|
Post by bowranger on Oct 2, 2012 14:54:54 GMT
And more support for Terry from an ex-manager www.english.rfi.fr/sports/20121002-ancelotti-slams-john-terry-banAncelotti slams John Terry ban By Andy May Former England football captain John Terry's four-match ban and €276,000 fine for misconduct is '”strange” and “unbelievable”,ex-Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti has told RFI. Despite being cleared in a criminal court in the United Kingdom of racially abusing Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand in a Premier League match last season, the English Football Association found Terry guilty of using “abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour, which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race”. "It is unbelievable - John Terry does not deserve this,” Ancelotti said. “The judgement one month ago [in court] was okay so I cannot understand how the FA can make a different decision. I think that it is really strange. "I was really surprised [with this whole situation] because he has a really fantastic relationship with everyone. I am sure he is not racist – 100 per cent." Terry’s ban is half the length of the eight-match suspension handed to Luis Suarez last year. The Liverpool striker was also fined €50,000 after being found to have repeatedly used the word “negro” towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra in a game. Terry, who has always maintained his innocence, has decided to retire from international football with England - a choice Ancelotti believes is the right one: "I do not think he will play for England again and I think that is a good decision. It is a bad thing for England because John Terry did well for the national team." Ancelotti has also spoken to RFI about rumours another one of his former Chelsea players, Ashley Cole, is set to join him at Paris St Germain next summer when his contract in London expires. "This is normal because a lot of players are linked with PSG, maybe 100 players have been linked with the club recently,” he said. “For this season we have a very good squad but for next year I am not sure. "I believe Ashley Cole is the best left back in world football at the moment." Just amazing!!! Ex Manager's, players, etc are all basically saying "Well because I know John Terry the usual FA rules don't apply to him.........because he's a good bloke & I know him!!"................Even though he made a racist comment!! Coming from the usual F##k WIT Chelski fans I could understand but from these people who know what the FA do or have to do.............Just beggars belief!!! There just the same type of twats as the fans I just mentioned!!! It's madness. It can't take much to see that what the FA charged Terry with is not the same as what the CPS pressed charges on. Different offence. Different sanctions. Different burdens of proof. Eurgh.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 3, 2012 11:38:55 GMT
Goal.com .. FA prepares to publish full reasons for John Terry punishment By Chris Myson | GOAL.com – 57 minutes ago.. . . Email Print ... . . . .View Photo. FA prepares to publish full reasons for John Terry punishment .. . . The Football Association is set to publish the full written reasons behind their decision to hand Chelsea captain John Terry a four-match suspension and a fine of £220,000. An independent FA regulatory commission found the defender guilty of using “abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour, which included a reference to ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race” to Anton Ferdinand in a charge dating back to Chelsea’s game against QPR on October 23 last year. The FA has confirmed to Goal.com that they hope to be publishing the full reasons behind the decision possibly as early as Wednesday and certainly before this weekend’s round of Premier League fixtures. English football’s governing body also stressed they had no direct control over exactly when the publication of the details will take place because the inquiry has been overseen by an independent QC from the outset. Once Terry has received the written judgement, he will have 14 days to decide whether he wants to mount an appeal. His four-match suspension will not kick in until he has decided whether he will contest the punishment after being found guilty of the disciplinary charge, which was brought by the FA under its own rules despite Terry being cleared of a racially aggravated public order offence at Westminster Magistrates Court in July. The 31-year-old was cleared in the court of law after claiming that he was trying to ascertain whether Ferdinand thought he had used the words in an offensive context earlier in the match, something which could not be disproved by lip readers or any independent witnesses. After the initial verdict was announced, Terry said he was disappointed the commission had reached a different conclusion to the criminal trial but insisted he would wait to receive and consider the written judgment before deciding on any appeal. Terry had already announced his international retirement from England duty prior to the hearing getting under way, arguing the FA had made his position “untenable”. Prior to the verdict, the FA’s independent four-man commission had heard evidence from Terry and Ferdinand themselves, as well as supportive testimony from Ashley Cole, who also gave evidence in court. Former England management team Fabio Capello and Franco Baldini both provided character references for Terry. The scale of the player’s punishment has been hotly debated since the announcement of the guilty verdict last Thursday, with Manchester United boss Sir Alex Ferguson one of a number of observers who felt he may have got off lightly. sg.sports.yahoo.com/news/fa-prepares-publish-full-reasons-john-terry-punishment-104000679--spt.html
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 3, 2012 11:53:32 GMT
Are these journalists all bloody stupid or what?
