They're within their rights to strip him but if he is found guilty they will be under pressure to re-instate him and be open to prosecution. They may have their own rules but they are not exempt from the law of civil liberties and contractual agreements and libel.
Like somebody said earlier in the thread, Negrito can be an affectionate word when talking to friends but can be used to belittle a black person when having an arguement. Suarez said in his defence that he said that in a friendly manner along with pinching his arm to 'defuse the situation' The man is a born liar.
I don't think they could be liable to prosecution. It's not like David Bernstein has come out and said 'we are taking the armband away because you're a racist'. I think there's a very valid argument that any footballer with a court case of any kind hanging over him shouldn't be playing, or at least captaining. I also don't think there's any real bias towards any club from the FA. Incompetence, certainly, but all clubs can point to examples where the FA has been lenient or harsh on them.
It's a disgrace that FA have stripped Terry of the England captaincy before being proven guilty. Anyway Rio has ruled himself out of England captaincy job and Gerrard was a rubbish captain in 2010 world cup.
Give it to Parker then. Ticks all the right boxes, seems a decent enough bloke with no major indiscretions, doesn't play for United or Liverpool....
But that's the thing, they can do that. By banning Suarez for a racist comment they were actually branding him a racist to everyone which is hugely damaging for Suarez when it is just the FA's own little panel which have decided that. If anything it would have been better for Suarez to have gone to court so there would be a straight yes/no answer! It's the same for employment though, you'd be lucky to keep your job if you were going to court facing rape charges or something as, contractually, it brings disrepute to the company which can be classed as gross misconduct
Maybe if you stopped sticking your ****ing oar in he would. **** off to your own board you whinnying little pipsqueak
Why not? Terry plays better when face with adversity we know it, Capello knows it and so do they. Depending on his job description they may still be faced with prosecution and taken to hand on breeching his civil liberties.
I don't see how they've breached his civil liberties. They've not stopped him from doing his job and even if they did, in many other industries that would be the case for an alleged crime like this. It shouldn't affect his performance but makes the FA appear to be doing something which is all they really care about. I think it's wrong that this trial is the straw to break the camel's back but I agree with the decision nonetheless.
Idiots the fukin lot of you, Rio was banned, whilst "innocent till proven guilty", why not your prick?....oh and last time I checked DL, he played for United so no bias from the FA there as also suggested by you. What a plum!
so what you are saying is someone rang the police and said 'oh terry called anton a black ****' and then this message got on to the pitch during the game!?
No Chelsea fan I know said that. We've had dealings with Evra in the past so no genuine Chelsea fan I know jumped to the conclusion Suarez was immediately guilty
With respect, that's total bollocks mate. If those ****s wanted to do the right thing they could have done it after a short meeting in October or November and we all would have understood. They were quite happy to see the law take its course but due to public pressure and hatred by the press and other media certain MP's have seen that jumping on the 'Terry bandwagon' offers them some form of notoriety and have also pressured the FA. That given the FA's inability to make any decision of merit at the right time. Terry now has had to suffer the embarrassment of losing the captaincy and may cost him sponsorship money as well. Yet if he is proved innocent he will have been unfairly treated which will leave the FA answer and make repairation for his losess and civil liberties.
I've seen many reports of lip readers stating that it reads as blind c*** not black c***, but apparently that's been totally ignored. Oh and this is acceptable is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4_fQXwIV4E&t=35m30s
If he wasn't a Chelsea player you all wouldn't be defending him so badly. However since he is you all seem blinded by the injustice of a racist being punished.
Well it'll be thrown out when it comes to court then! They will have to be beyond all reasonable doubt to convict him so if they can't say with certainty that he said "black" rather than "blind" then he'll be found not guilty. Although the FA can still decide their views using their own enquiry using the less stringent "balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"
