Clyde urged to get rid of Goodwillie

Player’s rape appeal fails

Politicians have heaped pressure on Clyde FC after their player David Goodwillie and a former team-mate lost an appeal against a civil ruling that they raped a woman.

Although he has never been convicted in a criminal court, ex-Scotland striker Goodwillie and David Robertson, who played together at Dundee United, challenged Lord Armstrong’s finding in favour of Denise Clair, which included a ruling that she was entitled to £100,000 damages.

However, their appeal was unanimously rejected by three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh earlier this month.

Victim, Ms Clair, branded Clyde shameful for continuing to play Goodwillie despite the court ruling.

And Labour MSP Monica Lennon urged the club to “demonstrate zero tolerance towards sexual violence”.

She warned Clyde to rethink playing Goodwillie in the team and added: “If the board of male directors continues to play a rapist who has failed to take proper responsibility for what he did, then the public will rightly question their judgment and values.

“Rape and sexual violence dehumanises women and the board of Clyde must listen to survivors and charities telling them to end this toxic arrangement.”

SNP MSP and Clyde fan John Mason, who is refusing to go to Bully Wee games while the club plays Goodwillie, said that he understands that the club are “struggling” and that the “board and fans desire to improve the situation by any means”.

Lord Armstrong ruled earlier this year that the players took advantage of Ms Clair when she was vulnerable through an excessive intake of alcohol after a night out in Bathgate, on January 1, 2011.

He found Ms Clair, 30, was “incapable of giving meaningful consent and that they each raped her” at a flat in nearby Armadale.

Goodwillie, 28, and Robertson, 31, insisted the sex was consensual.

Lady Dorrian, Lady Clark of Calton and Lord Malcolm heard two grounds of appeal which claimed the judge had erred in his treatment of evidence. However, both were thrown out because they “did not specify what the consequence of these alleged errors of assessment were said to be” or how they impacted on the judge’s conclusions.

Public will rightly question their judgment