Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

J. Marston

Terry will get the same ban or worse. He isn't going to get away with it.

Professional Griefer

Theres no way he'll get away with it. Especially considering theres the video.

Looking forward to see how the FA deal with it.

niallo27

When Reading's John Mackie admitted -- admitted -- racially abusing a Sheffield Utd player, the FA banned him for three matches. Three

Blatter

niallo27 wrote: »

When Reading's John Mackie admitted -- admitted -- racially abusing a Sheffield Utd player, the FA banned him for three matches. Three

Yes, that's because he admitted the charge, as you've noted yourself.

It's common practice to give harsher punishments to those found guilty that have denied the charge.

tommyhaas

J. Marston wrote: »

Terry will get the same ban or worse. He isn't going to get away with it.

The FA have in the past been lenient on the basis that it was the England Capt. who was being punished. This has been admitted by a former FA executive. While its possible this could be the case with Terry, the media attention coupled with Terry already being on thin ice with the FA may prevent this

tommyhaas

niallo27 wrote: »

When Reading's John Mackie admitted -- admitted -- racially abusing a Sheffield Utd player, the FA banned him for three matches. Three

Obviously if he admitted the charge and was found guilty he'll get a lesser ban then someone who denied it and was found guilty. He got a three match ban, but he also got another 5 game suspended ban

niallo27

tommyhaas wrote: »

Obviously if he admitted the charge and was found guilty he'll get a lesser ban then someone who denied it and was found guilty. He got a three match ban, but he also got another 5 game suspended ban

To reduce it to the same punishment as a red card makes it into a bit of a joke though.

J. Marston

tommyhaas wrote: »

The FA have in the past been lenient on the basis that it was the England Capt. who was being punished. This has been admitted by a former FA executive. While its possible this could be the case with Terry, the media attention coupled with Terry already being on thin ice with the FA may prevent this

Coupled with the precedent they've now set with Suarez. Plus the FA have been so high and mighty in regards to FIFA's (Sepp Blatter's) stance on racism lately, they won't want to be seen taking it easy on one of their own, so Terry is going to get hammered. Worse than Suarez, I think.

tommyhaas

niallo27 wrote: »

To reduce it to the same punishment as a red card makes it into a bit of a joke though.

I don't know the details of the case. Would certainly seem that way though

J. Marston wrote: »

Coupled with the precedent they've now set with Suarez. Plus the FA have been so high and mighty in regards to FIFA's (Sepp Blatter's) stance on racism lately, they won't want to be seen taking it easy on one of their own, so Terry is going to get hammered. Worse than Suarez, I think.

Hopefully, but its the FA, though I think the pressure on them should ensure they don't do a typical FA on it

kryogen

Its the FA those expecting consistency from them should prepare themselves for the worst, regards the Terry case, if he is found guilty he will be punished harsher then Suarez I think to set an example, but in relation to the other case posted above, it was a smaller profile player, smaller profile club etc... why would you be surprised that the FA didnt give him a stronger sentence, reducing it to a red card is a joke, if he was getting a bit of leniency and the norm was 8 he should have got 5 anyway

Again, the FA are a joke, this should not be forgotten, ever

daithijjj

Blatter wrote: »

Yes, that's because he admitted the charge, as you've noted yourself.

It's common practice to give harsher punishments to those found guilty that have denied the charge.

So, by default, the punishment handed out for a professional foul is at the same level as racism? as long as you admit to it?.........that's some message to be sending out and doesnt smack of incompetence at all :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, i wonder now, if the FA feel this was a sad glancing blow, with no meat behind it, in the direction of one Sepp Blatter. People really have no idea how the 'ye olde' colonial instincts of that organisation still works. The FA pretty much think they are they are pioneers still in world football.

Blatter

daithijjj wrote: »

So, by default, the punishment handed out for a professional foul is at the same level as racism? as long as you admit to it?.........that's some message to be sending out and doesnt smack of incompetence at all :rolleyes:

No, it wasn't the same punishment as a professional foul. He was given a further 5 match ban which was suspended.

niallo27

Blatter wrote: »

No, it wasn't the same punishment as a professional foul. He was given a further 5 match ban which was suspended.

