|
By:
ben
its not the same because the defense is different , if we are to take them at their word i dont like terry but hate the witchunt that is going on suarez more or less confessed to being guilty by ignorance of the law, terry maintains his innocence |
|
By:
Xenophobia towards Spanish people isn't exactly rife? If it was you'd certainly be presenting a credible point, as it is, I fear you are not.
|
|
By:
Well English and Spanish aren't races, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
|
|
By:
Ben192 28 Jul 12 10:21
sj - I have never said he is innocent. For the love of God learn to read. Terry should get a ban of equal length because, removing context as was done in the case of Suarez, means it doesn't matter in what way the words are said. Saying words that are insulting and refer to race carry a ban of 8 games. That's the precedent they set, and they should follow it. donny - Why is it not the same? Suarez said he used a term that is acceptable in his country - he told the truth. This wasn't a conversation that took place in English, it took place in Spanish. Therefore, Spanish interpretation of the word is to be used, not whatever vague translation it has in English. efsio - The burden of proof required is different. It is possible to have enough evidence to find guilty in a civil case without having enough proof to find guilty in a criminal case. clarkey - That is your interpretation and your opinion, which is fine. That, however, should not be enough to find a man guilty (as the FA have done) as they should deal solely in facts, not who they prefer. Dont talk nonsense. There was no context removed in Suarez's case he knew he was insulting Evra. Are you really ntrying to tell me he wasnt using the term and pinching his skin not as a insult? If not then that s fine I wont bother anymore. |
|
By:
if it hadnt been windy in 1588 we would be arguing in spanish now !!!
|
|
By:
Donny, they both claim that the context in which they said what they said makes them not-guilty. Suarez says he used the term, but used it in a way that isn't racist in his country. Terry says he used the term, but used it to repeat what Anton had said to him.
The FA stripped the context from the situation in Suarez's case, and said that using the words alone was enough to constitute a ban. If they follow precedent, they do the same again. |
|
By:
No sj, I'm not trying to say that. But as you continually prove to me that you are not capable of reading, I won't bother explaining again.
|
|
By:
ben, the law of this country is that not knowing the law is not a valid defence
therein lies suarezs guilt |
|
By:
I agree Ben.The FA are an absolute shambolic,disgrace of an institution and if LFC had gone to a court of law,it would have been chucked out within 2 days due to lack of credible evidence.
However,if we're all being brutally honest,we've all said some pretty nasty stuff in the heat of the moments even to friends and families etc and im convinced JT and Suarez meant to "hurt" the guys in question. |
|
By:
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:24
Xenophobia towards Spanish people isn't exactly rife? If it was you'd certainly be presenting a credible point, as it is, I fear you are not. Ben192 28 Jul 12 10:24 Well English and Spanish aren't races, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. PMSL RMB. SO Xenophobia against black people is rife is it? Wow this gets better. Insulting black man= season ban. Insulting spainard= 2 game ban insulting english whitey=pat on the back. Tryely truely amazing Ok Ben Hispanic then |
|
By:
Xenophobia against black people? God good boy, what are you chatting.
|
|
By:
The FA stripped the "context" in the Suarez case cos there was no context. Like I've said before he's not constantly using the word and pinching Evra's skin if he s not insulting him. One of the funniest defences I've heard
|
|
By:
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:31
Xenophobia against black people? God good boy, what are you chatting. Racism then. OLD BOY. I like your arguement though you can only insult black people |
|
By:
No donny, because his defence wasn't that he didn't know the law, it's that what he said wasn't racially motivated at all.
I agree clarkey, so the only possible outcome is that Terry is banned for an equal length of time? All being just and fair, of course. sj, there is no evidence that he constantly said the word, other than Evra's testimony. You can't believe the testimony of a man proven to be a liar if you are impartial. The context of what he said was deemed to be offensive, in accordance with Evra's testimony, and it was this that created the guilty verdict. None of that is based on fact, all on the testimony of a liar. That's not a defence, but an assessment of the facts. Now please stop being so - I can only hope purposely - stupid. |
|
By:
It is quite embarrassing to have a defence of I was pinching Evra to diffuse the situation and let him know he wasn't infallible.
|
|
By:
ben you are wrong
|
|
By:
Please tell me how donny.
|
|
By:
I'm not a fan of Evra Ben, he came out with this cr ap before about Chelsea ground staff.
|
|
By:
No he didn't sj. See, you don't know what you're talking about.
|
|
By:
i already have ben
|
|
By:
Suarez was clearly lying throughout his statements, so I guess it came down to whether Evras case was credible enough for them to make a judgement based on all probabilities. The fact Suarez is lying and has no credible defence would suggest one of being guilty, surely.
|
|
By:
Ben,i think JT will get a 6-8 game ban but Chelsea,unlike Liverpool,wont just accept it and will fight the FA back in court if needed.Quite rightly,imo.
