ALEKSANDAR TONEV was noticeably nervous as he came before the Scottish Football Association's judicial panel on Thursday.

The on-loan Celtic winger faced a charge of racism made by Aberdeen's Shay Logan, and Tonev was said to be agitated and edgy as he was aggressively grilled by his interrogators.

Liam O'Donnell, the lawyer hired by Celtic to present the player's case, was on hand, as was an interpreter, who translated for the baffled and sometimes disorientated Tonev throughout the five-hour hearing. For the 24 year old Bulgarian, it must have been quite an ordeal.

That said, what Tonev stood accused of was heinous. Football is forever busy cleaning out its backyard and one thing we can well and truly do without is any caveman activity whereby players are denigrated or abused for their skin colour. It was because of this abhorrence towards racism that the SFA, their independent panel having sat, doled out a swingeing seven-match ban on Tonev.

Celtic, to some, did an odd thing. In absolutely deploring any form of racism - naturally - the club also emphatically stood by Tonev, openly disbelieving the testimony presented against him. Celtic are to appeal the SFA's punishment - though they have not done so in time for the player to be available this weekend - and the club is expected to call in a legal heavyweight to do its bidding when that appeal procedure finally takes place over the coming weeks.

The SFA, for their part, feel comfortable with the procedure. Their upgraded disciplinary system means that, unlike the old days when various assorted blazers sat around a table and groped their way towards a verdict, today there is an independent three-man panel which sifts evidence and which always includes a high-ranking legal mind among its trio.

In reality, for all that the SFA forever cops the flak for these decisions, the governing body in fact is divorced from its own judicial process. There is clear blue water between the suits-in-office and their disciplinary procedure.

The Tonev case remains fraught with uncertainty. For one thing, there could be no "concrete evidence" presented against the Bulgarian midfielder, because none existed. This vexing case came down to Shay Logan's version of events on the field of play - at Celtic Park on September 13 - against Tonev's.

Logan claims he was blatantly racially abused by the Celtic player, and his Aberdeen manager, Derek McInnes, felt sufficiently in support of his player to give up most of his day on Thursday to travel to Hampden to be a part of the Aberdeen delegation.

Logan, during the match itself, clinically and calmly began compiling his case against Tonev. He informed his captain, Mark Reynolds, then Bobby Madden, the match referee, and then McInnes himself of what (he alleged) was being said to him during the game. If racism did indeed take place, then Logan, he was damn sure, was going to have it highlighted.

It has left Tonev in a terrible situation - and perhaps one of his own making. For the moment, his life goes on, and indeed yesterday he was included in the Bulgarian squad for the Euro 16 qualifier against Malta by Lyuboslav Penev, his international manager. But the stigma of this case will stick to Tonev, especially if Celtic fail in their appeal on his behalf.

The player, if he is genuinely guilty, is an utter disgrace. If he is innocent, and Logan has simply misheard what Tonev said to him, as Celtic are claiming, then this is a travesty being heaped upon a young footballer. In either case Tonev is paying a price for football being more morally militant than ever against allegations of racist behaviour.

Right now in England an almost identical case is running, with Norwich City's Cameron Jerome claiming that the Leeds United defender, Giuseppe Bellusci, racially abused him in a match at Carrow Road last week. If found guilty Bellusci will face a minimum five-game ban, and probably more, at the hands of the FA.

There have been other racism cases in England, including the infamous moment three years ago when Luis Suarez, then of Liverpool, was banned for eight matches and fined £40,000 for saying the word "negro" to Manchester United's Patrice Evra. Liverpool, for their part, tried to stand by Suarez and ended up looking very unconvincing in the process.

Celtic base their defence of Tonev in part on their estimation of his character. Both Ronny Deila, the club manager, and Peter Lawwell, the Celtic CEO, find it hard to believe, having got to know the reserved Tonev, that he is a racist.

The club has conducted its own investigation, including speaking to various people at Aston Villa, Tonev's home club, to determine whether he had any "previous" in this regard.

In the aftermath of Thursday's tribunal decision, and having made their own enquiries, including listening to Tonev plead his innocence, Celtic appear more than ever determined to defend the player. They needn't do. This would look a far harder case for Celtic - and a more embarrassing one - if Tonev was actually their player.

The truth is, there is little motivation in Celtic going out of their way to defend Tonev - they could merely pack him off back to the Midlands and wash their hands of the case. The player has scarcely been central to Celtic's fate this season. But the Scottish champions, rightly or wrongly, appear genuinely to believe in Tonev's innocence.

There are those who would say it is a weird thing for Logan to fabricate - why would the Aberdeen defender even contemplate such a thing? Nor would Derek McInnes, surely, so back his player, if he didn't believe him. McInnes, had he desired, could have drawn the sting out of Logan's allegations. He has chosen not to.

I suspect Aleksandar Tonev will prove a footnote in Celtic's story when this current chapter of Scottish football comes to be written up. But the spectre of racism has been glimpsed again, and it cannot be ignored.