@Right_in_the_Middle said:
The actions of this Fleetwood representitive and the result of the enquiry make me sad. It was racism pure and simple and any justification for it only makes it more racist.
The EFL cannot justify using the players BLM protests as part of their PR anymore. They have run a cart right through it.
Totally agree with your sentiments, but in fairness this was a decision taken by the FA, not the EFL.
The bit about saying it was a description of his activity was bizarre.
He wasn't lazing around in some quiet stream somewhere chewing some cud, so how was that any alibi?!
@glasshalffull said:
I must say that I’m surprised and disappointed by this decision. Football commentators have recently had to undergo courses in unconscious racial bias which pointed out that seemingly harmless words like ‘strong’ and ‘pacey’ could be offensive to black players. Surely what was said to Bayo was far worse?
I am surprised that using the word "strong" to describe Bayo could be seen as racist TBH. It would be difficult to find a description of him without using that word. Now "pacey" would be one word I wouldn't use for him!
Obviously we don't know the name of the Fleetwood individual concerned and as of now he remains anonymous.
Making an assumption that he has a previously clean behavioural record and that the investigation found no evidence that there was intent to abuse in a racial way, interested to know what sort of punishment you feel the FA should have been imposed on this guy?
@EwanHoosaami It’s not that the word strong is racist, it’s that there is a history of (mostly unconsciously) emphasising the physical aspects of black players (eg the strong and pacy that @glasshalffull mentions) while downplaying the mental or technical aspects. This is why commentators should be careful with the language they use, but there are of course occasions where strong is entirely the correct thing to say.
I've never forgotten a post on the old gasroom that said something along the lines of "we need a pacey, strong, black forward" and rightly got hauled over the coals. I don't think that poster was meaning to be racist, but I do think they had internalised "pacey" and "strong" as attributes black players have more than white players. Which is of course, nonsense. This is why it's important for commentators not to stereotype.
Chris is correct in his comments, but EwanHoosami also makes a valid point in suggesting that certain words on the ‘banned list’ are surely acceptable if used in the correct context. For instance, ‘beast’ is one of those words and Bayo himself uses it as his nickname and trademark. Don Goodman, ex Wolves, West Brom etc, is both a colleague and a good friend and he summed it up nicely when he said ‘If someone had described me as pacey when I was playing, I’d have been delighted!’...sensitive subject.
@DevC said:
Obviously we don't know the name of the Fleetwood individual concerned and as of now he remains anonymous.
Making an assumption that he has a previously clean behavioural record and that the investigation found no evidence that there was intent to abuse in a racial way, interested to know what sort of punishment you feel the FA should have been imposed on this guy?
You don't need evidence that "there was intent to abuse in a racial way" (*). You need evidence of what was said, which they have, and then make a decision on whether what was said is racist. It is this last part that the FA have got spectacularly wrong.
I can't even believe there is a discussion about whether it was racist or not. It was so obviously racist that as soon as it was proven what was said, then the only discussion should have been around what sort of punishment was handed out.
(*) What does that even mean? How do you prove that without reading someone's mind? Defending saying a racist thing by claiming you weren't intending to be racist is not a defence
@glasshalffull said:
Chris is correct in his comments, but EwanHoosami also makes a valid point in suggesting that certain words on the ‘banned list’ are surely acceptable if used in the correct context. For instance, ‘beast’ is one of those words and Bayo himself uses it as his nickname and trademark. Don Goodman, ex Wolves, West Brom etc, is both a colleague and a good friend and he summed it up nicely when he said ‘If someone had described me as pacey when I was playing, I’d have been delighted!’...sensitive subject.
I'd like to think most commentators and fans are better than this now despite some recent examples but It's the lazy aspect of overly referring to black players only as strong and quick that pidgeon holed players in to certain positions, and could have made them seem unlikely prospects for captaincy or coaching roles, nobody is suggesting pace or strength isn't mentioned (or banned). The PFA statement is very good above, it calls for all in the game to just have a bit of a think about what they say, doesn't seem to much to ask.
