Chelsea's John Terry was handed "just" a four-game ban and a fine of ?220,000, while Luis Suarez of Liverpool was given eight matches and a ?40,000 fine for the same offense involving a racist slur.Where's the consistency, asked Planet Twitter?We should not be surprised at the discrepancy as the Football Association's disciplinary system inhabits a world of its own, where common sense and a natural sense of justice are too often bystanders.At the same time we should put our outrage on hold until we have heard the detailed reasons by the Independent Regulatory Commission, which included a barrister.Terry was found guilty of "using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behavior towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to color and/or race contrary to F.A. Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011."Inevitably the sanction was compared with the eight-match suspension handed to Suarez last season for the same offense against Patrice Evra of Manchester United. While Terry was cleared of using racist language to Ferdinand in a court of law where the magistrate had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, a football commission's threshold is on the balance of probability.The commission explained the Suarez punishment: "As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr. Suarez's behavior was far more serious than a single use of the word. If that was all that Mr. Suarez had done, and we had found the charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed."Hands can be tied by legal red tape and Suarez's lengthier ban seems to be because he used an insulting word eight times. However, what the pair have in common is that they have both been found guilty, and while Liverpool's reaction to Suarez's verdict was a tacky sense of injustice, we can expect a less hysterical response from Chelsea.Terry will never get the sympathy vote because while respected as a player, he is, outside of Chelsea, perceived by many as a loathsome human being.Ryan Giggs raises no more than an eyebrow for having an alleged eight-year affair with his sister-in-law, but if Terry committed a parking violation some would want him sent to the Tower of London.Of course, Terry has a list of indiscretions that he calls misunderstandings, and when the 32-year-old faced the disciplinary commission this week he claimed he was the victim and that the F.A. treated other players who were the subject of criminal proceedings differently.It is never JT's fault, always a witch-hunt, an anti-Chelsea stitch-up. The only thing he's been guilty of is missing a penalty. The timing of his retirement from international football was lawyer-driven, announced on the eve of his hearing last Monday, designed to get your retaliation in first.As a player Terry remains inspirational, committed, consistent, brave and has leadership qualities that saw him made captain of England.Unfortunately, he also lost the captaincy twice, and last May he said he would never turn his back on his country, which is precisely what he has done.He will be remembered as a passionate and courageous defender who consistently made the headlines for the wrong reasons. Along with the alleged affair with the ex-partner of teammate Wayne Bridge, Terry also embarrassed the F.A. when it was revealed the private box at Wembley he hired at a discount rate was being offered on the black market. Parking his car in a disabled bay was, like most things, a misunderstanding.It is sad that a player who won 78 caps should retire in this matter, but there was an inevitability about it because whatever Terry did seemed to be surrounded by controversy.Few tears have been shed for the man who wore the armband with pride but did not know how to behave as an England captain is expected to.Terry and his legal team will decide whether to appeal when they receive the commission's findings. He will not want to accept the verdict or the sanction but he knows the chances of either being changed are zero.* * *THE HYPOCRITE of the Year award will surely go to Stoke City manager Tony Pulis. The Welshman understandably complained about the diving antics of Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic and Oscar during last Saturday's 1-0 defeat at Stamford Bridge.Pulis certainly had a point about Ivanovic, who should have been cautioned for simulation (Oscar was, a little harshly).The weakness in his argument is that when Peter Crouch twice handled the ball as he scored against Manchester City the previous weekend, Pulis said: "If Peter's got away with it, then brilliant."So it's OK when one of his players cheats but not when an opponent does it.On Thursday, Pulis said: "The F.A. should pull people up for diving and give them a three-game ban straight away. Ivanovic would be looking at three games, Chelsea wouldn't be too happy with him and I don't think he would be diving around any more."As violence must be worse than diving, I wonder what punishment Pulis would give to a player who elbows an opponent off the ball?Stoke's Andy Wilkinson is serving a three-game ban for such an offense. Maybe he received a pay rise.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
Showing posts with label Terrys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrys. Show all posts
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Terry's legacy tainted by scandals
