Racism is still racism though?
Mind you 8 games is retarded in the first place as for trying to end someone's career is only 3 games or assaulting them, that and no evidence
John Terry Racism Trial
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
- Status
Racism is still racism though?
Mind you 8 games is retarded in the first place as for trying to end someone's career is only 3 games or assaulting them, that and no evidence
Do I sense a bitter Liverpool fan?
I doubt an 8 match ban would be applicable here, as it wasn't on the pitch (I imagine on the pitch face to face behaviour is considered worse than Twitter, but who knows, it's the FA).
Here are the remarks in question:
On the pitch, off the pitch, that's irrelevant. It's misconduct, same as bringing the game into disrepute.
And yes, I am a Liverpool fan, though that again is irrelevant. Though it's interesting that you think an 8 match ban would be harsh... because it wasn't on the pitch...
It's mostly because there is a huge focus on racism at the moment, worldwide. The FA will want to look as if they're taking a very harsh stance on it.
Face-to-face to one person vs broadcast to millions on Twitter, including young children.
Both bad, for different reasons... but I wouldn't say ones less bad than the other.
Quite true, it will be interesting to see what the FA decide to do.
On the pitch, off the pitch, that's irrelevant. It's misconduct, same as bringing the game into disrepute.
And yes, I am a Liverpool fan, though that again is irrelevant. Though it's interesting that you think an 8 match ban would be harsh... because it wasn't on the pitch...
Ha, that wasn't what I said. If you want to discuss things, I suggest you drop the silly, bitter attitude, otherwise I won't waste my time.
Drop the patronising tone or likewise. So then, 8 match ban? Harsh or not? Or merely not applicable?
Which makes it even more retarded that it is just a 'phase'
Can we get a ban on using
like calling someone a troll, nothing makes you look more of a ******* than using thatIf the FA believe he knowingly used a racist term, then it probably wouldn't be harsh, no.
I'd also expect Manchester United to tell him to stop tweeting until he retires.
Can we get a ban on using
Indeed.
It's a short and crude forum post, but I still think I'm close enough with the key points on the differences of the circumstances, and I wasn't commenting on the burden of proof civil vs criminal. I do however think that the FA have a similar responsibility relating to burden of proof in their assessment, even if they are not actually being held to the same standard as a civil court.
FYI I don't want to appear as though I am defending Terry as such, he is amongst those footballers I dislike and one of the (many) England players that make it difficult to follow the national team with real enthusiasm. What I'm objecting to is the apparent witch hunt and gross unfairness in penalising players on the basis that they're hated (even if that hatred is justified) And Terry's defence does leave room for doubt over his claims over what happened, but nobody is able to support the belief that Terry could be lying - it is just an assumption or guess that he is lying, and it's not an impartial guess because Terry is a hate figure, and that is more reason not to punish him.
I think he will be found in breach of the rules and banned, as much or longer than Suarez, and I won't be too sorry for Terry if that happens. Anton Ferdinand should be charged and banned as well for the stuff he said, maybe for 1-2 games.
You may be correct on how the FA rules are applied, but to dismiss context entirely is wrong, is that really what the FA are doing? If they are then I would question whether it is legal for them to do so, in civil and contract law there is a requirement for fairness and reasonableness. If the FA are unreasonable then surely Terry or any other player has a right to bring a civil case challenging the legitimacy of the punishment - I know FIFA have rules to say that clubs and players should accept the rules and must not bring civil case, but that itself is inherently unfair and it will only take one successful litigation to end that rule forever.
You'll have to forgive that I didn't study the FA report, but Suarez can argue context all day long, but if he did indeed say "I don't talk to negroes" this is a very racist use of the words and there is no way to mitigate it - he reduced a human being to a skin colour as a way to define and belittle them. It's no better or worse than saying "I don't talk to blacks." It's unacceptable.
It's a stretch but, if there was some instance where the question was asked "who is Patrice Evra" it might be acceptable to say in a purely descriptive way: "he's the black guy in the group over there" and if someone said "he's the negro in that group over there," believing that negro is interchangeable with black in this circumstance you might allow some defence that there wasn't an intent to be racist - although I firmly believe we would still say this is racist and challenge the person that said it, and actually I don't think it could be accepted as a defence because if it was a language barrier I'm not sure you would just say "negro" - if you were being descriptive you would say "hombre negro?" (or whatever the Spanish would be to say that "black man/guy," as opposed to just "that black")
Bit of a ramble, but it comes to this: with the words "I don't talk to negroes" there was no possible acceptable context for Suarez to argue, he did by his choice of words reduce Evra to nothing except being black.
