Look at the way the BBC present it, leaving out the West Ham bit etc

Jose Mourinho: Eva Carneiro 'was not asked' to testify by FA

Ex-Chelsea doctor Eva Carneiro says she was "at no stage" asked to testify by the Football Association in its investigation into alleged derogatory remarks made to her by Jose Mourinho.

The FA cleared Blues boss Mourinho having studied footage from a draw with Swansea in August, when he criticised Carneiro and head physio Jon Fearn.

FA boss Greg Dyke has said Mourinho should have apologised to Carneiro.

Carneiro criticised the FA for its lack of support.

She said: "It is incidents such as these and the lack of support from the football authorities that make it so difficult for women in the game.

"I wonder whether this might be the only formal investigation in this country where the evidence of the individuals involved in the incident was not considered relevant."

Wow that's quite a statement she's basically given both barrels to the F.A. And highlighted their hypocrisy (well that's how I'm reading it)

 

Well it's basically telling Dyke to sit down and shut the f**k up. 

 

Giving out morality lessons to Mourinho over the issue and now it's made known that he's not properly investigating potential cases of discrimination. 

 

How can he respond to this without looking a right tit after telling Mourinho to apologise? People in glass houses and all that. 

 

At this point it seems an attack on the FA rather than Chelsea/Mourinho which isn't surprising if she is planning to pursue legal action against the club. 

 

Wading into this debate so late in the day was never my intention, as these are the muddiest waters imaginable, containing all sorts of nasty narratives and a variety of characters cast in stereotypical roles. Leave well alone, I said to myself, because even if you emerge unscathed and unlabelled from all the accusatory slime, it will only be a matter of time before some mea culpe is dragged out of you for overstepping one reproachable mark or another. But then this morning, revelling in the Chelsea blues engendered by the whole sorry business, up stepped the BBC’s Radio 4 Today program, stirring the melting pot as only this bastion of neutrality reporting can - selectively and very much to their taste. 

 

In this particular instance, Jim Naughtie, as long on questioning technique as he appeared short on subject matter, was going to interview Jamaican lawyer and FA board member, Heather Rabbatts and, such was the level of one-sidedness about to be displayed,  I think it best to give Shed-Enders a full transcript of it, before I slide down the slippery slope of discussion …    

 

Jim Naughtie - “The Football Association is being criticised by one of its own board members for the way it conducted its enquiry into the, now infamous, altercation between the former team doctor and the manager, Jose Mourinho, during the first Premiership game of the season. She, you will remember, ran on to the pitch at the referees signal to assist a player in stoppage time, it was Hazard, who then had to leave the field, to Mourinho’s absolute fury. But the FA says that an audio recording of what he said at the time on the touchline does not give grounds for action as a breach of the FA’s disciplinary and discriminatory code.

 

Heather Rabbatts is an independent member of the FA board and she says that the way Dr Carneiro, who has now left the club of course, was treated was seriously disappointing and she joins us now. Err, I gather, Heather Rabbatts that, apart from anything else, Dr Caneiro wasn’t talked to by the FA during the course of the investigation, which seems extraordinary?” 

 

Heather Rabbatts (as if woken after the long intro) - “Errrr, it, it, it does and, er, that’s my understanding as well. I think I’d like to make a couple of points if I may… I think this is a really important moment for football. This is a women who is a highly respected medic who has done nothing wrong and has lost her role in the job that she loved and it is not only a question about whether a charge should or should not be brought, but it’s about how that person has been treated when, as I’ve said, she’s done nothing wrong and there are issues about player welfare that are at stake as well as Eva Carneiro being a really important role model for girls and women across the country - about attaining those professional heights in the top clubs.”

 

JN - “Well, for obvious reasons, we wont go into the words that Mourinho is alleged to have used on the touchline.”

 

HR - “Indeed.”

 

JN [now doing exactly that] - “They were, unfortunately(?), in Portuguese, but [they were] very insulting and very rude to her. Now, the FA says… I mean it’s almost comical, it’s got an independent academic expert in Portuguese linguistics who was called in, who analysed the footage and the FA then announced it’s satisfied the words used do not constitute discriminatory language under FA rules, but I must say, looking at the words, which clearly include a feminine(?) and are, er, pretty bad. Um (snigger heard from HR) it’s hard… I mean, what do you have to say to…”

 

HR - “I don’t, err, yes, I don’t know, which is why I’ve obviously made the comments that I have. I know the disciplinary processes are run at arms length, rightly so, they have to be independent and free from any form of interference. I totally endorse and support that. But there has to be, ultimately, accountability and the game has to be reassured that matters are fully and properly investigated and….”