LONDON — Four Games.Chelsea's John Terry was handed "just" a four-game ban and a fine of ?220,000, while Luis Suarez of Liverpool was given eight matches and a ?40,000 fine for the same offense involving a racist slur.Where's the consistency, asked Planet Twitter?We should not be surprised at the discrepancy as the Football Association's disciplinary system inhabits a world of its own, where common sense and a natural sense of justice are too often bystanders.At the same time we should put our outrage on hold until we have heard the detailed reasons by the Independent Regulatory Commission, which included a barrister.Terry was found guilty of "using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behavior towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to color and/or race contrary to F.A. Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011."Inevitably the sanction was compared with the eight-match suspension handed to Suarez last season for the same offense against Patrice Evra of Manchester United. While Terry was cleared of using racist language to Ferdinand in a court of law where the magistrate had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, a football commission's threshold is on the balance of probability.The commission explained the Suarez punishment: "As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr. Suarez's behavior was far more serious than a single use of the word. If that was all that Mr. Suarez had done, and we had found the charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed."Hands can be tied by legal red tape and Suarez's lengthier ban seems to be because he used an insulting word eight times. However, what the pair have in common is that they have both been found guilty, and while Liverpool's reaction to Suarez's verdict was a tacky sense of injustice, we can expect a less hysterical response from Chelsea.Terry will never get the sympathy vote because while respected as a player, he is, outside of Chelsea, perceived by many as a loathsome human being.Ryan Giggs raises no more than an eyebrow for having an alleged eight-year affair with his sister-in-law, but if Terry committed a parking violation some would want him sent to the Tower of London.Of course, Terry has a list of indiscretions that he calls misunderstandings, and when the 32-year-old faced the disciplinary commission this week he claimed he was the victim and that the F.A. treated other players who were the subject of criminal proceedings differently.It is never JT's fault, always a witch-hunt, an anti-Chelsea stitch-up. The only thing he's been guilty of is missing a penalty. The timing of his retirement from international football was lawyer-driven, announced on the eve of his hearing last Monday, designed to get your retaliation in first.As a player Terry remains inspirational, committed, consistent, brave and has leadership qualities that saw him made captain of England.Unfortunately, he also lost the captaincy twice, and last May he said he would never turn his back on his country, which is precisely what he has done.He will be remembered as a passionate and courageous defender who consistently made the headlines for the wrong reasons. Along with the alleged affair with the ex-partner of teammate Wayne Bridge, Terry also embarrassed the F.A. when it was revealed the private box at Wembley he hired at a discount rate was being offered on the black market. Parking his car in a disabled bay was, like most things, a misunderstanding.It is sad that a player who won 78 caps should retire in this matter, but there was an inevitability about it because whatever Terry did seemed to be surrounded by controversy.Few tears have been shed for the man who wore the armband with pride but did not know how to behave as an England captain is expected to.Terry and his legal team will decide whether to appeal when they receive the commission's findings. He will not want to accept the verdict or the sanction but he knows the chances of either being changed are zero.* * *THE HYPOCRITE of the Year award will surely go to Stoke City manager Tony Pulis. The Welshman understandably complained about the diving antics of Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic and Oscar during last Saturday's 1-0 defeat at Stamford Bridge.Pulis certainly had a point about Ivanovic, who should have been cautioned for simulation (Oscar was, a little harshly).The weakness in his argument is that when Peter Crouch twice handled the ball as he scored against Manchester City the previous weekend, Pulis said: "If Peter's got away with it, then brilliant."So it's OK when one of his players cheats but not when an opponent does it.On Thursday, Pulis said: "The F.A. should pull people up for diving and give them a three-game ban straight away. Ivanovic would be looking at three games, Chelsea wouldn't be too happy with him and I don't think he would be diving around any more."As violence must be worse than diving, I wonder what punishment Pulis would give to a player who elbows an opponent off the ball?Stoke's Andy Wilkinson is serving a three-game ban for such an offense. Maybe he received a pay rise.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