He was not cleared, he was found not guilty!
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Oct 3, 2012 13:05:40 GMT
I think JT was found not guilty in court because there was not enough evidence to prove he had said it in malice so his defense that he said it tongue in cheek or ironically or in response to being accused worked for him and he got off.
But the FA applied a sanction because he should not even have said that phrase in any context.
In my opinion, he could easily have said to Anton.."I never said that" or "I never called you anything" but he instead chose to say the words and for that he has been punished.
It's simple.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 3, 2012 14:10:49 GMT
I think JT was found not guilty in court because there was not enough evidence to prove he had said it in malice so his defense that he said it tongue in cheek or ironically or in response to being accused worked for him and he got off. But the FA applied a sanction because he should not even have said that phrase in any context. In my opinion, he could easily have said to Anton.."I never said that" or "I never called you anything" but he instead chose to say the words and for that he has been punished. It's simple. It's sort of that, yeah. In the court judgement, they made it explicitly clear that the idea of John Terry saying it sarcastically does not stand up to scientific rigour "in the cold light of day". But they have a different burden of proof - "beyond reasonable doubt". You can't prove he didn't, no matter how unlikely it is (e.g. if someone stole an ipod from my office and the only guy with access to the office was me and someone else who openly said he wanted my ipod, if they don't find footage of him taking it or find the ipod on him, it's his word against mine. It's obvious he took it, but you can't prove it). Whereas the FA have the burden of "on the balance of probabilities" and relies heavily not just on evidence but on the opinion of an expert panel. When the report comes out, we'll know more, but I wager it won't just be the fact he said the words - it'll be more likely that they say that considering the evidence, it is far, far more probable that (agreeing with the magistrates court here, that did not convict him - which the press just seem ignorant of) he said it in malice rather than sarcasm. The FA have the ability to convict on that, the court don't (on a more straight forward charge too - the FA charge and the CPS one aren't the same thing).
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Oct 3, 2012 16:35:01 GMT
I think JT was found not guilty in court because there was not enough evidence to prove he had said it in malice so his defense that he said it tongue in cheek or ironically or in response to being accused worked for him and he got off. But the FA applied a sanction because he should not even have said that phrase in any context. In my opinion, he could easily have said to Anton.."I never said that" or "I never called you anything" but he instead chose to say the words and for that he has been punished. It's simple. It's sort of that, yeah. In the court judgement, they made it explicitly clear that the idea of John Terry saying it sarcastically does not stand up to scientific rigour "in the cold light of day". But they have a different burden of proof - "beyond reasonable doubt". You can't prove he didn't, no matter how unlikely it is (e.g. if someone stole an ipod from my office and the only guy with access to the office was me and someone else who openly said he wanted my ipod, if they don't find footage of him taking it or find the ipod on him, it's his word against mine. It's obvious he took it, but you can't prove it). Whereas the FA have the burden of "on the balance of probabilities" and relies heavily not just on evidence but on the opinion of an expert panel. When the report comes out, we'll know more, but I wager it won't just be the fact he said the words - it'll be more likely that they say that considering the evidence, it is far, far more probable that (agreeing with the magistrates court here, that did not convict him - which the press just seem ignorant of) he said it in malice rather than sarcasm. The FA have the ability to convict on that, the court don't (on a more straight forward charge too - the FA charge and the CPS one aren't the same thing). Aye I see Bow, that report is going to be an interesting read!
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 4, 2012 16:10:38 GMT
What we don't have in English Court, hence "Terry Cleared" stories ITV THU 4 OCT 2012 Green charges not proven The Scottish Football Association judicial panel has delivered a verdict of not proven after Rangers chief executive Charles Green was accused of two charges of bringing the game into disrepute and failing to act in the best interest of football. www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2012-10-04/green-charges-not-proven/?
