John Terry verdict

Bacchus

LiamoSail wrote: »

Theres merit in your point, however I disagree. There has to be consistency, and you can't have a situation where every charge the fa decide over is judged on all reasonable doubt. If you did, everyone would get off

Why should one player face a different burdon of proof then another? All charges have to have the same burden

Secondly, the fa are only allowed officiate such cases as the likes of terry and Suarez have allowed them too. If they want to be beyond the remit of the fa, there's a very simple way of achieving that

I agree definitely that consistency is needed. There just doesn't seem to be much though in terms punishments dealt out.

However I completely disagree that it is acceptable to label someone as a racist if there remains reasonable doubt. The decisions the FA make go beyond the football pitch and follow those accused for the rest of their lives. The FA should not have that power. And if they are to have that power the process should be to the letter and completely transparent (though they do release all the document so transparency probably isn't an issue).

Now if you had a player making monkey gestures and throwing bananas at a black player, I think the FA would have a case. But when there's a back and forth between two players with the case built on "he said, he said", some celebrity character witnesses and a snippet of footage, that's not good enough to go and label someone a racist for the rest of their lives.

Thrill

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I would like to see an explanation as to why the FA's conviction rate is so high.

I did a quick search and found the following. According to an F.A. spokesman, said during the suarez case, they look at thousands of cases that cross their desks each year. They say they only pursue cases if there is a case to answer.

“The counter argument is that, if we were bringing charges but not being successful in doing so, that we are wasting people’s valuable time, and not doing our job properly.”

The above bolded statement by an F.A. official clearly shows that when they charge someone, they know before any hearing has occurred they are going to be successful. Hence the high success rate.

greendom

Bacchus wrote: »

I agree definitely that consistency is needed. There just doesn't seem to be much though in terms punishments dealt out.

However I completely disagree that it is acceptable to label someone as a racist if there remains reasonable doubt. The decisions the FA make go beyond the football pitch and follow those accused for the rest of their lives. The FA should not have that power. And if they are to have that power the process should be to the letter and completely transparent (though they do release all the document so transparency probably isn't an issue).

Now if you had a player making monkey gestures and throwing bananas at a black player, I think the FA would have a case. But when there's a back and forth between two players with the case built on "he said, he said", some celebrity character witnesses and a snippet of footage, that's not good enough to go and label someone a racist for the rest of their lives.

He hasn't been labelled a racist - this is the charge

"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

J. Marston

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Ah yes.. Racism .. the crime that dare not speak its name.

Twaddle and PO-faced expressions of the white man's burden. Why do we feel so guilty for something we never committed?

Orwell's '84 is alive and well. Group think memes slither like devouring sharks. Best to stay out of the sea and just nod in desperate agreement with the mob. Echo the chant; "White is Evil, White is Evil" . Keep safe in the flock of sheep. Keep your head below the parapet. Say nothing, be thought of as a fellow traveler.

The man was cleared in a Court of Law.

Most pretentious post in soccer forum history?

Bacchus

greendom wrote: »

He hasn't been labelled a racist - this is the charge

"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

Tell that to the general public and the media. Just as it was with Suarez (where the report stated they did not believe Suarez was a racist) the general public are going to read between the lines and come to the conclusion that Terry is a racist.

You may argue that technically the FA did not label either Suarez or Terry a racist but you cannot argue that the direct outcome of their charges is that Suarez and Terry are now considered racists by the public.

greendom

Bacchus wrote: »

Tell that to the general public and the media. Just as it was with Suarez (where the report stated they did not believe Suarez was a racist) the general public are going to read between the lines and come to the conclusion that Terry is a racist.

You may argue that technically the FA did not label either Suarez or Terry a racist but you cannot argue that the direct outcome of their charges is that Suarez and Terry are now considered racists by the public.

Maybe next time anyone thinks of using such language on the pitch, they'll think again. Suarez was new to the country and you could maybe forgive what he said due to "cultural differences". As an experienced player and England captain, Terry had no such excuse and should have known better. If his name is tainted more than warranted he has no one else to blame but himself.

