Terry Charged by FA

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/NewsAndFeatures/2012/john-terry-charged.aspx

has until Aug 3 to respond

Nothing but 8 games ban would do

I thought the trial was over? So why's he getting charged by the FA?

"It is alleged that Terry used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand, contrary to FA rules.

It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Anton Ferdinand."

According to the rulebook, that's 4 games apiece. Excited to find out how small his fine is.

http://www.chelseafc.com/page/LatestNews/0,,10268~2863078,00.html

RealGunner wrote:Nothing but 8 games ban would do

I am sorry but what? The guy has been proven not guilty in a court of law so why does he deserve an 8 game ban?

JT has denied it anyway.

Thought he could miss the arsenal game

RealGunner wrote:Thought he could miss the arsenal game

You already have enough leeway with Drogba gone

As long as he misses the Newcastle game it's all good

I'm sure Luiz can handle Cisse.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:As long as he misses the Newcastle game it's all good

Not like you're going to win either way

mtfootball wrote:I'm sure Luiz can handle Cisse.

Yep i'm sure

Not like you're going to win either way

I remember you saying that last time

mtfootball wrote:I thought the trial was over? So why's he getting charged by the FA?

Kick wrote:

RealGunner wrote:Nothing but 8 games ban would do

I am sorry but what? The guy has been proven not guilty in a court of law so why does he deserve an 8 game ban?

JT has denied it anyway.

FA require a smaller burden of proof to convict and punish in such cases; they set that precedent against Suarez. The criminal court needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the charges were true, but could not do so despite the judge feeling that Terry was likely guilty of the charges. The FA merely need to prove it on balance of probability, as in the evidence must suggest that Terry said what he was charged with saying was more likely than his excuse/explanation. Given that the judge said as much himself, it seems likely that the FA will find in similar fashion now that they've gone so far as to actually charge Terry. The fact is, with the video evidence and testimonies given, Terry's explanation does appear less likely than Ferdinand's.

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:

Not like you're going to win either way

I remember you saying that last time

The team clearly had the CL final on their minds and couldn't give a flying one about Newcastle.

Yep i'm sure they didn't care about losing at home and throwing away their last chance to qualify through the league

The mad is strong

Great Leader Sprucenuce wrote:Yep i'm sure they didn't care about losing at home and throwing away their last chance to qualify through the league

The mad is strong

Mad? Lol




No I'm not mad



Anyways, I could see this coming from the moment JT won the court case. FA as usual.

"FA as usual"? They're actually enforcing the precedent they set. How can you act as though it's being done unfairly?

It certainly is.

How does it make sense to charge him after the court has found him not guilty?

My take on this is that based on media pressure, they jumped into giving Suarez an 8 match ban. Based on the same media pressure and not wanting to stir up controversy, they want to go ahead and do the same to JT and leave it at that.

Also, why else does Ferdinand not get a charge after it has been revealed that he also hurled offensive insults(albeit not racist).

The media are going to start stirring shit up. Some clueless journo on talkshit already said this is going to "affect the dressing room and league campaign altogether". Err....no it isn't! I would like the club to issue a statement telling the media and the public to F right off but Bates isn't around anymore so that's not going to happen.

Why wasn't Anton charged?

for what ?

I've covered the criminal vs FA charges several times already, mate. It's all about "beyond reasonable doubt" vs "balance of probability". It's getting tiring.

The charges are specifically related to the "racist" nature of the supposed insults, hence why Ferdinand isn't being charged in the same way.

Same question relates to the Suarez case... In fact, Evra should've been charged under both statutes. It seems the precedent they set is that one person is picked as the aggressor, and they don't charge the "victim" for what was said in response.

RealGunner wrote:for what ?

"It is alleged that Terry used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand, contrary to FA rules.

Have you read/heard what Anton said during the row?

No. What did he say

John Terry wasen't found innocent, the Judge said there was insufficient proof to categorically state he was guilty. The language used in the Judges statement strongly implies that they believed he was guilty, but not enough for their purposes. They certainly made it extremly clear that they weren't saying he was definately innocent.

The courts job isn't to prove innocence, its to prove guilt with varying burdens of proof depending on the court. In a Criminal court its beyond reasonable doubt, Civil and Tribunal cases its 'the weight of evidence'. The FA only requires probability, not definites.

To those asking Anton won't be charged by the FA because everything he said was revealed in evidence. To charge him would discourage others from coming foward in the future.