Ferdinand charged by FA over Twitter comments
- Thread starter Alan
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Giving Rio the benefit of doubt, has anyone ever heard the slang term 'choc ice' meaning fake?
Just wondering how he intends to defend himself if no-ones ever heard it used that way.
Just wondering how he intends to defend himself if no-ones ever heard it used that way.
If you understand that then what do you think Ferdinand won't? he knows what he's doing, if he denies it and requested a personal hearing then there must be a case he wants to argue and talk about.
If you're his lawyer I would fancy his chances, because I didn't understand any of that!
He'll get a few Utd squad members as witnesses to confirm that he's used the choc-ice reference in the 'fake' context many times at OT to describe the prawn sarnie brigade.
Bit ironic if he uses the Suarez "It was just slang" defence.
Obviously us bitter Liverpool fans (there, I admitted it
) just want to see the same draconian standards and interpretations of the rules and sanctions rigidly adhered to in future cases. Truth though is, as has been hinted at by others in this thread, it's all getting a bit wearisome now. Think Suarez got done at the wrong time of the cycle for our good, when the FA (and the press and other clubs' fans who got on their most pious high horses) wanted a head on a stick, and Liverpool handled it too truculently by focussing upon the unfairness of how Evra had been treated in comparison to Suarez, instead of apologising for what their own man said, whatever his intentions. As such, nobody is going to take that combative stance again with the FA, knowing they have the power to put put an admission of one use of a word, add it to an accusation of ten uses of the word and come up with a 'probable' conclusion of seven, and don't bother appealing because you can't, sonny.
Eventually the accustaions and the sanctions will get less hysterical, and hopefully the whole farago of vested interests (and self-pitying, hard-done-by grouches like me) will properly start focussing on REAL cases of racism like the Gillingham thing (even if that was done more in ignorance than intention) than the high-profile, prima-donna, Premier league gobshights of all races.
So, did Rio not endorse a tweet that insulted Cole and that made reference to skin colour?
Not according to Cole:
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18847477
"Ashley Cole has been made aware of the discussion following comments appearing on Twitter and wishes to make it clear that he and Rio Ferdinand are good friends and Ashley has no intention of making any sort of complaint."
Then again, Cashley could hardly complain after supporting JT for essentially the same thing! What was it you were saying about petards again? "
Hmmm, fair point in the sense of the recipient of the remark making no complaint. The only thing I'd counter that with is that, as I understand it, no Ghana fans complained about Carlton Coles's comments, but as he was using a public outlet to make his comments anyone could have been offended. And that, tragically, is the hysterical world we live in.
Not according to Cole:
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18847477
"Ashley Cole has been made aware of the discussion following comments appearing on Twitter and wishes to make it clear that he and Rio Ferdinand are good friends and Ashley has no intention of making any sort of complaint."
Then again, Cashley could hardly complain after supporting JT for essentially the same thing! What was it you were saying about petards again? "
Hmmm, fair point in the sense of the recipient of the remark making no complaint. The only thing I'd counter that with is that, as I understand it, no Ghana fans complained about Carlton Coles's comments, but as he was using a public outlet to make his comments anyone could have been offended. And that, tragically, is the hysterical world we live in.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rio-ferdinand-denies-improper-conduct-1206915
Lord Ousely breaks his silence on the subject - to defend Rio.
I strongly suspect that when Luther Blissett, Clark carlisle, Gordon taylor, Paul Mcgrath, George Galloway and all the other rent-a-quotes won't be calling for Rio to be sacked, deported, banned, executed...
Lord Ousely breaks his silence on the subject - to defend Rio.
I strongly suspect that when Luther Blissett, Clark carlisle, Gordon taylor, Paul Mcgrath, George Galloway and all the other rent-a-quotes won't be calling for Rio to be sacked, deported, banned, executed...
Bit ironic if he uses the Suarez "It was just slang" defence.
Obviously us bitter Liverpool fans (there, I admitted it
Think Suarez got done at the wrong time of the cycle for our good, when the FA (and the press and other clubs' fans who got on their most pious high horses) wanted a head on a stick, and Liverpool handled it too truculently by focussing upon the unfairness of how Evra had been treated in comparison to Suarez, instead of apologising for what their own man said, whatever his intentions. As such, nobody is going to take that combative stance again with the FA, knowing they have the power to put put an admission of one use of a word, add it to an accusation of ten uses of the word and come up with a 'probable' conclusion of seven, and don't bother appealing because you can't, sonny.
Eventually the accustaions and the sanctions will get less hysterical, and hopefully the whole farago of vested interests (and self-pitying, hard-done-by grouches like me) will properly start focussing on REAL cases of racism like the Gillingham thing (even if that was done more in ignorance than intention) than the high-profile, prima-donna, Premier league gobshights of all races.