PhlegmyMoses

Thrill wrote: »

I did a quick search and found the following. According to an F.A. spokesman, said during the suarez case, they look at thousands of cases that cross their desks each year. They say they only pursue cases if there is a case to answer.

“The counter argument is that, if we were bringing charges but not being successful in doing so, that we are wasting people’s valuable time, and not doing our job properly.”

The above bolded statement by an F.A. official clearly shows that when they charge someone, they know before any hearing has occurred they are going to be successful. Hence the high success rate.

That's what I suspected. I was thinking of the Rooney case where he clearly elbowed James McCarthy. It never went in front of the FA because there is a load of pre-charge work done to make sure that the FA only charges people who they have a very good case against.

JimsAlterEgo

niallo27 wrote: »

I'm just looking forward to the reasons why Suarez got double the ban terry did, surely they are more or less the same charges and should be punished equally.

already explained, didn't the FA say if Suarez has said it once it would be only 4 matches

niallo27

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

already explained, didn't the FA say if Suarez has said it once it would be only 4 matches

I didn't see that anywhere, I was just reading the statement where the fa would release why the ban was only 4 games in the next few days.

Tigerbaby

J. Marston wrote: »

Most pretentious post in soccer forum history?

pretentious?

Care to expand on that please?

Tigerbaby

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Terry admitted to using the words "****ing black ****". This part is caught on camera. His argument is that he put "I didn't call you a..." in front of it. This part is not caught on camera. The first question everybody thinks of is; Why didn't he say "I didn't call you that?" Why use the other term at all?

Had he challenged the lip readings and claimed he had actually said something else, he may have actually got off. Admitting you said it or did it in a civil court, where the proof needed is less extensive, is setting yourself up for a fall.



That is not what the tenet is. At all. The tenet is, we dealt with racism pretty badly back in the day, let's not let that happen again. If that means having to come down hard on it for a while until it gets into people's skulls that skin colour is irrelevant, so be it.

Nobody is saying white people are evil and black people are lovely. They are saying that we are equally bad and equally good. White people are just accepting that they acted a bit ****ty back in the day because they happened to be the guys with all the power. They don't want that to happen again. Well, most of us.

Wow.. generalise much?

since when did you assign yourself the mantle of spokesman for White people? I dont accept that I have ever behaved badly to anyone based on their skin colour. I didnt act ****ty back in the day. So dont presume to speak to my condition or position. How do you know white guys had all the power?

Revisionism is a wonderful growth industry.

Bacchus

greendom wrote: »

Maybe next time anyone thinks of using such language on the pitch, they'll think again. Suarez was new to the country and you could maybe forgive what he said due to "cultural differences". As an experienced player and England captain, Terry had no such excuse and should have known better. If his name is tainted more than warranted he has no one else to blame but himself.

Not sure what that's got to do with the point I was making in the bit you quoted - that result of the FA charges against Suarez and Terry is that they are both now and forever labelled as racists based on weak evidence that wouldn't, and didn't, stand up in a court of law.

Are you trying to say that it's ok for the FA to hand out these life changing charges because they have to make an example of someone? I doubt you are but in one line you say the charges act as a deterrent to others and in the next you imply reasonable doubt in the Suarez case. It's all well and good saying you could "maybe forgive" Suarez but the fact is most people now consider him a racist thug and that won't ever change.

JimsAlterEgo

niallo27 wrote: »

I didn't see that anywhere, I was just reading the statement where the fa would release why the ban was only 4 games in the next few days.

The Suarez statement

greendom

Bacchus wrote: »

Not sure what that's got to do with the point I was making in the bit you quoted - that result of the FA charges against Suarez and Terry is that they are both now and forever labelled as racists based on weak evidence that wouldn't, and didn't, stand up in a court of law.

