Christ, this lad is creaming in his pants because he see's this as some kind of reprieve for that donkey faced moron who doesn't do a lot of scoring, rather getting into a hissy. Both Terry and Suarez are guilty as sin. I felt the punishment handed to Suarez was a little harsh, but a punishment he deserved. The UK judicial system is an even bigger joke than the FA, so I not entirely surprised to see Terence get off scot-free.
Awful post. How was Suarez's punishment 'harsh yet deserved'? Racists should be sacked and banned from football, true racists I'm talking about - people who genuinely HATE someone because they are of different ethnicity/skin colour. Both Suarez and Terry are not those people. You say Terry is 'guilty as sin' - then why has he been proven NOT guilty today then? I'm genuinely asking why by the way and don't give me some ****wit answer like 'because there is video evidence'. Are you more qualified/did you have all the relevant facts and evidence at your disposal to make this conclusion aswell? Thank **** people like you aren't in charge of our country mate, we'd be well and truly shafted. You are quite frankly one of the simpletons I mentioned before, who saw a few seconds from a YouTube clip then saw the verdict on the BBC homepage, not taking one bit of interest in how the trial panned out.
My point is that by guessing, the FA made a mockery of their own system. As has been proven with the Terry verdict, it takes more than just a guess to prove guilt! I know Suarez' evidence was littered with inconsistencies, but so was Evra's (what was he actually called, how many times was he called it, why did he not seem shocked etc etc)! And Suarez admitted to using a word that he thought was not offensive, he was not prompted to do this, there is no evidence of him actually using the word, so why did he freely admit this if he thought it would land him in trouble? Anyway, the point is, Suarez was probably have been found not-guilty by a court, yet he is castigated as being a racist by many due to a different level of proof being required. Is this fair? Of course it is not, therefore the FA need to stop acting above the law and stop guessing at someone's guilt and bring themselves in line with the actual laws of the land, especially when you consider the seriousness of the issue and the implications that guessing has on a player's reputation!
Terry is not guilty actually, and Suarez was found guilty by three blokes sitting in a motel room off the M6 with no need to actually abide by the actual laws of the land! If that means they are both 'guilty as sin' then so be it!
It appears that you have missed the point of what I said! I was talking about Fergie's driving incident, not his reaction to diving! Hahahaha
Why do the FA have to bring themselves in line with the actual laws of the land as such? They aren't a criminal court, they couldn't sentence him to jail time if they found him guilty, they just issued a ban to a player that used a word that was deemed offensive in this country. And just for the record, after years of watching Suarez play I don't actually think he's a racist, I just think he's a complete dick on the pitch who tries to get a rise out of the people he's playing against to put them off their game or cause them to be more physical with him allowing him to "win" more free kicks, this time he just got caught overstepping the line.
They need to have the same standard of proof is what I am saying, otherwise you have the situation we have now! One player guilty of using racially abusive language with no evidence except the accuser's and one player not guilty of using racially abusive language with basically the same level of accusation! Is that fair, or correct?
The only thing that would happen if the FA started acting like criminal courts would be that every case would become a farce, much like our actual justice system. The FA's disciplinary board is far from perfect, but trying to turn them into a court of law would make it even worse with expensive lawyers finding the smallest legal loopholes to create reasonable doubt with almost every case, it would become a media circus. As for that comparison being fair, your summary wasn't exactly accurate, one player was found guilty by the FA disciplinary board (disciplinary board, not court of law, they could not give him a criminal record) of using a word they deemed to be wrong to use on the pitch under their rules, a word which he admitted to using and whose own defense was inconsistent, and the other was found not guilty by a court of law because there wasn't enough evidence to prove him guilty without reasonable doubt according the laws of the country.
The crucial point surely is that Terry's case should never have been dealt in a court of law. Not that Suarez should have been. All problems on the pitch should be felt by the FA (excep in clear exceptional cases I.e murder, GBH ) The criminal court demands beyond reasonable doubt. The FA does not exercise such high standards and rightly so. Otherwise no one will be punished for anything. Bad tackles fir example, can anyone prove 100% there was intent? The FA uses on the balance of probabilities, best guess as some deride it..
So am i getting it right (having not read about in depth because its frankly dull) that Terry was proven to have said it but with dispute over the intent meaning he can't be convicted?
