Amusing coming from someone who has been posting about a United ref/media conspiracy for days. Paranoid much? Even going so far as to cosy up to Arsenal/Liverpool/City fans while doing so. Plastic much? Unlike your drivel though there is evidence of United getting harsher treatment compared to other teams. Rio getting 4 times the ban length of people who have tested positive for cocaine for example or SAF's amount of touchline bans for things Mancini/RDM etc get away with weekly.
Thought you were gonna comment about the corner which lead to their goal yesterday came off Howard Webb in the build up
Now the smokescreen has gone gone ( Clattenburg cleared ) will it only be a matter of days before the FA come down like a ton bricks on Chelski ?
Interesting. Sir Alex criticizes a ref and suddenly he's a stain on football yet Chelsea can publicly accuse a ref of racism with no evidence and yet do no wrong. Its not like its the first time they have made stuff up about a ref to ruin their career either (fourth now isn't it?).
SAF's been busy today at the unveiling of that statue of Larry Grayson. The FA are just awaiting his instructions tomorrow.
seriously ramires insists he said something very bad personally I think he probably said something like 'I don't give a monkey's or 'cheeky monkey' but with all the noise and not having English as a first language it got misheard. But the only way Chelsea could be punished is to find that Ramires made the whole thing up and Chelsea were in on it. If it were ever proved that Ramires made it up and decieved the club as well, then Chelsea shouldn't be punished, Ramires should. I find this campaign to go after a club a little bizarre to be honest.
chelsea should had never gone public with it with so little evidence let alone a conspiracy theory to frame the ref just bcz Chelsea lost not to mention someone telling the ref he will break his leg .. or bullying him at dressing room but as JT get away with it ... will not be surprised if they get away with it again with minimum punishment
Ramires "didn't hear something bad". He heard "something" and after telling Mikel what he thought he heard, Mikel assumed it was racist. Chelsea didn't even have a credible witness because the only guy who heard anything was one of the furthest away and didn't even understand what he heard. Chelsea were right to investigate it though, but it should never have gotten as far as making a complaint. It should have been apparent to anyone with a working braincell they had zero credible evidence. The outrage is not that they made a frivolous complaint which was probably fuelled by anger at the referees performance, it's that they went public and announced the accusation of racial abuse. They didn't need to make it public at all, especially as there was no actual evidence of it happening. But they didn't think twice about attempting to destroy a guys career for nothing. Still, Chelsea like destroying referee's careers.
QPR should had never gone public with it with so little evidence - just Anton's word v someone who denied it (and still does) United should had never gone public with it with so little evidence - just Evra's word v someone who denied it (and still does) Chelsea should had never gone public with it with so little evidence - just Ramires' word v someone who denied it (and still does) If someone hears a racial insult against them or anyone else they should report it full stop. And if the club thinks that person making the accusation is telling the truth they should back them on it. This is a serious issue. If video, audio or 3rd party confirmation doesn't get found, then you should drop the matter. You can't punish someone without evidence and you can't punish someone for hearing a racial slur. If you can prove they lied and made it up (or exaggerated the matter to make it seem worse) then you should punish the person making that claim heavily. But I still don't see where the club is at fault unless they knowingly brought forth a frivolous or innacurate accusation.
I highlighted the interesting point. Not only was Evra a first hand witness there was third party confirmation in the Suarez case. Suarez himself admitted to saying it and LFC staff testified he admitted saying it. He just tried to claim it was meant in a non racist way. And in the QPR case there was video evidence and Terry admitted to using the words but in a non racist way.... Notice how both of those try and argue what they said wasn't racist, rather than trying to claim "I didn't say it". It's because they were caught bang to rights. Amazing to see LFC fans hijacking every racism case out there to push their "Suarez was stitched up" agenda down everyone's throats again. Maybe one day you'll accept it and move on. But I doubt it, you just love playing the victim too much.
"Notice how both of those try and argue what they said wasn't racist, rather than trying to claim "I didn't say it". It's because they were caught bang to rights" Suarez was never "caught bang to rights" at all. He volunteered the information that he used the word negro (not the word Evra lyingly accused him of using and was then caught "bang to rights" changing when he was shown Surez's statement by the FA) even when he knew there was no video evidence to prove he'd even said that. That's not playing the victim, it's just knowing the 115 pages of self-serving, contradicory bullshit that was passed off as an investigation in the knowledge that drunken hacks and empty heads like you would just read the summary at most.
Everytime he vomits his Suarez argument over our board I find myself thinking eugenics may not be such a bad idea after all.
Well, you would have to feel sorry for his children if they had a ******ed c**t like him as a father.
QPR didn't go public with it, that was Sky based on the video evidence. Anton freely admitted not hearing what was said. Utd didn't go public with it, Evra was asked in an interview why he was so upset and replied that he had been racially abused. He probably shouldn't have done that, fair enough, but he obviously felt aggrieved by it and was asked a direct question by a journo. Chelsea FC made a public statement to the media, without being prompted, claiming Mikel had been racially abused and trying to use that as justification for their players barging into the ref's room and threatening him. Hope even an LFC fan can see the difference there Chelsea's decision to go public was also much worse, as it has arguably resulted in Clattenburg receiving a heavier punishment than either Terry or Suarez despite being completely innocent. Terry got a four match ban and a fine of one weeks wages, Suarez an eight match ban and a fine of half his weeks wages. Clattenburg effectively got a four match ban as he wasn't selected during the investigation, and hence missed out on four weeks worth of match fees. All of which could have been avoided had the Chelsea board not made a conscious and deliberate decision to make a public media statement about the whole thing.
