John Terry charged by The FA

smokey said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. I just hate Terry (racist or not) and I'm glad that I don't have to see his mug for a few weeks :D

Edit: hate is a strong word but I really really really don't like him. :erm:
 
Last edited:
abzo said:
True. I just hate Terry (racist or not) and I'm glad that I don't have to see his mug for a few weeks :D

Edit: hate is a strong word but I really really really don't like him. :erm:
Click to expand...

Well it's a good thing you're not a judge then.
 
Smokey, so you seriously think Terry is innocent of making a racist remark?
 
RexxGrim said:
Smokey, so you seriously think Terry is innocent of making a racist remark?
Click to expand...

Smokey has to defend him :D I for one think Terry's defence is ridiculous.. Also, the FA and the criminal court are two different institutions, so to say if one cleared him he can't be charged in another is silly. There's different burdens of proof.
 
Meh, Terry cheated on his wife when he nailed a best friend's girlfriend. Something tells me he is not the classiest chap around.
 
RexxGrim said:
Smokey, so you seriously think Terry is innocent of making a racist remark?
Click to expand...

No. I never got into what he said, just the way it's being handled. It's absolutely ludicrous. The FA's own rules state that they cannot charge him for it, and they have (and punished him as well). He did say it, the context of his remark is not for me to decide.

Randhir said:
Smokey has to defend him :D I for one think Terry's defence is ridiculous.. Also, the FA and the criminal court are two different institutions, so to say if one cleared him he can't be charged in another is silly. There's different burdens of proof.
Click to expand...

1) I'm not defending his remark, far from it. I'm just pointing out the idiocy of the situation... which leads me to...

2)
Racist language has no place in football, but the FA rulebook goes beyond that bans all reference to race.
Imagine a player is hit by an object thrown from the crowd, and the referee asks him to point out the reprobate.
If, in identifying him, the player refers to him as 'that black/white bloke over there' – he is guilty of this offence.
That is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards, that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the problem of racism in football could have arrived at this as a solution.
Lawyers reading this will recognise that last sentence: it is the test applied when establishing if a public authority has acted irrationally, and therefore illegally, for the purposes of judicial review.
Secondly there is the burden of proof.
It is perverse, in seeking a just outcome in such sensitive events, to rely merely upon the balance of probabilities.
Terry was cleared by a criminal court using the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test: and that is surely a more appropriate yardstick for a case that threatens a man's livelihood.
That application of inappropriate burden of proof amounts to procedural impropriety.
Click to expand...
 
Are they not allowed representation at these hearings? Surely his lawyer would be an idiot for not arguing such a nice juicy technicality
 
smokey said:
That if a court clears a player of an offence then they cannot touch him. Don't remember the rule explicitly, did see it on Twitter a few days ago.
Click to expand...

Terry was cleared despite admitting using the offensive language but claiming it was in the context of a question to Ferdinand. Terry said he was trying to ascertain whether *Ferdinand thought he had used the words in an offensive context earlier in the match.

Carter-Stephenson argued that the FA’s own rules prevented cases from being heard by the governing body if they had previously been dealt with by a court of law.

Paragraph 6.8 of the FA regulations states: “Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.”

The FA’s lawyers argued that the clause primarily relates to the treatment of matters of facts, most pertinently in this case Terry’s admission of using the offensive language.

They argued that the FA rule that Terry is alleged to have breached is sufficiently different from the criminal offence to allow a separate hearing. Under the FA rules and the precedent established by the Suárez case, it is enough to prove that *offensive language was used. The player’s intent, and the question of any racial element, will only be considered when it comes to deciding the sanction.

Clearing Terry in July, District Judge Howard Riddell cast doubt on Terry’s explanation for his use of offensive language, saying: “Mr Terry’s explanation is, certainly under the cold light of forensic examination, unlikely. It is not the most *obvious response. It is sandwiched between other undoubted insults.”

Riddell was unable to convict, however, as there was reasonable doubt about the context of the exchange with Ferdinand: “It is ...possible that what he (Terry) said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him. In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty.”

The FA tribunal only has to establish guilt on the balance of probabilities, rather than the higher criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, something Terry’s camp believe makes a ban likely.
Click to expand...

So basically the judge could not convict but he doubted Terry's word. This doubt led to the FA being able to charge Terry as the facts included that they were only not able to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, not exonerate him completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X