http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/aug/15/rio-ferdinand-ashley-cole-choc-ice So Ferdinand (the biggest gob****e in football) has his hearing in secret It's also nowhere to be seen on the Manchester united page on the guardian website - hmm, funny that
Expected nothing less, same will be done with Terry when his case comes up after the World Cup qualifiers.
I don't think that bit is double standards. However if Rio is punished and Terry gets off it will be a travesty.
Hmmm. Look at this from the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...dinand-set-race-hearing-verdict-choc-ice.html What intigues me is the rider, that has been there for ALL Ferdinand-related articles on this Twitter story, even before he was charged, that "The Mail cannot accept comments on this story for legal reasons". Why? Was this amount of deference applied to the Suarez case or, indeed, the Terry case even when it was sub-judice? Double standards indeed. And the Mail 'understands' (i.e. they've been told by the FA) that Ferdinand will not face any suspension, even a suspended one. Presumably, helped by the outrageous intervention by Lord Ousley, the fact that Rio X didn't actually write the offending words (but enthusiastically endorsed them) is allowing the FA the get out clause it has secretly begged for since Rio set himself up as "The Voice of Anti-racism". And of course Rio has stated his famous "It's not racist, so there' defence (how we wished Suarez had tried that one, though I expect Terry's legal team won't be advising him to go down that road, given the FA's proven, double-standards track-record on racial issues). Let's not lose sight though that comparing Rio's second-hand tweets to the Carlton Cole and Frimpong tweets is like comparing apples to pears. They weren't effictively harrassing a witness in a criminal court case because they wouldn't temper their testimony based upon the colour of the skin of the defendent. I wondr if there will be talk of white footballers setting up their own union if Rio is leniently treated, or claims that non-black players will now be more reluctant to come forward and report racism seeing that the miscreants will be treated with kid gloves?
The FA doesn't appear to have any standards at all, never mind double ones. Seriously though, the whole thing is becoming a bloody fiasco. I said at the time of the Suarez-Evra affair that they were setting a precedent they would find impossible to maintain. They run a sporting association, and they don't do a great job of that so why they think that makes them qualified to pass judgement on the delicate intricacies of race relations is beyond me. They are way out of their depth, and interfering with things that really need forensic investigation, if any at all.
I do agree that Rio should have no action taken against him for just endorsing another tweeters comment. It is a second hand response. You clearly cannot punish someone for such a thing. Its like someone saying that x is a ******, and someone else agreeing with it. The person in the wrong is the one that said first, not the person that agreed. As for the Terry case. I don't understand it at all. This is my interpretation of the dialogue between Anton Ferdinand and John Terry. Anton Ferdinand must have heard the profanity that was said to him. He said it to John Terry who repeated back the profanity to Anton Ferdinand. Which basically means the profanity or racist remark was said to Anton Ferdinand. There is no way it couldn't have been. The FA must use the 'balance of probability' that they used on Luis Suarez that John Terry did in fact use the profanity/ racist remark to begin with. There is no proof by reasonable doubt that he did, but it is probable that he did.
Ryan Babel was punished for retweeting (not publishing it himself). The FA have set examples in the past and now they must follow through. During the Suarez case it was stated that the context in which the word is used has no influence on the judgement they make.
I cant see how they can not suspend Terry for at least 4 games if they want to stand by there decisions they made in the Suarez case. The Rio case I can see being a small fine. Another question is why are the FA dragging this out so long.
The trouble is that the FA used reverse reasoning in the Suarez case. They'd decided they were going to make an example of him so they chose the evidence to justify the judgement. That's why I said they can't maintain the line of reasoning, because it's going to get them into all sorts of trouble if they do. At some point down the line, someone will challenge their judgement in court and a new stink will be created. The only fair way for them to have dealt with the Suarez case and others like it would have been to collate their evidence and offer it to the CPS to see if they thought there was a case to answer. Racism is, after all, a criminal offence and needs to be dealt with by professional law enforcers. We've got to the stage now where any ill-considered, ambiguous throw-away line can cause allegations of racism and what is a serious element of social justice has become trivialized.
