Terry banned for four games

[Lazie]

John Terry has been banned for four games after a Football Association commission found him guilty of using racist language towards QPR defender Anton Ferdinand during a match at Loftus Road in October.
\

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...earing?cc=5901

[Lazie]

Only 4 games? This has to be a joke.

[HL]

I am sure you read the piece by Paul Marin--commenting on the behavior of the fans during the Liverpool v. Man U game.

Racism, bigotry and other carnal acts are part of the european football system. The leadership (management) is not immune:

[Zeppo]

Only 4 games?

Half the amount that Luis Suarez was banned for.

[Paul Marin]

Half the amount that Luis Suarez was banned for.

But the fine (£220k) was almost 6x what Suarez was charged.

[Paul Marin]

John Terry has been banned for four games after a Football Association commission found him guilty of using racist language towards QPR defender Anton Ferdinand during a match at Loftus Road in October.
\

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...earing?cc=5901

Is there a report published like the one they did for the innocent Saint Suarez?

[Gamma]

my my my ..... how come zeppo overlook that in his commentary?

[Paul Marin]

my my my ..... how come zeppo overlook that in his commentary?

True him nuh brite (fair, impartial and dispassionate) like me.

[Gamma]

whatEVERRRR ....

[Paul Marin]

whatEVERRRR ....

LOL!! GWEY!!

[Paul Marin]

Barristah - explain this to me...this is from the FA Rule Book...

In any proceedings before a Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commissionshall not
be obliged to follow the strict rules of evidence, may admit such evidence as it thinks fit and
accord such evidence such weight as it thinks appropriate in all the circumstances. 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.

How is it possible to have "clear and convincing evidence" refuting the court's findings unless it was new? If it was evidence that the court already saw (i.e. not new), does this mean that the FA can interpret prior evidence differently from the courts?

[Gamma]

the standards. they can use the SAME evidence and come up with a different verdict because of the standard of proof. it might not make it to beyond a reasonable doubt but would be sufficient on a balance of the probabilities.

not it would not necessarily mean that itis interpreted. but if it is inconclusive on the BARD standard, it might be sufficient on the balance of probablities i.e. more likely than not standard.

[Paul Marin]

the standards. they can use the SAME evidence and come up with a different verdict because of the standard of proof. it might not make it to beyond a reasonable doubt but would be sufficient on a balance of the probabilities.

not it would not necessarily mean that itis interpreted. but if it is inconclusive on the BARD standard, it might be sufficient on the balance of probablities i.e. more likely than not standard.

But they say they will accept the criminal courts findings UNLESS there is evidence not to. My question is, does that have to be new evidence? If you are saying that it can the the same evidence the court looked at, but interpreted under the BOP standard, then the passage is poorly worded AND introduces a whole different perspective on the fairness of their approach especially with regard to timing.

I am assuming they had the same evidence that the court had before the court case. So if that evidence was sufficient to charge him prior to the court case, why not do so immediately? If that evidence was INSUFFICIENT, then the evidence they are using either had to come during or after the court case.

My problem with all of this is not that I don't think Terry should be charged, it is the way the FA goes about it. Do you know any court in the world where there is a 99.5% conviction rate other than the FA? Something is wrong when you see that happening. The players can't all be that wrong.

Terry clearly used the words B-C, so I don't know why they didn't charge him immediately especially knowing that the court case would be using a different standard. I will read the report when they publish it.

[Gamma]

it does not necessarily mean new evidence.

but if you look at the SAME evidence and apply a different standard then the result is different. an example is the criminal and civil trials involving OJ simpson and the rodney king policemen.

if they had found him guilty in the criminal courts, do you think the FA would have charged him?

[Jangle]

Bwoy if me a go get stranded in a hot desert, I would want to be stuck with you. The way yuh relentless, me strongly believe you could wring water out a rock stone to rhatid. At least me would have a fighting chance for survival.