Racism in Football

[Neil Young]

Interesting point. It does weaken the whole xenophobia argument.

I think it's probably a lot more to do with how the story plays, and the different angles you can take on the two. Plus who knows what's going on behind the scenes, except you can be sure Chelsea have got more power over the media than Sunderland, just as Manchester United have more than LFC.

Plus of course the way LFC handled it was "a masterclass in how not to do it" whereas Bruce Buck's handling of it has been "dignified".

[Kenneth]

That's true. This was a terry/Ferdinand case whereas ours was more lfc/kenny/Suarez vs evra.

[TheElephantMan]

I hope Terry successfully appeals, the whole process is a farce. Terry seems like a vile individual, but I doubt very much that he's a racist. The FA and the media need to be exposed for the bunch of cunts they are. It's disgraceful that the media were stirring up **** for Suarez and are now falling over themselves to portray Terry as the victim. There seems to be xenophobia at work both within the FA and the media.

I still can't accept that whatever Suarez said was repeated a number of times. Terry says something once and it's caught on camera, Suarez says something 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15 etc times and not one witness and no evidence whatsoever. I must have said this quite few times already, but it makes my blood boil! On balance of probability it can only be concluded that Suarez didn't say anything otherwise there would be some evidence. The only "evidence" is Suarez's admission that he said something fairly innocuous once.

[Kenneth]

I think Suarez probably called Evra a negro multiple times and that Terry probably called Ferdinand a black cunt. The ****ness of the FA doesn't really make much of a difference to me, and arguments about lengths of bans doesn't really either. Splitting hairs really.

[TheElephantMan]

How could calling someone a negro possibly go unnoticed whilst among 20 other players, the match officials, 44,000+ supporters, many TV cameras and numerous microphones? There's no evidence that Suarez said anything once let alone multiple times, yet Terry said something once and it was caught on camera.

[Red_Polo]

Well, yes, except his own evidence saying he used the word. Just not in a racist context.

[Exiled_red]

How could calling someone a negro possibly go unnoticed whilst among 20 other players, the match officials, 44,000+ supporters, many TV cameras and numerous microphones? There's no evidence that Suarez said anything once let alone multiple times, yet Terry said something once and it was caught on camera.

I think Suarez probably did say whatever he is supposed to have said, the issue I have trouble believing that Suarez racially abused Evra multiple times and it wasn't caught on camera or heard by anyone else on the pitch once. The irony is that the more times Evra alleged that he said it the less believable that Evra's evidence looks (for him to say something once and no-one see or hear it is believable, for him to have said 10 times and no-one have seen it is much less believable). On a 'balance of probabilities' it seems odd that this was never really considered.

There are certainly some inconsistencies in the handling of the Suarez and Terry situations from both the FA and the press, what the reasons for this are I'm not sure.

[TheElephantMan]

the more times Evra alleged that he said it the less believable that Evra's evidence looks (for him to say something once and no-one see or hear it is believable, for him to have said 10 times and no-one have seen it is much less believable). On a 'balance of probabilities' it seems odd that this was never really considered.

If Evra had claimed he heard something which he believed to be offensive once then I think most people could have accepted that. Suarez clearly didn't believe he'd said anything wrong otherwise he would have denied using the word he admitted to.

I don't believe that Evra was "abused" multiple times, this doesn't seem credible at all. On the balance of probabilities it is much more likely that nothing happened than something happened numerous times.

[Shaggy]

If Evra had claimed he heard something which he believed to be offensive once then I think most people could have accepted that. Suarez clearly didn't believe he'd said anything wrong otherwise he would have denied using the word he admitted to.

I don't believe that Evra was "abused" multiple times, this doesn't seem credible at all. On the balance of probabilities it is much more likely that nothing happened than something happened numerous times.

It is clearly horse**** IMO. Suarez admitted to saying it once. Had he said it "seven times" (), at least one of those instances would almost certainly have been captured on one of the many cameras.

Remember, Evra first said Suarez said the word three times, then ten times, before settling on seven. LOL.

