Leeds United and Kiko Casilla given extension for response to FA racism charge stemming from Charlton Athletic game

The game's authorities, who charged him on 4th November, originally expected a response from the Spaniard by today.

But in order to allow Leeds United ample time to process the evidence in the case, the YEP understands an extension has been granted until the end of the month.

Casilla strenuously denies that he used abusive language of a racist nature towards Charlton Athletic player Jonathan Leko during the Championship game at The Valley on 28th September.

An FA statement published last Monday said: “Kiko Casilla has been charged with a breach of FA Rule E3. “It is alleged that, contrary to Rule E3(1), the Leeds United goalkeeper used abusive and/or insulting words towards a Charlton Athletic player during an EFL Championship fixture on 28 September 2019.

“It is further alleged that the words constitute an “Aggravated Breach”, which is defined in Rule E3(2), as they made reference to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin.”

The club's managing director Angus Kinnear says they have a real issue with the FA's standard of proof in cases of such a serious nature.

"The club's unequivocal stance is that racism will not be tolerated in any form and this standard is applied across staff, coaches, players and supporters," he wrote in his progamme notes for Saturday's game.

"However it is important to assert that Kiko vehemently denies the allegation and has fully cooperated with the investigation.

"As well as Kiko's word, he can evidence a long distinguished and unblemished career playing alongside teammates, and against opponents, with an eclectic mix of ethnicities and nationalities.

"As a club we fully support such a serious allegation being subject to full investigation and a disciplinary process. Our only concern is that the standard of proof for an FA hearing is not 'beyond all reasonable doubt' but 'on the balance of probability.' We believe that in cases of this seriousness the higher standard of proof is more appropriate. This is not because we fear a sporting sanction, but because a man's reputation is at stake."