The FA will making a big mistake if they think they can use their pathetic kangaroo court system against a club owned by someone like Abramovich.I hope he makes them out to be the hideous group of cretins that they are. |
|
By:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=kCGG2_hNB4A&NR=1
Surely with more video evidence like this they could have used lip readers to decipher what was said in the goalmouth. |
|
By:
RMB, if they're both guilty of lying, they should both be told to stop behaving like kids, get out of court and sort themselves out. Not find a guilty verdict in favour of one liar over the other.
donny, you haven't. You've told me Suarez admitted he was being racist but that he didn't know he couldn't be because he was in this country. That's not what happened. |
|
By:
Equally as embarrassing as Terry's "I was only saying that I didn't call you a black c**t" nonsense. Anyone who isn't five years old or a deluded fan boy knows that both Suarez and Terry were making racist remarks. Both players subsequently tried to defend themselves by highlighting the context, which is the sort of rubbish that wouldn't get past a headmaster, but the law doesn't work that way.
In Terry's case, nobody could prove what that his bullsh1t story wasn't true. The FA seem to think that him using the words "black c**t" towards Ferdinand is enough to warrant a charge of some kind. They can't come out and say "we don't believe your bullsh1t story JT" but it's pretty obvious that is the case. Spare me the "court of law" boll*cks. It's as clear as day what has gone on. Not that it was an "offence" ever worthy of a court-case, a complete waste of time and money. |
|
By:
Correct clarkey. As I have maintained, my issue is not with the ban, but how it was reached. And my fury lies equally with the legal team of LFC who could not fight their way out of a paper bag.
Whilst I think the only thing the FA can do is ban Terry for an equal period of time, I hope Chelsea challenge it and I hope they win. The FA can't just go handing out bans like this without any real evidence, and they need to be shown that. |
|
By:
LS and JT are both clearly guilty, spot on dza.
|
|
By:
A court of law,which is infinitely more powerful and accountable than the FA,found JT not guilty(or not enough evidence to be guilty).The same would have happened in the Suarez case.
To think that a bunch of gin soaked old t0ssers at the FA can then just rule above them......well it's just mind boggling isn't it? |
|
By:
RMB, 90+% of people in this country hate Suarez. The FA used his case to make an example of him. If they could have found any tiny shred of evidence in lip-reading what he said, don't think for one second that they wouldn't have done so and used it to further lengthen his ban.
|
|
By:
Correct clarkey, a sorry state of affairs.
|
|
By:
the dza 28 Jul 12 10:44
Equally as embarrassing as Terry's "I was only saying that I didn't call you a black c**t" nonsense. Anyone who isn't five years old or a deluded fan boy knows that both Suarez and Terry were making racist remarks. Both players subsequently tried to defend themselves by highlighting the context, which is the sort of rubbish that wouldn't get past a headmaster, but the law doesn't work that way. In Terry's case, nobody could prove what that his bullsh1t story wasn't true. The FA seem to think that him using the words "black c**t" towards Ferdinand is enough to warrant a charge of some kind. They can't come out and say "we don't believe your bullsh1t story JT" but it's pretty obvious that is the case. Spare me the "court of law" boll*cks. It's as clear as day what has gone on. Not that it was an "offence" ever worthy of a court-case, a complete waste of time and money. To be fair your lot accused Terry of being racist towards King when he got sent off years ago and nothing has ever said or proven, so your "agenda" clouds your judgement |
|
By:
suarez admitted he said it
|
|
By:
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:48
LS and JT are both clearly guilty, spot on dza. Whats your views on Rio' choc Ice agreeing with Choc Ice comments about Ashley Cole. That alright? |
|
By:
I found it amusing.
|
|
By:
donny osmond 28 Jul 12 10:51
suarez admitted he said it Exactly. You cant have a defence of "Oh well it s alright in our country" |
|
By:
RMB © 28 Jul 12 10:53
I found it amusing. I rest my case |
|
By:
|
|
By:
You had a case? PMSL
|
|
By:
About the same as your's claiming racism against blacks is rife mate.
|
|
By:
Racism isn't rife still? Mind boggling.
|