@drcongo said:
I've never forgotten a post on the old gasroom that said something along the lines of "we need a pacey, strong, black forward" and rightly got hauled over the coals. I don't think that poster was meaning to be racist, but I do think they had internalised "pacey" and "strong" as attributes black players have more than white players. Which is of course, nonsense. This is why it's important for commentators not to stereotype.
I think that poster is on this gasroom too.
Pace is an interesting one i think, as i believe that only one non black athlete has gone sub 10 seconds for 100m in history.
I remember Michael Johnson ex legendary olympian believes it's more nurture than nature. But surely if it's nature you'd have more than one non black guy in history breaking 10?
But apologies I'm hijacking this away a little as your main point concerned someone specifying race when wanting a player which is plain bizarre.
In honesty I dont think that is fair Eric. I think you could interpret that specific comment as racist. I think in truth you could interpret it as meant entirely derogatory.
I am not clear what you are suggesting here though so I would be genuinely interested to know what penalty you would impose on this guy assuming prior good behaviour. Would that penalty vary if you were a) clear that there was racist intent b)clear there wasn't c) unsure either way.
@glasshalffull said:
Chris is correct in his comments, but EwanHoosami also makes a valid point in suggesting that certain words on the ‘banned list’ are surely acceptable if used in the correct context. For instance, ‘beast’ is one of those words and Bayo himself uses it as his nickname and trademark. Don Goodman, ex Wolves, West Brom etc, is both a colleague and a good friend and he summed it up nicely when he said ‘If someone had described me as pacey when I was playing, I’d have been delighted!’...sensitive subject.
I think the only sensible course is don't abuse anyone else! That way you steer clear of getting into any controversy of meanings and intentions!
@DevC said:
Obviously we don't know the name of the Fleetwood individual concerned and as of now he remains anonymous.
Making an assumption that he has a previously clean behavioural record and that the investigation found no evidence that there was intent to abuse in a racial way, interested to know what sort of punishment you feel the FA should have been imposed on this guy?
What if I make the assumption, with no information available, that the anonymous Fleetwood individual is actually a raving racist with a long record of behaving that way and the EFL have just let him off. It hardly bears thinking about. Oh, I've made myself quite angry now. These assumptions...
The bit about saying it was a description of his activity was bizarre.
He wasn't lazing around in some quiet stream somewhere chewing some cud, so how was that any alibi?!
That made me PMSL!!! Will have to go change now.
The thing that is inexplicable, is who on earth would be dumb enough to abuse Bayo. A man who could crush almost anyone he wanted to.
@DevC said:
In honesty I dont think that is fair Eric. I think you could interpret that specific comment as racist. I think in truth you could interpret it as meant entirely derogatory.
I am not clear what you are suggesting here though so I would be genuinely interested to know what penalty you would impose on this guy assuming prior good behaviour. Would that penalty vary if you were a) clear that there was racist intent b)clear there wasn't c) unsure either way.
If you concentrate really really hard you can see that I've already answered that last question.
Your first paragraph is absolute nonsense. Saying a racist thing can't be defended by a claim that you only meant it as derogatory (although in this case it was, and worse still the defence was accepted)
So long as attitudes like that prevail we will always have a problem with racism in society
Interesting point, Malone. I used to cover track and field events and recall being told by coaches that black sprinters are genetically more likely to have fast twitch muscle fibres that support quick, powerful movements than white sprinters. Not my theory, I hasten to add, but one that was widely accepted in the sport.
@glasshalffull said:
Interesting point, Malone. I used to cover track and field events and recall being told by coaches that black sprinters are genetically more likely to have fast twitch muscle fibres that support quick, powerful movements than white sprinters. Not my theory, I hasten to add, but one that was widely accepted in the sport.
In longer distance sports you can see the idea of nurture more. For instance countries where it's a cultural thing to put in 100s of miles a week, mixed in with certain locations being superbly set for training, like the Ribble Valley in Kenya. It sits thousands of feet at altitude which develops incredible fitness. It's like a legal version of blood doping in a way!
But with sprinting, which you wouldn't think is at all inaccessible to white runners, there is that huge difference at the top level.