Well they are dragging the Terry case on until the World Cup qualifiers are over, not sure why Ferdinand's case is taking a while.
The context in which Luis Suarez used the word did determine whether he was guilty or not. Luis Suarez used it aggressively and was therefore punished. It was not neccessarily the word, it was the context. Dani Pacheco used the term ''Negrito'' at Glen Johnson and it was interpreted as being affectionate, therefore no action was taken.
Both Suarez and Pacheco speak different dialects. It was explained that the terminology that Suarez used can also be used in a friendly manner in his native dialect.
From what I can remember that was argued. However I still believe Luis Suarez was found guilty for using it aggressively, whereas Dani Pacheco didn't. However if Luis Suarez was brought up in front of a court of law, there is not a chance in hell of him being found guilty. It would have had to been proven without reasonable doubt without the use of contexts. Contexts are based on probabilities and interpretations and are not based on fact. Its far too vague to even bother analysing as all you will get is opinion, and we all know, opinion is not based on fact. There is no way, it would have been proven. Similar to what happened to John Terry. In suspending Luis Suarez, the FA have in someway given people a stick to beat them with.
"I do agree that Rio should have no action taken against him for just endorsing another tweeters comment." Then I wish to put another scenario to you. Let us say Anton Ferdinand was the one accused of racially abusing John Terry (I know, impossible because all the single-issue racism groups and the FA are under the illusion that black people cannot ever be racist, but bear with me). Shaun Derry, his team mate, gives evidence on behalf of Ferdinand. When Anton is found not guilty a poster on Twitter calls Derry a race traitor, accusing him of being white on the outside but being black on the inside (let's say he calls him a "n------ lover", a horrid phrase indeed). Frank Lampard, desperately disappointed that Anto didn't get sent down, says "Hahahaha, that's classic!"..... Do you think Lampard would ever kick a football in professional football again, let alone get Lord Ousley and the professional caucus of "Rent-an-anti-racist-qoute" on his side? "The FA must use the 'balance of probability' that they used on Luis Suarez that John Terry did in fact use the profanity/ racist remark to begin with. There is no proof by reasonable doubt that he did, but it is probable that he did." More importantly they should remember that Terry is accused THEREFORE IS PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, whatever that burden of proof is. I can't stand Terry, but unless it's Evra himself I have no wish to see the presumption of innocence dispensed with again, as it was in the Suarez case. People have focussed far, far too much on this balance of probabilities v reasonable doubt thing. The call has gone up from several quarters that the balance of probabilities standard is normally used in civil cases, which is true but that's because nobody normally stands accused in civil cases, it usually a dispute between one or more parties. I know fro being a union rep that if an employee is accused of something the company must show 'reasonable belief' (very like balance of probabilities) BUT a presumption of innocence is the starting point of any investigation/enquiry. Using balance of probabilities, reasonable belief or whatever, when you start with a presumption of innocence there is absolutely NO proof Suarez said anything seven, ten, five or any number of times apart from the once he admitted. True, the panel have the right to determine intent based upon their investigations (and maybe they were right to given that what Louis said was in the middle of an argument) but, presuming innoce in the first place as Suarez was standing accused, they were way over the line rstling up a number that even Evra hadn't suggested, based upon no evidence at all. Where this leaves (or should leave) Terry is the thing. If the FA uses the the same processes (and good God, please not Goulding again) as they did in the Suarez case, then they may as well don their black caps now. Some will say this fair and consistent, as this is what they did with Suarez. I say that's akin to jailing every convenient Irishman in the vicinity for every pub bombing because that's what passed for justice in the 70's.
It can be argued, but they had language experts brought in who corroborated that it can be used in a friendly manner. ****, they even use it for white people. In context, the way Suarez used the word was not aggressive, basically saying "Why, Negro?" in a playful way. I didn't see any aggression on the pitch, Suarez was dancing around Evra and patting him on the head. Now why was Evra not brought up for claiming Andre Marriner only booked him because he is black?
