The FA have charged John Terry

8 match ban coming up.

The FA judge the charge much less harshly than the Law (its balance if probabilities rather than beyond all reasonable doubt), and the FA are only interested in whether he said the actual words or not, regardless of context or motive (if you simply refer to a man's ethnicity in anyway on the playing field you are breaking the FAs rules, therefore if they feel there is evidence that proved he said those words he would be guilty whether he ment them as an insult or not - same as Suarez).

With Suarez they found him guilty as they believed Evras story more than Suarez's version. Thats all it came down to. There were no video footage or audio footage or witnesses etc and he was still found guilty so if there is footage of Terry saying the words he will automatically be found guilty for using banned language on a football field. It won't matter if he is a racist or not, or whether he was saying it sarcastically or not, if there is footage of him saying "****ing black ****" on the pitch he will be found guilty.

Its stupid and ridiculous but thats how the FA work and if they do things in the same way they did things with the Suarez/Evra affiar then its extremely likely they will find Terry guilty.

 

Great news, still think it will only be a few games sadly.

 

Naive little ****.

 

According to 'pool fans, the FA are as bent as a 1 bob note yet 100% correct in this instance

 

The FA make it up as they go along. Suarez was guilty on the balance of probability, as they put it, which a real court wouldn't take into account, so it would hardly be surprising if he got a ban though I expect it to go away quietly. I don't see what they can really charge A.Ferdinand with given Terry said himself it was par for the course or words to that effect.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2863078,00.html

 

John Terry has denied an FA charge announced today (Friday) and will be requesting the opportunity for a personal hearing.
The Football Association issued the following statement:
'After seeking advice from an external Independent QC, and having considered the evidence and Magistrates' Court decision in the John Terry case, The FA has today charged the Chelsea player following an alleged incident that occurred during the Queens Park Rangers versus Chelsea fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
It is alleged that Terry used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand, contrary to FA rules.
It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Anton Ferdinand.
This charge is the result of The FA's long-standing enquiries into this matter, which were placed on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial, and relates to rules governing football only.
During this period John Terry remains available to play for England.
Terry has until 3 August, 2012 to respond.
The FA will make no further comment during this time.'

 

still can not see how they can prove he said black and not blind, if some one heard him and was witness fair do's

 

Neither of them should be charged for the bollocks they're trying to do them for, it's almost as if they love banning players, trigger happy. All I ask for is fairness and if JT is banned for abusive language then Anton should be too.

I don't know whether Suarez should have been banned or not, neither do I care as it's 9 months later.

 

I agree. I think they should use the same process a court would and only find people guilty when it can be proved, but they don't.

If he'd smashed someone over the back of the head it wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow at FA HQ.

 

Interesting that Chelsea fans are now acting in the way they tore Liverpool fans apart for.

 

He admits he said black. It's the context that was/is/will be the issue.

 

It's because they think the two instances are the same so the FA have to ban him. If there's any consolation for you if Terry gets banned, at least it will stop them going on about Suarez all the time

 

You need audio evidence for sound. Video evidence does not tell you what someone said or the context they said it in.

Also, you do not need to prove your innocence. As long as you are not proven guilty, then you are innocent. I can accuse you of many things that you cannot prove you didn't do, therefore we may all be guilty.

 

Except John Terry did not use racist language.

 

You should go back to the relevant topics at the time and read the comments I made about the Evra-Suarez incident.

 

I don't mean you in particular, as a general comment

If you approach both issues with as little bias as possible in a reasoned manner, then fair play.

Could you embellish your view on the Terry case - as in, give the pros and cons of the FA's actions?

Of course, you are innocent until proven guilty; this is a democracy (of sorts) after all.

What I'm saying is this - if a court finds you not guilty, that does not mean you are 'not guilty' in the purest sense of the phrase. What it means is that a court of law could not sufficiently prove that you are guilty. They are two very separate things, and in this case it seems proper that the FA conduct their own disciplinary action, as it seems that Terry has, at least, broken the FA's own rules.

 

He admitted saying words that the FA deem racist,the FA don't allow context as an excuse.

They set the precedent last season and they make the rules, they also dont apply British standard law rulings at their hearings.

 

A bit like the Salem Witch Trials then! The poor old FA---led by the nose by the Sun senior football correspondent!

 

And if they're true to last seasons for Anton(like Evra)he wont get as much as tap on the knuckles for using obscene words and insults towards the accused player.