Are you saying that you were aware of the details of the internal investigation in The Athletic article?
Yes?
This was published last summer, it's not new information.
I'm aware of the panel led by Arnold and I understand that they carried out some kind of "investigation", sure - yes.
What's your point?
To reiterate,
my point was that United never had access to all the evidence in the case, and that it is therefore questionable/problematic (I originally said "ridiculous", to be clear) for Arnold to say that the club is satisfied that he isn't guilty of the original charge(s).
So, the article you quote - does what? Invalidate my point? Clearly not. So why post the quote?
Because I didn't clarify that "United" in this case means a "panel" of five persons (including a lawyer)?
Fine, let me be clear then: A panel of five persons (including a lawyer) led by Richard Arnold carried out an "investigation" that means feck all. The panel didn't have access to all the evidence, and as far as we know they didn't even interview the alleged victim.
Is that better?
ETA And can you now tell us what you think happened?
I told you what I think happened.
If you don't feel comfortable speculating, I understand. Fine. Just say so. But I would think someone so - seemingly - interested in this case would have an opinion. It's something United fans discuss, after all -
as United fans (it's not frivolous interest in sordid details, it pertains to a United player in a very particular set of circumstances).