When I went to Chelsea as a kid in 1986 racism was rife.
In the dressing room, on the training pitch, during games - it was everywhere. In my youth-team dressing room there were things said that would shock people now.
Back then, what was accepted as "banter" between the black and white players was a helluva lot different to what it is today - and it can only be a good thing that we have moved on so much since then.
It shows how far we have come as a society that in a period of less than 30 years what is considered acceptable or unacceptable has undergone such a change.
I believe campaigns like Show Racism The Red Card and Kick It Out have raised awareness and have done a huge amount to educate people. I would never say there is no racism in the game now, but gigantic strides have been made and that is something surely everybody would applaud. The mindset of players has changed, the culture in the dressing room has changed and we are moving in the right direction.
I would be the first to condemn anyone using racist language during games. There is no place for it. But I have to say I can see both sides of the Aleksander Tonev-Shay Logan issue and that Celtic stood by their player in the wake of the SFA upholding his seven-match ban for supposedly racially abusing the Aberdeen defender is something I can understand.
I can't say it often enough that I abhor racism of any kind, but I don't think you can convict someone of such a serious offence without having concrete proof.
I found the document the SFA released - something utterly unprecedented on their part - explaining why they came to their decision very interesting. It did not paint the on-loan Aston Villa player in a positive light and the judicial panel explained very clearly why and how they reached their decision. However, there is absolutely no way to prove or corroborate what was said.
We've had lip-readers brought in before in the wake of incidents with John Terry and Luis Suarez but there has been no video evidence and no audio evidence for us to look at in this case.
I think the way Shay reacted during the game was very telling. He was calm, he did all the right things, and it seems implausible that he would have made the accusation up. But - and this is a huge but - can you convict on the basis of one man's word against another? For that reason, I think Celtic are right to call for changes in the way we decide these things.
Switching to a higher standard of proof than "balance of probability" would mean there are no grey areas. We would not convict anyone in a criminal court anyone on that basis and I think it should be the same in football.
I also thought there was no need for Logan to take to Twitter in the aftermath of the announcement. I hate seeing players using social media anyway because I think it is a recipe for disaster. In this case it was ill-advised and always going to fan the flames.
We are in the middle of yet another soap opera at Rangers. As a football manager you go into the job with your eyes open. If results aren't up to standard you are going to be sacked, that is the way it goes and we all know that.
But it is not Ally McCoist's fault that Rangers can't afford to give him the pay-off he is due. There is something he has been unhappy about it and he has dug his heels in. I don't think you can blame him for that. He is perfectly entitled to hand in his notice and serve out his time.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article