John Terry verdict

Just An Opinion

John Terry's verdict is due sometime today, there has been speculation he will receive a 4 game ban and fine of £220,000. I don't have a link to the rumors just heard it in passing it's leaking around Stamford Bridge.

M5

From RTE @rtenews

English soccer player John Terry has been found guilty of racial abuse by the English FA and has been given a 4-match ban and £220,000 fine.

looks like the rumours are true

jaykay74

I'm absolutely raging over this. He should have got (way more* / way less*) than that :mad:


*delete as appropriate

Hank Scorpio

How can the FA find him guilty but the court of law doesn't

*head explodes*

Just An Opinion

Oh so there it is, on Sky now aswell. Fine seems very high compared to Suarez 8 game ban and £40,000 fine.

Corvo

Jesus H Christ. Wayne Rooney receives a 3 match ban for swearing into a camera. John Terry is found guilty by the FA for using racist language/remarks and he gets a 4 match ban.

A joke is all the FA have become.

tok9

The whole thing is a joke really as far as I'm concerned.

It's ridiculous that he has to clear himself to the FA after already doing so in a court of Law.

And then typical FA can't even be bloody consistent and give a 4 match ban while Saurez got a 8 match ban for less evidence!

A bit racist really.

GavRedKing

4 games sweet, less then Suarez.

/Awaiting shit storm saying he should have got more.

£220,000, drop in the ocean, 2weeks wages.

He got off lightly.

_blank_

nuxxx wrote: »

How can the FA find him guilty but the court of law doesn't

*head explodes*

They are not the same processes. If people can't understand this, then they are silly people.

court of law = not guilty because of reasonable doubt

FA = guilty on balance of probability

Jax Teller

Ban is suspended for 2 weeks until he decided whether to appeal or not .

citytillidie

We have to see if the papers tomorrow will run with the Headline of Racist like they did when Suarez was found guilty to see what the English media is really like.

iregk

PhlegmyMoses

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Must be great slagging public people from behind your keyboard

Well Done!

Didn't know Toni Terry posted on here.

_blank_

Everyone needs to relax labelling him a racist tbh

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056755792

jaykay74

Fingers crossed he is back for the Utd league game :pac:

GavRedKing

I'm going to give this thread a chance but anythig out of line and we're going to be done folks.

super_furry

Absolute joke that he could use the insults he did, be caught on camera doing so and escape with such a paltry ban.

M5

Des wrote: »

They are not the same processes. If people can't understand this, then they are silly people.

court of law = not guilty because of reasonable doubt

FA = guilty on balance of probability

Reasonable doubt is only relevant in "serious" crimes like murder/rape I thought?

Otherwise its balance of probability?

*Edit it reasonable doubt for criminal, BOP for Civil in the UK

_blank_

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'm going to give this thread a chance but anythig out of line and we're going to be done folks.

Biased much, with your chelsea badge mr mod? :pac:

Jax Teller

Des wrote: »

Biased much, with your chelsea badge mr mod? :pac:

Look at the thread he closed last week about Terry retiring .

Sgt Pepper 64

citytillidie wrote: »

We have to see if the papers tomorrow will run with the Headline of Racist like they did when Suarez was found guilty to see what the English media is really like.

racist woman shagger, is what I'm hoping for!

GavRedKing

Des wrote: »

Biased much, with your chelsea badge mr mod? :pac:

Not really, I've no problem people discussing this case but if it goes against the charter and gets out of hand, people have been warned in due course, if they manage to pick up cards from it afterwards so be it, I'm just giving them the chance to avoid it.

J. Marston

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Must be great slagging public people from behind your keyboard

Well Done!

It really is. Gives me a sick little thrill.

Neil3030

Tonight's Fiver should be entertaining.

Sgt Pepper 64

super_furry wrote: »

Absolute joke that he could use the insults he did, be caught on camera doing so and escape with such a paltry ban.

absolute joke that you can personally tell EXACTLY what he was saying!

amidst the lack of all other evidence, incluidng the bloke he allegedly slagged not realising it!

