The Suarez vs Evra case was different, Evra made a direct accusation and gave a consistent account of what was said, Suarez account was inconsistent and on the basis of what is more likely the FA panel chose to believe Evra.
With Terry, Ferdinand nor any other player is making any accusation or making any claims as to what Terry said. The video as posted on Youtube is incomplete and out of context. Terry may or may not be a lying toe-rag, but where is the rest of the video or witness account to give the whole context and contradict Terry's account?
Without a counter claim to contradict Terry, how can the case be decided by the FA panel according to what is more likely? As the evidence stands, it's just a pure guess. How can that be right?
We're assuming he will be found guilty of course, but it is possible that the FA are going to go through the motions and reach the conclusion that there is nothing to contradict Terry and therefore not punish him, and publish the result of their enquiry as they did with the Suarez case. However if the FA do nothing then they will probably be crucified for showing bias and ignoring possible racist behaviour.
None of this post is entirely true, but I believe it contain some pearls that the press have reported incorrectly and what has become the accepted narrative of the Suarez and Terry cases.
1) Evra made several allegations, none of which were consistent with one another. From his first "He called me a ****** 10 times" to once - "he pinched my skin and said he doesn't talk to ******s". His account was taken as "consistent" and "reliable" by the FA as he was able, under cross examination to recount events consistently with his last statement, not his initial accusation. Suarez on the other hand, who speaks very little English, naturally found it difficult to answer questions on cross examination about how his actions were "conciliatory" as his statement said and was thus deemed an "unreliable" witness. Consistency and reliability in this context has very little to do with who or what they believed happened, but what evidence each gave that was helpful with reaching a conclusion compatible with the FA's rulebook. Evra's evidence was simple. Saurez's depended on context and linguistic nuance.
2) Suarez was not found guilty of racism, racist abuse, or any other criminality. He was found guilty of "using abusive and / or insulting language whilst making reference to skin colour". Now you could argue that this is point based purely in semantics, but it isn't. The fact is that the FA standards, both in terms of the burden of proof AND in terms of action are different from the legal standard in British Law.
Those given retrospective bans for violent behaviour are not subject to the same rigours as those tried for common assault. Yet they are sometimes almost identical in nature. Protagonists aren't subjected to the full force of the law as it's rarely in the public interest. Instead, a few fellas sit round and watch some TV footage and hand out a ban. Suarez wasn't convicted of being racist anymore than those banned for violent behavior are convicted of common assault. Despite what the press wrote. It's internal to the FA's jurisdiction and entirely specific to football and the FAs rulebook.
In my opinion, the CPS could not have prosecuted Suarez for racist abuse because, other than one mans word, there's no evidence of it. That's despite their being 30 high def TV cameras zoomed into a dead ball situation, a flashpoint where surely most of them were right on Suarez and it taking place inside the goal mouth where there are several microphones present. A more closely monitored stage is difficult to imagine.
Yet the FA chose that on the balance of probabilities Suarez broke their own rules. NOT the law. Their own rules.
As such, Terry's court case has very little to do with the FA's charge. He's not been charged with being racist. He's been charged with using abusive and/or insulting language with reference to skin colour. There is far more damning evidence of him doing so than there is of Suarez.
The big question is do they allow Terry use context as the basis for a successful defence? They didn't allow Suarez to do so. I think Terry would have struggled to argue in a court of law that under the balance of probabilities, his outburst was a sarcastic retort. I see how that forms a reasonable doubt, but more likely than him just being generally offensive and not caring what he said at that moment in time? Unlikely.