Chelsea's John Terry was handed "just" a four-game ban and a fine of ?220,000, while Luis Suarez of Liverpool was given eight matches and a ?40,000 fine for the same offense involving a racist slur.Where's the consistency, asked Planet Twitter?We should not be surprised at the discrepancy as the Football Association's disciplinary system inhabits a world of its own, where common sense and a natural sense of justice are too often bystanders.At the same time we should put our outrage on hold until we have heard the detailed reasons by the Independent Regulatory Commission, which included a barrister.Terry was found guilty of "using abusive and/or insulting words and/or behavior towards Queens Park Rangers' Anton Ferdinand and which included a reference to color and/or race contrary to F.A. Rule E3[2] in relation to the Queens Park Rangers FC versus Chelsea FC fixture at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011."Inevitably the sanction was compared with the eight-match suspension handed to Suarez last season for the same offense against Patrice Evra of Manchester United. While Terry was cleared of using racist language to Ferdinand in a court of law where the magistrate had to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, a football commission's threshold is on the balance of probability.The commission explained the Suarez punishment: "As for the length of the suspension, we concluded that a four-match ban, which was the entry point under Rule E3(2), would be too low and would not reflect the gravity of the misconduct. Mr. Suarez's behavior was far more serious than a single use of the word. If that was all that Mr. Suarez had done, and we had found the charge proved, the penalty would have been less than we have imposed."Hands can be tied by legal red tape and Suarez's lengthier ban seems to be because he used an insulting word eight times. However, what the pair have in common is that they have both been found guilty, and while Liverpool's reaction to Suarez's verdict was a tacky sense of injustice, we can expect a less hysterical response from Chelsea.Terry will never get the sympathy vote because while respected as a player, he is, outside of Chelsea, perceived by many as a loathsome human being.Ryan Giggs raises no more than an eyebrow for having an alleged eight-year affair with his sister-in-law, but if Terry committed a parking violation some would want him sent to the Tower of London.Of course, Terry has a list of indiscretions that he calls misunderstandings, and when the 32-year-old faced the disciplinary commission this week he claimed he was the victim and that the F.A. treated other players who were the subject of criminal proceedings differently.It is never JT's fault, always a witch-hunt, an anti-Chelsea stitch-up. The only thing he's been guilty of is missing a penalty. The timing of his retirement from international football was lawyer-driven, announced on the eve of his hearing last Monday, designed to get your retaliation in first.As a player Terry remains inspirational, committed, consistent, brave and has leadership qualities that saw him made captain of England.Unfortunately, he also lost the captaincy twice, and last May he said he would never turn his back on his country, which is precisely what he has done.He will be remembered as a passionate and courageous defender who consistently made the headlines for the wrong reasons. Along with the alleged affair with the ex-partner of teammate Wayne Bridge, Terry also embarrassed the F.A. when it was revealed the private box at Wembley he hired at a discount rate was being offered on the black market. Parking his car in a disabled bay was, like most things, a misunderstanding.It is sad that a player who won 78 caps should retire in this matter, but there was an inevitability about it because whatever Terry did seemed to be surrounded by controversy.Few tears have been shed for the man who wore the armband with pride but did not know how to behave as an England captain is expected to.Terry and his legal team will decide whether to appeal when they receive the commission's findings. He will not want to accept the verdict or the sanction but he knows the chances of either being changed are zero.* * *THE HYPOCRITE of the Year award will surely go to Stoke City manager Tony Pulis. The Welshman understandably complained about the diving antics of Chelsea's Branislav Ivanovic and Oscar during last Saturday's 1-0 defeat at Stamford Bridge.Pulis certainly had a point about Ivanovic, who should have been cautioned for simulation (Oscar was, a little harshly).The weakness in his argument is that when Peter Crouch twice handled the ball as he scored against Manchester City the previous weekend, Pulis said: "If Peter's got away with it, then brilliant."So it's OK when one of his players cheats but not when an opponent does it.On Thursday, Pulis said: "The F.A. should pull people up for diving and give them a three-game ban straight away. Ivanovic would be looking at three games, Chelsea wouldn't be too happy with him and I don't think he would be diving around any more."As violence must be worse than diving, I wonder what punishment Pulis would give to a player who elbows an opponent off the ball?Stoke's Andy Wilkinson is serving a three-game ban for such an offense. Maybe he received a pay rise.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Terry's influence crucial for Chelsea