[Shaggy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/oct/06/editorial-john-terry-ashley-cole-chelsea-england

John Terry and Ashley Cole have shamed Chelsea and England

Most major private or public institutions would sack a leading figure who was found guilty of saying what John Terry said

The Observer editorial

The Observer, Sun 7 Oct 2012 00.25 BST

We defy anyone to watch John Terry on YouTube very clearly mouthing the words "You ****ing black cunt … ****ing knobhead" at Anton Ferdinand and not agree with the independent commission set up by the FA to investigate the October 2011 incident. They concluded that Terry's defence (that he was repeating words which Ferdinand had alleged he had used) was "improbable, implausible and contrived". They said there was "no credible evidence" for Terry's defence.

"We are quite satisfied that the offending words were said by way of insult," the commission concluded. The independent commission alleges that John Terry's defence – which he advanced in court – was untrue.

He was acquitted in a criminal trial at Westminster magistrates court in July, although the chief magistrate, Howard Riddle, had said Terry's defence was "unlikely" even if there were insufficient grounds for a conviction. How will Chelsea FC react? How would most major private or public institutions react if one of their leading figures – say, the chief executive – was found guilty by an independent commission of saying, in public to a competitor, "You ****ing black cunt … ****ing knobhead"?

They would sack them.

If Chelsea – who have said they will wait to see if Terry appeals before making clear their intentions and on Saturday confirmed there will be a "disciplinary process" with Ashley Cole – choose not to do that, what reasons will they – and their owner, Roman Abramovich – give for not taking this course of action? Are they happy their captain has been found guilty of lying? Are they happy that he uses the phrase "You ****ing black cunt … ****ing knobhead" in public? Are they happy for this man to be their captain?
To be their leader? Really?

Are Chelsea fans happy to have their team led by a man who uses a racist insult? Will Chelsea fans – and with social media there are many opportunities for them to find their voice, how about #sackjohnterrynow? – signal their disapproval of their "leader"? Because if they don't, then how can they take a credible stand on racism in public life ever again? They can't. There is no reason for being equivocal about racism.

And what of Chelsea's commercial partners and sponsors such as Samsung? Are they happy that their brand is represented by a team leader who says to an opponent "You ****ing black cunt"? They shouldn't be and they should use their considerable influence to demand that he plays no further part in any association with their brand.

Chelsea have other questions to answer. And answer them they must if the shame that this incident has heaped on British football is to be erased. The independent commission detailed how Ashley Cole's evidence "evolved" over time in order to further support Terry's defence. The FA are accusing Cole – Terry's principal supporting witness – of lying. In his first statement to the FA Cole made no mention of having heard Ferdinand use the word "black". In a revised statement he asked for the word be inserted into his statement to strengthen Terry's defence.

The commission concluded: "Mr Cole did not hear, and could not have believed, understood or misunderstood Mr Ferdinand to have used the word 'black'."

It was the Chelsea club secretary, David Bernard, who facilitated Ashley Cole's change of evidence. The commission concluded that there were "very real concerns" over Bernard's evidence and said it was "materially defective". This is a damning indictment of their club secretary. How will Chelsea react? What would other major public or private companies do?

What will Chelsea's considered response to the FA report be once they have had time to digest how comprehensively it has eviscerated their captain, their club secretary and their left-back? We've already had Ashley Cole's response when he tweeted "Hahahahaa, well done, #fa. I lied did I, #BUNCHOF****S". He later "unreservedly" apologised. Of course he did. And is that it, Chelsea? Is it OK for Cole to react in that way to a charge this serious?

Chelsea have been shamed by this incident. They have been shamed by John Terry and Ashley Cole. For those of us who love football it is dispiriting, depressing and disgusting to see how football (including the FA who were also criticised by the independent commission) has dealt so ineptly with this Terry affair. And not just this incident. Who can forget Liverpool's lamentable response to the Luis Suárez incident last year?

