Terry banned for four games

[Paul Marin]

Paul Marin, it appears to me you feel it is your duty to relentlessly defend those accused of racism.

I could be wrong.

Mo, Where am I defending racism with JT? Read my posts on here about JT carefully. If there is ANYONE on this board who has experienced BLATANT racism it's me. People have called me ******, paki, half-pak, n*gga, camel-jockey, sand-man, spook, skidmark etc. etc. I have heard it all. And I will take a bet on that all day long. I was 13 years old when my family moved to an all white industrial town an hour outside Toronto in 1974. One of the first classes I went to, the teacher told the boys that he was a pilot in the Luftwaffe...everyone cheered. Our school team soccer coach told me (I was easily one of the best players they'd ever seen) that I "didn't fit in".

The one thing I have learned from that experience is that a RACIST is a DISGUSTING THING...you have to be careful who you call one. It is one of Mandela's teachings. I don't know if JT is a racist...but he did use the words "b-c". I don't trust the FA. Any court with a 99.5% conviction rate is a kangaroo court. I will wait for their report.

The next time you make an insinuation like that about me, I will react very badly - I am not joking. You will not like my response...so in all seriousness...watch it.

[Mosiah]

Paul Marin, it appears to me you feel it is your duty to relentlessly defend those accused of racism.

I could be wrong.

[Assasin]

Now everybody has been charged and fine. Can the game go ahead.

FA for once I must commend your work on racism and showing players that you are serious.

Kangaroo court to the world!!!!!!!

[World Fan]

Not a happy bunny, is he?

[Gamma]

well a crmiinal conviction is far worse and after that, what is the point? i don;t know the wheres and whyfores of the criminal chargesso i won't get into it.

sufficed to say that if there is a criminal charge it ought to be dealt with before BECAUSE if criminally convicted what is the point???

[Paul Marin]

Bwoy if me a go get stranded in a hot desert, I would want to be stuck with you. The way yuh relentless, me strongly believe you could wring water out a rock stone to rhatid. At least me would have a fighting chance for survival.

And when me wring de wata outa de rock stone...me nah go give you none!

[Paul Marin]

it does not necessarily mean new evidence.

but if you look at the SAME evidence and apply a different standard then the result is different. an example is the criminal and civil trials involving OJ simpson and the rodney king policemen.

if they had found him guilty in the criminal courts, do you think the FA would have charged him?

This is where it is disingenuous. They should have charged him regardless of the outcome of the criminal case BEFORE the criminal case. The system does not protect either the game or the players, both the accused and the accuser get a raw deal. In this case though, Anton did not allege anything like the liad did against Suarez and JT CLEARLY used the words. I will wait to read the report but the FA needs to have a higher standard when they start to romp with people's reputations. As I said - where in the world can you find a court with a 99.5% conviction rate?

[HL]

teheee

[Gamma]

yeah? and when unnuh run outta food where yuh think him a guh look first?

[Jangle]

Bwoy if me a go get stranded in a hot desert, I would want to be stuck with you. The way yuh relentless, me strongly believe you could wring water out a rock stone to rhatid. At least me would have a fighting chance for survival.

[Gamma]

it does not necessarily mean new evidence.

but if you look at the SAME evidence and apply a different standard then the result is different. an example is the criminal and civil trials involving OJ simpson and the rodney king policemen.

if they had found him guilty in the criminal courts, do you think the FA would have charged him?

[Paul Marin]

the standards. they can use the SAME evidence and come up with a different verdict because of the standard of proof. it might not make it to beyond a reasonable doubt but would be sufficient on a balance of the probabilities.

not it would not necessarily mean that itis interpreted. but if it is inconclusive on the BARD standard, it might be sufficient on the balance of probablities i.e. more likely than not standard.

But they say they will accept the criminal courts findings UNLESS there is evidence not to. My question is, does that have to be new evidence? If you are saying that it can the the same evidence the court looked at, but interpreted under the BOP standard, then the passage is poorly worded AND introduces a whole different perspective on the fairness of their approach especially with regard to timing.

I am assuming they had the same evidence that the court had before the court case. So if that evidence was sufficient to charge him prior to the court case, why not do so immediately? If that evidence was INSUFFICIENT, then the evidence they are using either had to come during or after the court case.

My problem with all of this is not that I don't think Terry should be charged, it is the way the FA goes about it. Do you know any court in the world where there is a 99.5% conviction rate other than the FA? Something is wrong when you see that happening. The players can't all be that wrong.

Terry clearly used the words B-C, so I don't know why they didn't charge him immediately especially knowing that the court case would be using a different standard. I will read the report when they publish it.

[Gamma]

the standards. they can use the SAME evidence and come up with a different verdict because of the standard of proof. it might not make it to beyond a reasonable doubt but would be sufficient on a balance of the probabilities.

not it would not necessarily mean that itis interpreted. but if it is inconclusive on the BARD standard, it might be sufficient on the balance of probablities i.e. more likely than not standard.

[Paul Marin]

Barristah - explain this to me...this is from the FA Rule Book...

In any proceedings before a Regulatory Commission, the Regulatory Commissionshall not
be obliged to follow the strict rules of evidence, may admit such evidence as it thinks fit and
accord such evidence such weight as it thinks appropriate in all the circumstances. 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.

How is it possible to have "clear and convincing evidence" refuting the court's findings unless it was new? If it was evidence that the court already saw (i.e. not new), does this mean that the FA can interpret prior evidence differently from the courts?

[Paul Marin]

whatEVERRRR ....

LOL!! GWEY!!