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 5, 2012 8:35:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 9:05:00 GMT
Only half way through so far but this has jumped out at me:
Accordingly, and contrary to media comment, although Mr. Terry himself admits that he directed the words “F***ing black c**t” at Mr. Ferdinand, that fact alone is not enough for him to be found guilty of Misconduct in this particular case. The FA accepted that it had to satisfy the 9 Commission that the words were spoken by Mr. Terry by way of an insult to Mr. Ferdinand.
Sounds like the FA have rejected the "sarcasm/forceful rejection" defence.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 9:13:58 GMT
"(vi) Where a disciplinary charge is subject to the civil standard of proof, there can be no objection in principle to a professional body bringing disciplinary proceedings against one of its members following an acquittal 15 of an identical, or similar, criminal charge (e.g. proceedings before the General Medical Council). Such disciplinary proceedings will be subject to the rules and regulations of the professional body. "
Rejection of Terry's counsel's argument regarding his magistrates court acquittal (i.e. the FA dismissing the argument that a criminal court acquittal does not render a professional body enquiry pointless).
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Oct 5, 2012 9:18:27 GMT
I assume that now that the FA's written explanation is now publically available that Terry must have it and his 14 days to appeal period during which he can still play is now starting, meaning in theory he can still play this weekend and next.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 9:42:17 GMT
(ii) 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 likely reaction would have been „I didn‟t‟ call you a black c**t‟, or at least to have prefaced the words “F***ing black c**t” with „are you saying that I called you?‟, or something similar. Instead, the words “black c**t” are simply repeated on Mr. Terry‟s case, with the word “F***ing” added at the beginning, and a question-mark at the end to be inferred. 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 “F***ing black c**t” as an insult, which is consistent with the fact that insults preceded and followed those words.
This is one of the main bits of MEAT of the argument. Pretty damning.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 9:53:52 GMT
The quote we've probably all been waiting for:
7.9 In the light of those findings, the Commission is quite satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no credible basis for Mr. Terry‟s defence that his use of the words “F***ing black c**t” 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
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 10:20:28 GMT
Section 7 sheds light on Ashley Cole's testimony and goes only slightly short of accusing him of altering his witness statements to make Terry's case seem more believable:
"Like the Commission, the issues that have arisen would have informed his view as to whether Mr. Cole‟s evidence was capable of providing reliable corroboration for Mr. Terry‟s case. On the evidence before us, the Commission has considerable doubts in that regard"
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Oct 5, 2012 10:30:29 GMT
Also has some pretty damning things to say about David Barnard.....
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 5, 2012 10:31:54 GMT
So, in a nutshell, he's a liar but not a racist then eh!
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Oct 5, 2012 10:36:23 GMT
So, in a nutshell, he's a liar but not a racist then eh! And he gave generously to charitable causes when asked, according to Sir David Richards. I am sure he was also kind to animals, and was always willing to help fallen women. But as we have mostly been saying all along it has Sweet FA to do with what he said and what he was charged with by the FA...
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 5, 2012 10:37:14 GMT
I assume that now that the FA's written explanation is now publically available that Terry must have it and his 14 days to appeal period during which he can still play is now starting, meaning in theory he can still play this weekend and next. He received them yesterday according to Sky so 14 days from then.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 10:38:39 GMT
So, in a nutshell, he's a liar but not a racist then eh! Essentially what the FA concludes, yes, sort of. The key findings by the FA are: 1. Terry said the words deliberately as an insult to Ferdinand 2. That they believe that whilst he did take part in deliberate racist abuse, he is not de facto "a racist" - or rather, you don't have to be "a racist" to say racist things. 3. That Bernard and Cole's testimony is highly debatable due to seemingly selective memory and changing of testimony to suit Terry's case, and therefore should not be taken into account. 4. That the magistrate's court case was not set up to regulate football and has a different burden of proof and is therefore useful and relevant but not a reason not to proceed - particularly due to the FA having new evidence that the court did not.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Oct 5, 2012 10:39:53 GMT