He served the same punishment as a professional foul.

kryogen

Blatter wrote: »

No, it wasn't the same punishment as a professional foul. He was given a further 5 match ban which was suspended.

yes but for all the world he is basically banned for 3 games (same as a straight red) unless he does something very stupid which he isnt likely to do while the suspension is hanging over him

niallo27

daithijjj wrote: »

So, by default, the punishment handed out for a professional foul is at the same level as racism? as long as you admit to it?.........that's some message to be sending out and doesnt smack of incompetence at all :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, i wonder now, if the FA feel this was a sad glancing blow, with no meat behind it, in the direction of one Sepp Blatter. People really have no idea how the 'ye olde' colonial instincts of that organisation still works. The FA pretty much think they are they are pioneers still in world football.

I have no doubt this is about blatter and his racist comments, it was their chance to get one over on him.

DDC1990

What ever happened to Innocent Until proven Guilty.

Then panel basically came out and said "Well, Suarex hasn't proved that he didn't racially abuse Evra, somethin that no one only Evra heard, so he's clearly guilty."

A joke of a decision.

If they came out with solid evidence that Suarez was guilty, and made racist comments "At least 10 times" to Evra as was claimed, then ban him by all means.

But to Ban him, because he couldn't prove his was inocent is rediculous.

Hope Liverpool appeal, and maybe this time we might get a real "Independant" Hearing, not just Alex Fergusons mate, an Anti Racism Campaigner and a lawyer who's firm represented Wayne Rooney.

In fairness, a different group may have come to the same conclusion, but to have a group like that puts serious doubt on an already dubious case like this.

People complain about defending players to the end, but to be honest if this had gone to court, the case would have been thrown out for lack of evidence, Civil Case or Criminal Case. They want to make a point about Racism, and instead of picking the England Captain, a case with video evidence and more then one player having heard it, they pick a forigner, to make an example of.

There is nothing other then Evra's tarnished word, to suggest that Suarez is a racist, but this ruling will leave a dark cloud over this young players career.

Mr Alan

niallo27 wrote: »

I have no doubt this is about blatter and his racist comments, it was their chance to get one over on him.

The statement released by them immediately after handing out the verdict where they have pop at FIFA/Uefa would certainly indicate there may well be truth in that.

Blatter

niallo27 wrote: »

He served the same punishment as a professional foul.

kryogen wrote: »

yes but for all the world he is basically banned for 3 games (same as a straight red) unless he does something very stupid which he isnt likely to do while the suspension is hanging over him

I know that, but it wasn't the same punishment as a professional foul because of the suspended sentence, that's all I pointed out. I think it would have been fairer to give him a 5 game ban with 3 suspended in that situation, given he admitted the charge and apologised.

I'm not one to defend The FA, they're are obviously a very inconsistent association and they have been for some time.

Regardless of the context and translation of the term the F.A have to make a decision based on a set criteria. Was the term used as and insult and did it refer to Evra's race. They can't afford to get bogged down in a translational grey area and be seen to flounder, especially after the backlash Blatter received, and had to be decisive. There's a danger in these situations that an organisation can feel pressure to come up with the 'right' decision but in this case I think they have made right decision based on the only criteria they can logically apply.

The fact of the matter is that 'negrito' refers to one's race - it may not be a slur in South America or in Spanish, but it definitely refers to race.

Now, the context in which it was used (rivals in the heat of a football match), combined with the number of times it was used belies any defence from Suarez that he meant it in a 'friendly' or 'jocular' way. The word referring to Evra's race, used in this context, is really the crux of the matter.

Will I Amnt

Mr Alan wrote: »

niallo27 wrote: »

I have no doubt this is about blatter and his racist comments, it was their chance to get one over on him.

The statement released by them immediately after handing out the verdict where they have pop at FIFA/Uefa would certainly indicate there may well be truth in that.

It's always someone else's fault when it comes to Liverpool with yous 2 :rolleyes:

If Suarez walked up to both of ye and said himself he was the biggest racist on the planet,ye would still be quoting some half arsed piece of journalism or vague language nuance.

Nothing will change your mind,since day one ye thought Evra was making it all up and moved the goalposts all the way through anytime some more information came out.

kryogen

DDC1990 wrote: »

What ever happened to Innocent Until proven Guilty.

Then panel basically came out and said "Well, Suarex hasn't proved that he didn't racially abuse Evra, somethin that no one only Evra heard, so he's clearly guilty."

A joke of a decision.

If they came out with solid evidence that Suarez was guilty, and made racist comments "At least 10 times" to Evra as was claimed, then ban him by all means.

But to Ban him, because he couldn't prove his was inocent is rediculous.

Hope Liverpool appeal, and maybe this time we might get a real "Independant" Hearing, not just Alex Fergusons mate, an Anti Racism Campaigner and a lawyer who's firm represented Wayne Rooney.

