proven beyond doubt.

[JarrowClaret]

I'd say 2 people but there's a possibility whatever MO allegedly said it's open to misinterpretion. On that basis I don't see how it can be proven beyond doubt.

I say only 1 knows as what Osmajic said and what Hannibal thinks he heard could be 2 different but similar sounding things.

[Row x]

Thing is you wouldn't even know it if it wasn't. There's only 2 people that really know what went on that day.

The post I was replying to wasn't mentioning the Hannibal incident, more something happening personally....

[Jakubclaret]

The post I was replying to wasn't mentioning the Hannibal incident, more something happening personally....

Sorry I didn't realize I just mistakenly assumed you was referring to the Hannibal incident with the correct decision as it was on the osmajic thread. Doesn't digress withstanding in direct relation obviously not personally.

[ksrclaret]

Doesn't digress withstanding in direct relation obviously not personally.

Jakubot has malfunctioned again.

[fidelcastro]

Jakubot has malfunctioned again.

I knew he couldn't be real!

[Jakubclaret]

Jakubot has malfunctioned again.

I seem to be learning a lot from you you awful awful person.

[Roosterbooster]

Seems to be 2 arguments here.

1: Let the FA gather the evidence and present it when it's ready

2:

[Leisure]

Seems to be 2 arguments here.

1: Let the FA gather the evidence and present it when it's ready

2:

Not sure just what more evidence can be out there that they haven't been able to find in the past 3 months or so?

[GetIntoEm]

Anti-depressant squad? Are you 12? If not, give your head a wobble. I hope none of your friends are suffering from mental health issues - clearly you're not someone they would feel comfortable confiding in. ****.

Dragged that one up didn't you.

I dont have friends that are so emotionally up and down over sports

[LDNBFC87]

Dragged that one up didn't you.

I dont have friends that are so emotionally up and down over sports

I did, because it deserved to be. Don't try and change the narrative now.

[martin_p]

It can't be assumed he is a victim of a crime because of the small detail that the other bloke is denying it. The expectation should be ascertaining if he is victim & then proceeding from that point onwards. As it currently stands you have 2 people saying conflicting things & nothing really corroborating things differently.

And nothing evidence wise that is going to change that. They have all the evidence available to them so need to make a decision one way or the other for the sake of both players.

[Jakubclaret]

And nothing evidence wise that is going to change that. They have all the evidence available to them so need to make a decision one way or the other for the sake of both players.

Tell me something I don't know. I've said from the start while there's an element of doubt which there is this goes nowhere. Other people have said it's decided upon the balance of probabilities. I think it's taking this long because they have to be seen to doing something but in reality they don't have anything to go on apart from he said this he said that.

[hoskinsgoalatswansea]

Not sure just what more evidence can be out there that they haven't been able to find in the past 3 months or so?

Couldn’t agree more. It’s not like some forensic clues are gonna turn up.

Look at the reports, speak to everyone in earshot, interview the 2 players involved, and make a decision.

[Roosterbooster]

I would assume that once evidence has been gathered, it must then be disclosed to the individual facing the charge. Osmajic and his team should be given the opportunity to review this evidence and gather any relevant information in preparation for the hearing. In cases judged on the balance of probabilities, it isn’t sufficient for the defence to simply argue that the allegation can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt—they must show that it is, in all likelihood, improbable. This process understandably takes time, as it involves carefully reviewing the evidence and preparing an appropriate defence.

If I were the person being charged and intended to plead not guilty, I would expect, at the very least, a fair chance to defend myself. One cannot simply appear at the hearing and say, “That’s not true. It didn’t happen.”

The charge is serious and carries consequences for both parties. As such, it must be treated with the gravity it deserves. Osmajic stands to lose just as much as anyone involved, and he is absolutely entitled to a fair opportunity to defend himself. To be clear, this is not a defence of his alleged actions—it is a defence of the fundamental right to a fair hearing.

[Spike]

Got banned from driving today with more offences than he scored league goals last season

[CyrilEbokiPoh]

Got banned from driving today with more offences than he scored league goals last season

At leats he admitted these EIGHT charges!

[Corway]

I'd say 2 people but there's a possibility whatever MO allegedly said it's open to misinterpretion. On that basis I don't see how it can be proven beyond doubt.

The FA aren’t a criminal court able to put people in prison
Surely it only needs to be proven on the balance of probabilities

[Claretitus]

Got banned from driving today with more offences than he scored league goals last season

Career criminal.

