Mark Sampson’s attempts to clear his name amid allegations he made racial remarks to two of England’s women footballers ended with more embarrassment for the Football Association when he contradicted his own evidence from the independent inquiry and had to face questions that he had been caught saying something patently untrue.

The inconsistencies in Sampson’s account left his employer with a damage-limitation exercise at the end of a press conference when the England manager – absolved of any wrongdoing in the two controversial inquiries that have prompted calls from Kick It Out and the Professional Footballers’ Association for a new investigation – said on three separate occasions he could not recall any conversation with Eni Aluko in which they had discussed the Ebola virus.

Sampson had been asked whether Aluko, who alleges her former manager told her to make sure her Nigerian relatives did not bring the virus to Wembley, might have “mixed up” another conversation when they had talked about Ebola in a different context. His initial response was that he could not recall any previous conversations involving Ebola and, to further questions, he then repeated that twice.

Yet a previously unseen passage from the independent inquiry, seen by the Guardian, shows that Sampson gave an entirely different version of events when it was put to him by the barrister Katharine Newton that he had been accused of making a “racist joke” to a player who has won 102 caps over an 11-year England career.

Sampson’s response on that occasion was to remember an incident when, he says, they had talked about Ebola in the build-up to England’s game against Mexico in the 2015 World Cup. “We did a press conference and Eni was the nominated player so we attended the stadium to speak to the journalists,” Sampson told the inquiry. “At the start of the conference the lady introducing them got both our names wrong. She introduced Eni as ‘Eddie Aluko’. We were laughing about the situation in the car on the way back. We were chatting about the conference and I said to her ‘fair play’ for correcting her. She told me a story that she had once been called by a cold caller, who called her ‘Ebola’ instead of ‘Eniola’. The people in the car laughed about this.”

Newton then asked Sampson to clarify that somebody else had called the player “Ebola”, but that it wasn’t him. “Absolutely not,” Sampson replies. Remarkably, this appears to be the sum total of the investigation into that specific part of Aluko’s complaint.

As Sampson fielded questions at St George’s Park, reiterating the allegations against him were false and describing Newton’s inquiry as an “incredibly thorough process”, he was unaware the Guardian had seen this passage and started by saying he could not remember any occasion when he and Aluko had discussed Ebola in any way.

He then repeated the same – “I can’t remember any particular conversation” – before being asked to explain why he had given different evidence to the inquiry. “I can’t remember a specific conversation,” he stated again.

After further questions about the inconsistencies of his account, Sampson later acknowledged he had told the inquiry about a different conversation involving Ebola – a version of events disputed by Aluko – and said it would not be right for him to discuss “the details of a confidential investigation”. When it was put to him that what he had initially said about not recalling any previous conversations was patently untrue, he replied: “You asked me the question: ‘Have I had a conversation?’ I then explained the exactness of the situation.”

His media aides insisted afterwards that Sampson had not been lying but the manager’s contradictory statements hardly help his cause at a time when he is maintaining his version of events is the truth and insisting he should be believed ahead of the two players – Aluko and Drew Spence – in a controversy that will see senior FA executives summoned to the culture, media and sport select committee next month.

Officials from football’s governing body will be asked to explain the processes involved in the internal review that has been described by the PFA as “not a genuine search of the truth” and “a sham which was not designed to establish the truth but intended to protect Mark Sampson”.

Newton might also be asked to defend her three-month inquiry – branded a “farce”by Aluko – and the select committee is likely to ask how both investigations could take place without speaking to Spence about the allegation, relating to her first England call-up at the China Cup in 2015, that Sampson upset her by asking: “Haven’t you been arrested before? Four times, isn’t it?” Spence has subsequently backed Aluko’s version of events in writing but was never asked to give evidence.

Sampson, reiterating his innocence and saying he was “disappointed” by the allegations, repeated he was still open to the idea of recalling Aluko and said he would cooperate if the FA bowed to the pressure and decides to hold a new inquiry. “I’ve told the truth. I’ve answered every question asked of me. In terms of what happens next is not a question for me, it is a question for the FA.”