In fairness, a different group may have come to the same conclusion, but to have a group like that puts serious doubt on an already dubious case like this.

People complain about defending players to the end, but to be honest if this had gone to court, the case would have been thrown out for lack of evidence, Civil Case or Criminal Case. They want to make a point about Racism, and instead of picking the England Captain, a case with video evidence and more then one player having heard it, they pick a forigner, to make an example of.

There is nothing other then Evra's tarnished word, to suggest that Suarez is a racist, but this ruling will leave a dark cloud over this young players career.

Your post makes my head hurt

DDC1990

DDC1990 wrote: »

somethin that no one only Evra heard,

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Suarez admit to calling Evra 'negrito'?

Blatter

peterswellman wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Suarez admit to calling Evra 'negrito'?

The word from reliable journalist like Henry Winter and Daniel Taylor is that Suarez admitted calling Evra a Negro, not a negrito.

Obviously we will have to wait for the report to confirm this.

DDC1990

kryogen wrote: »

Your post makes my head hurt

Nice response.

Care to elaborate?

RoboClam

I'm surprised that Suarez waited until mid-October before using a racist term on the pitch which would have been acceptable in a similar situation in South America. Surely a complaint would have arisen earlier or, he knew already knew it wasn't acceptable in this part of the world.

Fuhrer

Fuhrer wrote: »

So, nothing at all is happening?

killwill wrote: »

Seems not. BIG anti-climax!!!

Handsome Bob wrote: »

Lol, good night and good luck to this ****ing thread.

L O fcuking L

SlickRic wrote: »

he'll be driven out of England now, mark my words.

'Twould be an awful shame, as much as it galls me to say it. I'm curious as to what these "hidden agendas" are that a few posters have mentioned. What do people feel are the ulterior motives the FA have here? That they're seen to be taking a hard stance against racists?

kryogen

Look, the FA are not going to find him guilty based on one players word against the other, now whether thats some other evidence we dont know about or the reported admission by Suarez they found him guilty

Dont you think if they could be easily overturned and made to look stupid they would find him guilty? there is not a hope in hell they would draw that on themselves

They have something to make it stick, they have to, there is no other reason for the delay only they were making sure they had their own asses covered

SoulTrader

K-9 wrote: »

Hypocritical about what?

kryogen wrote: »

he said whoever was found guilty should have the book thrown at them or something to that effect

He also had a go at the FA for appealing Rooney's international ban. For LFC / Suarez to appeal this verdict is hypocritical in light of those comments.

Hedman

DDC1990 wrote: »

What ever happened to Innocent Until proven Guilty.

He was assumed innocent, they then had a hearing and he was found guilty.

Then panel basically came out and said "Well, Suarex hasn't proved that he didn't racially abuse Evra, somethin that no one only Evra heard, so he's clearly guilty."

If they came out with solid evidence that Suarez was guilty, and made racist comments "At least 10 times" to Evra as was claimed, then ban him by all means.


But to Ban him, because he couldn't prove his was inocent is rediculous.

Pretty much all journalists covering the case say that Suarez himself admits saying something, something based on Evra's race. Is an admission not enough evidence?

Hope Liverpool appeal, and maybe this time we might get a real "Independant" Hearing, not just Alex Fergusons mate, an Anti Racism Campaigner and a lawyer who's firm represented Wayne Rooney.

In fairness, a different group may have come to the same conclusion, but to have a group like that puts serious doubt on an already dubious case like this.

Apparently both clubs could veto any member of the board if they wanted to, they didn't.

People complain about defending players to the end, but to be honest if this had gone to court, the case would have been thrown out for lack of evidence, Civil Case or Criminal Case. They want to make a point about Racism, and instead of picking the England Captain, a case with video evidence and more then one player having heard it, they pick a forigner, to make an example of.

Terry's case is still a police matter and until the police finish their investigation the FA cannot rule a verdict on it. If he is found guilty and is given a lighter punishment than Suarez then you will have a point, until then you don't.

There is nothing other then Evra's tarnished word, to suggest that Suarez is a racist, but this ruling will leave a dark cloud over this young players career.

Funny, according to the 'Pool statement Evra has said he doesn't think Suarez is racist.

seanwhite20

Deleted User wrote: »

'Twould be an awful shame, as much as it galls me to say it. I'm curious as to what these "hidden agendas" are that a few posters have mentioned. What do people feel are the ulterior motives the FA have here? That they're seen to be taking a hard stance against racists?

This article answers your question