Leiva

iregk wrote: »

**childish pic

You have no right to comment on anything Liverpool related imo, as you showed your true colours in here on an certain issue which was disgusting.

And there's me thinking you got perma-banned from this forum .

Ahh well .

citytillidie

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

racist woman shagger, is what I'm hoping for!

Does that mean team mates with non white partners can rest easy as Terry will not go after them

Sgt Pepper 64

J. Marston wrote: »

It really is. Gives me a sick little thrill.

each to his own I suppose

You in long trousers yet?

IvySlayer

He should of got the same punishment as Suarez!

Leiva

4 games is about in line with the Suarez case.

as if anyone had the bother to read that piece of shít they would have seen its an automatic 4 game ban, but Suarez got his increased with the alleged amount of times an offensive word was used.

Sgt Pepper 64

IvySlayer wrote: »

He should of got the same punishment as Suarez!

What, King Kenny in a T -shirt with a blokes face on it! :eek:

super_furry

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

absolute joke that you can personally tell EXACTLY what he was saying!

amidst the lack of all other evidence, incluidng the bloke he allegedly slagged not realising it!

It was clear to anyone with a pair of eyes what he said. He was caught on camera and came up with a massively far-fetched story to try and protect himself.

Four games is an insulting small ban for an offence of this nature and you have to feel that the FA are once again protecting English players.

Jax Teller

IvySlayer wrote: »

He should of got the same punishment as Suarez!

Some journo of Eurosport said it was because Terry only said it once & Suarez said it numeous times .

Sgt Pepper 64

super_furry wrote: »

It was clear to anyone with a pair of eyes what he said. He was caught on camera and came up with a massively far-fetched story to try and protect himself.

Four games is an insulting small ban for an offence of this nature and you have to feel that the FA are once again protecting English players.

Yep its clear alright, thats why they hired a lip reader! :rolleyes:
"Both parties have agreed that expert evidence from lip readers is necessary to say what those words are"

Mr.Crinklewood

Terry will play the next game anyway, and claim that he thought the FA said:- "Did you say we gave you a four match ban".

hoodwinked

IvySlayer wrote: »

He should of got the same punishment as Suarez!

Jax Teller wrote: »

Some journo of Eurosport said it was because Terry only said it once & Suarez said it numeous times .

but on the other side of that, they had video evidence of Terry saying it,


Suarez was based on a he said/he said evidence.


Terry should have been given more tbh

jaykay74

hoodwinked wrote: »

Suarez was based on a he said/he said evidence.

Was it ? I thought he admitted it but that it was a cultural misunderstanding ?

citytillidie

Jax Teller wrote: »

Some journo of Eurosport said it was because Terry only said it once & Suarez said it numeous times .

Nothing in the FA statement about Suarez saying it numeous times

1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;
4. the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision

tok9

Jax Teller wrote: »

Some journo of Eurosport said it was because Terry only said it once & Suarez said it numeous times .

Yet Saurez was given a smaller fine and bigger match suspension and Terry the opposite!

Why? If anything by that logic, shouldn't Saurez have got a bigger fine on top of the match ban too?

The FA's reasoning is absolutely farcical stuff. One was caught on tv and the other was complete probability!

Again, I think it's ridiculous that Terry had to face a charge from the FA but they have done it, and they have made themselves look like bigger idiots for it by giving a shorter ban when they actually had evidence!

Neil3030

citytillidie wrote: »

Nothing in the FA statement about Suarez saying it numeous times

1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;
4. the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision

Plural, no?

GavRedKing

MUSEIST

Amazing that someone can be found guilty on the basis of absolutely no evidence for the offence (as demonstrated by the trial). Finding someone guilty on the balence of probability is a massive two fingers to needing proof and the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Its the way justice is done in places like N korea and iraq under saddam hussein. The FA is a joke of an organisation really.

Anyway its amazing we have had a year of this ****e only for a four game ban. Meh!

