THE Aleksandar Tonev racism charge is the sort of case which might not have a dock big enough to accommodate everyone who must play a part in it.
This is at once an entirely straightforward matter of innocence or guilt - did Tonev make a racist comment to Shay Logan or didn't he? - while also being devilishly complicated.
Is Tonev to be vilified for ugly racism or is he an innocent wrongly accused of something horrible, a smear which will leave a stain on his reputation even if cleared? Is Logan a victim, or did he mishear his Bulgarian opponent in the heat of battle, or make up the accusation altogether? And the Scottish Football Association: if it convicts Tonev it can send out an unmistakable and commendable message about its integrity on dealing with racism, but only if it is sure of itself. Deciding an individual footballer is guilty of racially abusing an opponent is about as grave a verdict as any governing body can give: it has to be as sure as possible that its verdict is correct. And if it clears him? Then it will itself stand accused of fudging things, of being soft, and of taking an accused's word ahead of an alleged victim's.
Over the eight days since the story broke much has been said about the certainty of Tonev being exonerated if this boils down to one man's version of events against another's. It does not work as simply as that. The same circumstantial restriction applies to, for example, domestic abuse cases yet convictions are common. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution (in this case the SFA's compliance officer, Vincent Lunny) and Tonev would have the presumption of innocence. But the independent judicial panel which will adjudicate on the SFA's behalf cannot automatically clear Tonev on the basis that no other player was close enough to corroborate Logan's accusation that he was told "get your hands off me, you black ****". Having taken witness statements from the pair, and others involved on the day, the panel will assess the balance of probability and Logan's actions in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. As it is with any jury, the composition of the three-man panel will influence their decision too.
In the 55th minute of the game at Parkhead Tonev and Logan came together. Moments later Logan ran towards referee Bobby Madden. He followed established protocol by relaying his accusation to his captain, Mark Reynolds, and then when Aberdeen scored later in the game he took advantage of the break in play to make his way to the technical area and repeat it to Derek McInnes. The Aberdeen manager reported the complaint to fourth official Crawford Allan before also notifying Celtic assistant manager John Collins in the technical area. None of us knows what was really said between Tonev and Logan, and the Sky Sports cameras did not capture any evidence of abuse, but the Aberdeen full-back certainly acted like a man who was sure of what he heard.
This is a Scottish version of the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra episode in 2011. After a Liverpool-Manchester United game Evra said Suarez had racially abused him when they were beside each other at a corner. Suarez was charged with "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour contrary to FA rules" including "a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra". The FA found Suarez guilty and when it later issued a 115-page report on its findings it said it had considered Evra to be a credible witness, while Suarez's evidence was unreliable and inconsistent with the video footage. According to Evra's testimony, Suarez said in Spanish that he had earlier kicked Evra "because you are black", said "I don't speak to blacks" and used the word "negro" five times.
In their reaction to his conviction Liverpool said: "We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United team-mates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation." That did not prove to be an insurmountable issue for the FA. Suarez was given an eight-match ban and a £40,000 fine.
This story has gone quiet since the SFA's process began but it is likely to erupt soon enough. Aberdeen have stood firmly by their man and Celtic have stood by theirs. Manager Ronny Deila has said "I know he didn't do it". He can't know he didn't do it, he simply believes the version of events from a player who joined his club a few weeks ago. Aberdeen's response to Logan's allegation was firm and resolute. The judicial panel is going to deliver a ruling which will cause real anger and a sense of raw injustice on one side or the other.
Tonev has until Friday to respond to the SFA's notice of complaint and clearly he will firmly assert his innocence. The case will roll on to a Hampden hearing on October 9. It took the FA seven days to reach a verdict on Suarez and Evra and the SFA will have to take its time too. Both Logan and Tonev deserve nothing less.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article