LONDON — Maybe it was Roman Abramovich's instruction to the players to improve.One glance at the Chelsea owner's Wikipedia page would no doubt encourage anyone to shift up a gear when told.Perhaps it was the dismissal of Andre Villas-Boas, who paid the price for trying to move on the old guard. Or the increasingly successful interim appointment of former West Bromwich discard Roberto di Matteo, who has registered three consecutive wins.Whatever inspired Chelsea to a storming 4-1 extra-time win over Napoli on Wednesday worked. Led by John Terry, as inspirational as he is controversial, with Didier Drogba turning back the years and Frank Lampard proving he is still the man for the big occasion, Chelsea was terrific.Its pulsating performance left us wondering why things had stagnated so badly under AVB, though the attitude of the players must also be called the question. Once a team crosses the white line it should be motivated enough regardless of who the manager is, but this clearly didn't apply with Chelsea.Terry had denied player-power was behind AVB's departure — as if he was going to say "yes, we got rid of him" — but Chelsea's players displayed irresistible power against an enterprising Napoli team that was eventually blown away by the rampaging Blues on a night to remember.This was a huge result and a brilliant display by a side where Terry is clearly more than a captain. It is difficult to recall a more influential player than Terry.Whether that is a good thing many will doubt, but even the defender's critics — effectively just about everyone who doesn't support Chelsea — would have to admit that while his off-field behavior leaves much to be desired, he is Mr. Chelsea.As Abramovich walked across the pitch after the match he indulged in high-fives before giving a more positive speech to the players."What he said stays in the dressing room," said di Matteo earning maximum diplomacy points. "But I guess Roman was happy because we won."Realistically Chelsea will not win the Champions League, but it proved there is life in the old guard yet. But the best penny spent would be on the thoughts of AVB.Having secured its place in the last eight of the Champions League, Chelsea turns its attention to the F.A. Cup sixth round, which offers some intriguing possibilities even though the absence of Manchester United, Manchester City and Arsenal may have taken some gloss off the quarterfinals for the power brokers of sponsorship and television.It could be Tottenham vs. Chelsea or Everton vs. Liverpool in the final. The bad news is that the 2012 final may also see Leicester City play Bolton Wanderers, not a matchup Budweiser had in mind when it signed its lucrative deal to have its name on the tournament.Leicester, the lone survivor from the Championship, has never won the F.A. Cup and is a dangerous underdog, but it is difficult to see it ending the interest of Chelsea, which will be oozing confidence after its midweek triumph. Verdict: Chelsea.Everton manager David Moyes would love to celebrate 10 years in charge of the Toffees with his first major managerial honor, though whoever writes Martin O'Neill's scripts would no doubt have ended the season with Sunderland winning the cup. Verdict: draw.If Spurs reach Wembley, it would be a grand finale for Harry Redknapp should England call. Bolton may complete an ignominious cup/relegation double. Verdict: Spurs win.Liverpool, underachieving in the league, is on course to win the domestic cup double but Stoke, beaten finalists a year ago, is in with a chance to make up for its disappointment in 2011. Verdict: Liverpool.* * *SIR DAVE RICHARDS, chairman of the Premier League, is known as the silent knight, happy to leave everyone else to speak to the media. Despite his ?291,000 salary, the man who rose without a trace stayed in the shadows.This week, it became easy to understand why Richards was English football's Marcel Marceau, and rather than be critical of this, we should be grateful. Richards was in Doha for a Sports Security conference and decided to give Qatar some advice ahead of the 2022 World Cup.One can only assume no Premier League spin doctor was around because Richards showed the subtlety of a charging rhino. Oh, and he also fell into a pool.Richards said: "In our country and in Germany we have a culture. We call it 'we would like to go for a pint and that pint is a pint of beer.' "At this point the assembled gathering must have been thinking it was a Sir Dave Richards lookalike, but the real thing continued: "It is our culture as much as your culture [in Qatar] is not drinking. There has to be a happy medium."And then this gem. "If you don't do something about it, you are burying your head in the sand."Qatar . . . sand . . . desert. No he wasn't joking and to complete displaying the PR skills honed at the George W. Bush academy, he ended his rant with: "You might be better off saying don't come."Next in his sights was FIFA and UEFA which he accused of "stealing football," blissfully unaware that the Premier League stole 22 clubs from the Football League 20 years ago.Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for Sir Dave Richards.Silence.While urging another country to relax its attitude toward alcohol, Richards himself was not dry for long. Having put his foot in it as he spoke, while walking to the official dinner he inadvertently tumbled into a small water channel by a fountain — "only knee deep" claimed an eye witness with a tinge of regret.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
