A psychologist friend of mine once told me of a study of fraudsters. Apparently, certain types of fraud fit a given pattern. When a person decides to commit fraud, especially in the realm of defrauding their employer, they tend to go through a particular set of steps.

Firstly, the proto-fraudster does it once; then they wait. The initial feelings of guilt and apprehension gradually subside to the point where, having seemingly gotten away with it, they feel comfortable with the idea of doing it again, so they do. After very few such forays, the dam breaks and they reach a point where they're doing it continuously, having become convinced, all too easily, that it's now perfectly OK; it's somehow acceptable. When they are finally brought to book, as they often are, they are surprised — almost stunned — that it's actually happened. On some level, they had come to believe that the world knew all along what was happening but must have implicitly condoned it.

The discussion in which she mentioned this was motivated by the behaviour of a mutual friend who had, it was agreed, started to take the piss in terms of his behaviour and had only got worse as people tolerated it. When people took steps in the opposite direction (for example simply leaving a meeting place after having waited for him for fifteen minutes *), his reaction was to blame everyone else before finally acknowledging his responsibility.

There is another psychological trait as perhaps best exemplified by the main character in the book 'The Bonfire Of The Vanities'.

In the book, a possibly-morally-contentious incident takes place — part of the book's brilliance is that it uses this incident as a mirror to highlight the characters', and readers', preconceived notions of justice — which the protagonist spends much of the book trying to keep hidden. Up until and after the truth comes out, his life becomes pressurised to the point that, by the end, he has become so convinced of his righteousness that he is reduced to existing as a "professional combatant", determined to fight every perceived slur against him (i.e. any notion that he may have been wrong). It is not so much whether he was wrong or not which is important, but exactly how he reacts to the idea that he might have been. [This is just one facet of the much more expansive story and a very reductive reading at that.]

From these and similar positions, you can see people become entrenched, or addicted to their own vindication in the face of opposition and pressure.

The right wing would claim you could see a similar motivation at work in the actions of Cindy Sheehan, the American mother turned hero-to-some; the left might claim they could see it in the bombast of Christopher Hitchens; the religious hard-liners might claim they could see it in Richard Dawkins (and vice versa, I'm certain). We've all seen it (perhaps even suffered from it ourselves) on weblogs and bulletin boards, where people sometimes become so driven with making sure their (correct!!) point is understood that they forget the adage about discretion sometimes being the better part of valour.

Which brings us, finally, to Mike Newell.

In January of this year, Mike Newell did something no Football Association manager had ever done: He openly accused English football — and, by extension, given that the same mechanisms exist trans-nationally, British and European football — of being riddled with corruption; specifically the existence of a "bung culture".

The Football Association, stunned that someone had broken ranks, immediately announced an enquiry. The BBC, happy that an insider had come out and said it, followed suit. Another manager, Queens Park Rangers' then-manager Ian Holloway, followed in Mike Newell's footsteps and attested to Newell's description being essentially correct. For a brief period it looked as if it was a trickle which might start a landslide; but then football, as with many organizations and cultures, closed its ranks. It's a multi-billion-pound business, and business was booming.

These actions were significant. Rumours, indeed knowledge, of football's seedier side had been alleged and exposed before, but usually only by journalists and executives — i.e. outsiders. Only one manager, Arsenal's George Graham, had ever been "caught" within the English game. Having two young, talented, up-and-coming managers speaking openly about it was considered a major sea-change; a break-through.

Naturally, it wasn't all one-way traffic. Newell and Holloway were accused of having self-serving purposes, of lying to further their own ends or raise their profiles, of being turncoats, of being "grasses". While they were openly applauded by such organisations as the BBC, they were vilified elsewhere. Both Newell and Holloway, despite enjoying a relatively high media profile, manage teams in "The Championship", which is actually English football's second-tier league. In an absence both conspicuous and faintly reminiscent of that of senators in support of Congresspeoples' objections to the Bush election of 2000, no Premiership manager came to Newell and Holloway's aid.

