John Terry Found Guilty Of Using ‘Abusive Words In Reference To Colour Or Race’ – Fined £220k, Given Four-Game Ban

Alan Duffy

27th, September 2012

27 Comments

By Alan Duffy

JT on his way in to Wembley this morning.

Ex-England man John Terry may have dodged the bullet in the high court, but today The FA have found the Chelsea man guilty of racially abusing Anton Ferdinand in that infamous game at Loftus Road last season. His punishment? A four-game ban, half the length of the one they dished out to Luis Suarez. Is this fair? I’m not so sure.

Oh, he’s also been fined £220,000, a pretty decent amount, even by footballer standards. Let the debate begin! (again).

Here’s the FA’s statement:

An Independent Regulatory Commission has today found a charge of misconduct against John Terry proven and has issued a suspension for a period of four matches and a fine of £220,000, pending appeal.

[Mr Terry was charged] on Friday 27 July 2012 with using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Queens Park Rangers’ Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to colour and/or race contrary to FA Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.

The decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission is as follows:

– Mr Terry be suspended from all domestic club football until such time as Chelsea’s First Team have completed four competitive matches

– Fined the sum of £220,000

– The Independent Regulatory Commission will provide written reasons for its decision in due course. Mr Terry has the right to appeal the decision of the Independent Regulatory Commission to an Appeal Board. An appeal must be lodged within 14 days from receipt of the written reasons for the decision.

Terry has 14 days to appeal.

Obviously, the major bone of contention – as mentioned previously – will be the fact that Suarez was given a ‘double scoop’, i.e, eight games in the cooler (plus a report into the incident) for what appears to be exactly the same offence on the surface. We await to hear the FA’s explanation of that little cookie with bated breath.

Thoughts?

You have already read 4 premium articles for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow

Posted in Chelsea

Share this article: Email

27 Comments

  1. Mr Sensible says:

    I think the reason Suarez’s ban was longer was the persistent use of the word whereas Terry only said it once.

    Whether Terry meant it or not, to shout those words in public is incredibly dumb. I can’t stand the guy so I couldn’t really give a shit about him to be honest. Great player and leader on his day but still an absolute scumbag.

  2. Fins says:

    How on earth can the FA find him guilty of something he has already been acquitted of by a high court ? That sounds like he’s being judged twice for the same offense, which is illegal (European Law). Think what you may about JT but this does seem like the FA are trying to show that they are willing to stamp out racism, obviously a good thing, but they are making an example of an innocent man (or so says a jurisdiction of superior quality). I guess that explains the shorter ban.

  3. Al says:

    The FA once again show how inept they are, to have any kind of credibility they had to give Terry the same ban as Suarez, regardless of how many times the word was used, this would have given the message that racism (or percieved racism) won’t be tolerated, instead they once again demonstrated that they make it up as they go along

  4. Al says:

    @ Fins – The FA have a different burden of proof, it was similar in the Suarez case in that if it had gone to court there was no way Suarez would have been found guilty

  5. Wordsmith says:

    Shouldn’t it read bone OF contention, rather than bone ON contention?
    Not important in many eyes for sure but I cannot read the words Bone on without getting a Bone on.

  6. Tom says:

    @fins the law of the land is different to the rules in football.
    he broke the football rules by just referring to colour even if he was repeating something (which I for one doubt, sounds like a lawyer told him that was the one defence).
    He may not of broke the law or it can not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    I think hes an idiot, he should have known not mention race in anyway on the football field because the eyes of the media are on him.
    i think it just highlights the fact that he and his family are a bunch of scumbags lets face it this isnt the first time hes been up to nasty business.
    on his retirement… good ridence hes past it anyway he wouldnt be any good for the world cup lets concentrate on the nest generation.

  7. Alf says:

    @fins the FA judge on the balance of probability as opposed to something being beyond reasonable doubt like the courts. And in acquitting him the judge made it clear it was only because he couldn’t prove the context of the words ruins reasonable doubt, and not because he was innocent of the abuse

  8. daz says:

    this should have happened months ago, should never had gone to court. hopefully he just serves the ban and gets on with it. coming from a chelsea fan whose sick of this shit

  9. Phil says:

    It helps John Terry vis a vis Suarez that his victim never heard what was said and so couldn’t actually be offended.

  10. Steve K says:

    Paragraph 6.8 of the FA’s Rules and Regulations 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.”

  11. Mr. Chopper says:

    Also, let’s not forget this is a completely different charge to the one he was up in court with. This says he was aggressive/abusive and used a racial term, rather than racially abusing Anton. Whilst that may sound like splitting hairs, it’s essentially the same outcome as the court found: He said “black bastard” whilst arguing with Anton, but it couldn’t be proved as to whether he was saying “I didn’t call you a black bastard” or actually calling him that outright.

