ah sorry DF. The one I posted is a good read, straight to the point about Terry and the man he is and how the football world sees him. Think his career may well be over. Not right now but think he is a very unpopular figure in football.
I agree with what you've said, but would it have been better had the Luis Suarez/Patrice Evra case had gone to court? Especially with Evra contradicting himself on the number of occasions that Suarez abused him. As we've said previously, Suarez said he said it once, Evra said he heard it five times and then changed it to 10 times. He wasn't actually really sure what Suarez actually called him. There was no witnesses available to suggest that either party was lying or telling the truth, as nobody else had heard anything. So how can you give someone an 8 game ban on the word of someone who exaggerated the number of times he wasn't exactly sure what he heard?
Yeah I read it, as I said I don't like the writer but he does make some valid points. Terry will be a dangerous animal (possibly) for the FA because his career is virtually over: nothing to lose. And judging on his past refusal to give up when found in the wrong suggests he'll fight the whole way & continue to muddy the image the FA are desperate to show the world on this issue.
"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..." And please don't forget that Evra provably LIED under oath as to why as to why he told the referee on the pitch he'd been called one thing, then changed it to another when SAF was prompting him to report what was said in the ref's changing room. Then changed it back for good measure when he reviewed the cctv tape with the FA, realised the only visual evidence of abuse was him 'exclaining' Suarez's sister was a whore in Spanish, and that the only evidence they had was Suarez's admission of what he'd said - once.
Ozzie: it would but it needed someone to report it to the police. It was my one "conspiracy theory" about the whole case. That Evra, as enraged as he was never once went to the police. I believe that he was advised not to because of the lack of supporting evidence & that he had a better chance to "get his man" through the FA. I'll leave further conspiracies of which club or managers had the advantage in the FA's arena to others. All Ill say on that is that our player & club were very niave in what was admitted & the style of defence adopted but that is past. Lessons hopefully learned. I'm just annoyed that a genuine & important campaign has been thoroughly trashed by the ruling body. I am also alarmed that for all the inroads we have made against racism, sexism and homophobia the continued casual acceptance and unsubtle use of xenophobia in both the sport & media is appalling. Scratch the surface & it isn't just the Daily Mail press room that hates foreigners.
Tomorrows independent headline guarantees Terry won't let it lie. Even Suarez didn't get this headline! Edit: apologies this app appears to not let me post photos anymore. http://twitpic.com/ayw1oj And I forgot about the Mirror headline didn't I?
Tsk, tsk, Need to get the lawyers out and seek compensation for their slanderous headline, as well as an apology. About £220k should do the trick. Seems like Terry stands to profit from this after all.
I really wish we could start the European Super League and tell the FA to royally **** right off. Oh to leave them with Middlesboro as their biggest team, and then watch them crawl back into the woodwork. If we thought about it, we could make a list of 99 things that show the FA to be a bunch of incompetent,corrupt, bias and out of touch old farts. They really have no claim to be running this national game.
I think if it wasn't for the lucrative premier league that would have happened ten years ago. Wait until Platini inherits Blatters crown & I think you'll see some serious upheaval in quite a few associations
"It was my one "conspiracy theory" about the whole case. That Evra, as enraged as he was never once went to the police." Didn't need Evra to report it to the police. Had this out on the United board weeks ago - the law (and i won't bother digging them out again unless you really want) allows for anyone, witness or not, to report it, and the 'victim' doesn't even necessarily need to go to court to give evidence. The case can even be brought against the wishes of the victim' if it's considered in the public interest. Now I ask you, with Luther Blisset, Clark carlisle, Gordon Taylor, Pienar Powar, paul Elliot, The Guardian, Martin samuel, James lawton, Sunday Supplement, Oliver Holt, United-supporting Surrey, SkySports, Paul Mcgrath and a host of other pitchfork and burning torch-bearing witchhunters on his case was it more likely that no-one at the CPS looked at a criminal prosecution, or that they have and know damn well they didn't have one iota of evidence for a criminal conviction.
Donga: sorry that's what I meant, I just used Evra as the most obvious example. That physically somebody had to make an official police complaint, if Evra didn't & he was the only one to have "heard" the comments, the police would have ceased investigations very quickly. ****, they won't fully investigate a burglary past giving you a crime number. Arguably someone still could, even with a private prosecution. In fact I'm surprised no one suggested this as a way to clear Suarez name at least in a legal sense. It's an approach being suggested to circumvent terrorist suspects being held without trial threatened with possible deportation from UK to US. If someone takes them on private prosecution and they get acquitted it will strengthen the case against deportation. Well, take Suarez to court, get him acquitted. Except as you can see, the FA found a way (by accident knowing them) to get around the whole court judgement/FA charge thing. So we could probably be sitting here saying the same as Chelsea fans. It's why I will keep repeating; the FA should never convene a hearing that has criminal overtones without actually accusing someone of a crime. This is how the FA's panels go: just substitute witch for racist. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/witch-trial.htm
Pretty much sums the FA up. People are pretty much decided as being guilty before they step up infront of their panel. Anything that can make them look good, they'll go along with it even if it isn't the right or fair outcome.
I've just got in and haven't read the entire thread (it does go on a bit) but from what I have read both Drogs and UIR have got the wrong end of the stick. The thread is about the FA's inconsistency- how can you look at inconsistency without making comparisons? Relating the Terry decision to the cases of Suarez and Rooney, amongst others, is a perfectly legitimate way to examine the inadequacies of the FA's decision making process. In the Suarez case because the accusations are similar, and in Rooney's because it highlights the self-serving nature of the FA's decisions- more concerned with expedience than justice.
Yep indeed and while any organisation that needs to provide any form of grievance process will have to either use internal management from different areas of the business to hear the case, or employ an external body to deal with it, or convene a panel of selected individuals, the one thing that you always strive to do is make it as fair and impartial as possible. So I have no problem with the FA having to put together (and pay) a panel to hear one of their charges, and will accept therefore by definition there's a level of impartiality removed, that's just the way it is, but to give Goulding the Saurez case when he was the QC the FA chose to represent them when trying to get Rooneys ban reduced beggars belief. A man they work closely with to achieve their own aims then put in charge of an "Independent" panel to hear one of their charges! Don't tell me that there was no one else they could have chosen to head the panel, and preferably someone they were not already close to. Though sort of tells you how determined they were to succeed, I do wonder whether Goulding himself fully supported the drivel he put together to justify the outcome, but he knew his remit.
^This^ A well known, well liked, affable, Snooker player gets caught on tape negotiating a deal to throw frames. Conversation includes him setting up a new mortgage account and having the money paid in. Allagation comes out the day after the world championship finishes yet after investigation fined £70k for not reporting approach and explanation of "didn't know what was going on, felt quite scared, accepted. Plays in the very next World Championship, and wins it, pats on back all around. Nationality=British Three Cricket players accused of delivering the odd no ball during the course of a 5 day cricket match. All jailed, two an a half years, two years, and six months respectively. Nationality=Pakastani. "vilified" Saurez L ............ breeching rule "E3[1], E3[2]" 8 match ban £40k fine, [no corrobarating evidence]. Nationality=Uriguayan. "vilified" Ferdinand R ....... breeching rule "E3[1], E3[2]" 0 match ban £45k fine, [corrobarating evidence (twitter logs)]. Nationality=British Terry J .............. breeching rule "E3[1], E3[2]" 4 match ban £220k fine, [corrobarating evidence (written court testomny)]. Nationality=British
Here someone has actually attempted an analysis. It's got 3 parts & very lengthy but an interesting read. http://northeastfox.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/part-ii-suarez-and-terry-analysing-the-data/
