John Terry banned & fined

[Its Only A Game]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19723020

details to follow.................

 

[bucket&spade.f.c]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19723020

details to follow.................

I cant believe the FA took this in there own hands after he was found not guilty in court

Lions led by Donkeys

 

[Pubey]

I cant believe the FA took this in there own hands after he was found not guilty in court

Lions led by Donkeys

Different burden of proof required.

 

[Its Only A Game]

£220,000 and a 4 game ban. seems a tad harsh for someone found innocent in a court of law

 

[EastStandBlue]

I cant believe the FA took this in there own hands after he was found not guilty in court

Lions led by Donkeys

The court had to prove beyond doubt that Terry racially insulted Anton Ferdinand.

The FA IRC only had to prove that Terry racially insulted Anton Ferdinand beyond the balance of probabilities.

For what it's worth, on the basis of the evidence that's been reported, I think both conclusions are probably right. The evidence seems to give far greater weight to Anton Ferdinand's version of events, but in the absence of a conclusive camera angle(s), nobody can be clear regarding the events leading up to Terry saying what he did, so he can't be found guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[Jam_Man]

I think its great they still took action. Got fined far more than he would have by the law too.

 

[hockleyeast1964]

£220,000 and a 4 game ban. seems a tad harsh for someone found innocent in a court of law

Especially as that nice Mr Diouf spat in a fans face a few years ago and got a 2 match ban and fined 2 weeks wages.He also alledgedly racially abused a ballboy at everton....why didn't the FA step in there....hmmmmm let me guess why.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Especially as that nice Mr Diouf spat in a fans face a few years ago and got a 2 match ban and fined 2 weeks wages.

£220,000 is probably 2 weeks wages for Terry I should think

 

[EastStandBlue]

Especially as that nice Mr Diouf spat in a fans face a few years ago and got a 2 match ban and fined 2 weeks wages.

I wouldn't worry about the fine, Terry could probably raise that amount by scheduling a few exclusive tours of Cobham, or maybe even remortgage his house for the umpteenth time.

 

[Dick Bate's Protege]

My bet is that the papers will slaughter the FA tomorrow because they seem to value violent conduct (Barton) as being 3 times worse than racial abuse (Terry).

The FA must make it up as they go along, and have clearly been out to get Terry for a long time now; they are IMO an appalling excuse for an organisation.

And Terry is a ****, but a **** cleared in a court of law.

 

[Blue_Wes]

My bet is that the papers will slaughter the FA tomorrow because they seem to value violent conduct (Barton) as being 3 times worse than racial abuse (Terry).

The FA must make it up as they go along, and have clearly been out to get Terry for a long time now; they are IMO an appalling excuse for an organisation.

And Terry is a ****, but a **** cleared in a court of law.

And so they should in my opinion, as hurtful and damning as a racial slur is, a physical attack is far more dangerous and should be treated accordingly.

I don't understand this, and maybe I've just missed it, but where else have the FA displayed an 'out to get Terry' attitude. What other examples are there?

From what I understand they have to have their own investigation when a racial attack is made, and intended to do so before it went to a court of law.

 

[EastStandBlue]

My bet is that the papers will slaughter the FA tomorrow because they seem to value violent conduct (Barton) as being 3 times worse than racial abuse (Terry).

The FA must make it up as they go along, and have clearly been out to get Terry for a long time now; they are IMO an appalling excuse for an organisation.

And Terry is a ****, but a **** cleared in a court of law.

Barton's 12-game ban was for two counts of violent conduct (a four-game ban for each count), added to the four-game ban for his red card (his second of the season). The three suspensions were then to be served consecutively. It's not that the FA deem violent conduct to be thrice as worse as racial abuse, it's that they deemed Barton to have committed two acts of violent conduct rather than one act of racial abuse. This is also why Suarez's suspension was twice as long, because he admitted two instances of racial abuse.

I'll agree that the FA are an appaling organisation in dire need of reform, but the regulatory committee pretty much had its hands tied as to the severity of punishment it could hand out.

It's also worth noting that whilst Terry can appeal the judgement if he disagrees with its severity, so can the FA...

I just can't agree that the FA have been out to get Terry, though, at least not in the sense that he's been the target of some long-established character assassination. He was accused of racial abuse whilst on the field of play and the FA made very clear they'd be launching their own investigation once the court case had been concluded. They've done exactly that.

 

[southend4ever]

They made it clear in the Suarez case that using racist language would not be tolerated. They have stood by their law.

 

[Blue_Wes]

Eboue hasn't held back with his thoughts on John Terry.

https://twitter.com/TheRealEboue/status/251332470467854336

 

[Davros]

What if JT was to take the FA to court over being found guilty of something he had previosuly been found innocent of in the court of law. I know that the burden of proof is different, but it would make an interesting case nonetheless!

 

[Jam_Man]

John Terry should accept he got a lenient punishment and leave it be.

The only reason he was found not guilty in the court was because the judge couldnt prove the context in which it was said, although did say he found Anton to be a credible witness and JT's events to be highly unlikely.

He has admitted to using the words and who really believes he was repeating word for word what Anton accused him of saying.

 

[duncan bulgaria]

If someone called me a white **** i think id be more upset at being called a **** than the colour of my skin .

I and probably everyone else has heard language far worse than that in their footballing days and I would love a player to take someone to court for being called a Fat/ Ginger / Bald etc **** , wonder how long that would last before it is thrown out if indeed it ever got that far.

Just makes a slight mockery of the Justice law to have cleared someone and then have the charge reversed by a different organisation .

 

[Jam_Man]

Thats probably because you are white and havent had centuries of slavery and oppression to define the colour of your skin as an insult....

Its certainly sits a little odd that the verdicts are different, but the criteria is different.

Speaking those words alone isnt evidence of racial abuse, and the evidence the court heard didnt confirm without doubt they were said in abuse. The FA werent subject to the same restrictions the law are. They can find him guilty just for saying the words, and the defence he gave in court made no difference to the FA who judge on probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Their explanation may clarify more.

 

[South Bank Hank]

 

[Ayrshire Blue]

He's got off lightly. Anyone outside of football would have been sacked.