The FA banned John Terry for racially abuses on the pitch. The disciplinary committee ruled Terry guilty of racially abusing QPR's Anton Ferdinand and banned the central defender for 4 games. The Chelsea player also has to pay a 220.000 pound fine.
Terry banned
- Thread starter Cove
- 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
-
Pop over the dipper board later, they will be spitting feathers with only a 4 match ban for Terry.
Spineless bastards. I do not see how they can back up their charge when he has been found not guilty in a court of law. Had he not been tried then I'd accept their charge but...
I agree, if Anton receives the same punishment then fair enough but can't see it happening!
Found not guilty at court but the FA decide to screw him over. What a joke! The FA are a bunch of karnts. Lets make that point loud and clear at the Arsenal game and chant JT's name throughout the game.
I don't understand why people can't get their heads around the fact that the courts need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, as they put it, while the FA need to prove it on the balance of probabilities, as they put it. Why would Ferdinand be charged? Terry himself said that the stick he got off Ferdinand was nothing extraordinary.
He's quite obviously not a racist person and he's quite clearly said something in the heat of the moment. Four games and a paltry fine is about right imo. It should never have gone to court and should have been dealt with by the FA months ago.
It is possible for the courts to be wrong. They jail the wrong people and let many go. I was burgled years ago and £6000 worth of DJ kit and vinyl was stolen along with other items and they caught the guy. He was let off. So this idea that because the courts let him off so the FA should drop their case isnt really true.
Anyway thank **** its done, do you think he will appeal?
Anyway thank **** its done, do you think he will appeal?
We have to try to see the bigger picture.
He is a very high-profile sportsman and was the captain of England, so, rightly or wrongly, the FA have to make a stand against any perceived racism.
Let's just hope, after the whole circus that occurred, the ban actually stops other players using racist language.
And also that players can leave what happened on the field there, rather than wasting time and money and going to court.
He is a very high-profile sportsman and was the captain of England, so, rightly or wrongly, the FA have to make a stand against any perceived racism.
Let's just hope, after the whole circus that occurred, the ban actually stops other players using racist language.
And also that players can leave what happened on the field there, rather than wasting time and money and going to court.
Yes I think he will appeal. The court said there wasn't enough evidence to either the FA are going on what small evidence there is or they have some secret information (which is doubtful)
Consistancy if anything Watford, i don't think either should be punished but if you're going to ban one for abusive language....
Oh and balance of probabilities is a load of bollocks by the way, a very unfair way of dishing out punishment.
The courts have a different set of guidelines to the FA though.
People can be cleared in court and can be sacked from their job for the same incident. Infact this happens quite alot.
I wonder how the chant 'Justice, for number 26' would go down at the Emirates from our away fans on Saturday? 
Because "we think your wrong" is not valid grounds to appeal.
Do they hand our extra punishments for frivolous appeals?
I wonder if it wasn't a current/former England international if he would have got a shorter/longer ban?
But then you'd be banning players after every match. It's a difficult one but anything racial crosses the line whereas just calling someone a ****, ****er etc doesn't. I'd agree on the probability thing being bollocks in a real court but for normally quite trivial football offences it makes sense and presumably makes hearings a lot easier and quicker to decide one way or another.