I asked someone in the know if they thought Usain Bolt's speed was 'assisted' at all but he gave me a very detailed dissection of how UB's unique posture, gait and running style gave him a massive edge over all other competitors from whatever country. Sadly, I've retained none of it...but believe me it was very interesting.
If you concentrate really really hard you can see that I've already answered that last question.
Your first paragraph is absolute nonsense. Saying a racist thing can't be defended by a claim that you only meant it as derogatory (although in this case it was, and worse still the defence was accepted)
So long as attitudes like that prevail we will always have a problem with racism in society
Fundamentally I disagree with you Eric.
It is IMHO an infinitely worse "crime" to deliberately abuse someone racially than do so with no harm intended through lack of knowledge or lack of thought. The penalty should reflect that in my opinion (accepting that it can be hard to prove either way)
I'm still not clear quite what you think an appropriate penalty in this case would have been
@DevC Assuming the Fleetwood employee was General Pinochet, but he'd previously had a clean record, but that clean record was because the FA just didn't fancy charging him every time he had someone disappeared, and assuming that he'd said something in jest but it was horrifically racist, but the people who heard hadn't realised it was in jest and some of them didn't even realise it was racist, but the referee noted it down in his book, and assuming several other things just for the sake of trying to start an argument on a football forum, and Bayo heard it, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty and which end do you think it should be taken?
All hilariously witty I am sure @drcongo but doesn't feel an unreasonable question to ask what penalty you think should have been applied to the Fleetwood employee assuming he didn't have previous "form" for say racism. It seems no answer will be forthcoming.
Comments
Totally agree with your sentiments, but in fairness this was a decision taken by the FA, not the EFL.
Very dignified response from a rightfully disappointed Bayo
Which befits a General and why he is one for us.
@Malone
That made me PMSL!!! Will have to go change now.
I am surprised that using the word "strong" to describe Bayo could be seen as racist TBH. It would be difficult to find a description of him without using that word. Now "pacey" would be one word I wouldn't use for him!
Obviously we don't know the name of the Fleetwood individual concerned and as of now he remains anonymous.
Making an assumption that he has a previously clean behavioural record and that the investigation found no evidence that there was intent to abuse in a racial way, interested to know what sort of punishment you feel the FA should have been imposed on this guy?
@EwanHoosaami It’s not that the word strong is racist, it’s that there is a history of (mostly unconsciously) emphasising the physical aspects of black players (eg the strong and pacy that @glasshalffull mentions) while downplaying the mental or technical aspects. This is why commentators should be careful with the language they use, but there are of course occasions where strong is entirely the correct thing to say.
I've never forgotten a post on the old gasroom that said something along the lines of "we need a pacey, strong, black forward" and rightly got hauled over the coals. I don't think that poster was meaning to be racist, but I do think they had internalised "pacey" and "strong" as attributes black players have more than white players. Which is of course, nonsense. This is why it's important for commentators not to stereotype.
I think that poster is on this gasroom too.
Chris is correct in his comments, but EwanHoosami also makes a valid point in suggesting that certain words on the ‘banned list’ are surely acceptable if used in the correct context. For instance, ‘beast’ is one of those words and Bayo himself uses it as his nickname and trademark. Don Goodman, ex Wolves, West Brom etc, is both a colleague and a good friend and he summed it up nicely when he said ‘If someone had described me as pacey when I was playing, I’d have been delighted!’...sensitive subject.
You don't need evidence that "there was intent to abuse in a racial way" (*). You need evidence of what was said, which they have, and then make a decision on whether what was said is racist. It is this last part that the FA have got spectacularly wrong.
I can't even believe there is a discussion about whether it was racist or not. It was so obviously racist that as soon as it was proven what was said, then the only discussion should have been around what sort of punishment was handed out.
(*) What does that even mean? How do you prove that without reading someone's mind? Defending saying a racist thing by claiming you weren't intending to be racist is not a defence
Can't believe you responded to that @eric_plant - it's pure trolling.
