Oh for ****'s sake change the record! We all know that, the fact is he was found NOT GUILTY, the FA cannot change that and would HAVE to take it into consideration when reaching a verdict.
And the court's judgement has **** all to do with the FA's ruling...Why would the FA take into account a "beyond reasonable doubt" ruling when they rule based on "balance of probabilities".
Do I seriously have to keep repeating myself? It would OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN INFLUENCE, it would be in Terry's defence to say 'I was found NOT GUILTY in a court of law' they would have to take it into consideration. This totally contradicts what he has been charged with today anyway, he was charged with using racial language not racially abusing somebody. Last I've got to say on it anyway, most boring, tedious, tiresome saga ever.
Yup, totally ironic seeing as you believe his court ruling should have anything to do with an independent panel's ruling.
Drogs your putting too much emphasis on the court case. The court case was for racist abuse the fa charge was using racist language which was proved in court but the intention was not provable. Suarez and terry were charged with the same offence. Suarez ban was higher because in the Fa's opinion he used racist language multiple times to Terry's one use of racist language. The charging of Ferdinand won't happen because it will open a can of worms because Evra admitted to abusing Suatez in his statement to the fa
Drogs your using incorrect semantics to walk in circles. Show me the part of any of the FAs charge or report that accused Suarez of bring racist? Actually says the opposite. Same with Terry which was what Terry was acquitted of in court. Also in court Terry admitted using a sentence referencing a players colour or race. The FA stated that this is the bar they have set so could go ahead despite the court acquittal. The court case is a straw man. Yes the FA's own regulations state they can't contradict a legal ruling. BUT they have been at pains to say that the difference between the two is the court needed to prove racist INTENT, the FA charge was simply that he had used language found insulting that referred to a players race or colour. Exactly the same charge as Suarez. Same charge different punishments. So far the 2 excuses other than your blatantly factually incorrect one are: 1)Suarez got more games because the FA said (without any proof merely that he looked "shifty"; you know, how those foreigners do when questioned, the same accusation the judge levelled at Terry by the way only he maybe didn't think it was because he was a gringo) that he repeated a reference of colour or race multiple times. They settled on a random number plucked out of thin air. 2)Terry got a bigger fine because at time of guilt he was earning more money. Both sound ludicrous in relation to what they are apparently stamping out. So if i use a term twice its doubly bad? A couple of weeks wages will show them rich footballers what's what! I also find it slightly weak that we aren't debating this on your board. It's not about a LFC player. It's about the FA's inconsistency, we have to compare the 2 cases to do that. I notice you are happy enough to do it here though. I also remember as a mid you were happy to contribute during our inundation. You might have been "more reasonable" I honestly can't remember but I assume from past experience that you were. But you didn't come on here to stand with us. We obviously have more even handed mods: but we knew that already
abuse is fine to a point. its part and parcel of the game but you need to be careful you dont cross the line. that line can be what you say or who you say it too. bans for calling someone a **** or a pile of **** would be mental. say that to the ref and you run the risk of a card. add race into it and you are on dodgy ground. most footballers are ugly, stupid ****s anyway, no need for race, plenty to wind them up over tbh.
Piers Morgan ‏@piersmorgan Not quite sure why Terry gets just a 4-match ban for worse racist abuse than Suarez, who got an 8-match ban? Joseph Barton ‏@Joey7Barton 4 games? A years worth of investigation, a four day FA hearing and only a 4 game ban? Suarez got 8 didn't he? WTF's going on... Well I think that proves a lot. What an absolute farce. 12 games for violent conduct and only 4 for that. FA should be embarrassed #shambles Lethal Bizzle ‏@LethalBizzle John Terry 4 game ban ? I thought he was innocent? Lol #Leaveit Gary Lineker ‏@GaryLineker The FA find John Terry guilty and give him a 4 match ban and 220K fine. Just one game more than a regular red card? Stan Collymore ‏@StanCollymore 12 Barton handbags. 8 Suarez racism 4 Terry racism FA. Inept. Paul Hayward ‏@_PaulHayward And when the John Terry news has passed, the FA and Premier League might want to look at the way footballers converse in games? It's a swamp
Can Suarez contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission after being unfairly punished for something to a higher extent than Terry did? The FA continually put off Terry's case so he could play for England and his punishment is less severe, even with the video evidence.
Perhaps I am, but I'm emphasising it because nobody is getting my point. I'm not saying the FA's decision lay solely on the conclusion of the courts, I'm saying it will have had an influence of proceedings today. I apologise if I've misunderstood the point here but where did I say that?! You're ****ing kidding me aren't you page? All absolute ****ers, especially the phone hacking Soldier slating **** named Piers.
Because he swore, and Suarez didn't. There is no swear words in ''Why you black'' which Suarez said compared to ''You ****ing black ****'' which Terry said.
Drogs you could also say that his childish tantrum at the start of the week of I am not playing for you anymore could of affected the FA's decision if he hadnt done that he might of got a lesser ban.
Yeah I had thought that, but I severely doubt Terry is on 220 a week. I also doubt Suarez is on 40k, or whatever it was.
I read elsewhere that the FA fine structure goes on a players wages and the maximum is 150% of their weekly wage. Dont know how true this is but would fall more in line with Terrys wages. Suarez was on low wages when he first moved to Liverpool I believe, like really low but also far higher than he was on at Ajax. Think he was fined 100% of his weekly wages.
The FA had to make a stand somewhere against racism and prejudice, and what better message to send out than to ban the greasy dago from Latin America for twice as long as two former England captains combined for doing the same crime? And top that off, there was no corroborative evidence for Suarez, as opposed to Rio and Terry. Makes you proud to be English - like being in Alabama in the 60's!
