Saddened! wrote:Care to explain why? The FA had no evidence and a court case that had already ruled insufficient evidence to prove guilt, yet they banned him anyway. Why is that embarrassing?
No idea if you're actually been serious or not, but there is a fairly significant difference between "beyond all reasonable doubt" and "on the balance of probabilities" as a burden of proof.
But then you knew that already didn't you.
The only thing that's embarrassing here is that he only got 4 games because he only called him an "FBC" once!