    Not getting the same ban as Suarez is going to ruffle a few feathers though, because it’s the same charge and should be dealt with equally.

  12. plops says:

    Maybe they thought giving him a proper fine as well as 8 matches was a bit mean so just gave him 4. Yeah that’s it.

    At least that’s all over with…or is it? OOOOOOH appeals next.

  13. zero tolerance says:

    Chelsea have a zero tolerance on racism, I look forward to them sacking the racist or at least the media pointing out the massive hypocrisy that its ok for them to have a racist captain, but not for people in the crowd to say they exact same thing.

  14. Pieman says:

    So John Terry is simultaneously Not A Racist and A Racist, at the same time. He’s Schrodinger’s Twat.

  15. Captain America says:

    You Brits are pussies.

  16. Mustafa says:

    I’m a United fan but the fact that Suarez was given 8 while he got 4 is a tad ridiculous… certainly going to raise some questions.

  17. TONY GOLD says:

    0users disliked this comment
    TONYGOLD • 12 minutes ago
    The f.a. Kangaroo court is held in secret!!!!, they have a guilty rate of 99.5%!!!!,they even have secret “judges”!!!! the charge against john terry,which they maintain was a different charge from the court of law,,came from a 5 second you tube tape ??? how the hell can the charge be different ??? grosvenor law must proceed with john terrys appeal(which he will win easily), and take the f.a. To arbitration,and expose their totally immoral dictatorship..
    View 1 Reply

  18. js94 says:

    Suarez given an 8 game ban on Evra’s word
    Terry given a 4 game ban on video evidence
    Seems fair

  19. sleeba says:

    So the many people who call John Terry and his family (which can include his children and wife) “scumbags” whilst castigating him for being a “racist” must be feeling pretty righteous right now.
    Personally, I think it’s a feud between the Ferdinands’ and Terry over the England captain’s band, and spilled over into a media shark fest. I believe the “black” comment is due to ignorance not a dislike for someone’s skin colour. As we heard from court, there’s 2 idiots here not just one. The F.A. are complete buffoons letting last so long. JT should take the punishment and move on whilst making up for it in the community working for under-privileged kids without a CFC PR in tow.
    Move on.

  20. brownie says:

    rio ferdinand and ashley cole should be banned and fined for using twitter. grown men using twitter is not even cool. it’s like that one 35 year old guy at every party that has his ear pierced and asks if you want to go roller blading with him

  21. KKK says:

    Suarez got 8 games because racism is penalized x2 when it’s against a Manchester United player. To offset it, the FA fined Terry 220,000 vs 40,000 for Suarez. That’s because as a player born and raised in England, he should really know better vs the ignorance of Johnny Foreigner Suarez.

  22. Nick L says:

    the FA had an opportunity to put right a wrong that the courts failed to produce, and i for one am glad they had the balls to do it. Even if the ban should have been longer (i.e. Suarez)
    every body is aware that John Terry was and is GUILTY, but his and Roman Abramovic’s money means more to the CPS, than it does to the FA.
    The fact of the matter remains John Terry did exactly what was said in the press and between EVERY decent football supporter on this island.
    Finally Justice has been served its just a shame the courts did not see fit to punish him for what he did

  23. HARRY says:

    Surely rio ferdinand must get banned for his twitter comment… or is it only white people that can be fount guilty of racism?

  24. CFC_Jay says:

    so let me get this right……..if i heard someone calling a team mate of mine a black b******, and i told this team mate…. “hey, that player over there just called you a black b*******…..”, in the eyes of the FA i should be suspended and fined for repeating those words regardless of the inoffencive manner in which i said them?
    What is this world coming to?!?!?!
    i dont doubt JT said those words but it was only in an inquizative way and the video evidence clearly shows this.
    yes off the field JT does seem to be quite a knob head, but on the field he is a born leader (and this is all i care about)! on or off the field though he is in no way a racist, and certainly not guilty like most of you haters are suggesting.

  25. CFC_Jay says:

    so let me get this right……….if i heard someone calling a team mate of mine a black b******, and i told this team mate…. “hey, that player over there just called you a black b*******…..”, in the eyes of the FA i should be suspended and fined for repeating those words regardless of the inoffencive manner in which i said them?
    What is this world coming to?!?!?!
    i dont doubt JT said those words but it was only in an inquizative way and the video evidence clearly shows this.
    yes off the field JT does seem to be quite a knob head, but on the field he is a born leader (and this is all i care about)! on or off the field though he is in no way a racist, and certainly not guilty like most of you haters are suggesting!

  26. Del says:

    Three words: Justice is served.

Leave a Reply