mikesiva wrote:Exactly. Sampson clearly has history. They should never have hired him in the first place. He clearly was behaving the same way he did at Bristol academy. Aluko wasn't the only black player to file complaints against him. Sanderson and one other had done so. Sampson had to go.
Sanderson, to my knowledge, has never made any complaints regarding these allegations. She refused to give evidence in the independant investigation of racial allegations, and has stated that her main grievance is not specific to Sampson, but that his whole coaching setup and the FA as a whole are quite unapproachable regarding criticism on how the team is run. Worth noting, she only became outspoken on the issue, by her own admission, when she was upset that the team didnt acknowledge her 50th cap, and the occasion was not given the gravity she craved, leading to her taking the issue up with Sampson directly. Interesting that, in the womens game this is representative of systematic bullying, in the mans game when Yaya Toure did something similar, he was a laughing stock for being such a self-centered prat.
As for his behaviour at Bristol, all we know is that an investigation took place after an allegation, and that investigation found he had no case to answer, neither towards the safeguarding policy of the club, or as the FA have said yesterday, in law. The FA simply think that, despite the inference of being not guilty for further action, his conduct was inappropriate and worth sacking. What that conduct was is yet to be released, comments relating to him "behaving the same way at Bristol" have no factual basis. The only inference we can take from this is, whatever occurred, he didnt break the law or any social policy put to protect the players from abuse. Thinking as to possible examples, he might have shouted at a player but was found not to be abusive. He could have had fully consensual sex with one of his squad. What this isnt saying, at any level, is he made racist comments, as my understanding is such conduct would be illegal and worthy of further punishment.
The third player you mention, Drew Spence, has made an allegation about the fact that Sampson, on meeting her for the first time, joked "how many times have you been arrested, four?". The apparent scandal here is that the allegations were ignored, and that the independent inquiry did not consult her directly. Bizarrely, the meeting she claims to have been racially insulted in was filmed, the filmed has been reviewed as part of the investigations. The comment was not picked up as part of that recording. The "cover up" allegations seem to view this as a failure for the investigator to have interviewed those present in the meeting to confirm or deny the comment was made, but if the said meeting was filmed, why would the investigator need to ask the others in the room what they heard? Seems a bizarre course to take, I appreciate in both ways. It would have been sensible maybe to interview those present, but hardly terminal to the investigation when those presents opinion on what is said is surely dramatically evidentially inferior to a perfect recording of what occurred?
Worth noting that Spence and Aluko are friends and team mates.
The FA have clearly messed up, and maybe Sampson could have been persuaded to quit on better terms with a pay out in order to end it all, but none of that would change the fact that two separate investigations, one made independently away from a possible cover up (the current third investigation is being done by the same person, so there seems no problem with the investigator being made) have found he is not guilty. And that the smoking gun in Bristol, at the moment, also indicates that he was found not guilty of whatever allegation was made.
He is essentially a three times proven innocent man thus far. I dont think its sensible, until contrary evidence surfaces, that we should tear him apart on these boards. Allegations can be made easily, if unproven, they are simply hot air.
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:10 pm