JUST as well that Michael Owen won the European Footballer of the Year title, just when he did. That is to say within days of the end of the trial of the Leeds United footballers accused of that vicious attack outside a nightclub of a harmless and hapless Asian student. As might have been expected, the opponents of football made great capital of the horrid affair, generalising about the supposed evils of the game, of the turbulent behaviour of its overpaid players, on the supposed harm it was doing to society.
But there is the apposite word: society. Soccer is so intimate and popular a feature of society at large that it is bound to reflect the qualities that surround it. Violence, indiscipline, drunkenness and racism are sadly endemic in British life at large. We can hardly expect footballers, often emanating from deprived backgrounds, to be immune from such factors.
You may share my amazement that after poor Sarfraz Najeib, the student, was so viciously attacked, left unconscious with broken bones and a bite mark on his face, whose scar will never disappear, just one of his alleged assailants went to prison. A Middlesbrough (North East of England) thug, a friend of one of the accused, Leeds centre half and English international Jonathan Woodgate, who was given a thumping six years. Woodgate himself, described by one witness as having jumped on the victim, though clearly the jury didn't believe it, was convicted only of affray and a surprisingly lenient judge sentenced him - and another Middlesbrough "friend" - to 100 hours of community service. As for the Leeds United midfielder, Lee Bowyer, though blood had been found on his jacket and the judge accused him of telling a series of lies under police investigation, he was cleared of all charges. So are we to believe that all those horrific injuries were inflicted by just one man, the brute who now goes to gaol?
The judge did, it is true, impose on Bowyer, because of those lies, the obligation to pay 1 million in costs; which Woodgate must also pay. But in the circumstances you can well understand the bitterness of Najeib and his family who now plan to sue both players and Leeds United themselves for their alleged involvement in the whole unhappy process. Here I think they may find themselves barking up the wrong tree. There is indeed a moral case for deploring the fact that after the players were charged and throughout the legal proceedings - remember that the first trial in Hull was aborted - Leeds should continue to pick both players, especially Bowyer. Who, unlike a plainly shattered Woodgate, seems strangely untroubled by the trials. But legally, since under British law a man is innocent till proved guilty, Leeds could hardly be impugned.
Behind the brutal assault lay a night of incredibly heavy drinking, making you wonder how such well known and highly paid players could be so ready to inflict what may well be lasting damage on their livers. The whole group had drunk as much as five full pints of potent cocktails, including vodka, and followed those up with beers. By bright contrast, and this is why it is so good to see a player such as Michael Owen rewarded, the little fellow's private life is impeccable. A stark contrast indeed with that of the Leeds men or the four Chelsea players who on that fateful day of September 11 horrified grieving American fans in a hotel near Heathrow Airport, with their drunken behaviour.
Lee Bowyer as they say, "had form". As a 19-year-old who had just joined Leeds from London's Charlton Athletic, he had been fined 4.5 thousand for attacking Asian staff of a McDonald's restaurant in East London. He had also, in his Charlton days, been suspended for having used cannabis. David 'O Teary, the former Arsenal and Ireland centre-half, who now manages Leeds, has played a curious part in the affair. He has just serialised an autobiography seemingly to coincide with the end of the trial, and has castigated the Football Association for refusing to pick Bowyer or Woodgate for England teams till that the second one, was over. Again, legally he has a case: a man is innocent until proved guilty. But these views sit strangely with his harsh public criticism of both players and his determination to impose fines.
Then there is the question of racism, dismissed as a factor by both trial judges, yet emphasised as one by the senior West Yorkshire detective in charge of the investigation. My own view is that racism did indeed play a part but that this was not central to the matter. Any such assault on an innocent victim is surely a serious criminal offence, no matter what his race, creed or colour. It may well be that Najeib would not have been attacked were he not as Asian, but a brutal assault is precisely that, and just as appalling, whoever the victim may be. Meanwhile, a sour stench persists over the whole disgraceful business. The old adage that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is hardly satisfied here. It does suggest that a single scapegoat has been made, and that the jury verdicts remain, to say the least, mysterious.
Comments
SHARE