 

JN [interrupting in order to make two points of his own] -”…and the truth of this episode is that Dr Caneiro, who has now left Chelsea, is the only one who has suffered.”

 

HR - “Indeed.”

 

JN [going into repeat mode again] - “….and she’s the one who has done nothing wrong.”

 

HR - “Indeed, indeed, and that, you know, that cannot be right, it just cannot be right that somebody who has acted to the highest professional standards has now lost her role and there are no consequences for anybody else in this matter. And that is something that I think is simply unjust.”

 

JN - “Heather Rabbatts, an independent member of the FA board, thank you very much. Err, we did ask the FA for an official comment, of course, but no one was available.”

 

First and foremost, as Elton John and Bernie Taupin knew only too well, sorry seems to be the hardest word, but it also appears we can now forget all about the controversy surrounding Jose. Why? Well, according to Ms Rabbatts, the matter has been dealt with via an arms length disciplinary process (and rightly so) which was independent and free from any form of interference. Comical or not (and FA decisions of this sort often are) the procedure took place and, one assumes, if it’s not to everyone’s liking, legal action could still take place. I’m surprised, with her background, that Ms Rabbatts didn’t make this clear to the listeners, but perhaps this has something to do with not wishing to prejudge the issue in any way, or maybe she had due regard to the fact that the FA’s decision might be used to support any case against the club for unfair dismissal.

 

Anyway, I’m pleased to say that for now at least it seems to be all muddy water under the Stamford Bridge, although I must admit that Ms Rabbatt’s position at the FA, after breaking ranks on the matter, is looking decidedly precarious. I mean, it’s one thing to let your personal opinion on the subject inadvertently slip out when the world’s press is sniffing around, but to exacerbate the situation by deliberately going on the radio and repeating it all to an audience of millions - let’s just say that’s just as bad as going on Twitter or Facebook in search of support for a cause, is it not? 

 

And all the while poor old Greg foot-both-camps Dyke must be wondering what more he’s got to do to kick this controversy into the long grass. It wouldn’t surprise me if he had a few words to say after this insubordination and I only hope, for his sake, that they were said in private, weren’t blasphemous, and definitely not spoken in Portuguese. You can’t be too careful these days.  

I agree mileoffside, but if there were any future tribunals it might affect the outcome, bearing in mind her job as team doctor. Not sure if there are rules in place about that sort of thing.

 

 

(sorry the quote button only works on my phone not my pc)

Sub judice Shelley, yes.

actually reading it again you are right, a blast at the FA and Dyke's investigation team

Great, that ball has been booted back into his court.

She had me until the final paragraph.

The FA have been made to look idiots, with which most of us would agree, but she now has an enemy.

Someone probably remembered this and with everything ekse going on, must have put 2 and 2 to together to make 10. (BTW - Is that Torres warning Iva that his wife is watching?)

He hugged her.

WOW

Dorset was it James Naughtie who said when all this first kicked off that Mourinho lost it because he has "a Latin temperament"  ?

 

Is that not a tad stereotypical, or if you're very thin skinned, somewhat racist ?

Edited October 2, 201510 yr by SHELLY

Dorset was it James Naughtie who said when all this first kicked off that Mourinho lost it because he has "a Latin temperament"  ?

 

Is that not a tad stereotypical, or if you're very thin skinned, somewhat racist ?

 

I think you are right on both counts, SHELLY, but double standards are never far away from BBC news coverage nowadays. The Today program, especially for sport, is steeped in its old Arsenal prejudice and even older interviewees - Bob Wilson is still called upon on a regular basis, mainly to sing Wenger's praises when nobody else will.

Eva 'lost' her job? I thought she left. All this carelessness, no doubt Eva will one day find her job as Jose finds the dressing room alongside a handbag in the cloakroom at Victoria station.

Blimey, what a mess, glad the focus is on the FA now, if Eva's got any sense she'll keep shtum and take the pay off.

Many thanks for the transcript, Dorset. Fascinating stuff, and astonishingly inept interviewing. How about this:

 

 

 

There had been suggestions Mourinho had used abusive language towards Carneiro but the FA, after analysing audio footage of the incident, revealed it "is satisfied that the words used do not constitute discriminatory language under FA Rules".