Are you trying to say that it's ok for the FA to hand out these life changing charges because they have to make an example of someone? I doubt you are but in one line you say the charges act as a deterrent to others and in the next you imply reasonable doubt in the Suarez case. It's all well and good saying you could "maybe forgive" Suarez but the fact is most people now consider him a racist thug and that won't ever change.

If the players had abided by the guidelines set down to them by the FA none of this would have happened. The FA didn't make it up as they went along. Both players got what they deserved - however I have more sympathy for Suarez than for Terry (I'm not a Liverpool or Chelsea supporter btw).

EDIT: As to the court of law thing as had been said countless times a criminal court requires that a guilty verdict has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A civil court only requires that guilty can be proven on the balance of probabilities. Terry and his team managed to get doubt in the criminal court hearing as he claimed what he said was ironic and not intentional.

This was irrelevant in the FA case as they stipulate that racist language must not be used on the pitch. Intent doesn't come into it and Terry's brilliant legal team were fighting a losing battle.

PhlegmyMoses

Tigerbaby wrote: »

Wow.. generalise much?

since when did you assign yourself the mantle of spokesman for White people?

Had a feeling you'd come back with this. Good man. It's also not a statement worthy of a wow, as though I am coming out with something so revolutionary or unheard of that you are shocked by it. Get a grip of yourself.

I dont accept that I have ever behaved badly to anyone based on their skin colour. I didnt act ****ty back in the day. So dont presume to speak to my condition or position.

This is a strawman argument. For a start, I never said that you behaved badly towards anyone based on skin colour. Many white people did, though. You didn't act ****ty back in the day. Many white people did, though. I'm not just talking about 100 years ago or slavery or segregation or just generally holding beliefs that black people were inferior beings who recently climbed down out of a tree and declared themselves equals.

But let's keep it to a purely footballing standpoint as this is a football forum. Right up until the 90s, English football fans gave black players an awful time. This isn't even taking into account the stuff we'll never hear about regarding other players and coaches on the pitch or the training ground. As a result, the FA have tried to make everyone realise that this wasn't cool. They have done brilliantly since then and have set the bar very high for how the rest of Europe should behave. For the record, things like this still happen:



That's Lokomotiv's banner to Odemwingie after he left. Odemwingie is actually half-Russian also but they seem to have focused on something else entirely. Dick Advocaat recently came out and said the Zenit have never had a black player because the fans wouldn't allow it and the player's life would be a misery. The FA has worked very hard to ensure that stuff like that doesn't go on in England anymore but it definitely did. By taking a hard stance against racism at all times, they ensure that it doesn't rear it's ugly head.

How do you know white guys had all the power?

Revisionism is a wonderful growth industry.

The irony of you talking about revisionism when you ask a question like that. It is undeniable that white people in Western nations have traditionally held all of the power. This only became a problem when large groups of non-indigenous people started moving (or were forcibly moved) to our countries. It took a long time and a lot of anguish before they were properly represented.

Look, I'm not sure what your motivation or argument here is. Don't want to be a labelled a racist? Don't use racist words. How hard is it to keep them out of your vocabulary? It almost seems like you are trying to make out that white people are the victims in all of this as we have allowed ourselves to believe that we are inherently racist when we are not. This is nonsense. We're just being asked to not make racist slurs and to not actively discriminate against people because of their skin colour. It also works both ways. This is not a big ask and does not impinge on our civil liberties or anything else for that matter.

Bacchus

greendom wrote: »

If the players had abided by the guidelines set down to them by the FA none of this would have happened. The FA didn't make it up as they went along. Both players got what they deserved - however I have more sympathy for Suarez than for Terry (I'm not a Liverpool or Chelsea supporter btw).

EDIT: As to the court of law thing as had been said countless times a criminal court requires that a guilty verdict has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. A civil court only requires that guilty can be proven on the balance of probabilities. Terry and his team managed to get doubt in the criminal court hearing as he claimed what he said was ironic and not intentional.

