Terry banned

  • 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!
Watford_R said:
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.
Click to expand...

We're all well aware of the difference. Its the joke that there is one.

Race is a highly sensitive issue. If you are accused someone of it, that mud will stick. So you had better make pretty dam sure you can uphold it. The FA can't.

'Lower burden of proof' and 'balance of probabilities' is not an acceptable way of dealing with it. That's reducing it to the same level they'd deal with a red card for a bad tackle.
 
The 4 game ban I predicted 2 days ago then.

Which to me is the sit on the fence approach. No proof whatsover, already cleared in Court but...couldn't dick around for the best part of a year in such a high profile case and do nothing.

Spineless and useless. The FA have done it again.

Personally I think both Terry and Anton should have got 2-3 game bans for admitting using abusive foul language and it may have been a warning to all footballers to conduct themselves better. Instead they have carte blanche to offend in anyway they wish as long as there is no reference to skin colour.
 
Watford_R said:
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 ****, ****** 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.
Click to expand...

Someone getting hung out to dry on a high profile race case is hardly 'trivial' though is it? The FA have now allowed a 2 time England captain to be labelled a racist for the rest of his career and beyond essentially with no real evidence and with NO ONE having heard anything.
 
chelsea - over 100 years of history said:
Someone getting hung out to dry on a high profile race case is hardly 'trivial' though is it? The FA have now allowed a 2 time England captain to be labelled a racist for the rest of his career and beyond essentially with no real evidence and with NO ONE having heard anything.
Click to expand...

But he isn't racist. I don't mean that sarcastically either. He was proven not to be racist, but to be offensive referring to someones race.
 
People need to remember that he was cleared in court of racism, the FA are banning/fining him for USING the words FBC and basically tarnishing the game.
 
chelsea - over 100 years of history said:
Someone getting hung out to dry on a high profile race case is hardly 'trivial' though is it? The FA have now allowed a 2 time England captain to be labelled a racist for the rest of his career and beyond essentially with no real evidence and with NO ONE having heard anything.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying but I think you're letting your loyalty to him/Chelsea cloud your judgement a bit. He admitted using the words and the issue was the context. As there's no evidence either way, as far as we know, it makes sense that he'd not be proven guilty of a criminal offence but would be of a football one. He won't have a criminal record from this and people will have been calling him a racist, which he quite clearly isn't and hasn't been found guilty of being, whether found guilty in this case or not. After all the times he's done something wrong and bounced back I really don't think this will affect him at all except in the pocket.
 
Watford_R said:
I hear what you're saying but I think you're letting your loyalty to him/Chelsea cloud your judgement a bit. He admitted using the words and the issue was the context. As there's no evidence either way, as far as we know, it makes sense that he'd not be proven guilty of a criminal offence but would be of a football one. He won't have a criminal record from this and people will have been calling him a racist, which he quite clearly isn't and hasn't been found guilty of being, whether found guilty in this case or not. After all the times he's done something wrong and bounced back I really don't think this will affect him at all except in the pocket.
Click to expand...

That makes a lot of sense and as above, I think he should have got a ban due to general foul and abusive language. What I think sends the wrong message is that Anton gets off scott free despite his own admissions in Court. The FA could have used this case as a bench mark for future conduct. Instead they have merely banned Terry meaning Footballers can still carry on like children on the pitch as long as they dont say black, regardless of context.
 
Watford_R said:
I hear what you're saying but I think you're letting your loyalty to him/Chelsea cloud your judgement a bit. He admitted using the words and the issue was the context. As there's no evidence either way, as far as we know, it makes sense that he'd not be proven guilty of a criminal offence but would be of a football one. He won't have a criminal record from this and people will have been calling him a racist, which he quite clearly isn't and hasn't been found guilty of being, whether found guilty in this case or not. After all the times he's done something wrong and bounced back I really don't think this will affect him at all except in the pocket.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. If I shouted out the words '****ing black ****' in my office the presence of a black person then I would surely be suspended or even sacked from my job irrespective of context/excuse. It would certainly not necessarily mean I was a racist or committing a criminal offence. Both the court case and the FA case seem to me to have had reasonable outcomes.
 
Drogs said:
Just to warn everyone, I'm deleting every person (scouser's) comment if it compares this case to Suarez/Evra.

**** me there are some idiots around.
Click to expand...

Isn't that an abuse of your position. Whether you like it or not people will compare it to the Suarez case, but apparently the Chelsea board is the only place where this coversation is banned. Not sure it is your right to decide what we can or cannot discuss?
 
SpursDisciple said:
Drogs said:
Just to warn everyone, I'm deleting every person (scouser's) comment if it compares this case to Suarez/Evra.

**** me there are some idiots around.
Click to expand...

Isn't that an abuse of your position. Whether you like it or not people will compare it to the Suarez case, but apparently the Chelsea board is the only place where this coversation is banned. Not sure it is your right to decide what we can or cannot discuss?
Click to expand...

They're nothing to do with each other and the Suarez evra case is long gone.

It will only instigate further arguments and that is my reason for deleting any comments regarding it.
 
Terry was found guilty by the FA of using racial abuse, not of being a racist. We have to be very clear on this.

The court found him not guilty, based on the very high standard of proof required to convict someone of a criminal offence, the standard of proof in civil matters is significantly lower; and the judge in the criminal case was extremely critical of Terry's defence. The FA would have been advised by top sports' lawyers, and will be more than aware of what they can and cannot do.

Plus, the FA is not a court of law. It is the administrative wing of a professional body, and has proper jurisdiction to hear offences committed within the remit of its own rules.

I know you Chelsea boys won't want to hear what I'm saying, but if this is an open discussion board, I think you will want the other side of the case to be put fairly and objectively.
 
SpursDisciple said:
Isn't that an abuse of your position. Whether you like it or not people will compare it to the Suarez case, but apparently the Chelsea board is the only place where this coversation is banned. Not sure it is your right to decide what we can or cannot discuss?
Click to expand...

If you don't like it, go discuss it on another board or forum which allows it. I got banned from the 5pu1s board simply for defending Chelsea. It was my first time on there and was banned without warning. In fact, you may have even been one of the people having a go and complaining about me at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back