“The issue [the FA hearing to try John Terry] has caused a massive storm among black players. There is the timing issue with John Terry. There are a few things that lead you to believe it’s [FA] expediency. The first is Roy Hodgson’s approach. The first time he talked about it he said it’s sub-judice and then he made some stupid comments about Terry being found innocent already. He said, ’Why try him?’, not understanding that one is a criminal trial and the other is a professional misconduct charge.

They [then] waited until after the two World Cup qualifiers to try him. Why did they not do so as soon as the criminal trial took place? All these things come together and give the sense that the FA is acting in its own interest.â€

Piara Powar (Director of the Uefa-affiliated campaign Football Against Racism in Europe)

Hands up all those who would like to be in the shoes of the FA decision-makers over the next few days. No takers? Can’t say I blame you, bearing in mind the inordinate amount of cant already coming out of Soho Square in the wake of football’s comparison with London Olympian success and following hard on the heels of their Merseyside Mea Culpa. Just think, if you were a member of this august band of self-indulgent governance groupies you’d currently be knee-deep in so much lesson-learning and Hillsborough apologetics there would hardly be enough hours in the day for you to consider John Terry’s case to answer, let alone understand why an English court of law is being questioned over a decision already made therein.

Yet rule on it they must, if only to placate people like Piara Powar, those intent on finding someone [anyone] prepared to pass a judgement on JT that resembles, albeit in the dimmest of enlightenments, a guilty verdict. Yes indeed, in a hearing oddly acknowledged as somehow superior to all other ruling bodies, even to the exclusion of the British legal system itself, the FA is about to come down from On High and punish On Spec - for that is exactly what the ’balance of probabilities’ allows any Tom, Dick, or Harry Gill to do when sitting as member of a committee representing football‘s governing body.

A pity, then, that in such circumstances you have the ’victim’ himself taking centre stage last weekend, getting right to the snub of the matter and thereby making a mockery of his own, much vaunted, religious beliefs. Anton Ferdinand makes great play of being a Christian and has been called ‘spiritual’ in some newspaper reports in the last few months. However, forgiveness in the symbolic shape of a handshake flies in the face of further civil action threatened to be taken by this particular grudge-bearer and was therefore never a consideration. Nor will it need to be in future, if the FA punishment is similar to that dished out to Luis Suarez after the Evra affair, because a lengthy ban will surely end JT’s career.

Of course, another difference when comparing the effects of punishment for these two is one of changing issues and perspectives. Whereas the Ferdinands are, through no fault of anyone other than themselves, seemingly fixated on perceived racial hatreds, almost to the exclusion of commonsense in its most basic form, the United defender and Liverpool striker have, by and large, escaped the Caucasian and English overtones associated with use of the word ’black’, as opposed to use of the word ’n****r’, or the Uruguayan let’s-have-a-bit-of-friendly-banter derivation of it. If this makes any sense to you, well you’re a better man than I am Gunga Din, although whether I could still say that without risk of litigation, if I was a Premiership footballer and within earshot of a committee member from the All India Football Federation, is open to doubt.

However, what is without doubt in this age of colour-coded considerations is that Rio Ferdinand’s [slightly less ‘black’] use of the more descriptive ’choc ice’ comment is worthy of almost immediate [by comparison] FA rebuke, but it receives little by way of condemnation from Let’s Kick It Out campaigners, who are only too pleased to morph into Let’s Leave That One Well Alone apologists whenever the bigger picture gets a little bit too Jackson Pollocky for their liking. Furthermore, sadly for these faux offended individuals, the Ferdinands are no help whatsoever when it comes to clearing up after themselves, preferring to trample backwards and forwards with effrontery over their colour-laden canvas, before handing it back to the FA, much like a Royal Academy submission that is never rejected, but is taking a helluva long time to be accepted.

Yet accept it the FA must, whether they like or loathe an original nasty piece of work, whose authenticity and outright innocence has since been established by experts, they now have to give their own judgement at last. Never mind where these self-elected judges and jurors would really love to shove the whole trumped-up fiasco of a fresco, there is no hiding place for a pretty mess anymore, even if up until next Monday it had begun to feel at home in the corner they have painted themselves in. Out in the open it must go, if only to placate Piara and his pals, with final judgement pronounced as only the barmy ’balance of probabilities’ will allow...

Innocent once, but now guilty in a certain light… or words to that effect.

