Leeds United's Kiko Casilla handed eight-game ban after FA racism charge is proven

The 33-year-old must also attend 'face-to-face education' say the FA, after an independent regulatory commission decided that the Spaniard used abusive and/or insulting words, which were contrary to FA Rule E3(1) and constituted an aggravated breach, which is defined in FA Rule E3(2), as they made reference to race and/or colour and/or ethnic origin, towards Charlton Athletic's Jonathan Leko during the game at The Valley on September 28 2019.

The ban for Casilla, who denied the charge, will begin immediately, making him unavailable for tomorrow's game at Hull City.

The independent regulatory commission’s written reasons will be published on the week commencing Monday March 2. A number of Leeds United players gave evidence in the two-day hearing at Wembley to testify about Casilla's character.

Leeds United have issued a statement, acknowledging the FA's decision.

A spokesperson said: "We would like to make it clear that we do not tolerate any form of discrimination within our football club and we are a leader in the fight against discrimination within our wider community.

"However, it is important to recognise that Kiko has always denied making any racist comment.

"The FA panel have based their decision on the balance of probability rather than proving Kiko to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, which we have always believed is the more appropriate burden of proof."

READ: Players in racism case both deserved doubt to be removedLeeds United previously went on record with their concern over the standard of proof by which the FA decide cases of this nature, believing 'beyond all reasonable doubt' was a more appropriate standard given the seriousness of the allegation.

"As a club we fully support such a serious allegation being subject to full investigation and a disciplinary process," said chief executive Angus Kinnear.

"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."