John Terry verdict imminent

Dan Roan on twitter saying FA about to deliver their verdict on John Terry. This should be interesting.

 

He should never have gone to court with the FA ... not after being released from a normal court

FA are bending their own rules with this

 

But the law deals with absolutes, whereas the FA deals with probability. Still sick of hearing about it, but can see why they have dragged it on.

 

He's guilty. Four games. 220k fine. And that's my last word on the subject.

 

Terry given 4 match ban and £220.000 which I guess is ok but I don't think Evra comes out of this well.

 

Terry gets a 4 game ban and fined £220,000. Should have been an 8 game ban.

 

He should be called Sir John Terry.

 

Just to point out:

One rule for Suarez and one for John Terry.

However, I hate both!

 

You need to get a life .

 

I'd be really interested to read the transcript from this case. I doubt I'll ever be able to, but it would be interesting to see how the "evidence" was put forward and what was different to the "legal" case.

 

I'll also be interested to read the full FA judgement when it comes. They will have their work cut out to justify the disparity between Terry and Suarez's bans.

 

Suarez admitted it with some mitigation. He ruined the effect of his honesty by kicking off at the next handshake opportunity.

 

I cant stand Terry with a passion....but how can he be found not guilty in a court of law yet the FA find him guilty, something not right somewhere. Wonder if the FA will ever publish there findings???

 

I think the whole thing is absolutely ludicrous. I can't be bothered to type a whole post as it would take too long, but to sum up the FA are absolutely woeful and have shot themselves in the foot yet again.

 

Yes sometimes it is hard to understand. A court of law finds someone not guilty but a civil court action makes that person guilty. That happens quite a lot especially when it comes to police trials. In court they are found not guilty the next thing you hear about it is a civil action where the people are awarded damages. Then you hear of a discplineery hearing and the guy is repremanded or sacked.........As another poster said the law deals with absolutes where as civil courts (same as the FA) deal in probability

 

Same with OJ Simpson...'innocent' in court, but guilty in a civil action. The mystery was how OJ was found innocent in the first place.

 

Maybe its something to do with the police being corrupt bastards.

 

It's really not that hard to understand. As has been explained countless times, the FA hearing has a lower burden of proof than the criminal court.

Suarez would certainly have been found not guilty in court as well had his case gone that way.

 

Absolutely PTF, that is why I'd like to understand more about the case(s).

 

It's actually quite straight forward in a criminal court of law you have to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. No one could prove that Terry didn't hear what he thought he did to make him respond that way - hence couldn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt. The judges verdict was damning in the comments where he actually said Terry's version of events was highly unlikely, basically he thought he did it but the law tied his hands.

The FA have there own rules and have a duty of care to its members to apply them. There stance is different they are dealing with what probably happened, as opposed to beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore found him guilty. If the FA have done anything wrong here it is by not banning him for a lot longer. Not a fan of the FA but for once I actually think they have tried to do the right thing and nearly did.