In a decision that enraged Liverpool fans, Chelsea defender John Terry was recently found not guilty of a racially aggravated public order offence against QPR's Anton Ferdinand. The decision seems inexplicable in light of the damaging VIDEO FOOTAGE of the incident, but Terry will surely not be so lucky when the FA delivers its verdict, and former Newcastle and West Ham star Shaka Hislop believes that Chelsea's captain deserves a punishment that 'far exceeds' that handed down to Liverpool's Luis Suarez.
Discussing the Terry-Ferdinand incident on ESPN last night, Hislop argued:
"I think Terry being proven 'not guilty' in court had more to do with a lack of evidence more than anything, but that won't hamper the FA's disciplinary hearing.
"What Terry said is there for all to see, and I think the FA will take a very heavy-handed approach to prove that they're intent on stamping out any racism in the game.
"I think Terry can expect a ban that far exceeds that of Luis Suarez, and if he gets less than 12 games I'll be surprised".
I totally agree with Hislop here:
* Unlike with Suarez-Evra, there is absolutely no ambiguity over what Terry said to Ferdinand.
* The burden of proof in an FA disciplinary hearing is 'balance of probability', a much lower standard than criminal cases, which means it will be easier to establish Terry's guilt.
* There are no cultural differences to muddy the waters here; the video footage is damning, and that should be enough.
Contrary to public opinion, I defended Suarez in more detail and at greater length than anyone else (either on or offline) during the Evra situation. I still feel that he deserved the 8-game ban for using the word 'negro' on a football pitch (something he admitted), but there were many aspects of the FA's final report that were just totally unfair, and in my view, Suarez should've appealed.
Further reading:
* John Terry and Luis Suarez: A Tale of blatant FA bias and contradiction
* Suarez-Evra hearing: Potential bias and the Man United connection
* FA REPORT: How Dalglish, Comolli and Kuyt contradicted Suarez's story
* How Liverpool could've stopped the Suarez-Evra fiasco
* How the FA Withheld vital evidence from Liverpool
* Unproven, character-killing facts: Why Suarez must appeal
Jaimie Kanwar
Discussing the Terry-Ferdinand incident on ESPN last night, Hislop argued:
"I think Terry being proven 'not guilty' in court had more to do with a lack of evidence more than anything, but that won't hamper the FA's disciplinary hearing.
"What Terry said is there for all to see, and I think the FA will take a very heavy-handed approach to prove that they're intent on stamping out any racism in the game.
"I think Terry can expect a ban that far exceeds that of Luis Suarez, and if he gets less than 12 games I'll be surprised".
I totally agree with Hislop here:
* Unlike with Suarez-Evra, there is absolutely no ambiguity over what Terry said to Ferdinand.
* The burden of proof in an FA disciplinary hearing is 'balance of probability', a much lower standard than criminal cases, which means it will be easier to establish Terry's guilt.
* There are no cultural differences to muddy the waters here; the video footage is damning, and that should be enough.
Contrary to public opinion, I defended Suarez in more detail and at greater length than anyone else (either on or offline) during the Evra situation. I still feel that he deserved the 8-game ban for using the word 'negro' on a football pitch (something he admitted), but there were many aspects of the FA's final report that were just totally unfair, and in my view, Suarez should've appealed.
Further reading:
* John Terry and Luis Suarez: A Tale of blatant FA bias and contradiction
* Suarez-Evra hearing: Potential bias and the Man United connection
* FA REPORT: How Dalglish, Comolli and Kuyt contradicted Suarez's story
* How Liverpool could've stopped the Suarez-Evra fiasco
* How the FA Withheld vital evidence from Liverpool
* Unproven, character-killing facts: Why Suarez must appeal
Jaimie Kanwar
Yet Suarez, who is quarter black (Grandfather is black), is according to the whole of England ?! And yet Rio (whose half black) can easily be excused by your logic. What's the difference? (I'm not being funny: I'm seriously after an answer).
ReplyDeleterather deal with a thief, than a liar.
ReplyDeleteIt's cultural differences - in Latin American culture for people to address other's of "darker" descent as "negro", "negrito" etc. It's not meant to be offensive, but mere fact. I realize that this is totally offensive in the UK but that's because here people are more sensitive to it given the past of racism, whereas in South America it's not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteSuarez admitted to using the word naygro the Spanish word for black. The same word the Messi used towards Drenthe when he said hello. It appears that one group has an issue with the language and culture of the other group, that I would call racism.