One glance at the Chelsea owner's Wikipedia page would no doubt encourage anyone to shift up a gear when told.Perhaps it was the dismissal of Andre Villas-Boas, who paid the price for trying to move on the old guard. Or the increasingly successful interim appointment of former West Bromwich discard Roberto di Matteo, who has registered three consecutive wins.Whatever inspired Chelsea to a storming 4-1 extra-time win over Napoli on Wednesday worked. Led by John Terry, as inspirational as he is controversial, with Didier Drogba turning back the years and Frank Lampard proving he is still the man for the big occasion, Chelsea was terrific.Its pulsating performance left us wondering why things had stagnated so badly under AVB, though the attitude of the players must also be called the question. Once a team crosses the white line it should be motivated enough regardless of who the manager is, but this clearly didn't apply with Chelsea.Terry had denied player-power was behind AVB's departure — as if he was going to say "yes, we got rid of him" — but Chelsea's players displayed irresistible power against an enterprising Napoli team that was eventually blown away by the rampaging Blues on a night to remember.This was a huge result and a brilliant display by a side where Terry is clearly more than a captain. It is difficult to recall a more influential player than Terry.Whether that is a good thing many will doubt, but even the defender's critics — effectively just about everyone who doesn't support Chelsea — would have to admit that while his off-field behavior leaves much to be desired, he is Mr. Chelsea.As Abramovich walked across the pitch after the match he indulged in high-fives before giving a more positive speech to the players."What he said stays in the dressing room," said di Matteo earning maximum diplomacy points. "But I guess Roman was happy because we won."Realistically Chelsea will not win the Champions League, but it proved there is life in the old guard yet. But the best penny spent would be on the thoughts of AVB.Having secured its place in the last eight of the Champions League, Chelsea turns its attention to the F.A. Cup sixth round, which offers some intriguing possibilities even though the absence of Manchester United, Manchester City and Arsenal may have taken some gloss off the quarterfinals for the power brokers of sponsorship and television.It could be Tottenham vs. Chelsea or Everton vs. Liverpool in the final. The bad news is that the 2012 final may also see Leicester City play Bolton Wanderers, not a matchup Budweiser had in mind when it signed its lucrative deal to have its name on the tournament.Leicester, the lone survivor from the Championship, has never won the F.A. Cup and is a dangerous underdog, but it is difficult to see it ending the interest of Chelsea, which will be oozing confidence after its midweek triumph. Verdict: Chelsea.Everton manager David Moyes would love to celebrate 10 years in charge of the Toffees with his first major managerial honor, though whoever writes Martin O'Neill's scripts would no doubt have ended the season with Sunderland winning the cup. Verdict: draw.If Spurs reach Wembley, it would be a grand finale for Harry Redknapp should England call. Bolton may complete an ignominious cup/relegation double. Verdict: Spurs win.Liverpool, underachieving in the league, is on course to win the domestic cup double but Stoke, beaten finalists a year ago, is in with a chance to make up for its disappointment in 2011. Verdict: Liverpool.* * *SIR DAVE RICHARDS, chairman of the Premier League, is known as the silent knight, happy to leave everyone else to speak to the media. Despite his ?291,000 salary, the man who rose without a trace stayed in the shadows.This week, it became easy to understand why Richards was English football's Marcel Marceau, and rather than be critical of this, we should be grateful. Richards was in Doha for a Sports Security conference and decided to give Qatar some advice ahead of the 2022 World Cup.One can only assume no Premier League spin doctor was around because Richards showed the subtlety of a charging rhino. Oh, and he also fell into a pool.Richards said: "In our country and in Germany we have a culture. We call it 'we would like to go for a pint and that pint is a pint of beer.' "At this point the assembled gathering must have been thinking it was a Sir Dave Richards lookalike, but the real thing continued: "It is our culture as much as your culture [in Qatar] is not drinking. There has to be a happy medium."And then this gem. "If you don't do something about it, you are burying your head in the sand."Qatar . . . sand . . . desert. No he wasn't joking and to complete displaying the PR skills honed at the George W. Bush academy, he ended his rant with: "You might be better off saying don't come."Next in his sights was FIFA and UEFA which he accused of "stealing football," blissfully unaware that the Premier League stole 22 clubs from the Football League 20 years ago.Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for Sir Dave Richards.Silence.While urging another country to relax its attitude toward alcohol, Richards himself was not dry for long. Having put his foot in it as he spoke, while walking to the official dinner he inadvertently tumbled into a small water channel by a fountain — "only knee deep" claimed an eye witness with a tinge of regret.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.Saturday, December 24, 2011
Terry's future with England in doubt