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/10012334/no-fa-action-for-chelsea-boss-jose-mourinho-over-doctor-eva-carneiro

 

 

The FA decided to investigate after a lip-reading member of the public e-mailed them claiming that Mourinho had yelled 'filho da puta' (which translates as son of a bitch) at Carneiro for going on to the pitch to treat Eden Hazard.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/467652/Chelsea-Jose-Mourinho-cleared-verbally-abusing-Eva-Carneiro

So the member of the public had access to video, which they used to lipread,  while FA cleared him on the audio evidence, which would have enabled them to hear what he actually said. But Naughtie doesn't think this is a point worth bringing up.

 

Mind you, the Star's ineptitude is also clear given that the allegation was that he used the words 'Filha da puta', which does not mean 'son of a bitch' but 'daughter of a whore'.

 

As for Carneiro's statement: "I wonder whether this might be the only formal investigation in this country where the evidence of the individuals involved in the incident was not considered relevant." She should know that when the FA convicted JT in the Ferdinand affair, Ashley Cole wasn't called to give evidence either:

 

The panel found that Cole’s evidence had “evolved” over time to strengthen Terry’s defence. Cole was the primary defence witness....The FA is criticised for its failure to make an audio recording of its initial interview with Cole, and for failures in its disclosure processes that are described as inadequate for a case of this seriousness.....In a revised witness statement submitted 10 days after his first interview in Oct 2011, Cole, via Chelsea club secretary David Barnard, asked for the world “black” to be inserted in his statement. Despite this the commission found that “Mr Cole did not hear, and could not have believed, understood or misunderstood Mr Ferdinand to have used the word 'black’.”.....five days after the game at Loftus Road, the FA’s head of off-field regulation, Jenni Kennedy, went to Chelsea’s Cobham training ground to interview Terry, Cole and Jon Obi Mikel. She was accompanied by FA employee Adam Sanhaie. Terry’s interview was recorded but Cole’s was not, and the notes taken by FA staff were not disclosed until last week....The resulting witness statement, based on those notes and emailed to Cole on Nov 2, 2011, did not contain the word black. It read: “I couldn’t hear what AF was saying although I am pretty sure one of the words began with a ’B’ and it could have been the word ’Bridge’.

The following day Barnard emailed the FA and said Cole wished to insert the word ’black’ in front of ’Bridge’. A final draft was signed by Cole on Nov 3.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9590806/Ashley-Cole-apologises-for-Twitter-rant-after-FA-reveals-reasons-for-damning-verdict-against-John-Terry.html

Just re-reading that case makes me seethe. Ashley Cole did not submit a 'revised witness statement' 10 days after the interview. He submitted one single statement the day after the club had been sent a draft of a statement. He couldn't have submitted it any earlier because he didn't receive it until 9 days after the interview. It is entirely normal for witnesses to go over the first draft of a statement to check that it is a true record. This is what he did, and yet the FA built their entire case on the allegation that he 'changed his evidence' when he didn't. He was a crucial witness, but the FA didn't call him to the JT hearing. They basically branded him a liar and convicted JT as a result, leading to his 'bunch of twats' comment on Twitter.

 

Anyway, I'm guilty of leading this thread  off onto very old ground.

 

The FA's incompetence knows no bounds. They really are a total disgrace.

I

Edited October 2, 201510 yr by Backbiter

Many thanks for the transcript, Dorset. Fascinating stuff, and astonishingly inept interviewing. How about this:

 

 

 

So the member of the public had access to video, which they used to lipread,  while FA cleared him on the audio evidence, which would have enabled them to hear what he actually said. But Naughtie doesn't think this is a point worth bringing up.

this is like Terry at QPR, it was some busybody who watched the game at home and complained about the alleged racist remark which no one heard at the time

Well at least Eva and Jose are finding some common ground over what a joke the FA is as an arbiter of morals in the game.

If I was Roman I would be tempted to ring Eva up with an olive branch that contained an offer of an all paid for all star legal team to take the FA to court.

That's MUFC, West Ham and now allegedly us where the FA have pretty much ignored complaints of sexual harrassment against her. No shortage of video evidence either. It would also serve to take the spotlight off CFC regarding sexism and place it firmly on the FA where it should be.

So if the shaggee won't get another job in sport, what about the shagger???

Well if the rumours are true, God makes you play sh*te football for a couple of months, minimum.

So the member of the public had access to video, which they used to lipread...

 

Lip reading is a notoriously inaccurate "science".

 

 

Sorry... Carry on!

I have to take away from the transcript Dorset provided that FA member's view point that when a man and a woman were both subjected to the same tirade and criticism that, and I qoute, "the truth of this episode is that Dr Caneiro, who has now left Chelsea, is the only one who has suffered.”.

Yet aside from Eva choosing to leave, Jon Fearn was subjected to the sameif not similar treatment.

