John Terry

[Royalist]

Thats when they are not sending bullets to players abused racially or death threats to refs OR even abusing their own black players!

[soggy biscuit]

Are Chelsea fans happy to have their team led by a man who uses a racist insult?.

Yes, genuinely think they are.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Are Chelsea fans happy to have their team led by a man who uses a racist insult?.

Yes, genuinely think they are.

The vast majority of football supporters care about what their team does on the pitch and don't give a Tinker's Cuss about the morals or ethics of anything else involved with the team, or of the people who are playing for them.

[Franchise FC]

Are Chelsea fans happy to have their team led by a man who uses a racist insult?.

Yes, genuinely think they are.

The vast majority of football supporters care about what their team does on the pitch and don't give a Tinker's Cuss about the morals or ethics of anything else involved with the team, or of the people who are playing for them.

Unless I've missed something very vital - this is absolutely about something that happened on the pitch

[Alexander Litvinenko]

The vast majority of football supporters care about what their team does on the pitch and don't give a Tinker's Cuss about the morals or ethics of anything else involved with the team, or of the people who are playing for them.

Unless I've missed something very vital - this is absolutely about something that happened on the pitch

Yes, badly worded post from me - although it happened on the pitch, it was all about the ethics and morality of the people concerned, and nothing to do with their abilities as footballers.

[Franchise FC]

The vast majority of football supporters care about what their team does on the pitch and don't give a Tinker's Cuss about the morals or ethics of anything else involved with the team, or of the people who are playing for them.

Unless I've missed something very vital - this is absolutely about something that happened on the pitch

Yes, badly worded post from me - although it happened on the pitch, it was all about the ethics and morality of the people concerned, and nothing to do with their abilities as footballers.

Fair enough.

As for morality and ethics, these are people that will go to ANY lengths to gain an advantage - ethics and morality are not in their top 100 thoughts on matchdays

[Bandini]

Paragraph 9.5 (vi) basically reiterates that Suarez got a longer ban purely on Evra's evidence.

Because they believed it.

As mentioned on the Suarez thread, the same is true of every court case ever when two people disagree about what was said.

[cmonurz]

Well as discussed already, this isn’t a court case. But nevertheless, it seems a dangerous precedent that Terry didn’t get a longer ban because there was no-one around claiming he said it more than once.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

Well as discussed already, this isn’t a court case. But nevertheless, it seems a dangerous precedent that Terry didn’t get a longer ban because there was no-one around claiming he said it more than once.

Eh? Why? Don't understand your reasoning there.

[cmonurz]

In a situation where a) Anton Ferdinand was reasonably intelligent and b) he wanted to shaft Terry, he might have claimed there was more to what was said than what was caught on video. This might have resulted in a longer ban.

After all, it was only Evra who claimed Suarez insulted him multiple times - his team-mates gave evidence only that the pair had exchanged words, and none of that incident was caught on camera.

[Stuboo]

In a situation where a) Anton Ferdinand was reasonably intelligent and b) he wanted to shaft Terry, he might have claimed there was more to what was said than what was caught on video. This might have resulted in a longer ban.

After all, it was only Evra who claimed Suarez insulted him multiple times - his team-mates gave evidence only that the pair had exchanged words, and none of that incident was caught on camera.

You also have to take into account the political power that Man United have, being that they permeate the FA and media, and tend to get what they want, IMHO.

[11.30 from paddington]

In a situation where a) Anton Ferdinand was reasonably intelligent and b) he wanted to shaft Terry, he might have claimed there was more to what was said than what was caught on video. This might have resulted in a longer ban.

After all, it was only Evra who claimed Suarez insulted him multiple times - his team-mates gave evidence only that the pair had exchanged words, and none of that incident was caught on camera.

I'm no fan of Man Utd or Evra (and for what it's worth, I really enjoy watching Suarez play), but there's TV evidence to contradict the version of events Suarez gave. Read the Written Reasons from the FA for this case and then watch the relevant clips on youtube. One example is that Suarez claims to have been trying to defuse the row at the point where TV clearly shows him facing up to Evra and slyly pinching the skin on Evra's arm. He also made comments along the lines of "I don't speak to black people."

This is no defence of Suarez getting a longer ban than Terry, just stating that he was found guilty on more than Evra's word.

[cmonurz]

I get that Suarez was far from an innocent party, but iirc his eight-game ban specifically related to the number of times he is supposed to have ‘insulted’ Evra – which was my only point really. In a hyptohetical situation where a) Ferdinand isn’t a total dipshit, and b) he wanted to stick it to Terry, he might have claimed he was abused more than once, and pegged Terry with a longer ban.

[No Fixed Abode]

Is a Liverpool fan complaining they're hard done by again?

[cmonurz]

Is a Liverpool fan complaining they're hard done by again?

No m8.

Nothing to add, as usual?

[No Fixed Abode]

Deffo rattLOLed.

[Ian Royal]

I get that Suarez was far from an innocent party, but iirc his eight-game ban specifically related to the number of times he is supposed to have ‘insulted’ Evra – which was my only point really. In a hyptohetical situation where a) Ferdinand isn’t a total dipshit, and b) he wanted to stick it to Terry, he might have claimed he was abused more than once, and pegged Terry with a longer ban.

Almost certainly would have needed more evidence than him just saying it (there is after all some video evidence of what Terry said, whether it is fully conclusive or not), and it's not likely to have been in his original statement, meaning his statement would have changed, undermining the entire thing. Terry would almost certainly have outright denied that rather than trying to put together some bullshit excuse for what he actually said.

And wasn't Suarez' defence not that he didn't say it, or didn't say it multiple times, but that it isn't offensive or racist where he's from? So not necessarily denying he said it multiple times.

I've not paid close enough attention to the pair of tawdry affairs, but that was my understanding from the bits and pieces I have caught.

[No Fixed Abode]

Exactly Ian - there lies the difference. Suarez admitted he used racist language. Terry didn't and was found not guilty in the court of law.

[No Fixed Abode]

He was found not guilty in a CRIMINAL court of law.

Found pretty guilty in a civil case though.

by the FA.

[Alexander Litvinenko]

He was found not guilty in a CRIMINAL court of law.

Found pretty guilty in a civil case though.

by the FA.

Not quite. By an independent tribunal appointed by the FA.