This was irrelevant in the FA case as they stipulate that racist language must not be used on the pitch. Intent doesn't come into it and Terry's brilliant legal team were fighting a losing battle.

Ok, the bit in bold here is critical to my point. The FA should also have prove something beyond reasonable doubt before charging someone with a crime, particularly when it comes to sensitive areas such as racism that has implications on the persons life outside of the game. They should not be a law unto themselves.

Intent is important. Intent is difference between murder and manslaughter... I think Intent certainly played a large part in the Suarez case. It can't simply be pushed aside for a more convenient ruling.

It's a very tricky subject and the FA have to take a stance on the pitch but I feel, in their efforts to take a stance they are over compensating and not letting reasonable doubt get in the way of a good headline for their anti-racism campaign. Two wrongs don't make a right and all the Suarez charge has led to is even more abusive chants from football fans. No doubt the same will happen to Terry.

PhlegmyMoses

Bacchus wrote: »

Ok, the bit in bold here is critical to my point. The FA should also have prove something beyond reasonable doubt before charging someone with a crime, particularly when it comes to sensitive areas such as racism that has implications on the persons life outside of the game. They should not be a law unto themselves.

Intent is important. Intent is difference between murder and manslaughter... I think Intent certainly played a large part in the Suarez case. It can't simply be pushed aside for a more convenient ruling.

It's a very tricky subject and the FA have to take a stance on the pitch but I feel, in their efforts to take a stance they are over compensating and not letting reasonable doubt get in the way of a good headline for their anti-racism campaign. Two wrongs don't make a right and all the Suarez charge has led to is even more abusive chants from football fans. No doubt the same will happen to Terry.

The FA are not charging someone with a crime. It is not a criminal case. They are charging someone with a breach of their rulebook. Their rulebook doesn't cater for reasonable doubt and nor should it. For them, balance of probabilities works because it allows them to get through hundreds of cases without a huge trial. It allowed them to ban Rio Ferdinand and label him a drugs cheat when he would have been proven innocent if reasonable doubt was brought into play.

greendom

Bacchus wrote: »

Ok, the bit in bold here is critical to my point. The FA should also have prove something beyond reasonable doubt before charging someone with a crime, particularly when it comes to sensitive areas such as racism that has implications on the persons life outside of the game. They should not be a law unto themselves.

Intent is important. Intent is difference between murder and manslaughter... I think Intent certainly played a large part in the Suarez case. It can't simply be pushed aside for a more convenient ruling.

It's a very tricky subject and the FA have to take a stance on the pitch but I feel, in their efforts to take a stance they are over compensating and not letting reasonable doubt get in the way of a good headline for their anti-racism campaign. Two wrongs don't make a right and all the Suarez charge has led to is even more abusive chants from football fans. No doubt the same will happen to Terry.

I think you are over-compensating on Terry's behalf. He, as well as anyone, knew the rules that he had to adhere to, so he could be a professional footballer. He had no excuse for uttering those words on the pitch. He should have left his ironic racism in the bar or the changing room

Pro. F

Thrill wrote: »

Their interpretation and application differ.

What evidence do you have of this?

Thrill wrote: »

Whats worrying is that once someone is charged by the F.A. for any offense, the chances of them being found not guilty is almost zero. While this might not be of any major concern regarding run of the mill footballing infringements, I think it is of great concern when it comes to charging someone with committing racial act.

The idea that once you have been charged by any body, be it state or private, with an almost zero chance of being found not guilty before any hearing has even begun, is not one I would have any confidence in at all or would like to face.

You are talking about a high conviction rate being worrying as if it were the FA who are presiding over the hearings. It is not. The commission that presides over the hearings is independent from the FA.

The FA simply chooses to only bring cases when they know they have strong evidence. You showed this yourself with your quote earlier.

It makes perfect sense that the police would be less successful at getting convictions, because they are under severe pressure from the public to present a case in court for every crime, no matter how shaky the evidence. The FA are under the opposite pressure from football clubs and fans who resent their involvement in disciplinary matters.