And the FA, even now, seem to have some difficulty learning lessons from this fiasco. In a briefing to journalists from the Sunday media on Thursday – before the publication of the independent commission's report – the England manager, Roy Hodgson, responding to persistent questions, said he might consider giving the captaincy to Ashley Cole for the World Cup game against Poland to coincide with the defender's 100th cap.

On Saturday the FA made it clear to those same journalists that they should not refer to that section of the press conference lest it reflect badly on Hodgson or the FA, or that not giving the captaincy would be seen as revenge for the Cole tweet. Perish the thought.

The fact that the request from the FA came with an implicit threat that anyone who ignored this advisory might suffer in terms of future cooperation from the FA is both abysmal and shocking.

Racism is vile and malevolent and has blighted many people's lives. It continues to do so, although great strides have been taken to reduce its incidence. Only racists and intellectual Neanderthals would need convincing that society has to adopt a zero tolerance approach to incidences of racism, or racist insults. And that includes football.

As one writer noted on Saturday: "Most footballers get through the day without uttering a racist remark." In fact, most of us get through the day without uttering a racist remark.

Terry and Cole are an embarrassment to football, to Chelsea and to England. The club – and just as importantly, their supporters – need to be seen to understand that clearly. And react accordingly.

[red g]

England boss Roy Hodgson insists Ashley Cole deserves to be mentioned in the same bracket as Italy pin-up boy Paolo Maldini.

If Cole features in both games of this month's World Cup double header against San Marino and Poland, he will become only the sixth England player to reach 100 caps for their country.

There has been some grudging acceptance of Cole's abilities.

In 2010, he was voted England's player of the year, and he was also one of the better performers at Euro 2012.

However, an assessment of his achievements often comes with an attack on his character, and poor public profile following a series of indiscretions on and off the field, the latest on Friday when he was forced to apologise to the Football Association.

He called the FA a 'bunch of t***s' on Twitter after he was accused of "evolving" his statement supporting John Terry's defence against the charge he racially abused Anton Ferdinand.

The accusation came in the written reasons for Terry's four-match ban and £220,000 fine for racially abusing Ferdinand in a game last October. Cole is now likely to be fined by his club for the online outburst.

Such incidents mean Cole can never hope to be granted the same plaudits as Maldini, who played in the same position and won 126 caps before he retired in 2009.

"I think so," said Hodgson however, when asked if he thought Cole deserved to be regarded in the same bracket.

"Maldini was a one-club man. Not many have done that but Ashley has done it with two.

"He had a long career at Arsenal, where he was considered a fixture, and done the same at Chelsea.

"They are top names, legends of the past, it must be great to know you are joining that.

"We don't have that Major League Baseball Hall Of Fame in England but these people are our Hall Of Famers."

In truth, Cole's name will sit rather uncomfortably alongside those of Peter Shilton, David Beckham, Bobby Moore, Sir Bobby Charlton and Billy Wright, the only other Englishmen to reach those coveted three figures.

A quick Google search explains why.

His short-lived marriage to singer and celebrity Cheryl was the subject of claims about Cole's infidelity.

In addition, he accidentally shot a 21-year-old student on work experience with a .22 calibre air rifle, unaware it was loaded at Chelsea's training ground. The student was not seriously injured.

A statement in his autobiography that he had been left "trembling with anger" when Arsenal offered him a new contract worth 'only' £55,000 per week earned more negative headlines, as did the shameless dissent he showed Mike Riley in a match against Tottenham in 2008.

Even in the short space between Hodgson offering his assessment of Cole's character and the words being put down in print, the full-back managed the outrageous tweet aimed at the FA, for which he has since apologised.

Yet Hodgson feels the public perception is at odds with the man he knows.

"Every player has the right to be true to their own feelings, and his is that he will do his talking on the field," he said.

"He doesn't want to give lots of interviews, he wants to be judged as a pure footballer.

"I for one respect that wholeheartedly and have found him to be an excellent professional and a very enthusiastic and important member of the group who I'm looking forward to working with him for a period of time to come."