Do you think that it was fair that Suarez was found guilty and thus castigated as a racist by the media and fans throughout the country based on probability? Surely a higher level of proof should be required for such a serious matter? He seems to have got over it but the point is that his verdict was reached by guesswork! Surely these two cases highlight the need for some sort of compatibility within the two systems. The law will not change, so is it not realistic to expect the FA to review their procedures in order to prevent them looking like a kangaroo court who decide things based on the whims of the three people selected to review their cases? Anyway, I don't know whether Suarez was guilty or not, neither do you, and neither do the panel...I do know however that Terry was innocent and was thus found not guilty by the laws of the land, why should Terry and Suarez be judged by a separate body...I know the answer is that no one reported Suarez' incident to the police, but is this not just making a farce of the whole situation? Obviously having a law within the law is the problem, and one which I think should be got rid of!
It depends on what you deem the FA is able to adjudicate upon and thus penalise within their sphere! Fouls, yes...racism, I am not so sure? Especially when you consider the effect that this can have on a player, his family, his livelihood etc. If a player is found guilty of intentionally elbowing an opponent then fair enough, he will get punished and he will possibly be branded as a dirty player. If a player is found guilty of racially abusing an opponent, then that is a whole new ball game...he will get branded for life as a racist, will receive stick every ground he plays at and will be vilified by the media! I am not sure that the FA should have this power, based on probability, to subject a player to this!
The FA, Evra, Ferguson and many others made clear statements that Suarez was not a racist and he has no criminal conviction on his record to say otherwise, it was made perfectly clear (a lot of the papers chose to leave it in the small print because headlines sell papers) that he was charged for what he actually said in his moment of stupidity, which he himself admitted to saying so it's not so exactly "guesswork", and not for actually being a racist.
If you are 90% sure a footballer broke the rules, it is fair to give a punishment. It is not fair however to actually convict as criminal without it being 100%. Its the scale of the punishment that requires that difference. Turning sporting issues into court style cases would be ridiculous. As for people saying now that Suarez is a racist. If the FA had come out and said "yes he said it but were convinced he didn't mean it as a racial remark". The same people would be saying he's racist anyway.
The reality is that Terry would have been severely punished by the FA. Not for being a racist but for losing it in a moment of brainstorm he probably verbally attacked Ferdinand. Looking at the video, lip reading, and his "I was repeating Anton's phrase" nonsense would all have gone against him in the eyes of the FA. I think that the court verdict would make any FA punishment very difficult. Just like a not guilty verdict for Suarez would have tied the hands of the FA.
Yeah they should have taken it the the FA first and kept it a football issue. Always doubtful a court would be able do anything.
Suarez' 'moment of stupidity' as you call it was him referring to Evra in a manner that he thought was inoffensive...the panel rejected this context and deemed his words to be worthy of a guilty verdict! The Mirror the next day ran a headline of "RACIST" with Suarez' picture underneath! I think you are a reasonable guy, who can clearly see the problem here! No matter what the verdict and the reasons behind it, the Mirror reading public see Suarez as a racist, and the only reason they think like this is because the FA decided that he 'probably' used racially abusive language! Is this fair? Should the FA have this power, albeit demonstrated through a third party, when we both know that Suarez' case would probably never have reached court if it was dealt with by the police! I think the FA acted far beyond what is expected from then, and for that reason alone I think they should amend their procedures, or at least realise the implications that their guesswork can have and maybe introduce a far more stringent level of proof to be required when dealing with such important and far-reaching issues!
I am not sure what level or percentage the FA work to, I actually doubt they have such a figure, but the balance of probability in normal terms suggests that anything over 50% would suffice! That to me is not good enough and is simply a guess! And yes you are right about the racist tag, but surely being tagged as a racist should require more than, 'he probably did it' as the only thing that people can go on?
Suarez and Liverpool never really helped themselves in that matter. All he had to do was apologise out right, something along the lines of "I didn't realise what I said was offensive I now understand that it was and I apologise for that and any offence I may have caused" not it's alright In my country I havn't done anything wrong. As for Terry the court might not have been able to satisfy the requirements for the offence but to me it looks as if he was guilty. Most of us don't think Suarez or Terry are racists, personally just think there ****ing stupid.
The panel rejected his context based on the statements given by the cultural experts, and of course the fact that his own defense was contradicted by his own statements and those given by Comolli and Kuyt. I personally never bought the whole cultural differences defense, maybe I would of if he had just moved here from South America, but he had been playing in Holland for something like 5+ years and their laws aren't a million miles away from ours. The papers paint people in any way they can get away with (and some they can't) to sell copies, that's just how the media works, just like when Rio was branded a drugs cheat for missing that test even though he had contacted them while they were still at the ground explaining that he forgot and that he could be back at the ground asap. At the end of the day, no matter what the papers suggested, Suarez has no criminal conviction of racism, the charge he was handed was given to him for saying something the FA deemed against their rules, just like swearing at a camera was deemed against their rules.
