Dissecting the case against Aleksandar Tonev . . .

In attendance were Tony McGlennan, the Scottish Football association compliance officer, Liam O'Donnell, a solicitor-advocate representing Tonev, Michael Nicholson, company secretary of Celtic, John Collins, assistant manager of Celtic, a Bulgarian interpreter, and the secretary of the judicial panel.

And, of course, Tonev.

The complaint was that during a match between Celtic and Aberdeen on September 13, at Celtic it is alleged that Tonev said ''don't touch me you black c***'' to Shaleum Logan of Aberdeen.

A report of the proceedings has now been released. It gives an unprecedented view of what happened in a Hampden room and what was alleged to have happened on a football pitch. For the record, the hearing was conducted in English as Tonev waived he right to have evidence heard in Bulgarian or have his interpreter give him updates in his native language.

THE EVIDENCE

The compliance officer led evidence from Bobby Madden, the match referee. He said that around the 55th minute he was approached by the Aberdeen captain Mark Reynolds and advised that Mr Logan had been subjected to a racist comment by Mr Tonev. One minute later, Mr Logan approached him, intimated that he had been called a ''black c***''' and pointed to Mr Tonev. The referee indicated that Mr Logan's demeanour was ''somewhere between upset and angry". Mr Madden asked Mr Logan to focus on playing football as he would deal with it later. Cross-examined, Mr Madden confirmed he had not heard the conversation between the players.

Shaleum Logan said he was involved in a tackle with Mr Tonev which he accepted was a foul. He made a hand gesture to apologise to the referee and to Mr Tonev for the tackle. Play resumed and the players came together again within the penalty box. Mr Logan placed his arm across Mr Tonev's chest. Almost immediately, Mr Tonev said to Mr Logan: ''Don't touch me you black c***.'' Mr Logan said he informed his captain of the remark and then the referee. At a later stage, when Aberdeen scored a goal, he spoke to his manager. Mr Derek McInnes. At some later point, Mr Logan spoke to Mr Tonev and asked him if he still though he was a ''black c***'' and said he would ''see him in the tunnel''. Asked if he could be mistaken over the remark, he replied: '' One million per cent no''. Asked if he had any reason to make up the remark, he said: ''I would never do that.'' Under cross examination, he denied he simply misheard the remark.

Mr McInnes confirmed Mr Logan had reported the remark to him and he reported the matter to match officials and to Mr Collins.

Mr Collins said he had approached Mr Logan after the match and asked if he was sure the remark had been made. Mr Logan indicated he was 100 per cent sure. Mr Collins said he had spoken to Mr Tonev who appeared shocked and bemused when the allegation was put to him. Mr Collins said Mr Tonev should apologise if he had said something in a ''moment of madness''. Mr Tonev was adamant he had not made the remark.

Mr Tonev told the tribunal he had told Mr Logan to ''get your hands off me''. He denied calling him a ''black c****''. He said he did not know what the word ''c***'' meant.. The first time he was aware of the phrase being used was when Mr Collins spoke to him. He had played football with many black players and would not use language of this kind.

The compliance officer submitted Mr Logan's account was, on the balance of probabilities, more probable than that of Mr Tonev's. Mr O'Donnell characterised the case of being one player's word against another. He invited the panel to hold the case not proven.

THE DECISION

The tribunal had no difficulty in finding Mr Logan was both a credible and reliable witness. They said Mr Tonev gave his evidence in a guarded and hesitant manner. On the central issue in the case, they were unable to accept him as either credible or reliable. The tribunal found Mr Tonev had used offensive, insulting and abusive language of a racist nature in breach of rule 202. Her was given a seven match suspension.

THE APPEAL HEARING

The parties returned to Hampden 35 days later for the appeal hearing on December 4, when an appellate tribunal was chaired by The Right Honourable Lord Bonomy and had James Hastie and Alan Dick as members. Mr Tonev was there along with an interpreter, Richard Keen QC, Mr O'Donnell, Mr Nicholson, and Mr Collins. For the SFA, QC Aidan O'Neill was there along with compliance officer Tony McGlennan, director of football governance and regulation Andrew McKinlay, and Neeraj Thomas, solicitor from Burness Paull LLP.

Mr Tonev challenged both the finding that he had breached SFA Rule 202 and the length of the suspension. Mr Keen contended that the tribunal failed to give Tonev a fair hearing and that it issued a determination which it could not properly have issued on the facts of the case. The appeal against the length of the suspension was on the grounds that it was excessive.

Lord Bonomy said that at the original hearing the tribunal had observed the witnesses, heard their evidence, reviewed certain documents and video clips and deliberated before making their findings and the ultimate determination. The appeal was not a rehearing of the case where the evidence is led again or additional evidence is presented.

Mr Keen, for Tonev, submitted that it was well recognised that sporting disciplinary procedures are not criminal proceedings where guilt has to be established. But he argued that the more serious the allegation or its consequences, the greater is the burden of evidence required to prove it on the balance of probabilities. He said the tribunal had failed to recognise and apply the weight of the burden of evidence required to prove the complaint on the balance of probabilities.

Mr Aidan O~Neill QC responded for the SFA. He said the only challenge to Mr Logan's account had been that he was mistaken as to the words used. No reason why he may have been mistaken had been put to him. Mr Logan's immediate reaction to the incident and his conduct thereafter in bringing the matter to the attention of his captain, the referee, club staff and other players had been consistent and provided support for the credibility and reliability of his account.

He said much had been made in the course of the appellant's evidence about whether the appellant understood the meaning of the word ''c***''. What really mattered was the element of racism reflected in the use of the word ''black''.

The appellate tribunal then gave its findings. It said that the disciplinary tribunal set out in clear terms their reasons for finding the complaint proved. They stated that they believed Mr Logan. Of much greater significance, however, is the fact that they also found him to be a reliable witness, and that they gave cogent reasons for doing so. Their view of the evidence of Mr Logan contrasted rather starkly with their view of the evidence of the appellant [Mr Tonev].. His solicitor had appeared to have concentrated on his lack of understanding of the meaning of the word ''c***'' which, it later emerged, he nevertheless knew to be a term of abuse.

The appellate tribunal considered that the tribunal took account of the other evidence in the case in an appropriate way as supportive of the credibility and reliability of Logan. It is clear that the disciplinary tribunal took account of all relevant evidence, and left out of account irrelevant considerations (such as the weather conditions), in deciding whether the case had been made out on the balance of probabilities.

The sanction imposed fell into the mid range. The appellate tribunal do not consider that to be excessive and affirm the decision of the disciplinary tribunal to impose a seven match suspension.

Lord Bonomy concluded the findings by saying that it was in Scottish football's interests to publish the details of the original decision and the appeal to ensure the ensuing debate was well-informed.