LONDON — The season of goodwill? I don't think so. Happy New Year? I doubt it.In the coming weeks John Terry, the England captain and Harry Redknapp, the England manager-elect, will both appear in court, Terry charged with a racism offense and Redknapp with tax evasion. Both have denied the charges but there could hardly be a more embarrassing end of 2011 for the Football Association.On Tuesday, Liverpool's Luis Suarez was found guilty by the F.A. of misconduct . . . using insulting words, including a reference to the color of Manchester United's Patrice Evra. The Uruguayan was handed an eight-game suspension and a ?40,000 fine, pending appeal.The following day the Crown Prosecution Service announced Chelsea and England captain Terry will appear at a magistrates' court on Feb. 1 charged with using racist language toward Anton Ferdinand of Queens Park Rangers on Oct. 23.While the rest of the world seems to regard racism as a minor irritant, England should be applauded in adopting a zero-tolerance stance. The F.A. may get many things wrong but not this.There has to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty but even if acquitted it is impossible to imagine Terry playing alongside Rio Ferdinand, Anton's brother, for England as he has many times. The F.A. has been handed the hottest of potatoes: if, as seems likely, Terry's court appearance is delayed, should a player accused of racism lead his country against the Netherlands on Feb. 29?The F.A.'s main sponsors will feel uneasy about someone, albeit an innocent person but one charged with alleged racism, effectively promoting their products. Terry's previous indiscretions have reduced his number of sympathizers significantly and most of the country would be unhappy with someone accused of racially abusing an opponent wearing the captain's armband and singing the national anthem. Innocent, yes, but Terry should be taken out of the England spotlight until his trial has reached a conclusion.It is a decision the F.A. rather than Fabio Capello should make though the only comment the governing body has made is "no comment." Terry's career, certainly at the international level, is on the line because if he is found guilty of racially abusing an opponent he cannot lead an England team containing several black players. Even playing for his country again would send out the wrong message. Should Terry be convicted in law, an F.A. charge would then be inevitable with a similar punishment to that handed to Suarez if found guilty.Every touch by Suarez, at Wigan and Terry, at Tottenham, this week was booed by opposing fans. It will continue and though there was an ounce of understanding for Suarez it has been buried in the crass reaction of Liverpool. When Suarez was charged they immediately backed him without any internal inquiry; when found guilty Liverpool claimed the F.A. was "determined to bring charges even before interviewing him," and was "pre-judging" the Uruguayan when the club has done precisely that.The same applies to Chelsea with Terry but for Andre Villas-Boas to offer unswerving support "whatever the outcome . . . I will support him even if he is found guilty," will be seen as condoning racism. You cannot defend the indefensible but of course with so much self-interest that is what clubs do. Clubs also back players who break opponents' legs, abuse referees, dive to obtain penalties and exaggerate pain level to get a member of the opposition sent off. If a player is one of theirs, blind loyalty is the order of the day.Both Liverpool and Chelsea should have waited until they had studied the evidence that saw an independent F.A. regulatory commission find Suarez guilty and the CPS to charge Terry rather than assume innocence or in Liverpool's case also be in denial. Suarez was found guilty of making a racist comment and banned for eight games — at Wigan his teammates wore T-shirts in support.In whichever context Suarez believed he was using "negrito" — I have a friend whose white Colombian wife is known as Negra because of her jet-black hair — it still breaches F.A. regulations relating to a person's color. I can accept in his mind he probably didn't use it as an out-and- out racist term but Suarez should be experienced enough to realize that what is accepted in South America is not accepted in England. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.* * *DAVID MOYES, the Everton manager, left the Blackburn vs. Bolton game at halftime because he was so disgusted with the abuse the home fans were giving Steve Kean.I cannot remember such vitriol being directed at a manager as Kean is enduring. Emotion is one thing but when this borders on hatred it is utterly unacceptable.In no other profession does anyone turn up for work and see his name with the word "out" next to it on banners, with thousands chanting for him to be sacked. Kean has conducted himself with professionalism and restraint but the lame-duck manager is not the real villain in the demise of Blackburn.Venky's, the club's India-based owners, have ripped the heart from the club that is the cornerstone of the local community, the lifeblood of many in the Lancashire town. Just over a year ago, they sacked Sam Allardyce, a respected manager with a record of success, and replaced him with the untried Kean, who they have left to be hung out to dry. If Venky's had tried to ruin a club, it is unlikely they could have done better — or worse.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