Bacchus

greendom wrote: »

I think you are over-compensating on Terry's behalf. He, as well as anyone, knew the rules that he had to adhere to, so he could be a professional footballer. He had no excuse for uttering those rules on the pitch. He should have left his ironic racism in the bar or the changing room

I didn't mention my opinion on Terry's charge anywhere. If you want it, I believe Terry is a scumbag who meant what he said. I've said already I'm not specifically talking about either the Suarez or Terry case, I'm just taking a general view of the power the FA has in dealing with these race issues. It appears as a result of those cases that they don't care about reasonable doubt. I think that is unacceptable given the charges.

PhlegmyMoses: Fair enough, not a crime, but my point remains that from these charges, the accused is now a racist in the public eye.

You do make a good point though about the rulebook though. If it's in the rules, the players should have been professional and not allowed the circus to begin with in the first place, regardless of intent.

CSF

Reading in the BBC rumours section (so it should be taken as nothing more than that) that a number of black footballers are considering withdrawing their support for the Kick It Out campaign as a result of Terry's shockingly small ban. Can't say I blame them if they do.

A Dub in Glasgo

He should have got a longer ban than 4 games, the fine is irrelevant to this overpaid speciman of a footballer

Dozen Wicked Words

CSF wrote: »

Reading in the BBC rumours section (so it should be taken as nothing more than that) that a number of black footballers are considering withdrawing their support for the Kick It Out campaign as a result of Terry's shockingly small ban. Can't say I blame them if they do.

Well they aren't the brightest if they do, Kick it Out has no say in the decisions of an independent disciplinary panel that the FA instigated. They aren't an FA organisation, just sponsored by them, as well as the PFA and the Premier League. What exactly would they be achieving by withdrawing their support? I would blame them for withdrawing their support from an organisation trying to tackle exclusion. Particularly as Kick It Out haven't even given their definitive statement on the ban until after they know if John Terry will appeal or not.

Tigerbaby

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Had a feeling you'd come back with this. Good man. It's also not a statement worthy of a wow, as though I am coming out with something so revolutionary or unheard of that you are shocked by it. Get a grip of yourself.



This is a strawman argument. For a start, I never said that you behaved badly towards anyone based on skin colour. Many white people did, though. You didn't act ****ty back in the day. Many white people did, though. I'm not just talking about 100 years ago or slavery or segregation or just generally holding beliefs that black people were inferior beings who recently climbed down out of a tree and declared themselves equals.

But let's keep it to a purely footballing standpoint as this is a football forum. Right up until the 90s, English football fans gave black players an awful time. This isn't even taking into account the stuff we'll never hear about regarding other players and coaches on the pitch or the training ground. As a result, the FA have tried to make everyone realise that this wasn't cool. They have done brilliantly since then and have set the bar very high for how the rest of Europe should behave. For the record, things like this still happen:



That's Lokomotiv's banner to Odemwingie after he left. Odemwingie is actually half-Russian also but they seem to have focused on something else entirely. Dick Advocaat recently came out and said the Zenit have never had a black player because the fans wouldn't allow it and the player's life would be a misery. The FA has worked very hard to ensure that stuff like that doesn't go on in England anymore but it definitely did. By taking a hard stance against racism at all times, they ensure that it doesn't rear it's ugly head.



The irony of you talking about revisionism when you ask a question like that. It is undeniable that white people in Western nations have traditionally held all of the power. This only became a problem when large groups of non-indigenous people started moving (or were forcibly moved) to our countries. It took a long time and a lot of anguish before they were properly represented.

Look, I'm not sure what your motivation or argument here is. Don't want to be a labelled a racist? Don't use racist words. How hard is it to keep them out of your vocabulary? It almost seems like you are trying to make out that white people are the victims in all of this as we have allowed ourselves to believe that we are inherently racist when we are not. This is nonsense. We're just being asked to not make racist slurs and to not actively discriminate against people because of their skin colour. It also works both ways. This is not a big ask and does not impinge on our civil liberties or anything else for that matter.

am I to take on the guilt of the the other White people? eg the Terreblanches of this World?

