I suggest for Rio's punishment that he should be banned from doing Interviews, especially TV interviews. Fed up with seeing that twat on Football focus all the time with less insight than a squashed potato.
Btw, some learned discussion on the presumption of innocence in civil law that Goulding conveniently ignores:- "presumption of innocence and more generally the last two paragraphs of the differentiating section These two paragraphs are unworthy of wikipedia. They are not only biased (I am inclined to say arrogant), but also wrong, unfounded and even worse for wikipedia without any conclusive citations..... Just to give an editor two hints... Just facts: "1. in dubio pro reo is latin. It is latin because it is a roman principle of law. Naturally as civil law is based on Roman law it is an integral part of every civil law system. But in dubio pro reo includes the presumption of innocence. I don't know where the ridiculous assumption comes from that there is no equivalent of presumption of innocence in civil law. Just delete the paragraph about it and add a sentence that this is myth.... " From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C...two_paragraphs_of_the_differentiating_section
I see your point but I don't really agree. Tribal rivalries apart, I'd like to see justice done and all this idiocy ended before it's too late. In my opinion the Suarez decision was a travesty and I don't want to see it repeated ad infinitum in an attempt to show consistency. The whole thing paints football in a very bad light and everything the FA does just makes them look more and more inept. It's not going to happen, of course, but I think they should admit they were wrong with Suarez and retrospectively clear his name. Suarez could agree not to follow it up and everyone could let the whole thing drop. The FA could then deal with future cases in a fairer, less politically motivated manner. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this really fair? The FA say to Luis Suarez, ''We're sorry, but now your name is cleared''. His reputation in English football is ruined because Patrice Evra exaggerated the number of insults that were thrown at him. Lets not forget and there is proof of this that Evra made a comment about Luis Suarez' sister which in South America is deemed to be the most offensive. The proof is, Evra admitted to it. Therefore its hand-bags, one insult thrown at both. Okay neither should have been throwing insults, but it in reality evens itself out and should have been left at that. Secondly Liverpool have been dragged through the mud for standing up for Luis Suarez. How many times have Manchester United stood up for players when they have done wrong? I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with standing up for players, as its called loyalty. But to be condemned for it? C'mon thats just unfair. There is another thing I have a gripe with. Manchester City play Chelsea and Wayne Bridge has a gripe with John Terry and refuses to shake his hand, and he's not condemned. Luis Suarez who is upset and feels harshly done by does likewise and is treated like a criminal. He has a rival manager telling his club to sack him. This is unjust. I'm also annoyed with the whole ''Always the victims, its never our fault'' stuff directed at Liverpool fans. That is why I feel for equity and fairness sake and the entire thing be dropped is if John Terry serves an 8 match ban which is precedent seeing as Luis Suarez had to serve it.
can't belive terry's "case" will end up near a year before being dealt with while ferdinand might not even be fined. england looks ridiculous right now.
"can't belive terry's "case" will end up near a year before being dealt with while ferdinand might not even be fined. england looks ridiculous right now. " The fact that the greasy dago from South America, against whom there was the flimsiest of evidence, will be the only one who is selected to be made an example of is an irony that has flown over the heads of the FA, and its cheerleading chorus in Sunday Supplement and Fleet St in general.
It's pointless discussing the issue lads. As I said to Page last night, there's no mileage in this for us. No matter what happens with Terry and Ferdinand, it's not going to solve the racist quagmire that the FA have got themselves in. Neither is it going to do anything to help Suarez regain his reputation. It most certainly will not calm the sense of gross injustice that many of us feel.
Another point. What would have happened if Kenny Dalglish had said to RDM that he should sack John Terry? There would be uproar. Sack an England legend,!!!!! no way. You could never do that. Even if he is a ****ing thug. Its just them looking after their own, in the same way they got Wayne Rooneys deserved 3 match ban reduced to two games.