Hodgson had refused to dismiss initial questions about the potential for Cole to be handed the honour of leading his country in Poland to mark the significance of the occasion.

However, there was no guarantee the Stepney-born player would have accepted and it is now understood Hodgson had dismissed the idea even before yesterday's staggering turn of events and that Steven Gerrard will wear the armband as normal.

"It is not something you should take lightly but it is certainly worthy of consideration," he said.

"What is more worthy of consideration is the fact that Ashley, at a relatively young age and with more football left in him, is likely to get his 100th cap very soon - and that is fantastic.

"I don't think we should ever underestimate the value of that."

Hodgson will not, because he understands just how much work is required to win just one of those caps.

However, his status within the game established, with his overall fitness not in question, even if his troublesome ankle restricts his appearances at times, means it is not beyond the realms of possibility Cole could threaten not just David Beckham's 115 caps - the highest for an outfield player - but Peter Shilton's overall caps record of 125.

"For an outfield player, a left-back, to reach 100 caps is incredible and there is no reason why he cannot set his sights higher," Hodgson added.

"He's a slim guy, who keeps himself very fit.

"If he can stay as he is today, who knows where it will take him in the future.

"Knowing Ashley a little bit, I'm sure he is not thinking on those terms - he's thinking of these games ahead of him."

http://www.teamtalk.com/news/2483/8145226/Cole-hailed-by-Hodgson

great timing as always, you jowly faced pleb

[RichC]

Captain Blunder strikes again. Seriously the timing of this utter fraud of a man beggers belief

[Shaggy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/fa-disciplinary-process-is-a-joke-8200705.html

FA disciplinary process is 'a joke'

John Terry is banned for four matches for a racist insult, while a 14-year-old schoolboy is banned for five matches after telling the ref his name was Santa Claus. No wonder a former FA compliance officer is so critical...

SUNDAY 07 OCTOBER 2012
STEVE TONGUE

Cole faces punishments from both club and FA for his angry tweet
Graham Bean, the man once employed by the Football Association to clean up the game, has said in the light of the John Terry case that the whole disciplinary process in this country is "a joke" and that the FA can no longer be trusted to run it. In an interview with The Independent on Sunday, he mocked the independence of the regulatory commission that passed judgment on Terry, and contrasted the four-match ban they imposed for racial abuse with a five-match suspension recently handed out to a 14-year-old boy in Leeds, who gave his name as Santa Claus after being sent off.

Bean is a forthright 50-year-old former CID officer who served as chairman of the Football Supporters' Association from 1996-8 before becoming FA compliance officer. Labelled a "bung-buster", he was involved in a number of high-profile cases, but resigned in 2003, citing insufficient resources for his work as a "one-man band".

He now runs a company called Football Factors, frequently defending clubs or managers at all levels charged with disciplinary offences, and has become frustrated by the fact that more than 99 per cent of those charged are found guilty by what the FA insist are independent tribunals. "They're not independent," he says, using as an example the three-man panel that heard the Terry case.

"Maurice Armstrong from the Huntingdonshire FA is on the disciplinary committee [and an FA vice-president]. Stuart Ripley is from an independent panel but on the payroll of the FA for his duties, so he's not independent. The barristers are independent but they're using a firm called Sporting Resolutions in London and the more they use them, the less independent they become."

His solution would be for the Premier League and Football League to handle their own respective cases, with the FA hearing any subsequent appeal and otherwise concentrating on grassroots and non-league level through the county football associations. "The whole system is a joke," he said. "The FA can't be trusted to run the disciplinary process. It's time to overhaul it because the FA can't be trusted to be consistent with penalties. The Football League already has a disciplinary process and it's a very good system."

When Football Factors conducted a survey of clubs two years ago, Bean says "something like 89 per cent didn't have faith in the FA disciplinary process". He admits that the judgment in the Terry case did criticise the FA at one point, over full disclosure of evidence. But he sees that as an illustration of the organisation's shortcomings rather than the commission's independence and claims the same fault was exposed in the Luis Suarez case last year.

