Will Nicolas Anelka get a fair hearing?

The forces unleashed in condemnation of the French striker's quenelle gesture will prove impossible to defy.

From a pure footballing perspective, this will be both troubling and disappointing.

Anelka actually perked up on Monday night against Everton and for once didn't look like a one-time big city show-stopper enjoying a farewell tour of the provinces.

Baggies fans will be frustrated that he is about to be cut off at the very moment he promised to deliver something more than trouble. They will be even more concerned that the new head coach, already without the departed Shane Long, is suddenly short of options up front.

But a heavy ban is clearly heading Anelka's way; we have long since passed the point where the striker can expect a 'fair trial'. The forces of righteous indignation will have their carcass to pick over and no amount of pleading of innocence from Anelka, I fear, will hold back the political forces now at work.

Romelu Lukaku thought he could offer his old idol some light-touch support after Monday night's game, since when his interview was banished from Everton's website and the anti-racism group Kick It Out threatened to kick him out of their campaigning. His manager Roberto Martinez was left desperately trying to kick over the traces of his player's comments (Rom is only a young man...bit of support for a player he has admired from a young age...never supported his views or the meaning of those views etc).

Anelka is toxic and, no matter what evidence is presented at his hearing, must brace himself for a long stretch out the game.

He has received precious little sympathy for his current predicament from the Albion fraternity – and rightly so.

They feel he was foolish and selfish to celebrate a goal with a bit of adolescent posturing which he must have known would kick the hornets' nest of indignation.

That does not mean Anelka meant to insult the Jewish community with his quenelle salute, but he must have been aware there would be many who would interpret it so.

He came to The Hawthorns with a lot of doubts about his ability to offer a significant contribution at this late stage of his career.

His insipid form – up until this week – and high maintenance played into the hands of those who would condemn him as more trouble than he is worth.

Now he is already hung, drawn and quartered by the outrage that has hardened since the quenelle became one of the most Googled words of December.

It is wisely said that truth is the first casualty of war; it has become just as difficult to detect amid today's media firestorms. And Anelka and his quenelle are that right now.

Were the sponsors Zoopla, strangely silent about the episode in the first weeks of January, genuinely offended by Albion's refusal to banish Anelka before he had been found guilty? Could they seriously expect the club to behave that way without trampling across the principle of innocent until proven guilty, not to mention their contractual obligations?

Or did Zoopla detect a big, fat publicity bandwagon on which to hook the otherwise low-key termination of their two-year Albion sponsorship?

Just what was in Anelka's mind at the critical moment? Was he really intent on fanning the flames of racial intolerance?

It's difficult to believe but even harder to decide categorically one way or the other. Into this combustible circus steps the FA disciplinary commission to rule on whether or not Anelka breached the code of conduct established after the Suarez-Terry affairs.

They do so to the cacophony of a baying Middle Ages witch-hunt that threatens to force their hand regardless of the evidence that will be put before them.

Unfortunately for Anelka, the laws of sub judice which protect criminal proceedings are not at his service. As soon as a police charge is laid against a defendant, there are severe restrictions on what can be reported about, or commented upon. This is intended to preserve a fair hearing.

Anelka will endeavour to prove his innocence against an overwhelming demand that the Commission puts a black cap on his career in English football.

"FA must hit Anelka with at least an eight-game ban," rages the London Evening Standard..."The FA must take a firm line with Nicolas Anelka and ban him for more than the minimum of five games," demands the Times. Anelka is being vilified.

The FA Commission will he headed by a QC and made up by two professional colleagues who, amid the now hysterical levels of moral indignation, should be qualified to separate fact from political expediency. But they know they risk even greater scorn and castigation if Anelka's footballing corpse is not swinging from the gallows at the end of the hearing.