[Commy]

https://www.lep.co.uk/sport/football/pr ... al-5220589

Not sure he should be saying anything before they have decided who to believe.

[fidelcastro]

https://www.lep.co.uk/sport/football/pr ... al-5220589

Not sure he should be saying anything before they have decided who to believe.

I know that English isn't his first language, but it reads like a monologue by Vicky Pollard!

On a serious note, it's getting increasingly more ridiculous that it's taking this long to sort out.

[agreenwood]

The incident took place 5 months ago.

These things may well take time to resolve, but 5 months seems excessive.

[Spike]

If this was any other organisation in the UK this would have had to be resolved within the time limit specified in company rules
Surely by mocking the referral and the system he is bringing the game into disrepute
The FA clearly don’t know what to do

[Awayfromburnley]

Investigations take time. Whether that is in your standard workplace or legal ones.

Even more so when high profile and potentially very serious.

There will be interviews, statements, more interviews, clarifications, evidence reviews etc. It takes a long time if done properly.

[Spike]

If this was any other organisation in the UK this would have had to be resolved within the time limit specified in company rules
Surely by mocking the referee and the system he is bringing the game into disrepute
The FA clearly don’t know what to do
The matter needs resolving for the sake of common decency ,and in respect for both players it needs to be resolved now more than ever

[IWOODLOVETT]

Does he work for the Post Office?

[daveisaclaret]

When this thread was last active over a month ago, this had already taken longer to resolve than recent high profile cases like Suarez, Bentancur and Rodriguez.

It's all very well saying these thinks take time but this is pathetic by the FA.

[Vincent'sCap]

,The FA know this obnoxious t**t is guilty,they just haven't the balls to do anything about it.

[Jakubclaret]

I don't think it's damning enough to have any sort of real conviction. It's all good & well people banging on about balance of probabilities but at the end it does really boil down to 1 persons word against the other & you need something meatier.

[Duffer_]

Playing for PNE vs Liverpool on ITV now. FA don't have a clue.

[claretburns]

I don't think it's damning enough to have any sort of real conviction. It's all good & well people banging on about balance of probabilities but at the end it does really boil down to 1 persons word against the other & you need something meatier.

No it doesn't, if it was in a court of law then yes you would be correct one person's word against the other however in football related issues at the FA such as this it is based on the probability of something being said.

[dougcollins]

No it doesn't, if it was in a court of law then yes you would be correct one person's word against the other however in football related issues at the FA such as this it is based on the probability of something being said.

Same rules as a civil case?

[nil_desperandum]

,The FA know this obnoxious t**t is guilty,they just haven't the balls to do anything about it.

Or, more likely:
The FA know this obnoxious t**t is guilty, but are struggling to find sufficient evidence to make a strong enough case.
Surely, if they thought he was innocent they would have held a quick tribunal by now and dismissed it for lack of compelling evidence?
The ideal scenario is that he plays all pre-season with them, then a tribunal is heard just before the season starts and it completely disrupts PNE's league fixtures.
(I'm not usually anti-PNE, but I don't like the way that the club and fans have behaved over this, and his previous ......, and Heckingbottom is the most obnoxious manager in the division.)

[Jakubclaret]

Or, more likely:
The FA know this obnoxious t**t is guilty, but are struggling to find sufficient evidence to make a strong enough case.
Surely, if they thought he was innocent they would have held a quick tribunal by now and dismissed it for lack of compelling evidence?
The ideal scenario is that he plays all pre-season with them, then a tribunal is heard just before the season starts and it completely disrupts PNE's league fixtures.
(I'm not usually anti-PNE, but I don't like the way that the club and fans have behaved over this, and his previous ......, and Heckingbottom is the most obnoxious manager in the division.)

They can't know he's guilty they might suspect he is. We don't know for sure that he's guilty. It's our natural instinct to side with Hannibal as it is with Preston's with osmajic. The FA have to be seen to be doing something but in reality they have nothing to really go on.

[Big Vinny K]

The FA does not seemingly need conclusive evidence.
It’s not a court of law.
There was nothing conclusive in the Suarez case and he got an 8 week ban.

[Jakubclaret]

Conclusive or not 5 months later tells it own tale.

[BurnleyFC]

I’d suspect the FA will get pelters either way now, with how long it’s dragged on.