"It's a very strong judgment against John Terry but there are still flaws in the case. Once again the FA say all the documents have been disclosed and in the middle of the hearing it comes out that they kept hold of some stuff. They did the same with Suarez. It's highly embarrassing for the FA. They told the police and the CPS they'd disclosed everything but they hadn't."

When Terry and Ashley Cole were interviewed at Chelsea's training ground, Terry's answers were tape-recorded but Cole's were not. This led to Cole and Chelsea's secretary, David Barnard, disputing what was said and indirectly to Cole's abusive tweet about being called a liar. Adam Sanhaie of the FA took written notes and the judgment says: "Mr Sanhaie's notes were initially omitted from the FA's disclosure of relevant documents and other material in its possession, and only came to light just before the commencement of the substantive hearing."

It adds that "the FA does not have any kind of established system, procedure or protocol for dealing with the type of disclosure order that was made in this case". Later, however, the report states: "The Commission is satisfied, insofar as it reasonably can be, that the FA did comply with its disclosure obligations in this case. Disclosure in any jurisdiction is an imperfect exercise."

Bean's other criticism concerns a change of regulation last summer on the burden of proof, which became a point of debate at the hearing. Until July, the FA had a sliding scale under which the more serious the charge, the higher was the level of proof required for a conviction. That has now been abolished. "The sliding scale was the right way to do it," Bean said. "But they've slipped this new rule in very quietly."

Bean's latest Football Factors newsletter highlighted the case of a 14-year-old in Leeds sent off in a Sunday-morning match for giving his name to the referee as Santa Claus. It reported: "An extra three games were added to his two match sending off suspension because of his youthful sense of humour! Once the festive comment had been made, the player actually gave his true identity, although I think it would be fair to assume that the referee in question had realised that was an incorrect name due to the player's white beard being missing. Putting the Terry case alongside the 'Santa Claus' penalty, you can see why the FA are continually open to criticism with their disciplinary process."

What the Terry panel said about the FA

7.28 On 28 October 2011 The FA's Head of Off-Field Regulation, Jenni Kennedy, attended at Chelsea's training ground to interview Mr Terry, Mr Cole and John Obi Mikel in connection with the incident. She was accompanied by a colleague who was employed by the FA at the time, Adam Sanhaie. Mr Terry's interview was tape-recorded, but that of Mr Cole was not. Mr Barnard was also in attendance. Both Ms Kennedy and Mr Sanhaie made hand-written notes of the interview of Mr Cole. Mr Sanhaie's notes were initially omitted from the FA's disclosure of relevant documents and other material in its possession, and only came to light just before the commencement of the substantive hearing.

7.34 Ms Kennedy gave oral evidence to the Commission and her recollection as to whether Mr Sanhaie was, or was not, taking notes was, in places, difficult to understand (although the recent disclosure shows that he clearly did take detailed notes).

8.1 The late disclosure of Mr Sanhaie's notes served to fuel concerns that Mr Terry's advisors have harboured over the adequacy or, rather, the inadequacy, of the disclosure that the FA had given, whether voluntarily, or in compliance with the order for specific disclosure that had been made at a preliminary hearing.

8.2 The oral evidence of Matthew Johnson [the FA's main prosecutor] demonstrated that the FA does not have any kind of established system, procedure or protocol for dealing with the type of disclosure order that was made... The paucity of documentation in connection with certain specific matters was surprising, and attracted adverse comment from Mr Terry's advisors.

[destinydude]

Bunch of muppets, the F.A. Why aren't the Premier League teams fighting to get more of their personnel involved in the decision making process involving decisions related to the League?

[Exiled_red]

I have found the suggestion about Cole being captain of England for his 100th game odd. Isn't Gerrard also on 98 caps (something which seems to have been missed in the press), meaning that if both players play both games they will make their 100th appearances together. I know Hodgson has some crazy ideas but surely stripping your captain of the armband on his 100th appearance to give it to another player also making his 100th appearence would be up there as one of the most nonsensical.