If people think he's done a racism then they're not freaks for wanting him to get punished for it. If you believe he was only paraphrasing what he thought he heard Ferdinand repeat what he said, based on something he never said, fair play, I won't say you're a freak but you have to say it's quite a bizarre tale ..
John Terry Racism Trial
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
- Status
Chelsea fan accusing others of lacking objectivity, good one 
.
Don't buy his story for a second, it just seems beyond improbable. If he was so insensed as to ask the question and actually repeat the words, seems strange for it to be a rhetorical question. Makes no sense to be so outraged but then not make sure you were heard let alone go over and demand an answer/explanation. Maybe I have to rewatch the tape but from what I remember he runs off and gets on with the game. I think I was just called a racist, I'm so offended I can't help but repeat it, can't be arsed going getting an answer though, odd.
Saying that I can understand the verdict, he's not so much proved his innocence as the evidence could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Teflon John gets away with it again.
.Don't buy his story for a second, it just seems beyond improbable. If he was so insensed as to ask the question and actually repeat the words, seems strange for it to be a rhetorical question. Makes no sense to be so outraged but then not make sure you were heard let alone go over and demand an answer/explanation. Maybe I have to rewatch the tape but from what I remember he runs off and gets on with the game. I think I was just called a racist, I'm so offended I can't help but repeat it, can't be arsed going getting an answer though, odd.
Saying that I can understand the verdict, he's not so much proved his innocence as the evidence could not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Teflon John gets away with it again.
My initial comment was in general, not (just) in here.
I was reading some tosh on ***cafe earlier and it was just cringeworthy.
There is no concrete proof that he racially abused anyone, that is clear no matter how much you hate the man & you'd think that was a good thing but there seems to be plenty who'd rather the opposite.
Where is FrankJH by the way?
I was actually responding to simulatorman and assumed he meant people on here.
There's not enough proof to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it will be fun to see what happens with the FA and their "balance of probability" though.
If he gets found guilty by the FA after being cleared in an actual court, the FA are going to open themselves up for all sorts of criticism.
There's not enough proof to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it will be fun to see what happens with the FA and their "balance of probability" though.
If he gets found guilty by the FA after being cleared in an actual court, the FA are going to open themselves up for all sorts of criticism.
They'd be wise to not touch it because even if they clear him as well, people will ask how based on the balance of probability was Suarez guilty and Terry innocent? If anything Terry's guilt is more probable than Suarez's.
I think the verdict is best all round, it does seem like there was quite a lot that were waiting for the chance to call him a racist, which is what he would have been labelled. Whatever you think of him it does seem a little unfair that there's nothing to differentiate an active racist from someone that snapped and crossed the line in one instance.
I think the verdict is best all round, it does seem like there was quite a lot that were waiting for the chance to call him a racist, which is what he would have been labelled. Whatever you think of him it does seem a little unfair that there's nothing to differentiate an active racist from someone that snapped and crossed the line in one instance.
Last edited:
The FA (and higher governing bodies) are a law unto themselves as we all know so they'll just do what they want.
They're under an awful lot of pressure at the moment by people like Clarke Carlise & Garth Crooks who want blood for some reason and the FA will proably deliver.
They'll come up with some charge that he was guilty of which is fair enough under their rules, as long as they treat anyone else involved in the case similarly ie, if it's bringing the game in to disrepute then A. Ferdinand should be culpable as well.
You do know that Suarez actually admitted to calling Evra the things he was accused of doing right?
That's the difference here, Suarez is guilty by his own admission of the charges brought against him, Terry has been found not guilty.
You do know that Terry has admitted using the words and was also caught on camera doing so, right?
The intent was the focal point of both cases.
Oh no he didn't.
You do know that Terry has admitted using the words and was also caught on camera doing so, right?
The intent was the focal point of both cases.
Of course, are you saying Terry's guilty because he used the words he's admitted to?
Why is his guilt more probable than Suarez's?
Because I find his story less likely for the reasons I explained above. That's not to say I thought the excuses from Suarez were much more likely, but the Terry case is more straightforward. Do you believe Terry said those words by way of questioning Ferdinand, or not. I don't.
I also said the verdict is for the best, what I believe and what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law are two different things.
It's a common mistake. I've lost count of the amount of people that claimed Suarez admitted to it.
Suarez admitted to using the word negro in a conversation in Spanish. As it would be in any language, the context in which the word black was used was what was crucial. Suarez and Evra had different version of events as to how the word was used. Suarez's version of events was deemed to be non offensive by the linguistic experts, Evra's version of events was deemed offensive.
Firstly I think JT is an awesome leader & player and am glad he's the spearhead of the club I support.
Then in answer to your question as unbiased as I can (see above), after witnessing everything he's been subjected to in the past regarding his family & private life in the media & on the pitch/stands (most pertinently & largely BS) no, I don't think he's stupid enough to insult someone so obviously in a way that would be so widely broadcast.
Did he ever say what context he used it in?
Both Suarez and Evra version of events were included in the FA's report.
They can give a different verdict because they require far less proof to find him guilty than was required in this trial.
The FA work on the balance of probabilities - in other words, if they believe that somebody probably done something, that's enough for them to be found guilty. Probably wasn't enough for Terry to have been found guilty today, it needed to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
- Status