I'd like to think most commentators and fans are better than this now despite some recent examples but It's the lazy aspect of overly referring to black players only as strong and quick that pidgeon holed players in to certain positions, and could have made them seem unlikely prospects for captaincy or coaching roles, nobody is suggesting pace or strength isn't mentioned (or banned). The PFA statement is very good above, it calls for all in the game to just have a bit of a think about what they say, doesn't seem to much to ask.
It was, but some things just can't go unchallenged
Pace is an interesting one i think, as i believe that only one non black athlete has gone sub 10 seconds for 100m in history.
I remember Michael Johnson ex legendary olympian believes it's more nurture than nature. But surely if it's nature you'd have more than one non black guy in history breaking 10?
But apologies I'm hijacking this away a little as your main point concerned someone specifying race when wanting a player which is plain bizarre.
In honesty I dont think that is fair Eric. I think you could interpret that specific comment as racist. I think in truth you could interpret it as meant entirely derogatory.
I am not clear what you are suggesting here though so I would be genuinely interested to know what penalty you would impose on this guy assuming prior good behaviour. Would that penalty vary if you were a) clear that there was racist intent b)clear there wasn't c) unsure either way.
I think the only sensible course is don't abuse anyone else! That way you steer clear of getting into any controversy of meanings and intentions!
What if I make the assumption, with no information available, that the anonymous Fleetwood individual is actually a raving racist with a long record of behaving that way and the EFL have just let him off. It hardly bears thinking about. Oh, I've made myself quite angry now. These assumptions...
The thing that is inexplicable, is who on earth would be dumb enough to abuse Bayo. A man who could crush almost anyone he wanted to.
At the last count, 145 different athletes have run under 10 seconds. Quite incredible that only one non black athlete is in that number.
If you concentrate really really hard you can see that I've already answered that last question.
Your first paragraph is absolute nonsense. Saying a racist thing can't be defended by a claim that you only meant it as derogatory (although in this case it was, and worse still the defence was accepted)
So long as attitudes like that prevail we will always have a problem with racism in society
Interesting point, Malone. I used to cover track and field events and recall being told by coaches that black sprinters are genetically more likely to have fast twitch muscle fibres that support quick, powerful movements than white sprinters. Not my theory, I hasten to add, but one that was widely accepted in the sport.
In longer distance sports you can see the idea of nurture more. For instance countries where it's a cultural thing to put in 100s of miles a week, mixed in with certain locations being superbly set for training, like the Ribble Valley in Kenya. It sits thousands of feet at altitude which develops incredible fitness. It's like a legal version of blood doping in a way!
But with sprinting, which you wouldn't think is at all inaccessible to white runners, there is that huge difference at the top level.
Last time I was in Ribble Valley it wasn’t in Kenya!
Apologies, Rift Valley!
I asked someone in the know if they thought Usain Bolt's speed was 'assisted' at all but he gave me a very detailed dissection of how UB's unique posture, gait and running style gave him a massive edge over all other competitors from whatever country. Sadly, I've retained none of it...but believe me it was very interesting.
Fundamentally I disagree with you Eric.
It is IMHO an infinitely worse "crime" to deliberately abuse someone racially than do so with no harm intended through lack of knowledge or lack of thought. The penalty should reflect that in my opinion (accepting that it can be hard to prove either way)
I'm still not clear quite what you think an appropriate penalty in this case would have been
You like a theoretical penalty dontcha @Devc ?
@DevC Assuming the Fleetwood employee was General Pinochet, but he'd previously had a clean record, but that clean record was because the FA just didn't fancy charging him every time he had someone disappeared, and assuming that he'd said something in jest but it was horrifically racist, but the people who heard hadn't realised it was in jest and some of them didn't even realise it was racist, but the referee noted it down in his book, and assuming several other things just for the sake of trying to start an argument on a football forum, and Bayo heard it, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty and which end do you think it should be taken?
Some nice pubs though. Not so many in the Rift Valley.
All hilariously witty I am sure @drcongo but doesn't feel an unreasonable question to ask what penalty you think should have been applied to the Fleetwood employee assuming he didn't have previous "form" for say racism. It seems no answer will be forthcoming.