As we're unlikely to see terraces again at football, this is the virtual equivalent where you can chat to your hearts content about all football matters and, obviously, Arsenal in particular. This forum encourages all Gooners to visit and contribute so please keep it respectful, clean and topical.
Deise Gooner wrote:I fail to see how the FA can come to this conclusion when he was aquitted in a court of law. Im no lawyer but if you are found not quilty in the eyes of the law, how can another who have no power come along and offer a different outcome. Regardless of what you think of John Terry and i believe he is a grade A *word censored*, todays ruling is totally out of order from the FA. It would be like the FA finding Santos guilty of dangerous driving in a hearing if he had been found not guilty by a magistrate.
He actually admitted saying the words, but his defence was that he was just repeating them,not saying them directly himself ?
ie you think that I called you a f........ b..... c.... ?
Different standard of proof: criminal court requires "beyond all reasonable doubt", whereas as you said this body essentially has no power (as in can't remove his right to liberty etc) so only requires it to be satisfied on "balance of probabilities". Although it's odd trying to quantify guilt as a lay example if you're proven to be 60% likely to be guilty you shouldn't be convicted in a criminal court but it would satisfy most quasi-judicial hearings like this.
At the end of the day despite what some people think this isn't idiots at the FA reaching a conclusion. It's an INDEPENDENT Regulatory Commission, made up of some of the top people in the legal profession and led by a QC.
The Terry case puts a different light on it. If he were a normal person and his employers still supported him, such a ruling would have few knock-on effects, whereas a criminal conviction would be disastrous for most people. However, a criminal conviction wouldn't have done much for Terry's work prospects etc, and he could only have received 0.5% of the fine he got from the FA, and in any event he's tarred with the tag of being a racist by everybody regardless of who found him guilty.
I'd rather he played tomorrow and faced the wrath of the Arsenal faithfull - sometimes we need something to rouse us, like a shit referee (everton last year)
plus he is now fairly shite and although still an ariel threat, not the player he was a couple of years ago.
4 game ban is too lenient, obviously. I straight red can get you 3 games.... racial abuse worthy of only 1 extra game?
Why did Suarez get 8 games and Terry 4 ?
Not sure as they haven't released the full written report yet. Given that they took 3.5 days to reach a conclusion on fairly straightforward evidence I reckon that they were desperate to find him guilty with the publicity around the case and all the footage of what he said: to do so they needed a watertight judgment. I think 4 games is far too lenient for a racist offence but they obviously felt that they couldn't defend a harsher punishment based on the evidence and reasoning.
Having just posted the above paragraph, I have realised the part of the case that poses the bigger problem than the disparity between the length of the bans. Why have they given Terry a lesser ban BUT a bigger fine at the same time? If it was an overall lighter punishment then they could seek to justify it, but how can they justify finding that Terry's actions were half as bad football-wise but five times worse financially? Very very interested as to how they'd back that up.
mcdowell42 wrote:Seeing as the thread has quits in the title see steve kean has resigned at blackburn
Genuinely disappointed to see him go. Not because I think he's actually not a bad manager or because he deserved to be treated better, but because a mate of mine is a Blackburn fan and baiting him about Steve Kenius has been great sport for the last 21 months or so.
Guy on Sky yesterday said that Suarez' ban was longer because he used the "n" word on seven different occasions in the game where Terry had just one outburst. Not convinced about that , even if it's true I'm not convinced of the merits of going that way about it.
Bradywasking wrote:Guy on Sky yesterday said that Suarez' ban was longer because he used the "n" word on seven different occasions in the game where Terry had just one outburst. Not convinced about that , even if it's true I'm not convinced of the merits of going that way about it.
To be honest one outburst deserves more than 4 games and a repeated campaign deserves more than 8, although can you imagine if they'd banned Suarez for longer? Kenny would have gone into FA HQ armed to the teeth.
And as I said above, its all fine and well the FA trying to validate Terry getting a lesser ban by pointing out to mitigating circumstances, but why then give him 5x as big a fine?
SteveO 35 wrote:Its taken him to make the decision himself rather than those gutless fuckers at the FA. The most depressing day as an Englishman was when they gave the captaincy back to that *word censored*.
Terry's arrogance made that decision to resign to garner public sympathy. Oh boo hoo. If appeals and wins, he'll have a change of heart and be reinstated as captain. He's made a mockery of the FA.