With apologies for shamelessly bumping my own topic (although in my defence I was the only poster to anticipate the current situation a few days ago) I should like to highlight the following Martin Samuel quote to emphasise the ludicrous position the FA now finds itself in…

“This is mighty stuff, with mighty ramifications, to simply be left in the realm of probability. Yet the FA has a lot riding on the outcome, too. ‘These are my principles and if you don’t like them, well I’ve got others,’ said Groucho Marx. It is much the same at the FA these days. The chairman should retire at 70, although now moves are afoot to override this complication when David Bernstein becomes a septuagenarian on May 22 next year. As for rule 6.8, the FA presses on regardless and hopes, no doubt, that Terry does not challenge the process further in arbitration.â€

My belief is that JT has been well advised on this matter and has decided to ‘wash his hands’ of these pick‘n mix-principled individuals at the FA in anticipation of an inevitable guilty verdict. When this is delivered, as it will be, the FA will effectively be saying that the court got it wrong, thereby claiming a greater degree of power to punish players than the law of the land. At this point, bearing in mind the instant racist stain appearing on John’s character, his legal team could move to take action against the FA by challenging their findings.

I know courts are famously reluctant to get involved in matters over which sporting authorities have jurisdiction, but is there a precedent for a governing body [like the FA] to wilfully ignore the findings of a court in order to deliver their own damning verdict? Perhaps any legal eagle amongst us might be able to come up with one, but I’m guessing that this could easily be a first and, if so, the FA would be in unknown and very dangerous territory of their own making.

A fine article from Martin Samuel which deserves to be read in full here

Dorset, i i have to say i agree with your 'bumping' post.

I alluded to JT maybe parting company for 'legal reasons' in my posting on the subject last evening. As he will no longer be in fear of being snubbed the door is wide open to challenge any guilty verdict in light of an aquittal by the 'REAL' court of law.

I hope personally, that he takes the FA to the cleaners, after all what does he stand to lose?

Alan

I hope personally, that he takes the FA to the cleaners, after all what does he stand to lose?

The question is, what does he stand to lose if he doesn't contest the verdict (assuming it's "guilty") .. ?

He stands to lose a whole lot, not least his current status as a Chelsea player potentially, as there will be enormous pressure on the club to sack him, and the club will not want to be sullied with the racist brush in the same way as JT has.

JT and Chelsea will be in a sticky situation should he be found guilty, therefore I fully expect him (with the club's backing) to contest, be that via the courts or the CAS.

Let's look at this ..

Paragraph 6.8 of the FA's own rulebook states ..

"Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case."

There is nothing ambiguous about that paragraph. By their own rules, this hearing should not be taking place. However, the FA have employed their lawyers and found a way round their own rulebook with regard to this case, simply because, in my view, there was such an outcry over the magistrate's verdict from anti-racism groups and the media. We had people like Garth Crooks coming out immediately after Terry was acquitted, saying, "It ain't over yet. Wait till the FA get hold of him." I found this quite staggering, the fact they were presuming his guilt, when a magistrate in a court of law quite clearly stated there was sufficient doubt. I also found it quite staggering that these same people, anti-racism crusaders no less, stayed quiet regarding Rio's subsequent tweet.

For my money, given this outcry from the "moral majority", and given the fact Suarez had been handed a lengthy ban, the FA have pursued this whereas otherwise they would not, and found a way to press ahead despite their own rules.

For that reason we can assume a guilty verdict.

It is almost a year since the game at Loftus Road and this story ain't over by a long way. I suspect a guilty verdict from the FA will only be the beginning, and I hope Terry fights it, regardless of the backlash from the media. I hope he fights it because a) it looks like he's got a case, and b) the consequences of a guilty verdict are calamitous for him and Chelsea.

He shan't be banned until all avenues are exhausted and I fully expect him to explore those avenues, on the advice of his legal team and Chelsea.

Davey, there is no way that Chelsea would sack him on the basis of an FA ban. I do think though that JT and the club will fight this every step of the way in any case.

Davey, there is no way that Chelsea would sack him on the basis of an FA ban.

Do you think they would strip him of the captaincy, considering the damage having a captain who has been found guilty of this charge could do to their image globally, and considering their stated intolerance of racism?

Nope. Might have been different if he had been convicted in the courts, but not an FA ban.

Do you think they would strip him of the captaincy, considering the damage having a captain who has been found guilty of this charge could do to their image globally, and considering their stated intolerance of racism?

Yes, a very good foresightful point...

I wasnt worried, and okay with JT retiring from International football.. now seeing this thread and reading the Martin samuel atricle I am.

I hope the club stick buy him and take the criminal court as precedent....

Blimey the FA have been weak over this (no surprise) , should have been nipped in the bud a year ago.