In the coming weeks John Terry, the England captain and Harry Redknapp, the England manager-elect, will both appear in court, Terry charged with a racism offense and Redknapp with tax evasion. Both have denied the charges but there could hardly be a more embarrassing end of 2011 for the Football Association.On Tuesday, Liverpool's Luis Suarez was found guilty by the F.A. of misconduct . . . using insulting words, including a reference to the color of Manchester United's Patrice Evra. The Uruguayan was handed an eight-game suspension and a ?40,000 fine, pending appeal.The following day the Crown Prosecution Service announced Chelsea and England captain Terry will appear at a magistrates' court on Feb. 1 charged with using racist language toward Anton Ferdinand of Queens Park Rangers on Oct. 23.While the rest of the world seems to regard racism as a minor irritant, England should be applauded in adopting a zero-tolerance stance. The F.A. may get many things wrong but not this.There has to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty but even if acquitted it is impossible to imagine Terry playing alongside Rio Ferdinand, Anton's brother, for England as he has many times. The F.A. has been handed the hottest of potatoes: if, as seems likely, Terry's court appearance is delayed, should a player accused of racism lead his country against the Netherlands on Feb. 29?The F.A.'s main sponsors will feel uneasy about someone, albeit an innocent person but one charged with alleged racism, effectively promoting their products. Terry's previous indiscretions have reduced his number of sympathizers significantly and most of the country would be unhappy with someone accused of racially abusing an opponent wearing the captain's armband and singing the national anthem. Innocent, yes, but Terry should be taken out of the England spotlight until his trial has reached a conclusion.It is a decision the F.A. rather than Fabio Capello should make though the only comment the governing body has made is "no comment." Terry's career, certainly at the international level, is on the line because if he is found guilty of racially abusing an opponent he cannot lead an England team containing several black players. Even playing for his country again would send out the wrong message. Should Terry be convicted in law, an F.A. charge would then be inevitable with a similar punishment to that handed to Suarez if found guilty.Every touch by Suarez, at Wigan and Terry, at Tottenham, this week was booed by opposing fans. It will continue and though there was an ounce of understanding for Suarez it has been buried in the crass reaction of Liverpool. When Suarez was charged they immediately backed him without any internal inquiry; when found guilty Liverpool claimed the F.A. was "determined to bring charges even before interviewing him," and was "pre-judging" the Uruguayan when the club has done precisely that.The same applies to Chelsea with Terry but for Andre Villas-Boas to offer unswerving support "whatever the outcome . . . I will support him even if he is found guilty," will be seen as condoning racism. You cannot defend the indefensible but of course with so much self-interest that is what clubs do. Clubs also back players who break opponents' legs, abuse referees, dive to obtain penalties and exaggerate pain level to get a member of the opposition sent off. If a player is one of theirs, blind loyalty is the order of the day.Both Liverpool and Chelsea should have waited until they had studied the evidence that saw an independent F.A. regulatory commission find Suarez guilty and the CPS to charge Terry rather than assume innocence or in Liverpool's case also be in denial. Suarez was found guilty of making a racist comment and banned for eight games — at Wigan his teammates wore T-shirts in support.In whichever context Suarez believed he was using "negrito" — I have a friend whose white Colombian wife is known as Negra because of her jet-black hair — it still breaches F.A. regulations relating to a person's color. I can accept in his mind he probably didn't use it as an out-and- out racist term but Suarez should be experienced enough to realize that what is accepted in South America is not accepted in England. Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.* * *DAVID MOYES, the Everton manager, left the Blackburn vs. Bolton game at halftime because he was so disgusted with the abuse the home fans were giving Steve Kean.I cannot remember such vitriol being directed at a manager as Kean is enduring. Emotion is one thing but when this borders on hatred it is utterly unacceptable.In no other profession does anyone turn up for work and see his name with the word "out" next to it on banners, with thousands chanting for him to be sacked. Kean has conducted himself with professionalism and restraint but the lame-duck manager is not the real villain in the demise of Blackburn.Venky's, the club's India-based owners, have ripped the heart from the club that is the cornerstone of the local community, the lifeblood of many in the Lancashire town. Just over a year ago, they sacked Sam Allardyce, a respected manager with a record of success, and replaced him with the untried Kean, who they have left to be hung out to dry. If Venky's had tried to ruin a club, it is unlikely they could have done better — or worse.Christopher Davies was a longtime Premier League correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)