The Mirror referred to black players, isn't that racist by the FA's definition?!
-
-
Every Spanish speaking person is obviously a racist.Comment
-
In an ideal world, terry will appeal and get his ban/fine immediately doubledComment
-
I wouldn't read The Mirror, it's not much better than The Sun. I was appalled when they printed a photo of Luis underneath the word RACIST in big bold letters. I expected them to do the same with John Terry, otherwise I would have to conclude that The Mirror is a racist newspaper. Headlines are headlines for a reason. The FA charged John Terry with the same offence as Suarez, but the headline states "Kicked in the teeth". I can see now how foolish I was to assume that the headline didn't refer to John Terry, but all the black players in the Premier League. How silly of me.Comment
-
Headlines are used to capture attention and sell the paper, quite often only loosly based on the actual story itself; basically they're just trying to sell papers/ad space.
What's going to sell more, a headline of Racist or the Kicked in the Teeth version with how the the FA found him guilty whereas the courts of law found him innoncent.
I'm not saying it's right but thats the media for you.Comment
-
The pre match 5 live covered was vomit inducing. All about Terry putting problems behind him, game face on, all the sort of nonsensical that makes him seem like a brave warrior and not a foul mouthed adulterous bung takerFootball without Origi is nothingComment
-
-
It's amazing how Anton Ferdinand has become more vilified than John Terry, it just shows how manipulative the media are. I have some sympathy for John Terry (even though I think he's a c***), but the FA process stinks. I doubt Chelsea supporters had any sympathy for Suarez, maybe now they do?Comment
-
Not quite true from Football365. They couldn't prove intent, hence there was some doubt, therefore he got off.Terry was cleared in July by Westminster Magistrates Court of uttering the words as an insult.Comment
-
Football without Origi is nothingComment
-
Ex-England skipper Terry was found guilty of using racist language towards QPR defender Anton Ferdinand by an independent FA panel earlier this week, but is awaiting the full written judgment before deciding whether to appeal against a four-match ban and a fine of £220,000.
The 31-year-old has always protested his innocence and was found not guilty of a racially-aggravated public order offence in a criminal trial in July.
Terry retired from international football last Sunday night ahead of the hearing, claiming the FA's decision to pursue a case against him after he was cleared in court made his position in the national team "untenable".
He has represented his country in the 11 months since the incident, though - something which may not have happened had Triesman still been at the FA helm.
"I take a fairly hard view and I think we should have zero tolerance," he told BBC Radio Five's Sportsweek programme.
Asked if that meant Terry should not have played for England with the case hanging over him, Triesman replied: "Personally, I would have preferred that, yes.
"However good he is - and I have no doubt about the quality of the player - I really think as you look around the country and talk to black players, what you will find is they respect him as a player but they really feel let down because they don't feel the line has been drawn clearly enough."
Triesman said the fact the punishment was not handed out until 11 months after the altercation was unacceptable.
"The delay, the fact it has taken a year, is unconscionable," he said.
"You shouldn't have any kind of system which has got a judicial, judgmental element, which takes this long because it gives the impression people are indifferent to the issues. And people shouldn't be indifferent to the issues.
"I can't for the life of me see why the FA couldn't have proceeded before the court case.
"Sports bodies do have the capacity to act earlier (than the courts), to demonstrate their leadership, and they should have done so.
"I know some people will say if you have any hearing it's likely to prejudice the outcome of the court case, but I think the application of the rules of the game are issues for the body that controls the game - and those should be dealt with in a timely way.
"I just wonder what impression it gives to the rest of the world, and particularly to those players from ethnic communities who do face abuse, sadly - less than they used to, but still do face abuse - I wonder what it says to them if it takes a year to get to this stage."
Piara Powar, executive director of the Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) network, was in agreement with Triesman that the 11-month span between incident and hearing needed to be addressed.
"There are two key issues - one is the sanction itself and the other the time it's taken," he said.
"It really is unforgivable for an offence that took place during a game 11 months ago has taken this long to come to a governance hearing.
"Of course, the FA will say there was a criminal trial and there was a request from John Terry's lawyers to postpone, but the two processes are entirely different.
"The ICC (International Cricket Council), for example, with the spot-fixing trial last year, the criminal trial happened after the hearing by the governing body. There's no reason why the same couldn't have happened.
"The almost year-long wait, the drawn-out saga, has done quite a lot of damage."
He added: "I don't think the issue is John Terry. The issue is, 'how do we repair the reputation of football? How do we move forward from this in a positive way?"'
Liverpool's Luis Suarez was earlier this year given an eight-match suspension for racially abusing Manchester United's Patrice Evra, and Triesman feels the way Chelsea dealt with the Terry situation counted in their favour.
"It doesn't sound very consistent - that I'm sure of," he said, comparing Suarez's ban to Terry's.
"I suppose we'll all have to wait to see the written reasoning to see if there's a material difference between the two cases.
"If I was asked to guess (why the inconsistency), I'd think the dignity with which (chairman) Bruce Buck and the guys at Chelsea have handled this may well be in sharp contrast to the way Liverpool handled the Suarez case, which I thought was a masterclass in how not to do it."Comment
-
Where's all the clamour for Terry to issue a formal apology like there was with Suarez?Comment
-
Originally posted by Phoenix07 View Post
Just more of the media gathering around JT in order to protect him.
The judge even made a comment about how it was likely JT had said what he'd been accused of, but that it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, that's what 365 and the other ****ty media outlets would be concentarting on if it were Suarez in the same position.
******s!Comment
-
Terry was cleared in court (although the reason why is being distorted by the press) whereas Suarez wasn't. All people have seen is a 'guilty' verdict as a result, they persecuted him like he was the Anti-Christ. There's been no critical examination of either case from the press or public.Originally posted by Reece View PostComment
Comment