We've heard the side of a player who has an agenda.
The way I read it was that it was probably an off-the-cuff/banter comment, not something that was in any way meant to come across as racist.
It was silly, but a sackable offence??
I was talking to a guy at work about a conversation we'd overheard, which was basically a couple of guys all trying to get one up on each other.
My statement to this dude was that "it's like gorillas beating their chests to show who's in charge".
Guy I said it to is black - he laughed and completely agreed.
Now, had I said that and one of the guys we were talking about was black, it's easy to be misconstrued as racist, because people don't always understand the context.
So going back to Eniola Aluko, she clearly has an agenda against Sampson.
She was never going to let up until she go some form of justice, despite TWO investigations clearing him of any wrong-doing.
I think the celebration after the first goal on Tuesday shows what the players opinions on the whole matter are.
However, we clearly now have evidence of something else Sampson appears to have done.
What's wrong is the likes of Aluoko and Curtis Woodhouse (he is just one example I saw on Twitter), claiming this sacking was justice for his blatant racist tendencies...