The investigations are ongoing. BBC's Panorama programme delivered its verdict about six weeks ago. It was infuriatingly inconclusive and served to achieve little except alienate certain football insiders from the BBC. The Stevens Enquiry — the official version — was given two further months to conclude its investigations and should be reporting imminently.

Outside the corridors of football power, there is a widely-held view that, despite the lack of open, cast-iron evidence, despite the flak aimed in his direction, despite the curious lack of support from within the game, and despite debates over the extent of damage caused by the existence of such a culture, Mike Newell is actually right.

Except he isn't. Not any more.

In the same way that Cindy Sheehan was in some ways right to bemoan the situation surrounding her son but, quite frankly, out of her depth and faintly ludicrous when expanding her position to other issues, so Newell has, to the extreme disappointment of people like myself who want football's culture cleaned-up, followed suit; in some spectacular... "style".

When the Newell story broke, just a few hours ago, it was summarily demanded that I give an explanation to some more radicalized friends of why his outburst could ever be justified in the twenty-first century ("yicky's a contrary bastard; he'll probably defend him", was the sum of it).

Except ... I can't. I really can't.

I can see the germ, the virus, the abiogenesis of a defence, but Newell's words are so strong and ill-informed that he completely rules it out, even if it may be what he actually meant to say in the first place.

Before I start to try this defence on for size, allow me to make my position clear before we start, so there are no misunderstandings.

• I have no problem, in either principle or practice, with the idea of women acting as match officials, administrators and governors within the sport of football.
• I have no problem with women playing football.
• I'll even go you one better — at which point some of you may depart the yicky-bus in disgust — I have no problem with women playing in the so-called men's teams at the top level of professional football. In fact; I think it's inevitable, and perhaps probable within a medium-term timeframe. All it would take now is for the emergence a woman with the talent of Wayne Rooney and opposition to the idea would disappear overnight; three times more quickly still if she was a looker. One of the Italian teams (Udinese or Cagliari, I think it was) announced they were going to do just such a thing several years ago, but changed their mind.

But ... and there's always a but ... these ideas are based on a sense of balance, equity and merit ...

In the same way that it would only be right and fair to let a woman play in the top teams, it is not fair (not to other competitors and not even to the player herself) to play her in that position before she may be either ready or good enough to do so. In the same way that the emergence of a female Maradona would crush most of the critics instantly, the perception that someone was being played for political reasons rather than their ability would calcify opinion just as quickly. One of the reports at the time of the Italian contemplation suggested that a women's organisation had asked that the player not be tried, on the grounds that it was felt that she wasn't actually good enough to merit playing and would set the cause back ten years rather than helping it.

Now: It is legitimate to ask whether a woman in such a position would be given a fair amount of time (as much time as a man in the same position would be given) to justify her selection in the squad. Many fresh players take some time to acclimatise and it's not fair to expect women to be magically superior in this regard. Unfortunately, in the current climate, I suspect such latitude would not be given; she'd probably have to prove herself quickly, which is somewhat unfair. This is a different issue to the principle involved, however.

The referee's assistant in the Newell incident, Amy Rayner, has a bit of a reputation for ... how can I put it? ... being a little bit shit at her job. How much of this is due to sexism and how much is true is hard to discern. Assuming it to be true, however, it is not a trait particularly unique to her, to women referees, to lower-league referees, or to football for that matter.

There is, though, a persistently-expressed opinion that her being a referee in The Championship is not a result of her ability but one of political pressure within the F.A. to equalize the sexual representation within the ranks of the game's officials. This is the only possible valid complaint in which the the gender of the referee's assistant could ever be really considered as significant with regard to her competence. Such allegations have always dogged minorities breaking new ground, most often unfairly, and themselves may be used as covert short-hand for an unstated, prejudiced agenda. However: They at least have some form of rational basis, and then only to the extent that they require any plaintiffs to admit having no problem with the principle before proceeding to complain about the practice.

Even such a concession on principle, it seems, is going beyond the limits of some people.

Mike Newell: You're a fuckwit.

Update [2006-11-13 9:15:40 by yicky yacky]: For whatever it's worth, Mike Newell apologised this morning.

[*] - He was in the habit of being permanently half-an-hour late.