." Its just them looking after their own, in the same way they got Wayne Rooneys deserved 3 match ban reduced to two games." The fooking hypocritical FA, who penalise clubs for making appeals against their decisions on bans, even used the same lawyer in Goulding who stitched up Suarez, to appeal Rooney's case. Brown envelopes aplenty exchanged between Uefa, FIFA and the FA.
Thats is gospel and I couldn't agree more. I'm 100% convinced Suarez was stitched up. He's as much a racist as Stuart Pearce is.
And just another thing SKD (as it seems we're the only ones bothered! ) In the summary of the judgement in the case, one of the reasons given for the 'reliability' of Evra's version of events is that the referee recalled Evra saying something about being black (this despite the fact that Evra initially said he'd been called '******', changing that to negro after seeing Suarez's statement and saying he must have misheard negro - so why does he say he's been called black to the ref then? ). Yet the referee says this is when he was being booked AFTER the Suarez incident, not when he was being called over by the ref with Suarez to be told to calm down. The point being, apart from the fact that Evra knew all along he'd NEVER been called '******', was that when asked if he was so upset at being called negro/black 'ten times' (as you would be) he didn't report it to the ref at the time he said he did - despite nobody, including the ref, hearing him do so. Yet because Marriner confirmed that Evra said he'd been called black (a '****ing black', indeed - again, why didn't he say he'd been called a '******', if that is what he truly believed before he reviewed the evidence ten days later) when he was being booked then that validates Evra's story. NO IT DOESN'T, it verifies the fookin' opposite! Hey, I know I'm obsessed, but EVERY time you read that report another contradiction from Evra jumps at you.
Perhaps an eight month ban from Twitter would be more appropriate. Although I don't know how he'd cope without a channel to broadcast his 'thoughts' to the world on an hourly basis... Btw, I thought the FA did give Suarez a private hearing? Pretty sure I remember some of the witnesses saying they couldn't talk about it to the media cos the FA ruled it had to be kept private. But it proved impossible to keep it under wraps due to the amount of witnesses they needed, and all the media rumours about the people on the panel. Rio's hearing was probably just Rio in a room at FA HQ, so much easier to keep out of the papers.
What is so offensive with calling someone black? Its stating the freaking obvious. Its like trying to insult a slaphead by calling him bald. Or a fat bird,by saying ''you're fat''. Suarez did not use any derogatory term. All Evra had to say was ''No **** Sherlock I didn't realise until now I'm black'' . Its like ''chinese whispers'' the longer it went on, the more exaggerated it got. I still cannot fathom why Evra wasn't reprimanded over what he said about Suarez' sister. Sucada meaning ''greaser'' is highly offensive in Uruguay.
I thought that was cos Suarez doesn't have a sister? And Suarez said he wasn't offended by it in any way.
I get the impression that Suarez isn't easily offended- I think he just sees the whole thing as a bit of banter on the pitch to throw the opponent off his stride. Evra appears to be a rather more sensitive soul, to put it kindly....
This. The only thing Suarez is really guilty of, imo, is being a bit naive about what the authorities would and wouldn't accept as falling within the definition of banter. But then the same can be said about Terry and Rio, and they should definitely know better.
Suarez was naive and has to learn from his mistakes. He has to learn what is acceptable in some countries may not be acceptable in other countries. As for Rio, he has to be warned about his use of social media, and as a public figure to be just careful. Even agreeing with a tweet from another person can cause offence. I've excuses for John Terry, none whatsoever. There is no way whatsoever you can change the context in what he said or allegedly said. He allegedly used profanities therefore meaning aggression. He's going to have to be hit with an 8 match ban out of equity and fairness.
Rio isn't racist, a bit of an idiot yes. We all know he's not the sharpest pencil in the pencil case and he didn't realise what he did. It wasn't as if it was deliberate like some of the stuff that was tweeted at Tom Daley.
What racist word did Rio Ferdinand use? The tweeter said ''Ashley Cole is a choc ice'' Rio said lol classic. Where is the racist term Rio Ferdinand used? I don't even deem ''choc ice'' to be racist, some deem it to mean a ''coward''.
