Originally posted by Bury Red:
<strong>Again, we must follow the legal line here and as the courts failed to find any reasonable grounds for leveling assault charges on racially motivated grounds we can conclude that such grounds did not exist, or were not clearly discernable from the evidence available. As such racism was not considered in the trial and should not be considered in the post trial analysis/debate as the powerful emotions it stirs risk distorting the whole issue into a moralistic argument.</strong>
Sounds good to me. I haven't heard any real evidence that this was a racist attack. It does make better headlines though doesn't it
<strong>I unfortunately <img src="graemlins/smirk.gif" border="0" alt="[Smirk]" /> don't get to read the British tabloids any more so can only judge the mood of the case from responses in here, but am assuming that the hacks are in a feeding frenzy at the moment. The furore surrounding both the mis trial and the eventual adjudication are likely to colour any civil suit so badly that the courts will find it difficult to control the trial and as such I do not think any major judgements will be made, other than possible awards for medical compensation.</strong>
I share your <img src="graemlins/smirk.gif" border="0" alt="[Smirk]" /> re. the tabloids - what a loss
<strong>I believe Leeds' stance now is an attempt to distance themselves from the whole issue and possibly avoid further damage to the club's image from association with a civil suit. I do not think however that Leeds or the FA would do anything based on the outcome of a civil suit for fear of further reprisals from the players' lawyers, which would just perpetuate the situation. Disrepute charges could only be brought by club or FA if proven horrific events beyond those in the original trial came to light and I'm sure the tabloids would already be trumpeting this if it existed (Hell, Becks can't even buy his missus a pair of thermal knickers to keep out the cold without it making the front page).</strong>
I'm sure Leeds are just trying to cover their own arses. The revelations about on of the Leeds directors advising the players to lie seems to have sunk without trace. Sounds very much like perverting the course of justice to me if proven.
<strong> True, I feel the poor deluded soul is beginning to believe his own bullshit and the words of his lawyers. On the night in question he has admitted to being out on the lash and getting involved at least initially in the barney before staggering drunkenly through the streets of Leeds, he then assisted in covering up the evidence and lied to the police, the courts and the club.
If I, and I assume any of us, had done half of these things and it had come to the attention of my employers by dragging the companies name through the mud I would not expect a second chance. To be offered a fine of a months salary as a way of showing some remorse would seem more reasonable than the actions had probably deserved (credit is perhaps due to Woodgate in some small measure for agreeing to pay the 2 months and asking for it to be used charitably, a good gesture from Leeds to).
I was surprised last year by how little the whole affair affected his game whilst Woodgate fell to pieces and was not sure whether it showed a moral fortitude and reassurance from his innocence or simply that he was too thick for the depth of shit he was in to have registered with him, I still fear it is the latter. </strong>
All true. Wasn't Boyers nickname at one of his previous clubs Village (as in idiot)? It is a risky game he is playing. Unless he backs down or a compromise is found at Leeds he could either end up much richer at a good club or kicking his heels at a crap club - which might mean the end of his top flight career.<hr></blockquote>