Terry has a defence that, if we believe him, then he didn't reduce Ferdinand in this way. The context is different and it should matter to the FA if they're rules are fair and legitimate. Why should it be any different than any other workplace? How far do you ignore context? if the video of Terry showed more and it was clear that he was arguing back and saying "do you think I called you a ******* black ****?" should he still be fined and banned in that circumstance? If context doesn't matter at all then an awful lot of journalists need to be suspended and fined by their employers, and everyone commenting on the story or repeating the words at work should also be fined and suspended.
So I disagree with those who say this is more clear cut that Suarez, Suarez definitively used racist language in a racist way (unless you think Evra is a liar and made a false accusation)
Last edited:
Don't forget that he'll also be asking for Rio to be reinstated as England captain. Anything else?
Suarez' ban was laughable, Evra is a proper tool (and I'm a Man Utd fan), the John Terry/Ferdinand row was farcical and now this.
Does anyone really care about this, other than now someone's been charged? Is anyone actually complaining about the comment? No more than childish insults/ribbing/banter and its being blown out of all proportion and how the hell is it bringing the game into disrepute?! Its making me despise footballers and football in general, and I never thought I'd say that. But one thing is for sure, the FA are a joke. I certainly despise them.
Does anyone really care about this, other than now someone's been charged? Is anyone actually complaining about the comment? No more than childish insults/ribbing/banter and its being blown out of all proportion and how the hell is it bringing the game into disrepute?! Its making me despise footballers and football in general, and I never thought I'd say that. But one thing is for sure, the FA are a joke. I certainly despise them.
First point yes there is.
Second Evra didn't make a false accusation about Suarez saying something but context matters and the fact Evra consistently changed what he heard '10times.
Yeah, I agree, the FA panels should be fair. I'm just of the opinion that they're not. I expect them to be largely unfair and decisions to be arbitary and based one whatever the prevailing political wind requires. And I agree that there should be some recourse to appeal to a higher authority, but there is not. Appealing to CAS is prohibited by threat of expulsion from the Premier League.
Again though, your post shows how deeply coverage of the Suarez incident is ingrained in people's minds. Only Evra says Saurez said he wouldn't talk to him because he was black. Suarez vehemently denied that. But everyone thinks that's what he did, because that's what Evra said he did and the FA banned Suarez for saying "negro" so whatever Evra says must be true. That's not the case. The FA's findings don't wholly support Evra's account either and there's simply no evidence of Evra's allegations.
I'm not trying to nitpick on your posts or anything, I just used it as an example of this... The press narrative of the whole debacle was horribly skewed. It was a witch hunt, which intensified further after the FA's report. It's become so people recall what was written and reported as reality rather than actually happened. Especially regarding Evra's continual changing of his statement and his pre-hearing access to evidence (access not afforded to Suarez). It's no surprise he eventually came up with a statement that fitted and would be considered as reliable.
It will be interesting to compare how Terry and Ferdinand's cases are dealt with by the media as well as the FA.
Last edited:
just to be clear, are you disputing that Suarez said "I don't talk to negroes" or are you saying that there is a context in which "I don't talk to negroes" is acceptable?
Really, why so?
Because I'm not defending him, some other people have just jumped to that conclusion.
That was his 2nd explanation, his 1st was that he was just being sarcastic which was later removed.
It's obvious he knew what it meant from his first reply, he just changed it when he realised what a hypocritical fool he'd been.
Wise words.
Just looked it up on Urban Dictionary, and there are three definitions. The first definition is the racist use we all think, and the definition was created in 2005. The other two alternative definitions are childish and may be amusing but have nothing to do with being fake or racism. Anyone who wants to read it will have to find it for themselves as it's probably not appropriate to post or link.
Oh god no, Sir Alex doesn't care about England, he'd rather all United players be excluded from the national team.
He's a bit dim Rio isn't he. Can't buy his excuse about choc ice meaning fake, doesn't make an ounce of sense that.
An idiot is an idiot, if you have one at your club (which you probably do) it's not really worth defending them purely because he wears your shirt.
An idiot is an idiot, if you have one at your club (which you probably do) it's not really worth defending them purely because he wears your shirt.
- Status