I've also done a breakdown of section 9 (explaining the sanction): Aggrevating factors: 1. High profile of playing for Chelsea and England 2. Undermines FA campaigns such as Kick it Out 3. Committed during a "high profile fixture" that was televised to people world wide 4. Significant impact on Ferdinand - not just from Terry but associated threats, abuse and going through court case. Mitigating factors: 1. Previous good disciplinary record 2. Already been through court at large effort and expense 3. FA says that whilst it's no excuse, suffered provocation from Ferdinand (quotes the court judgement and argues the 'heat of the moment' line of argument) 4. Good character references (repeats assertion that Terry is "not a racist" 5. Gives a lot of money to charity 6. He only made the insult once - which is "once too many" but was not a string of abuse compared to other "high profile" cases (clear reference to Suarez) 7. The abuse Ferdinand suffered off the field was deplorable but not the direct result of Terry's actions. On balance of those factor, the FA says 4 game ban, £220,000 "index linked" fine and to pay the Commision's costs is appropriate. (Yes I am aware that I don't have a life )
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 5, 2012 10:46:11 GMT
I've also done a breakdown of section 9 (explaining the sanction): Aggrevating factors: 1. High profile of playing for Chelsea and England 2. Undermines FA campaigns such as Kick it Out 3. Committed during a "high profile fixture" that was televised to people world wide 4. Significant impact on Ferdinand - not just from Terry but associated threats, abuse and going through court case. Mitigating factors: 1. Previous good disciplinary record 2. Already been through court at large effort and expense 3. FA says that whilst it's no excuse, suffered provocation from Ferdinand (quotes the court judgement and argues the 'heat of the moment' line of argument) 4. Good character references (repeats assertion that Terry is "not a racist" 5. Gives a lot of money to charity 6. He only made the insult once - which is "once too many" but was not a string of abuse compared to other "high profile" cases (clear reference to Suarez) 7. The abuse Ferdinand suffered off the field was deplorable but not the direct result of Terry's actions. On balance of those factor, the FA says 4 game ban, £220,000 "index linked" fine and to pay the Commision's costs is appropriate. (Yes I am aware that I don't have a life ) HA! Doing a fine job Bow, thanks. ;D Mitigation? No 1 is utter tripe, hardly Mr Line Acre is he! No 7 is quite an unbelievable assumption. He got death threats and had to move to a safe house just because we played chels*** then!!!! Unreal.
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 5, 2012 10:47:45 GMT
Remember someone sent Ferdinand a bullet: That's quite a threat
|
|
|
Post by Zamoraaaah on Oct 5, 2012 11:03:50 GMT
Remember someone sent Ferdinand a bullet: That's quite a threat Indeed and remember that one of the reasons for Suarez increased ban to 8 games was because Evra suffered abuse by social media. Still think the FA bottled this one. The severity of the fine should have been matched in terms of ban.
|
|
|
Post by superckat on Oct 5, 2012 11:25:28 GMT
Remember someone sent Ferdinand a bullet: That's quite a threat Indeed and remember that one of the reasons for Suarez increased ban to 8 games was because Evra suffered abuse by social media. Still think the FA bottled this one. The severity of the fine should have been matched in terms of ban. Yep agreed
|
|
|
Post by Macmoish on Oct 5, 2012 11:26:43 GMT
Wonder if any of the Terry Defenders or apologists - be they Chelsea Fans or other ex-players and managers will read and apologize for their defense?
|
|
|
Post by Jon Doeman on Oct 5, 2012 12:26:37 GMT
Ashley Cole @therealac3
Hahahahaa, well done #fa I lied did I, #BUNCHOFtwatS
|
|
|
Post by haqpr1963 on Oct 5, 2012 12:33:26 GMT
Ashley Cole @therealac3 Hahahahaa, well done #fa I lied did I, #BUNCHOFtwatS Just the sort of considered response I would expect from Cashley. Does that constitute a breach of the FA rules?
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Oct 5, 2012 12:34:31 GMT
So, in a nutshell, he's a liar but not a racist then eh! And he gave generously to charitable causes when asked, So did Jimmy Saville!
|
|
|
Post by RoryTheRanger on Oct 5, 2012 12:37:08 GMT
Ashley Cole gives footballers a bad name.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Oct 5, 2012 12:38:21 GMT
Ashley Cole @therealac3 Hahahahaa, well done #fa I lied did I, #BUNCHOFtwatS Just the sort of considered response I would expect from Cashley. Does that constitute a breach of the FA rules? It does indeed, a fine on it's way to Cashley Ole!!!!
|
|