Mark Clattenburg: innocent
Now we know; Mark Clattenburg is innocent. Not that many people outside of Chelsea Football Club and the Society of Black Lawyers ever really doubted it.
Yesterday the club – drawing on its proud anti-racist pedigree – explained how "Chelsea FC has a duty of care, as do all employers, to act responsibly when such allegations are reported by employees. We did not take the decision to lodge a formal complaint with the FA lightly and followed the correct processes and protocols throughout". Pointing to the fact that the FA "states the allegation was made in good faith", the club went on to graciously acknowledge "Chelsea Football Club accepts the Football Association's decision regarding Mark Clattenburg". Sadly, that graciousness did not extend to an apology to the man whose reputation they had wrongly impugned.
Last week I wrote, "If Mark Clattenburg is acquitted, Chelsea Football Club should find themselves in the dock". Well he has been, and they are. And the case against them is a compelling one.
Chelsea's first line of defence is essentially that their hands were tied. An allegation of racism had been made, and they had no option but to examine it. And of course, they are right.
So the first thing the club had to do was assess the credibility of the claim. And it's here, at the very first hurdle, Chelsea's case starts to fall apart. The allegation that a Premiership referee, in front a crowd of 40,000 people, live on television, with players of both sides in the immediate vicinity and while in microphone contact with three other officials, chose to say to a black player "Shut up you monkey" was simply not credible.
Was it impossible that a referee of good standing had a sudden racist brainstorm? No, not entirely. But was it credible? No.
So we know that from the outset Chelsea had been presented with a claim that, on the surface, lacked credibility. But still, they are justified in stating they had a duty to continue to investigate it. So what form should that investigation have taken? Well, first they would have asked the initial witness how sure he was of his allegation. And they would have known that that witness – Ramires – has a relatively poor command of English. They would also have discovered that he was standing 10 yards away from the incident when it supposedly occurred. They would further have discovered that he had himself felt the need to try to confirm what he had heard with the alleged target of the comment, John Obi Mikel. And they would have learnt from Mikel – the man in closest proximity to Clattenburg at the time – that he had heard absolutely nothing.
Let's sum up where Chelsea's defence stands at this point. They had been presented with a claim that lacked credibility, and that on initial investigation was not supported by credible evidence. And still they chose to pursue it.
Chelsea are now starting to edge onto shaky ground. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. They could have taken their concerns over the allegation to Clattenburg himself, and asked for his response. They could have taken their concerns to the fourth official, and in the process sought to ascertain whether he or any of the other officials had heard the comments. Most crucially, Chelsea could at this stage have followed standard HR procedure, and seen if they could resolve the dispute informally.
But they didn't. What they did was allow John Obi Mikel to storm into Mark Clattenburg's dressing room and – according to an FA charge Mikel doesn't deny – use "threatening and/or abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour".
And what did Chelsea do next? Did they reprimand their player? No. Did they drop the case? No. Did they make a complaint through formal FA channels? No. Instead they allowed people within the club to begin briefing the media.
Firstly they briefed about the Mikel allegation. And subsequently they briefed an allegation that Clattenburg – who for it to be true would have to have effectively been having a nervous breakdown on the pitch – had also called Juan Mata a "Spanish tw**".
Then, finally, after being presented with an allegation wholly lacking in credibility, failing to uncover any credible supportive evidence, making no attempt to resolve the incident informally, abusing, threatening and insulting the referee and leaking the allegations to the press, Chelsea opted to submit the formal complaint that saw Mark Clattenburg suspended from his job, tarnished with an allegation of racism and facing a possible police investigation.
And what did that investigation uncover? The FA interviewed or took statements from numerous witnesses. It heard accounts of audio evidence. It studied video evidence of the precise instant the comments were allegedly made. It employed the services of an independent Queen's Counsel. And it concluded: "The evidence of Ramires was not supported by any other evidence. Moreover it was contradicted by other witnesses and does not cross the evidential threshold required to bring a charge against Mark Clattenburg. Having considered Counsel's opinion, and in view of all the circumstances of the case, The FA does not believe that there is a case for Mr Clattenburg to answer".
So actually, Mark Clattenburg wasn't acquitted. He didn't even have a case to answer in the first place. And the Ramires evidence – the sole piece of evidence – wasn't just unsupported. It was directly contradicted from several other sources.
How did things get this far? Chelsea claimed they were obliged to follow this course. But you'll recall that in their statement yesterday, they also said their decision to make the complaint was "not taken lightly". Which indicates they believed they had options in this matter, and weighed them.
So why did they proceed with their spurious complaint? Did Chelsea have any malign motive for pursuing their allegation against Clattenburg? Yes, they did. The club's manager – sorry, former manager – claimed after the game Clattenburg's actions had cost his team the match.
Do Chelsea have any history of making unsubstantiated allegations against match officials? Again, yes. As Jim White outlines here, this is the fourth occasion in the past seven seasons they have a wholly unfounded official complaint about a referee.
So to summarise the case for the prosecution: Chelsea's allegation was not credible; it was not supported by credible evidence; the sole piece of evidence provided was directly contradicted by numerous other credible sources; no attempt was made to resolve the issues informally; the allegations were briefed to the press before they were formally submitted to the FA; one allegation briefed to the press was withdrawn before even being submitted to the FA; the referee who was the subjected of the complaint had allegedly been insulted, abused and threatened by the complainant before the charge was submitted to the FA; he had been the subject of allegations by the club that he had been responsible for them losing the match and that club has a recent record of making unfounded allegations against match officials.
Mark Clattenburg had his entire livelihood – indeed his liberty – put at risk. Chelsea on the other hand will suffer no points deduction or fine or any other sanction. In fact, they are not even prepared to part with so much as any apology.
The law, Chelsea football club and English football are an ass.
No comments:
Post a Comment