John Terry charged by The FA

K

kat06sa

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,273
Reaction score
0
Location
Beyond the wall
After seeking advice from an external Independent QC, and having considered the evidence and Magistrates' Court decision in the John Terry case, The FA has today charged the Chelsea player following an alleged incident that occurred during the Queens Park Rangers versus Chelsea fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.

It is alleged that Terry used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand, contrary to FA rules.

It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Anton Ferdinand.

This charge is the result of The FA’s long-standing enquiries into this matter, which were placed on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial, and relates to rules governing football only.

During this period John Terry remains available to play for England.

Terry has until 3 August 2012 to respond.

The FA will make no further comment during this time.
Click to expand...
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/NewsAndFeatures/2012/john-terry-charged.aspx
 
John Terry verdict: FA finds Chelsea captain guilty over racism charge

John Terry is considering an appeal after the FA's disciplinary hearing found him guilty of "using abusive language" towards QPR's Anton Ferdinand last October which "included a reference to colour and/or race".

The independent regulatory commission delivered its verdict on Thursday after a four-day hearing, ruling that Terry must serve a four-game ban and pay a fine of £220,000.

Terry, who was cleared of a racially aggravated public order offence at Westminster magistrates court in July over the same incident, categorically denied the FA charge, and has the right to appeal the ruling within 14 days.

An FA statement said: "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."

A statement issued by Terry's management company said: "Mr Terry is disappointed that the FA Regulatory Commission has reached a different conclusion to the clear not guilty verdict of a court of law. He has asked for the detailed written reasons of the decision and will consider them carefully before deciding whether to lodge an appeal."

The case centred around an incident during Chelsea's Premier League defeat at QPR on 23 October last year when the pair repeatedly clashed verbally.

During his court case Terry admitted using the words "****ing black ****", but insisted he had only been repeating words he thought Ferdinand had accused him of saying.

Terry's Chelsea team-mate Ashley Cole gave evidence in his support, telling the court: "We shouldn't be sitting here".

The FA's decision to press ahead with their own charges infuriated Terry to the extent that on the eve of the disciplinary hearing he announced he was retiring from international football with immediate effect, saying his position had become "untenable".

Terry's legal team had argued that the governing body's own rules dictated that his acquittal in court meant the case could not proceed but the FA believed its charge was distinct from the court charge.

The panel responsible for banning the Liverpool striker Luis Suárez for eight games when they found him guilty of racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra last season declared at that time that simply using racist language was enough to constitute a breach of FA rules.

Chelsea issued a statement that said: "Chelsea Football Club notes and respects today's decision by the Football Association regarding John Terry. We also recognise that John has the right to appeal that decision.

"It is therefore inappropriate for us to comment further on the matter at this time."
Click to expand...
 
So kneeing Aguero in the back = 12 games(Barton), but calling someone a F******* black C*** is only 4 games?

FA is corrupt. (But we all knew that already).
 
I don't get this race thing in soccer. If you are at school and call someone the color of their skin it is not seen as offensive. When you swear in front of a teacher you get in trouble. Yet in pro soccer it is the opposite.
Anton Ferdinand was using foul language himself like f*** and c*** and insulting Terry's wife but because he didn't mention ethnicity as an adjective it isn't offensive.
 
MickeyD said:
John Terry, under oath in the Court (not FA circus), said that he was repeating what Anton Ferdinand said. So if it was the same racial remark then both should have been charged by the FA.
Click to expand...

Except there's no evidence of Anton Ferdinand saying that. Even he said the only time he heard it was after the match. Whereas there's video of John Terry mouthing those words (or something similar)
 
Randhir said:
Except there's no evidence of Anton Ferdinand saying that. Even he said the only time he heard it was after the match. Whereas there's video of John Terry mouthing those words (or something similar)
Click to expand...
*don't know why I'm defending JT as I don't like him*

A Court believed JT's version of events and found him to be a credible witness. What makes the FA any different?
 
MickeyD said:
*don't know why I'm defending JT as I don't like him*

A Court believed JT's version of events and found him to be a credible witness. What makes the FA any different?
Click to expand...

Again, there's no evidence of AF saying it. However, JT never denied saying '****ing black ****', just the context in which he said it.
 
MickeyD said:
*don't know why I'm defending JT as I don't like him*

A Court believed JT's version of events and found him to be a credible witness. What makes the FA any different?
Click to expand...

The difference lies in the methodology. Courts have a different burden of proof. They couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Terry was guilty. The FA work on "probablilty"
 
wallsend said:
The difference lies in the methodology. Courts have a different burden of proof. They couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Terry was guilty. The FA work on "probablilty"
Click to expand...
I know. Just ranting at double standards.

At the FA is being consistent (Suarez affair).
 
1. The FA tore up their own rule book to charge Terry. Whether it's a witch hunt or not we'll see when the FA publishes their findings on the matter. To charge a player after they have been cleared by a court of law requires new evidence to be brought to light. No one who trash talks Terry has made any mention of this fact (in the media).

2. Terry got 4 games because he said it once. Suarez said it multiple times. That's the difference.

or this:

guardian.co.uk said:
Why has Terry been banned for four matches when Luis Suárez was given eight?

This will not be clarified until the panel produces its full written reasons. The rule states that reference to a person's "ethnic origin, colour or race" should guide a panel into considering double the minimum four-match ban. Terry's four-match ban leaves open the possibility that the panel accepted, at least in part, Terry's defence. Suárez was given an eight-week ban for his remarks to Patrice Evra.
Click to expand...

3. WRT the person talking about kneeing someone in the back and getting banned for 12 games and racism being a 4 game ban. I'm sorry, but are you for real? Anton is not a teen or a kid to get serious trauma from a few words (no matter how bad they were - and this is assuming Terry actually said it in that context...), he's a grown man for goodness sakes. Kneeing someone in the back can cause serious and lasting injury, even paralysis. I know which one I'd punish harder.

4. The findings were a foregone conclusion. The FA was backed into a corner by the media and Anton. They threatened to sue if action wasn't taken. The fact that the FA tore up their own rulebook show that much. This was a kangaroo court hearing.
 
Last edited:
abzo said:
Something tells me that smokey is a Chelsea supporter?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am. The fact that I'm a Chelsea supporter does not make me blind though. I never got into whether Terry is actually guilty or not, all I stated were facts. If you're willing to overlook a few simple things just so you can hate on somebody, then you have a serious mental issue my friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X