The question is, what does he stand to lose if he doesn't contest the verdict (assuming it's "guilty") .. ?

He stands to lose a whole lot, not least his current status as a Chelsea player potentially, as there will be enormous pressure on the club to sack him, and the club will not want to be sullied with the racist brush in the same way as JT has.

I have to agree DB, the club would be badgered to at least relieve him of the captaincy. I see this going all the way.

JT has a mighty weapon.. He was found innocent in a court of law, which unlike the kangaroo version of the FA (assuming a guilty verdict of course) will be the yardstick that will be used by ACAS, or even the UK's civil courts, in what could be a huge defamation case against the FA.

There really could be a huge bomb being dropped on the Fa by JT if he feels victimised and chooses to take his case outside football.

Alan

John Terry will not be sacked and will not lose his captaincy. End of story.

Bruce Buck (Can't believe I'm about to give him some credit) has backed him all the way through this, and even gave a character statement in court. He knows how much Chelsea means to John Terry and how much John Terry means to Chelsea.

Plus, if we were to be stripped of his captaincy, we would have to sing 'One Chelsea captain' as well as 'One England captain' and that would just be silly.

A fine article from Martin Samuel which deserves to be read in full here

He sums the whole situation up perfectly there. Also, it's a bit off topic here, but I liked the bit at the end about Platini as well. I've been waiting to see what action (if any) is taken against Lazio, I've a suspicion that if it was the English fans misbehaving UEFA would have dished out their punishment instantly.

Given this ..........

Paragraph 6.8 of the FA's own rulebook states ..

"Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case."

I'm staggered by what is continuing , they really are a laughing stock , and IMHO are losing any remaining credibility , it is truly ridiculous.

Just out of interest , did Garth Crooks comment on donkeys tweet , given his willingness to comment on JT at every opportunity.

Given this ..........

Paragraph 6.8 of the FA's own rulebook states ..

"Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case."

I'm staggered by what is continuing , they really are a laughing stock , and IMHO are losing any remaining credibility , it is truly ridiculous.

Just out of interest , did Garth Crooks comment on donkeys tweet , given his willingness to comment on JT at every opportunity.

Indeed

and this is the point in a nutshell... notice how the FA secretary (who looks like he has never seen a football in his life let alone a match), played it down more or less saying, we don’t understand JT's position, what’s the big deal......

this is no longer an issue about what JT has done it is supposedly about bring the game into disrepute, which apparently is a separate issue ! ... and if that is the case then Ferdinand needs the book thrown at him too... but that won’t happen, so already the FA play it down as they are stuck between a rock and hard place.

JT witch hunt from start to finish.

Edited September 25, 201213 yr by andy

Given this ..........

Paragraph 6.8 of the FA's own rulebook states ..

"Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case."

I'm staggered by what is continuing , they really are a laughing stock , and IMHO are losing any remaining credibility , it is truly ridiculous.

This is my understanding of what has happened ..

JT's lawyers cited that paragraph to the FA and asked them to remove the charge on the basis of it. The FA brought in their lawyers to have a look. According to the FA's lawyers, the fact that Terry admitted in court using the words (regardless of context) is an admission of guilt in so far as the FA's rules are concerned. You see, those words are unacceptable according to the FA's own rules, and if it is proven you used them you are in breach of those rules, with the burden of proof being on you to prove the context, not the FA.

In other words, as far as the FA are concerned, and in accordance with this paragraph, the result of the court case was "correct" (magistrate had no choice due to sufficient doubt), the facts before the judge were true, and that means, according to the FA's own rules and not the law of the land, Terry has a case to answer.

I understand both sides of the legal argument here. However, I'm in no doubt, in normal circumstances, the FA would have dropped this after Terry was acquitted, in accordance with this paragraph. However, there was a media sh*tstorm, anti-racism crusaders were appalled, Luis Suarez had already received a ban, and the FA felt they had to proceed.

