That would just get the Manure fans singing even more thinly disguised Hillsborough songs about us during their home games at OT when we're not even there.
Its like appealing one of your players suspensions, just because you need them. If it was a player from another country, you would demand that they serve the whole of their ban. A 3 game ban for violent conduct only applies to non English players and English players that don't play for Manchester United.
Apologies if I've misunderstood you Drogs. I thought you were saying the FA took the court case into account when dealing out the punishment. My response was that their own rules wouldn't allow for that because they could be seen to refuting a legal judgement. They had to be seen to be ruling on a separate issue. i.e. the literal use of language referring to race: intent of racism was never part of it apparently. Which is exactly the same approach they had to take with Suarez because if they had accused Suarez of actual Racism, they would have been accusing him of a criminal offence, which Suarez could then have challenged in court & going on the "evidence" produced in the FA report would most certainly been acquitted. Then the FA would have been powerless to act according to the afore mentioned FA stipulation that they won't act against a legal judgement. So; we are back to why, if accused of word for word the same work place offence, were different punishments handed out? As I say; I can't wait for the report to be released to see how they work it out. If its this multiple times malarkey they're going to have to adopt that with every offence, so if the ref reports a player for swearing 3 times at him will he get twice the punishment for that red card? What about a two footed challenge rather than a one footed red card? And yes I'm being facetious now...
The answer frank is that Terry is English and hes been treated more fairly than South American Suarez by them, the FA stand to come out of this looking more racially biased than the players they're punishing.
I agree with most of what you said. However in the Suarez case, Luis Suarez said he made his comment ''once and once only'' Evra initially said that Suarez said it ''five times'' and then changed it to ''10 times''. Now how in the name of god can you call Patrice Evra a credible witness, when changes his version of events, just like that?
Suarez = victim of FA cnuts JT = Racist scumbag from a team supported by ignorant racist scumbags who don't understand the difference between the law of the land and the rules of the FA. Just saying
You forgot to mention that he shagged his mates bird and expected him to shake his hand because he was England captain. Terry is full of his own ****.
Exactly both of you. Just read a guardian piece explaining the difference as Suarez deemed "aggravating" in his use of racially orientated word & Terry, by only getting 4 must have been considered not to be "aggravating" So for the FA to see the words " f*cking black cu*t" as non aggravating they must have believed Terry's assertion that while he literally said the words he was only repeating what he thought Anton accused him of saying. Now remember the Judge in the court case stated that he was not convinced of Terry's reasoning or that you would respond how he (Terry)claimed he did if accused of saying such a thing. So a judge of the land doubts your version of events, not just the angry accuser, a dispassionate judge. So, we have Suarez stating he only said once, one racially orientated word (in the literal sense) & the only evidence to the contrary was the word of his accuser. Automatic 4 games for literal use, fair enough. 4 more on the word of a man who they admitted exaggerated originally & actually got the word used completely wrong! Hmmm... We have Terry admitting literal use of word in a similarly claimed non racist context. 4 games automatic, fair enough. Everyone else's opinion (including the victim & judge) that there was no way you would repeat verbatim the phrase you are accused of using back at the insultee? Not believed? No extra games. So tell me what made one more believable to the FA than the other. Why was the word of one victim who got all his facts wrong originally believed & taken into account and the other victims beliefs after viewing the video evidence are not taken into account? It can't be past character, as both have pretty poor reputations. It can't be the halting way they gave evidence as we've all seen Terry speaks English like its his 2nd language. I really can only see one reason why an English FA & English media might suspend their belief of reality long enough to believe the English player who plays for the England team as opposed to the .....well, you get my point. Fight against racism? Lol, sorry but that's right! Xenophobia isn't racism, ones a snake bite the others a bee sting....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/sep/27/john-terry-racism-fa-ban?newsfeed=true Heres the article DF refers to I think. Very good.
Nope that article is from D Taylor who has ridden his moral high horse since well before even the Suarez report came out. The credit I will give him however is that he is being even handed when his own paper largely hasn't in it's language & headlines between the two cases. While I dislike his witchhunty abuse of column inches on little evidence I do share his poor view of how footballers in general think of themselves. This is a link to the article I read (iPhone link so if its rubbish someone fix it for me) http://m.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/sep/27/fa-john-terry-luis-suarez?cat=football&type=article
