Mark Sampson: Stevenage coach's FA charge of making racist remark found not proven
Monday 20 January 2020 16:13, UK
A charge against Stevenage first-team coach Mark Sampson that he made a racist remark towards a former colleague has been found not proven.
The former England Women head coach was charged with misconduct by the Football Association in November over the alleged incident.
But a hearing held earlier this month found the charge not proven by an Independent Regulatory Commission and dismissed it, the FA said in an announcement on its official website on Monday.
Sampson was charged by the FA in November after allegations made by two former coaches at the League Two club - head coach Dino Maamria, who is now in charge at Oldham Athletic, and goalkeeping coach Ali Uzunhasanoglu.
Maamria was fired by Stevenage less than a week after the staff meeting and did not make his accusations until after his departure - he was also found to have sent abusive WhatsApp messages to Sampson, who took over as caretaker manager after his departure, when other members of his staff did not follow him out of the club.
Stevenage, who moved off the bottom of League Two after beating Cambridge on Saturday, said in September that racism allegations surrounding their caretaker boss had "no foundation", after conducting their own investigation.
The 37-year-old was accused of having made the remark in a meeting involving a number of club staff and it was alleged the comment was aimed at a player on trial at the club during a conversation about transfer targets.
Sampson insisted he would fight to clear his name after being left "devastated" by the FA charge.
After revealing the outcome of the case on Monday, an FA statement read: "It was alleged that a comment made by the Stevenage FC first-team coach breached FA Rule E3(1) as it was improper and/or abusive and/or insulting.
"It was further alleged that the comment also constituted an 'aggravated breach', which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as it referenced race and/or colour and/or nationality.
"Mark Sampson denied the charge and requested a personal hearing that took place at Wembley Stadium on 9 and 10 January 2020."
Stevenage chairman Phil Wallace said in a statement that the verdict of the commission had not come as a surprise.
"The 'not proven' outcome was obvious to us after a very thorough investigation of the facts four months ago and I am pleased that the panel's 17 pages of findings issued today concur with our own internal investigation conducted in September," Wallace said.
"I am delighted that Mark is now able to concentrate fully on his future and not be troubled by allegations made by former manager Dino Maamria and former coach Ali Uzunhasanoglu after they had been dismissed.
"The club have stood shoulder to shoulder with Mark because the evidence presented by those independents present at the time conflicted with the allegation.
"Our club will never tolerate racism and we implement the EFL Equality Code of Practice to manage the club and safeguard the nine key protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, but that doesn't mean we will stand idly by if we feel allegations are being used for a purpose."
Written reasons
The FA panel said: "Significantly different accounts of the meeting and what was said, have been given by various of the attendees."
"… the omissions of apparently important detail from original statements, the unsatisfactory and unconvincing explanations for those omissions, and the manner in which the evidence was given, cast a shadow over the evidence given by the two witnesses called by The FA, raising concerns as to the reliability of their accounts.
"It would have been strange for the assistant manager to express an uncertainty about the reliability of a black Nigerian player, when he was at the same time in fact advocating that one be signed."
But they were also not entirely convinced by Sampson's version of events.
"[The panel]…did not find Mr Sampson compelling in his account and as in the case of the witnesses called in support of The FA case, were left unable to conclude that Mr Sampson had provided a version of events that was sufficiently reliable upon which to confidently and correctly base a conclusion as to the origin of the truth.
"Put simply, some of those giving evidence had lied. It is clear that misplaced loyalty and a willingness to be untruthful was an inescapable part of this case. Collusion of evidence, one way or another, was unattractively at play in this case
"The truth was unquestionably hard to find.
"Such analysis should not be taken to suggest that the Commission rejected outright the evidence of Mr Maamria and Mr Uzunhasanoglu. They did not. Nor should that analysis be taken as a suggestion that the Commission unequivocally accepted the account given by Mr Sampson and those called in support of his case. They did not."