Terry's statement says that by pursuing this case against him the FA are making his position untenable. He has received a lot of stick for saying that, being accused of playing the victim whereas in fact he has brought this on himself. However, the point he is making, and which the national media have largely ignored, is that by their own rules they should really be dropping this case, as he has already been acquitted. His argument is legitimate, which nobody is crediting him for. That's not to say his argument would stand up to legal scrutiny (we would only ever know if he takes the FA to court) but it is certainly a legitimate viewpoint. He went to court, the consequences for him were terrible if found guilty, but there simply was not sufficient proof. He feels he has been through enough and that should be the end of it. The FA disagree. I suspect he knew all along they would disagree and I suspect his retiring from international duty is a calculated ploy. There is no way he would quit otherwise. Either he hopes it will help him secure a not-guilty verdict, or he knows the verdict will be guilty and he knows his international future was over anyway. Perhaps he even has a plan in place once the guilty verdict arrives, a plan that involves appealing to the CAS, and he knew that he would have to get himself out of the international picture to pursue that, because it would just be way too complicated were he still an international player. Guilty according to the FA, banned, appeals to the CAS therefore the ban is deferred, eligible to still play for England while all and sundry castigate him even more. That was just not going to happen so he retired, on the eve of the hearing, once his legal team were resigned to the hearing taking place. He did not want to be hounded out or his international career to be ended via a ban, so he pulled the plug himself. If he does want to appeal, he will do so a Chelsea player and not an England one and that makes sense. I think he has done exactly the right thing by retiring and in fact I've noticed it has garnered a bit of sympathy. It's a very sad way for it to end, he does not deserve the witch-hunt, and many people can see that. Furthermore, a lot of colleagues, both present and past, at club and international level, have come out in the last two days and defended his character. Resigning is the best thing he could have done, not least for his state of mind, because it will take the heat off him a little bit. He is ours now, not England's, and he can play for fans that want him.

We love you JT. Like no other player before. We love you. You had to take the sh*t, you had to bear the brunt of all the hate towards our club. You did some stupid things but we forgive you because you always served this club with distinction and you did so much to contribute to our success, probably more than any other player. It has cost you a lot, personally and professionally, and for that we love you even more. You give your all for Chelsea, you are by far the best captain and defender we have ever had, and that's why we will always hold you in nothing but the highest regard. You never shirk, you never strop, you never cause division within the camp. You are the rock upon which our success is built. You are the leader and you are by far my favourite-ever player. England will miss you, far more than they realise. Can you imagine Rio Ferdinand organising the defence at set-pieces? F**k em. You're exclusively ours now and we're the lucky ones.

Hodgson takes the call. Terry informs him he's retiring. What does Hodgson think? "I've just lost my best defender and my strongest character. He always stands up for me on the field, setting the right example. He organises everybody he puts his body on the line every time. Off the field he is a good influence, the players like him. He is good to the younger guys, going out of his way more than any other player to welcome them and make them feel involved. He respects the manager. He implements his instructions on the field. He is selfless. As a player, he always take responsibility." Hodgson's thinking, "I've just lost that. By golly what am I going to do? Pick Rio Ferdinand? You're having a laugh!".

There's a reason every single manager has made Terry captain. It's not a f**king coincidence. Capello, Mourinho, these guys know their stuff.

As a footnote, I would say I don't attach much blame to the FA. They did not cause this. The courts got involved and they had to delay their own hearing. As I've explained, you can't really blame them for pursuing their hearing, given the circumstances. Sure it has taken a long time but they did not make the complaint to the police and a lot of time has been taken up comprising the panel at the hearing, at the behest of both sets of legal teams. Furthermore, they allowed Hodgson to pick who he wanted and he plumped for Terry. They could have easily banned him while these charges hovered over him but they did not. In many professions you would have been suspended until the outcome had been reached. Yes they took the captaincy off him and they should have consulted Capello but Capello wanted JT to remain and that put the FA in a very difficult position, a position they didn't cause. They are committed to stamping out racism, JT had these charges hanging over him and he was the national captain, the captain of a nation that represents many black people. We can argue the finer points of this but the thing to remember is JT said those words, nobody else, and he has to take responsibility, the FA did not create the furore, the media did, and the FA did not complain to the police. I really do not think we do ourselves any favours by blaming the FA in this instance. If anything, save your ire for the Ferdinand Brothers, because I think they are the real villains of this piece. Remember, they did not hear a thing Terry said, there is no conclusive proof as to what he said, it didn't involve Rio at all, Ashley was brought into it against his will, and yet, they are still trying to lead a campaign against Terry, who, coincidentally, had been given the armband back at Rio's expense ..

Edit: You do the math.

Edited September 25, 201213 yr by Davey Baby

DB , great post. I would be leaning towards a guilty verdict at this stage.

They will use Suarez as a benchmark and given Rio's fine for his tweet I've no doubt they will look to re-dress the balance , which will ever so slightly placate the crusade brigade. The way this whole sorry episode has started , multiplied and continued is a slap in the face for common sense.

Racism is a horrible thing and completely un-acceptable but ,the court case heard from those there , made a decision based on those facts and that should be that.

As for the Ferdinand's , agenda is the word that springs to mind.