Why are you getting the Suarez case in to this? are trying to compare Suarez's fine to this? both cases are very different.
Suarez actually said that N word to Evra, he even admitted and then came up a stupid reason " because that word is allowed to say in my country", that idiot should of known that because he can say it in his country it doesn't mean he can say it in this country. He's living in UK not in Uruguay he should follow the rules here. Suarez deserved that fine and for me he should of been banned for more games then 8, 10 at max. Only bitter Liverpool fans thinks hes innocent.
He said the word negro, which is used in his country. Only Evra, to my knowledge, is guilty of using the word 'nigga'. That doesn't make him 'innocent', just that the standard tariff from other case of using abusive language (rule 3a - which wasn't applied to Evra for political reasons) was three game ban. It was multiplied to eight on the 'probability that he said it seven times - ironic in that Evra never claimed that and the only evidence that he'd actually said anything at all came from Suarez's own statement. In summary, not innocent but apallingly over-punished and made a convenient example of which, had he himself been black, would doubtless have had Lord Ousley, Clark carlisle, Gordon taylor et al screaming from the rooftops that he'd been discriminated against.
Didn't Elton John call himself "Lord Choc Ice" on one of his songs after people accused him of using fake names? Not sure it in an intentional sense, but tbh that's the only context I've heard it in other than to mean ice cream. Ah, what a sheltered life I've led
This is true. I wonder if, in all the ranting about Twitter, most people actually realise that there was a genuine case of outright racism in football this week?
Actually 3a states it's a two match ban for abusive or offensive language, doubled if that language includes reference to sexuality, ethnicity, race or religion IIRC. So the standard tariff for Suarez was four matches. The FA claimed it was doubled because of how much he contradicted himself and how many times he used the word, but in all likelihood it was simply so they could try and look good in the eyes of the media.
As for Evra, you are right that under the rules he should have gotten a two match ban, but then rule 3a also says that any swearing or foul language on the football pitch automatically earns a two match ban. And as everyone pointed out when Rooney was banned for swearing, if you enforced those rules strictly then every game would probably end up with about four players left! Like Terry said, Ferdinand's comments towards him happen in pretty much every game, so it would take a massive change to the rules and culture for that rule to be strictly enforced in all cases.
When i say three games I'm talking of the precedent of a player whose name I've damn well now forgotten, who did the same but figuratively got on his knees, begged forgiveness and donated wages to an anti-racism charity. But I still maintain that the "Your sister whore" comment in Spanish, and calling Suarez the equivilent of a South American gypo (I used to live with a Chilean girl, it damn well is a known, racial insult) are just as much in the FA's definition of racism as mentioning skill colour.
Give it a rest with defending Suarez. No ifs or buts, Suarez USED the word "negro" in this country, I don't care whether that word is said in this country. He now lives in England where that word is not allowed to be used so stop complaining.
It's like me going to Qatar and take some beers with me and I then get caught drinking. Do you think if I said, I am allowed to drink in England so thought I would be allowed to drink it in this country, the Qatar police officers would just laugh at you and stick you in jail.
Funny isn't it how the overwhelming majority of other fans think Liverpool and Suarez handled the racism case disgracefully.
Typical Liverpool fan always claiming to be the victim and never accepting responsibility.
Bad comparison with the Quatar thing but I get the jist. Thing with Suarez is that he lived in Holland for a few years prior and surely their views on the word 'negro' are no different to ours. I personally don't see Suarez as 'racist', just trying to wind up Evra as much as possible like the cheat he is.
so your saying just because the word "Negro" is allowed in his country, hes allowed to say it in here?..."Negro" is a word which is not allowed to say in THIS country, He's living in UK at the moment not Uruguay.
he said the word "Negro" 7 times and admitted it and that word is not allowed in here because as far as i know we are living in UK not in Uruguay. He deserved the fine and ban.
Can we just clear up a minor point. There are no "Banned" words in this Country.
I found this quite an interesting read on the meaning of Negro and it's uses and meanings. it's probably been copied on here a 1000 times so I apologise in advance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro
True, but the precedent in that case was an eight game ban, reduced to three games on appeal in recognition of the fact he apologised and donated wages to a charity. As Suarez didn't appeal, apologise or donate any wages, it's hard to apply that precedent in this case.
As for the whole Suarez incident, definitely don't want to go there again! All I will say is:
1. Suarez doesn't have a sister
2. Evra denied calling Suarez a South American. Suarez admitted calling Evra a negro.
3. Suarez admitted he wasn't offended by being called South American
4. Suarez admitted he was trying to wind Evra up
why don't u go around calling people "Negro" and see what happens ain't it? you will get arrested won't u? arrested for being racist. Negro is a racist word.