I dont think so.

Racism should not be the default position.

I am white does not equal I am guilty.

As an Irishman, my race has experienced genocide for many hundred years. Yet I do not feel morally superior to my British friends, or in need of special treatment. I love them, and care for them as EQUAL ( not better or worse ) human beings.

As a White Irish man, I dont expect special treatment, nor do I grant it. I just expect ( and demand) equality.

I'm a man. My colour has nothing to do with it. Get over yourself.
To be human is to be flawed. Let he who casts the first stone etc.

Tigerbaby

Tigerbaby wrote: »

As an Irishman, my race has experienced genocide for many hundred years. .

The Irish aren't a race.

It's amazing how many people don't know this.

PhlegmyMoses

Tigerbaby wrote: »

am I to take on the guilt of the the other White people? eg the Terreblanches of this World?

I dont think so.

Racism should not be the default position.

I am white does not equal I am guilty.

As an Irishman, my race has experienced genocide for many hundred years. Yet I do not feel morally superior to my British friends, or in need of special treatment. I love them, and care for them as EQUAL ( not better or worse ) human beings.

As a White Irish man, I dont expect special treatment, nor do I grant it. I just expect ( and demand) equality.

I'm a man. My colour has nothing to do with it. Get over yourself.
To be human is to be flawed. Let he who casts the first stone etc.

You literally haven't dealt with anything in my post at all. Your last post was the exact same as this one. You aren't up for discussion, you're soapboxing so for that reason, I'm out. :cool:

Sgt Pepper 64

Tigerbaby wrote: »

am I to take on the guilt of the the other White people? eg the Terreblanches of this World?

I dont think so.

Racism should not be the default position.

I am white does not equal I am guilty.

As an Irishman, my race has experienced genocide for many hundred years. Yet I do not feel morally superior to my British friends, or in need of special treatment. I love them, and care for them as EQUAL ( not better or worse ) human beings.

As a White Irish man, I dont expect special treatment, nor do I grant it. I just expect ( and demand) equality.

I'm a man. My colour has nothing to do with it. Get over yourself.
To be human is to be flawed. Let he who casts the first stone etc.

errr, you do know that the term "genocide" didnt exist prior to 1944, right?

Thrill

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

errr, you do know that the term "genocide" didnt exist prior to 1944, right?

The term may not have existed but that doesn't mean the act didn't. There's just something I don't understand about all this though.

WTF does it have to do with John Terry??

Sgt Pepper 64

Thrill wrote: »

The term may not have existed but that doesn't mean the act didn't. There's just something I don't understand about all this though.

WTF does it have to do with John Terry??

Lol, so mentioning irish history is revelant but not the fact that a word used in the post, only originated in 1944?

wandatowell

Thrill wrote: »

WTF does it have to do with John Terry??

Godwins Law


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Caveman1

I seen those Eboue tweets the other day, is that actually his real account? Usually footballers arent allowed to be that outspoken.

(Excluding Joey Barton)

SantryRed

I can't see a thread for it on site and it should be discussed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19842795

John Terry's defence against claims he racially abused Anton Ferdinand was "improbable, implausible, contrived", according to the Football Association panel which found him guilty.
The FA's 63-page report explaining why Terry was banned for four games and fined £220,000 was published on Friday.
The panel said the Chelsea captain, 31, "is not a racist" but was "satisfied" his comments were used as an insult.
Terry, cleared in court of abusing QPR's Ferdinand, has 14 days to appeal.
Chelsea would not comment on the report, a spokesman saying: "As we said last week we recognise that John has the right to appeal.
"In view of this it would be inappropriate for us to comment further on the matter at this time."

