Racism in Football

[Kenneth]

Seemed like a weak case. He probably was guilty though, so I expect the FA inquiry to be quite different.

[CJ]

Correct result. You can't convict someone with this kind of doubt. Burden of proof Suarez should have had.

[baitman]

Seemed like a weak case. He probably was guilty though, so I expect the FA inquiry to be quite different.

the fa will just say, as he has been found not guilty, there is no case to answer

[CJ]

Seemed like a weak case. He probably was guilty though, so I expect the FA inquiry to be quite different.

should be.

remember context doesnt matter according the FA

[CJ]

i think the fact that Anton didnt hear him say it at the time is where the case falls down

[BrooklynRed]

I assume John Terry's acquittal was sarcasm.

[RichC]

it didnt help that suarez admitted he said negrito, as he thought it was perfectly acceptable. he should have had some better advice from the clubs lawyers

A court of law is different to the FA, Terry admitted saying FBC and yet wasn't found guilty however using that language with the FA should result in a ban a la Suarez

[baitman]

A court of law is different to the FA, Terry admitted saying FBC and yet wasn't found guilty however using that language with the FA should result in a ban a la Suarez

lets hope so

[Kenneth]

Correct result. You can't convict someone with this kind of doubt. Burden of proof Suarez should have had.

From my admittedly somewhat out of date experience, you can, and it happens every day. I did work experience with a criminal law chambers and it really opened my eyes.

[Gingawaria]

Exactly, it's the context in which the term was used. There was too much doubt over whether he said it in a derogatory manner or was merely repeating what he thought he'd been accused of.

However, the FA seem to have their own rules and ignored the context when it came to Suarez so by their own standards, Terry should be banned for at least the same amount of games as Suarez.

[Maxiedge]

I think, ideally, what the FA would like to do is to brush this all under the carpet and just go with the courts decision.

However, because of the Suarez incident and media pressure, I feel they have no choice but to eventually ban Terry for the same number of games.

[CJ]

the fa are going to look silly as you cant ban someone for repeating what they were accused off in a questioning manner. that seems to have been part of the defence.

so context clearly does matter and they will probably admit as much

[Kenneth]

I can't back this up objectively, but if terry had been joe bloggs appearing in Widnes magistrates court with a local barrister, he'd likely be found guilty. His defence was weak and was only made credible by an expensive lawyer.

[Pablo]

Correct result. You can't convict someone with this kind of doubt. Burden of proof Suarez should have had.

Nail on the head I think

We're all hypocrits if we think it's ok to find someone guilty when there's reasonable doubt (there just about was here). We all were up in arms that Suarez wasn't afforded the same benefit of the doubt.

Even if it is John Terry

[spud_gun]

5Live currently interviewing a Chelsea fan outside the court called Sonny. He's brought his dog Terry along to support 'JT'

fannies.