Jax Teller

citytillidie wrote: »

Nothing in the FA statement about Suarez saying it numeous times

1. Mr Suarez used insulting words towards Mr Evra during the match contrary to FA Rule E3(1);
2. the insulting words used by Mr Suarez included a reference to Mr Evra's colour within the meaning of Rule E3(2);
3. Mr Suarez shall be warned as to his future conduct, be suspended for eight matches covering all first team competitive matches and fined the sum of £40,000;
4. the [penalty] is suspended pending the outcome of any appeal lodged by Mr Suarez against this decision

Really ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/mobile/football/16375963

In giving the reasons for the length of the ban, the report said: "Given the number of times that Mr Suarez used the word 'negro', his conduct is significantly more serious than a one-off use of a racially offensive term and amounts to an aggravating factor."

Rekop dog

Only half as racist as luis, seems about right tbh.

citytillidie

Neil3030 wrote: »

Plural, no?

Statement on Terry

An Independent Regulatory Commission has today [Thursday 27 September 2012] found a charge of misconduct against John Terry proven and has issued a suspension for a period of four matches and a fine of £220,000, pending appeal.
The Football Association charged Mr Terry on Friday 27 July 2012 with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
The charge was the result of The FA’s long-standing investigation into this matter, which was placed on hold at the request of the Crown Prosecution Service and Mr Terry’s representatives pending the outcome of the criminal trial.
A hearing took place from 24-27 September 2012 before an Independent Regulatory Commission of The FA to consider the charge.
The decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission is as follows:

• Mr Terry be suspended from all domestic club football until such time as Chelsea’s First Team have completed four competitive matches
• Fined the sum of £220,000

The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its decision in due course. Mr Terry has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days from receipt of the written reasons for the decision.
The penalty is suspended until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time for appealing expires, or should Mr Terry decide not to appeal. The reason for this is to ensure that the penalty does not take effect before any appeal so that Mr Terry has an effective right of appeal.

There we go Terry also had words so he should have had 8

tok9

Rekop dog wrote: »

Only half as racist as luis, seems about right tbh.

Great contribution.

iregk

Leiva wrote: »

You have no right to comment on anything Liverpool related imo, as you showed your true colours in here on an certain issue which was disgusting.

And there's me thinking you got perma-banned from this forum .

Ahh well .

Hahahahaha, seriously just hahahahahaha.

Perma banned, for what exactly? Also as this is a public internet forum I think you'll find that I have every right to comment on anything Liverpool related. Even if it annoys you, which quite clearly I do.

On a serious note I don't get the process here or the levels of punishment. Ignoring what was said/not said, happened/not happed how does one player get 8 games and a 40k fine where as another gets 4 games and a 220k fine. Are they both not linked or is it pulling figures out of the sky?

jaykay74

Below is the explanation from Suarez ruling explaining why a longer ban than the 4 game entry point and a bit about the fine for Suarez.

As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr Suarez's behaviour was far more serious than a single use of the word "negro" to address Mr Evra in a way which would be considered inoffensive in Uruguay. If that was all that Mr Suarez had done, and we had found the Charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed.

444. Ultimately, this is not a matter of mathematical calculation, but a matter for the exercise of our discretion in the light of all the circumstances. We considered a lower suspension; we considered a greater suspension. We concluded that an eight-match suspension was appropriate and proportionate, reflecting the seriousness of the misconduct, balanced against the mitigation that was urged on us.

445. We also fined Mr Suarez £40,000. In doing so, we took account of the information that was placed before us about his weekly salary. We considered this to be appropriate and proportionate in the light of Mr Suarez's misconduct.

IvySlayer

If his appeals and is rejected do they add another game on top?

GavRedKing

I'd say the figure is relative to wages in JT's case.

I dont know where the FA got the 40K from Suarez though.

It wouldnt be like the FA to do such wacky things.

M5

iregk wrote: »

Hahahahaha, seriously just hahahahahaha.

Perma banned, for what exactly? Also as this is a public internet forum I think you'll find that I have every right to comment on anything Liverpool related. Even if it annoys you, which quite clearly I do.

On a serious note I don't get the process here or the levels of punishment. Ignoring what was said/not said, happened/not happed how does one player get 8 games and a 40k fine where as another gets 4 games and a 220k fine. Are they both not linked or is it pulling figures out of the sky?

Think you'll find its a private internet forum actually!