The incident between Terry and Ferdinand occurred during QPR's 1-0 victory over Chelsea in a Premier League game at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
It was alleged Ferdinand swore at Terry and made reference to Terry's reported affair with the ex-partner of former team-mate Wayne Bridge.
Terry is then said to have described Ferdinand as "black" and used extreme sexual swear words.
Terry's case was that he used the word "black" and swore at Ferdinand but insisted he had only been repeating words he thought the Rangers defender had accused him of saying.
But the report says parts of Terry's defence were "improbable, implausible and contrived", which "serve to underline and reinforce our decision".
It added: "His repetition of words that Mr Terry claims were said to him first by Mr Ferdinand is implausible if they were really intended to be a robust denial.
"A much more plausible and likely explanation is that Mr Terry was angry; angry at Mr Ferdinand's taunting and provocation of him, angry at the way the match had gone, and angry at the way in which it seemed likely to end.
"The much more likely explanation for what he said is that all of this provoked him into saying [the words]."

Terry was cleared in court, where the criminal burden of proof is "beyond all reasonable doubt", but the independent FA commission that investigated the case used the lesser civil test, that of on the "balance of probabilities".
In court, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said it was "highly unlikely" Ferdinand accused Terry of racially abusing him, but it was possible Terry believed at the time that an accusation had been made.
Mr Riddle went on: "In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty."
But the FA report says that, on the balance of probabilities: "The commission is quite satisfied that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry's defence that his use of the words were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry.
"Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult."
The report also questions Terry's demeanour if he had been accused of making racist comments.
"The commission is entitled to use its collective experience of life and people to judge demeanour," it states.
"We have watched the film footage many times. In the critical phase, during which he uses the words, Mr Terry can be seen to be smiling initially, before his facial expression changes to disdainful and contemptuous.
"At no point is his demeanour and facial expression that of someone who is imploring, injured, or even quizzical in the face of an unfounded allegation by Mr Ferdinand that he had just been racially abusive towards him.
"Anger is a conceivable reaction to such an accusation, but at no time does Mr Terry convey any sense of 'no, I didn't' with his facial expression, or body language."
It adds that there is a large body of testimonial evidence, including statements from black footballers, to suggest Terry is not a racist.
Meanwhile, Chelsea defender Ashley Cole reacted angrily after the report detailed his role following the evidence he gave in support of Terry at court.
One of the chapters, entitled the 'evolution of Ashley Cole's evidence', says the left-back added at a later date the word "black" into his witness statement which outlined what he claimed to have heard Ferdinand saying to Terry.

According to the report, this had the effect of "bolstering Mr Terry's claim that the words that he spoke to Mr Ferdinand were not said by way of an insult, but as repetition and forceful denial of what Mr Ferdinand had accused him of saying".

Alluding to the eight-game ban handed to Liverpool striker Luis Suarez in December 2011 for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra, the report says Terry's punishment was four games because the "racist insult was issued only once".
Suarez was said to have repeatedly said an abusive word to Evra.
The anti-racism group Kick It Out welcomed the commisson's findings and said the case has caued trauma to the Ferdinand family.
"It's a period that has polarised the game, undermined the good work being done at all levels, and it must never be allowed to happen again," it said in a statement.
"The words used are completely unacceptable, irrespective of how many times they were levelled. As campaigners we remain committed to the strongest action being taken against discrimination and supporting victims of it."

I can't believe he only got 4 games if they came to this conclusion.

niallo27

SantryRed wrote: »

I can't see a thread for it on site and it should be discussed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19842795


The anti-racism group Kick It Out welcomed the commisson's findings and said the case has caued trauma to the Ferdinand family.



I can't believe he only got 4 games if they came to this conclusion.

It might have pissed him off but i doubt it caused much trauma to a family of multi-millionaires.

The FA say that Terry used the words as an insult and still only gave him 4 games?

Says alot really.

GavRedKing

Say it once, 4 game ban.

Multiple times, 8 game ban.

Sounds fair to me. :pac:

English FA are a eejits really

GavRedKing

Just merged these threads to keep it all together.