Will the FA rebuke it's independent board member or will we hear the FA provide silent consent to the notion that women have to be treated different than men by clubs....but still nothing on whole terraces yelling sexual harassment .

 

Carneiro's statement:

 

"I am a strong woman. I want to be involved in football. Please nobody swear at me."

 

 

As a job application, it's not bad.

I have to take away from the transcript Dorset provided that FA member's view point that when a man and a woman were both subjected to the same tirade and criticism that, and I qoute, "the truth of this episode is that Dr Caneiro, who has now left Chelsea, is the only one who has suffered.”.

Yet aside from Eva choosing to leave, Jon Fearn was subjected to the sameif not similar treatment.

Will the FA rebuke it's independent board member or will we hear the FA provide silent consent to the notion that women have to be treated different than men by clubs....but still nothing on whole terraces yelling sexual harassment .

good point José was cursing both of them, Dyke's inquiry panel found there was no sexist element to it, but only one medic has left.

I think the press and the FA wanted to dig José and Chelsea out over this but they've f**ked it up big time.

I used to like Eva....now I am not so sure; despite whether or not Jose was offside in this episode she was the one who added fuel to an already blazing fire with her Facebook page, further fuelled by other feminists who have no clue of the entire relationship between her and Jose'.  As soon as possible after the Swansea game IMO she should have banged on Jose's door with a bottle of fine Portuguese red in hand and had it out 'mano e mano' over a glass of wine understanding and respecting each others position then each agreeing it won't happen again; just like any other workplace...instead, who the hell in mens football will want to hire her now, qualified or not.    Sadly this whole muddy affair will continue for a long while yet.  

I still fail to see on how people can still blame her over that facebook comment.. for a start, it's only a thanks note... she got bullied over the incident and even if she hit back, it's only natural.. 

 

The issue I have over this incident is the irrelevant poeple who are eager to play that sexism card as soon as they get the chance... they're not focusing at the right point..

 

I will only blame her if she refused jose's apology and drag the matter on, until then, she's still innocent victim.. we'll see

I used to like Eva....now I am not so sure; despite whether or not Jose was offside in this episode she was the one who added fuel to an already blazing fire with her Facebook page, further fuelled by other feminists who have no clue of the entire relationship between her and Jose'.  As soon as possible after the Swansea game IMO she should have banged on Jose's door with a bottle of fine Portuguese red in hand and had it out 'mano e mano' over a glass of wine understanding and respecting each others position then each agreeing it won't happen again; just like any other workplace...instead, who the hell in mens football will want to hire her now, qualified or not.    Sadly this whole muddy affair will continue for a long while yet.

the problem was that before she could have done any if thisJose went on national TV to slag the medics off !! Totally unnecessary, it should have stayed behind closed doors. Not only was he wrong about the medics responsibilities, he brought it out into the open

Very poor judgement from him this time I'm afraid. can't really blame Eva for any of this, José made an arse of the whole thing.

I still fail to see on how people can still blame her over that facebook comment.. for a start, it's only a thanks note... she got bullied over the incident and even if she hit back, it's only natural.. 

 

She wasn't bullied. And the club have had strict social media rules for years. Even if its intentions were good all it did was stir the pot and make things worse.

Jose needs to apologize to Eva. If he hasn't done it already I really wonder what kind of person Jose is. You just don't go on saying things like that.

However if they want Jose to make a private in-club thing public they can go f**k themselves. Public apology is not needed.

However if they want Jose to make a private in-club thing public they can go f**k themselves. Public apology is not needed.

Unfortunately José dropped this on us by initially making an in house grievance public.Reap what you sow.

The most amazing thing for me is that Eva compares the abuse at West Ham with Jose's tantrum. She's actively trying to force the sexism narrative, one suspects because she knows the press will lap it up and also for litigation or compensation purposes.

 

Money and fame, this boils down to for me, and she's lost all her dignity in the process. That statement really is a joke. "A similar experience at West Ham"? Really Eva? "Incidents such as these make it so hard for women"? Really Eva? Where is the comparison? I just don't see it. She does the cause of women no favours at all with this statement, in fact quite the opposite.

 

Guess what Eva? Jose has tantrums pitchside all the time, he falls out with people all the time, he criticises his own players, staff and fans all the time, he's fallen out with doctors before, and none of it was sexism, it was Jose Mourinho being Jose Mourinho.

 

Criticise him all you want but for god's sake don't play the sexism card as it demeans you and all those who suffer real sexism in their lives. 

 

She's really scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.