Claims of racism need proof to convict

FOR the same reason that the FA could take no action against Roberto Firmino, it was impossible for UEFA to move against Spartak Moscow youthteam captain Leonid Mironov. The investigators had no doubt that Rhian Brewster of Liverpool (below) was sincere in his allegation of racial abuse against the Russian in a Champions League youth game, but could find no additional corroboration for the claim. Despite interviewing players from each team, plus the match officials, there was no evidence beyond Brewster’s statement of complaint. Once Mironov denied making racist remarks, there was nowhere to go. The FA had the same problem judging the interchange between Mason Holgate and Firmino. Holgate, no doubt, thought he was racially abused — the difficulty was finding a second witness. Both Mironov and Firmino admitted using aggressive language — but denied racism. These are blurred lines, what was said, what was heard. Not every case will end in court. Whatever form Spartak Moscow may have in this area — and the ground has been partially closed over racist chanting in the past — however many instances of racism there have been in Russian football, in any fair and democratic organisation these unrelated events cannot be taken as proof of a wider pattern of behaviour. Unless you’re Kick It Out. For a charity and support group that espouses the liberal trinity of equality, inclusion and tolerance, there are dictators proposing fairer trials than Kick It Out’s mandarins. ‘The organisation is deeply disappointed with the findings of the independent investigation,’ read a statement on UEFA’s decision, ‘with this outcome likely to give further encouragement to those who wish to be abusive in the sport.’ What, an outcome in which an absence of substantive evidence ended in no charge? The only reason to express deep disappointment is if one presumes Mironov made racist comments. Clearly, Kick It Out does. Do they have the evidence? No. They have what UEFA had — one man’s word, denied. No court in any reasonable land would convict on such a basis. The statement continued: ‘Kick It Out believes there are issues with clubs, such as Spartak Moscow, who have been involved in several alleged racist incidents in recent years, receiving little or no discouragement by national and international football authorities in response to allegations of racism and discrimination. This underlying issue is compounded with any action taken in relation to racist or discriminatory incidents rarely being appropriate. This current situation is intolerable.’ And to address this we start up kangaroo courts, in which the accused is tried and punished on the basis of one, uncorroborated, claim, even if denied? Whatever issues Spartak Moscow or Russian football have had in the past, the abandonment of due and fair process can never be the way forward. UEFA is not saying it does not believe Brewster, any more than the FA did not believe Holgate. In both instances, the player making the accusation was listened to, his version of events considered — but, obviously, action needs more than simply choosing sides in a case of claim versus denial. Racism is an emotive subject, but emotion alone cannot win the day. Nobody is under any illusion about the problems in Russia, and Russian football, but it is very dangerous for Kick It Out to speak as if the right to a fair hearing is merely an inconvenience to be sacrificed. Once we cut through the glib campaigns and soundbites, UEFA may still be unimpressive in their treatment of race issues, but eventually they did all they could for Brewster. They then did what they had to do.

ASKED about cycling’s reputation post-Sir Bradley Wiggins’s Jiffy bag, Lizzie Deignan replied: ‘I credit the public with enough intelligence to realise cycling goes beyond one man.’ Indeed. They might remember her series of missed drugs tests, too.