Should We Stay Or Should We Go? - The Chelsea News Thread

The Gerrard case is not relevant because it has nothing to do with football. Both Terry's and Suarez's cases, on the other hand, took place on the field. \
Agreed that the FA should not be charging him, though, especially with a lower standard of proof. Beyong reasonable doubt as a standard in criminal cases (and the FA charge is of a similar nature) is there for a good reason.

 

But he's not being charged with kicking someone or some other type of violent play, is he, so it's not a 'football offence'. Other than some rather vague and nebulous football infractions his alleged 'crime' is a criminal one. Suarez didn't have a criminal trial, (although on this basis he should have), so that's not relevant either.

In English law, (as opposed to Scottish law, for instance, which has an option of 'unproven' as a verdict), English law only has the two options of guilty or innocent. As he's been found innocent it makes a nonsense for someone ELSE to come along and attempt to 'try' it again, even assuming they were competent which the FA most definitely ISN'T.

 

Still kinda a c#nt move by the FA....

 

That has been my point. I still don't like it. But yes, we all knew this was going to happen. Nice is probably right, like to end up a 5 match ban. We really won't miss him.

 

As several people have said, that didn't happen on the pitch. And, again, FIFA and the FA aren't making a concerted efforts to stop Scousers from being stupid. (As if anything could do that.)

People already are doing that. There's now talk of retroactive diving bans, bad tackles are reviewed, cards are rescinded, etc. This is hardly a new occurrence.

A criminal court hasn't decided he's innocent, it has given a "not guilty" verdict, which is not the same thing. Keep in mind, criminal courts operate on a much higher standard of proof, whereas the FA likely operates on a "preponderance of evidence" standard, which makes sense. In other words, the FA was correct in waiting. If Terry had been found guilty, the FA's case was built for it. If, as happened, he was innocent, the FA can look at it with its own procedures. Any other result would be silly - there's no way Suarez would have been convicted in court, for example, but no one brought a charge against him. The FA didn't bring a criminal charge against Terry in this case, so there's no reason they can't investigate him themselves.

 

Well, we ALL know what's going to happen, don't we. The FA will read the headlines in The Sun and The Daily-Hate Mail and will do as they're told.

 

But this isn't a matter of interpretation as far as I can see. This is a simple 'yes or no' issue. Either he said 'you black ****', (a simple, bald statement), or he said 'I DIDN'T say you black ****', (which is what the video seems to show), i e. the negation of the statement. As the evidence is inconclusive he was found innocent. The FA isn't going to know any more than anyone ELSE about the matter.

And as to your idea that you'd accept the punishment from your professional body, REALLY? When you'd been found innocent of the very thing you're being punished for? You'd accept it THEN?

 

No, we don't all know that. I know the FA do some stupid things, but that doesn't mean everything they do is stupid.

 

LOL Great stuff... Oh, hang on, you're being serious, aren't you

Well, we'll see, won't we.

 

Not saying that it would be the right course of action, more of a hypothetical. But if I'm being sued for racially abusing a co-worker, and win my case, and then get punished by my employer, don't i have the LEGAL right to sue my employer for punishing me using evidence that contradicts the countries LEGAL system.

I assumed the English judiciary system > the FA.

Well, most of the things the FA does is stupid. Especially with us.

 

No. The English legal system hasn't declared John Terry innocent, it simply said he's not guilty without a reasonable doubt. Whether or not he's guilty using a "preponderance of evidence" test is a different issue.

In short, just because OJ was acquitted of killing his wife doesn't mean his employer couldn't fire him.

 

Nope,

Of one of my employers gets a DWI and beats the system and can still fire him...

 

It depends what 'beat the system' means though, doesn't it. If by 'beat the system' you mean he can show he wasn't even IN the car, wasn't drunk at the time and wasn't driving ANY car at the time, I think he'd have a case for wrongful dismissal.

In the OJ case, (which is US law strictly speaking), he was taken to a civil court so, on that basis I'd imagine AF could take JT to civil court too.

In the Suarez case there WASN'T a criminal trial so the issue of a guilty or innocence finding in one wasn't relevant.

The nearest equivalent for me is the Steven Gerrard case because he was also found innocent, (acquitted if you prefer), and, regarding the point about it being on a football field and that being the only reason the FA are involved...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19052103
Rio Ferdinand charged by FA for 'choc ice' tweet
Manchester United's Rio Ferdinand has been charged with improper conduct by the Football Association in relation to comments posted on Twitter

That wasn't on a football field so why is the FA getting involved in THAT?

Let's face it, the FA get involved in whatever the FA WANT to get involved in, (or are instructed to by the 'meeja'), no more, no less. In the same way they ignored the Gerrard case they could do the same thing here if they wanted to.

If it's a matter of moral turpitude, (the previous reason for sacking JT as England captain), how come they put Giggs as team GB captain?

The whole thing's an absolute farce. The FA have absolutely NO qualms about involving themselves in things they find slightly embarrassing whilst ignoring other things it would be too awkward to handle.

 

Selective prosecution is a problem, but the question is whether or not they've made the right decision to investigate in this case. Given the evidence, I'd say yes.

 

Thats not beating the system..that is proving he didn't do it..

 

Quite! ... and any combination of options in between. Point being that if someone is acquitted of something it's a brave man that THEN wants to punish them for that very same thing and, as in this case, it's a matter of choosing to do something in one case whilst ignoring it on another. That's what annoys me about it.

Anyway, I think we've analysed the crap out of this topic... maybe we should forget about it until there's further news.

 

No, it's really not. There are different administrative procedures with different standards of evidence. The threshold for sending someone to jail for an offense is a lot higher than, say, firing that same employee, or even getting a verdict in civil court. The FA properly waited in this case, because if the trial had gone the other way, they'd not have needed to do an investigation at all. The FA also didn't have that much choice in the matter, since they had just investigated Suarez for something similar. You want to complain they ignored Gerrard's stupidity of what, almost 10 years ago? OK, fine. But in this case, the FA's decision makes sense.

 

About 3 actually... and you think it would make a difference?

Anyway, whatever!

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...om-board-of-chelsea-pitch-owners-8004640.html
Pretty alarming report I would say, SNCPO fast losing their ground.