Maybe, but this will not wash because the panel are all highly qualified legally and both parties nominated one of the panel. This jurisdiction was mandated under Football Association rules and there is no right of appeal. That does not mean it is impossible to appeal, but the process is tortuous and legally difficult. West Ham, against whom the panel ruled, are now in a very difficult position.
There are some who question why this case was allowed to be brought at all, given that the question of playing the ineligible Tevez was dealt with by the Premier League and West Ham fined £5.5 million.
Unfortunately, unless it is clearly frivolous or vexatious a court or tribunal cannot throw out even an unlikely case, unless they find evidence from which they can conclude that it has no prospects of success, even if the factual matrix (list of actual facts pertaining to a case) averred by the party seeking damages is accepted.
What this tribunal had to decide was – had it not been for Tevez, would West Ham have won enough points to stay up?
Much was made of Tevez’s contributions to the West Ham win over Manchester United at Old Trafford, but they would also have considered the fact that Tevez had scored six goals in West Ham’s previous nine games. The tribunal decided they would not, and the damages flowing therefrom will be the subject of a further hearing.
The point has been forcefully made by many in the football world — in and out of the media, that nobody is able to know what the results would have been had Tevez not played following his ineligible registration. The debate over this sort of issue sinks quickly into philosophical realms. The tribunal decision would not have passed the first meditation of Descartes and his basic strategy of considering false any belief that falls prey to the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt” is summoned to criticise what is labelled a 'guess’ by the tribunal.
The emotions that surround this matter are strong and cloud the real issues; the element of 'morality’, in itself a hugely questionable concept, is with Sheffield. They went down and suffered all which that entails. Their most direct rival played an ineligible player and stayed up.
Though the decision of the tribunal, indeed of any ruling body, is open to question, that does not in itself make it wrong, whatever the Father of Modern Philosophy states. If these bodies did not indulge in this kind of speculation there would be no civil jurisdiction within which claims could be decided. You may not like this, but it is the foundation of the civil legal system and is used to decide cases infinitely more complex, and could I cause controversy by saying with more importance, than the one in issue.
Those who criticise the ruling by using the claim that it is no more than crystal-ball gazing are stating a truism. Moreover, one that is rejected by all litigants who accept the strictures faced by the body from which they seek the ruling.
Those who speculate about what would have happened had former Sheffield United player Steve Kabba played for Watford against his old team, in United’s only win of their last five matches that season, are missing the point. That was not an issue over which this tribunal were asked to rule. If it had been, for example in a pleading from the respondent, then it would have been dealt with in the same way, on the balance of probabilities.
The precedent set is not a welcome one, but the alternative is to say that there is no right of redress at all in matters which involve calculated estimation of fact and consequence — i.e. anything at all.
Decisions are made with some regard to the precedent they may set, but this is not and should not be the deciding factor in the decision to be made at that time. What others decide to do as a consequence involves as much speculation as that decried in the judgment in which the precedent is created. How do you know that it will lead to a flood of challenges to all manner of football issues?
Finally, I question whether West Ham were the cause of any damage suffered, given that the eligibility issue had been ruled upon and they had been fined by the Premier League. Once that decision had been made I believe they were entitled to consider the ineligibility issue closed.
Whether they should have had points docked and not a fine is a different argument, but not one which Sheffield United thought important enough to launch legal action at the time. If anybody caused this damage it was the Premier League, who allowed West Ham to continue fielding Tevez.
Faldo pays for failing to keep it short and sweet
The tactical nous of Nick Faldo during the recent Ryder Cup has been sufficiently scrutinised, but I want to highlight something else.
As a very reasonably priced after-dinner/motivational speaker, I am sometimes consulted by men facing the dreaded best man’s speech. The advice is always the same — if you cannot tell me an amusing anecdote, what makes you think you will be able to do so in front of a larger audience?
Nobody is ever criticised for keeping a speech short, relevant and sincere; the more you say, the greater the potential to cock things up.
Whatever is decided about Faldo’s future as captain, he needs to be told this. Much of the bile that has been heaped upon him has its origin in the impression he created during his aberrant utterings in public.
LTA should not get bogged down with Bogdanovich
A note of thanks to Andy Murray for following Tim Henman’s support of British competition in the Davis Cup; a note of admonishment for the Lawn Tennis Association’s continuing selection and funding of Alex Bogdanovich.
As the latter has proved incapable of winning anything near an important match, there is no point in believing he will do so this century. Even if a younger player is not at present his equal, the experience and development of someone with potential to become a top player is a better use of resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment