John Terry

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The Mighty Thor said:
Ok so Terry's a racist.I'm moving on because all the brouhaha in the world won't change anything. Now I've been insulted and called white trash and honkie etc and have let it go in one ear and out of the other so why didn't Ferdinand do just that? Why make a hell of a fuss about it? Why didn't he just stick two fingers up to Terry and say "Pi$$ off you tosser" or something similar? Why so sensitive? A huge amount has been made of an angry remark on a football field where players are stressed. I've been driving and a driver of a different colour has done something stupid,I've cursed(Not in hearing range admittedly) by mentioning his ethnic background but it doesn't make me a racist.
Click to expand...

Racial abuse is unacceptable, whereas normal abuse isn't, especially in the workplace.
The enormous amount of discrimination that black footballers have faced in the past and continue to face now makes it a total no-go area in the sport, too.

I've got plenty of mates of all colours, creeds, religions and backgrounds and I can insult them all til the cows come home and not get an angry reaction, but I know what would happen if I used the words that Terry used and rightly so.
I think that Ferdinand pushed him over the edge by mentioning the Bridge thing, when it was coming from somebody that he actually knows.
He reacted badly and tried to lash out with something that he knew would be equally hurtful to hear, but by doing so he crossed the line, in my opinion.
The sentence simply doesn't make sense as a question, especially when he added, "****ing knobhead", to the end of it.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
John Terry is a liar - simple as. As for the FA not believing he should have been found guilty?? What a load of bollocks! As said, many times before, and admitted by you, you didn't need to be an expert lip reader to understand exactly what Terry said. Personally, I don't believe his story about the context in which he claims they were used. As, clearly, neither did the judge. Whatever the context, there is no doubt about the language he used. The only reason he got off, IMO, is because for some inexplicable reason, his "mate" choc- ice decided to vouch for him.
Click to expand...

In your opinion

[video=youtube;PWq56gcbOi8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWq56gcbOi8[/video]

Lip Reading is completely subjective
 
District Line said:
In your opinion
Lip Reading is completely subjective
Click to expand...

John Terry's account matches that of the lip reader exactly.
He claimed that he phrased the words as a question. "A ****ing black ****? ****ing knobhead."
I think that sounds rather unlikely, but the court found it was grounds for reasonable doubt. The FA found that on the balance of probability, it wasn't a question. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
John Terry's account matches that of the lip reader exactly.
He claimed that he phrased the words as a question. "A ****ing black ****? ****ing knobhead."
I think that sounds rather unlikely, but the court found it was grounds for reasonable doubt. The FA found that on the balance of probability, it wasn't a question. Sounds fair, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Agreed

NowsufferinginSpain said:
Oh, do **** off...you know what he said, I know what he said, half the world saw what he said...Nuff said!!..
Click to expand...

But context does matter. I don't know for a fact what happened and nobody bar Terry does. Unlike 99.9% of the population I'm not prepared to brand a man a racist or claim he is guilty unless there is 100% proof of what he said and the context as to which it was said.
 
FA Commission said:
"The commission is entitled to use its collective experience of life and people to judge demeanour," the report states.

"We have watched the film footage many times. In the critical phase, during which he uses the words, Mr Terry can be seen to be smiling initially, before his facial expression changes to disdainful and contemptuous.

"At no point is his demeanour and facial expression that of someone who is imploring, injured, or even quizzical in the face of an unfounded allegation by Mr Ferdinand that he had just been racially abusive towards him.

"Anger is a conceivable reaction to such an accusation, but at no time does Mr. Terry convey any sense of 'no, I didn't‟t' with his facial expression, or body language."

The report adds: "In the light of those findings, the commission is quite satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry's defence that his use of the words were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry.

"Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult."
Click to expand...

Is there anybody other than deluded Chelsea fans who would argue with that. Therefore why only 4 games? Worse than Suarez.
 
England captain.
Alan Shearer got away with kicking someone in the face, so it's not surprising that Terry got a reduced punishment for this.

EDIT: The FA's actual reason, according to them at least, is that Terry made one insult and Suarez did it repeatedly.
 
Yid Vicious said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19842795

So the FA do think he used he words against Anton as an insult? WHy the Hell is it only 4 games then?
Click to expand...

Because they don't have a clue, just like the rest of us. They couldn't risk the backlash of the media so Terry was never going to get off.

The whole thing is just a mess, if they bent the rules to have Terry charged in the first place why can't they bend the rules to give him a longer ban? We know the FA are as bent as so it seems odd to me
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
England captain.
Alan Shearer got away with kicking someone in the face, so it's not surprising that Terry got a reduced punishment for this.

EDIT: The FA's actual reason, according to them at least, is that Terry made one insult and Suarez did it repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Agree it was once, rather than repeatedly, but the difference was the anger that went with it. Suarez did it to provoke Evra and rightly got punished for it. Terry did it because he had lost his temper and for me that makes it worse.
 
How do we know Suarez didn't lose his temper as well SD? In a high pressured environment that's likely. If so, if somebody racially abuses someone just for fun, IMO that's far worse than somebody that says it in the heat of the moment (as alleged)
 
District Line said:
Because they don't have a clue, just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Except that we clearly do have a clue, DL.
It's obvious what Terry said and he's admitted it. His defence is ludicrous and exceptionally unlikely to be true.
You are only defending him because he plays for Chelsea.
 
District Line said:
Because they don't have a clue, just like the rest of us. They couldn't risk the backlash of the media so Terry was never going to get off.

The whole thing is just a mess, if they bent the rules to have Terry charged in the first place why can't they bend the rules to give him a longer ban? We know the FA are as bent as so it seems odd to me
Click to expand...

They didn't bend the rules to charge him, if you read the FA document it's explained.

District Line said:
How do we know Suarez didn't lose his temper as well SD? In a high pressured environment that's likely. If so, if somebody racially abuses someone just for fun, IMO that's far worse than somebody that says it in the heat of the moment (as alleged)
Click to expand...

Suarez was found guilty of racially abusing Evra on several occassions, it wasn't something that just slipped out in the heat of the moment.

The biggest problem I have with the punishment is that if Anton had heard what he said and punched him(as he'd have a right to do, in my opinion) he'd have got a ban for as long, if not longer.
 
District Line said:
How do we know Suarez didn't lose his temper as well SD? In a high pressured environment that's likely. If so, if somebody racially abuses someone just for fun, IMO that's far worse than somebody that says it in the heat of the moment (as alleged)
Click to expand...

That's a fair point. I understood Suarez was being tactically racist (utterly abhorrent, don't get me wrong) trying to provoke Evra into getting sent off, but I don't know that.
 
Is tactical racism (new phrase?) actually worse than Terry's apparent real, old school racism, though?
It's claimed that neither of them are racist, so presumably both of them were trying to get a reaction.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
Is tactical racism (new phrase?) actually worse than Terry's apparent real, old school racism, though?
It's claimed that neither of them are racist, so presumably both of them were trying to get a reaction.
Click to expand...

In Terry's case the racism was the reaction, rather than trying to get a reaction. Ultimately for the FA, accusing someone of being racist on the basis of one incident doesn't benefit them at all, it invites all sorts of problems and potential lawsuits against them. Far simpler for them to stick to the facts that they used a racist term(s) and believe their character witnesses about them not being racist.
 
Yid Vicious said:
In Terry's case the racism was the reaction, rather than trying to get a reaction. Ultimately for the FA, accusing someone of being racist on the basis of one incident doesn't benefit them at all, it invites all sorts of problems and potential lawsuits against them. Far simpler for them to stick to the facts that they used a racist term(s) and believe their character witnesses about them not being racist.
Click to expand...

Fully agree with this. When we are angry, our true nature comes out and I think we know a bit more about John Terry. This thread has made me think a bit more about the difference between Terry and Suarez, in a lot of ways Suarez was worse, I now understand, because of the premeditation. It depends whether you buy the cultural differences defence of Suarez I guess (I don't).
 
In the light of those findings, the Commission is quite satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no credible basis for Mr. Terry's defence that his use of the words “****ing black ****” were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry. Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult.

Essentially the document is a comprehensive deconstruction and dismissal of what Terry says happened.

Interestingly they also considered the example of Terry saying he didn't intend to knee the Barca player, until he was told the replays were pretty damning, as an example of him lying about a loss of control on the pitch. That was dismissed in the end as they already had sufficient evidence against him and proving it outright was too time consuming for a fairly incidental piece of evidence. They also discuss the account he gave to the Telegraph the day after the allegations were made and how they don't stack up with what happened and potentially his own evidence. There's also footage of Terry later calling Kenny a "****ing ****, you ****ing cheeky ****" and making gestures to infer that Kenny's fat.

Cole's evidence is also described as evolving after he and the Chelsea club secretary decided to add that he thought Ferdinand used the word "black" and a lot of doubt is has been thrown over whether he could infact have heard anything at all, especially since he didn't hear Terry who was much closer and clearly shouting.

Still no idea why 4 games is enough though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back