ReplyDeleteI read the report thanks, so I know Suarez's explanation for using the word 'negro', I was merely stating that he did admit to saying the word 'negro' as some posters are saying he didn't use the word (i.e. I did not say how he meant the word 'negro', I did not say he meant it in a offensive manner, etc) but thanks anyway.
ReplyDeleteNo he did not use the word 'negro'. The whole conversation was in Spanish and so this should have been judged in that language, culture and meaning.
ReplyDeleteAs per later press clearly Messi did not racially abuse Drenthe and therefore it's likely Suarez did not abuse Evra The Press continues to use 'negro' to exacerbate the one sided attack on Suarez. However both the FA and Media failed to see the original abuse aimed at Suarez was racist and no action was taken. The FA is taking the same action regarding abuse between Terry and A. Ferdinand ignoring the other players abusive comments. Both should be charged.
When a tweet is racist and in the public forum it is not just to an individual but the whole world. That is why is is racist. Just like if you went into the street and shouted a racist word at your mate in earshot of others who could be offended.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that you use sounds sensible however this assumes the process used by the FA against Suarez was fair, impartial and undeniable. Suarez's trial by probability of an accuser who changed his story several times was entirely different to the fair criminal trial Terry had.
ReplyDeleteThe FA said in its report a number of criteria were necessary to find Suarez culpable but then completely ignored the very issues it had pointed out. They ignored the contradictions in Evra's story and were able to accept hearsay. They would not hear from Hernandez who had referred to Evra as 'negrito' on the web as he as a native speaker could not be considered an expert but took the views of general Spanish, but not Rio Platense, experts.
It was as if, as in many tribunals, a decision had been taken that Suarez was guilty and they would write the facts up to show that even though there was no shred of proof.
The process itself was unfair and the standard of evidence open to question and it was backed by such a large one sided press that it was impossible to get real justice as anyone supporting Suarez, including black individuals, were condoning racism.
According to the ruling given against Suarez, Terry must be guilty because he made a reference to colour in an argument.
But let us see whether Terry is dealt with in the same way.
Erm, Suarez disagrees with you over what he said. For the millionth time, it clearly says in the FA report that Suarez himself admitted using the word 'negro' (read the report for what Suarez has to SAY for HIMSELF, even if you disagree with the outcome and sorry, I didn't bother to read after the first sentence as it has nothing to do with what my initial reply was about). This is getting repetitive, so I'll leave it there. Cheerio.
ReplyDeleteYou have clearly stated the argument most Suarez supporters have. The commission claimed a high standard of proof would be necessary and then produced no proof. It said it would take Suarez's inability to fully understand English into account and then made a judgement that Suarez's story wasn't consistent. Would anyone facing trial in a foreign language be consistent?
ReplyDeleteIt accepted hearsay evidence as fact and in every case were there was a dispute of fact such a 10 x, found in favour of Evra, despite evidence to the contrary. The report stated at the outset that no other charge would be considered, so Evra's racist comments re 'Sud----' were never dealt with. It found Suarez was not racist because there was significant evidence to the contrary from his dealings and support of poor black children.
Do you not, in all your confidence of Suarez's guilt, question why the FA refused to hear Hernandez, why the original notes of the referee were missing why Giggs word was taken as fact but not Kuyts and why Commoli's evidence was accepted as fact when it pointed to Suarez's guilt but not when it was in his favour. If those issues had happened at a trial in a Crown court and a Policeman had lost his notes would you not have at least some reservations? If you don't please get yourself excused from Jury service.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that Evra was talking to Suarez in SPAINSH. He told Suarez "la concha de tu Hermana"- (your sister's cunt). Suarez responed in Spainsh: "por que, negro?"- (why black (man)?). But the FA assumed that he was replying to Evra's SPANISH conversation, in ENGLISH.
ReplyDeleteThe Evra-Suarez conflict-conversation was staarted by Evra in SPANISH. Suarez replied in SPANISH, but the FA assumed he was talking in ENGLISH. Negro in SPANISH means "Black (man)".
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that Evra and Ferguson initially accused Suarez of calling him a "n*gger". That is what they reported to the referee, after the game. Evra was talking to Suarez in SPANISH and he knows very well that negro just means "black (man)" and not "n*gger". But he milked this for all it was worth.
ReplyDeleteRio WAS racist because he is calling a Black man, White on the inside. The term is COMPLETELY racist to BOTH blacks and whites. No room for Cultural differences in this case because Rio was born and raised in England.
ReplyDelete