Triesman questions Terry ban length
John Terry, right, was punished for a racist slur towards Anton Ferdinand
Former Football Association chairman Lord Triesman has hit out at the decision to ban John Terry for only four matches for racist abuse.
Chelsea captain Terry was handed the suspension and a £220,000 fine after being found guilty of using a racist slur towards Anton Ferdinand by an independent FA regulatory commission. The ban was half of that meted out to Liverpool striker Luis Suarez for racially abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra.
The FA commission said Terry had been given a lesser ban because the "racist insult was issued only once", as opposed to repeated use by Suarez. But Lord Triesman told the BBC: "It may be when you look at all the detail they thought there were reasons for [it]. I can't see it."
Terry is due to decide during the international break whether to appeal his guilty verdict.
Lord Triesman added: "He's within his rights to appeal. My own view is that it would be more sensible to apologise and accept it's not a good standard. I just don't believe in this day and age that anybody can think that it's okay, and that you don't owe an apology, not least to the other player."
The fallout from the Terry verdict saw Chelsea team-mate Ashley Cole launch a foul-mouthed Twitter tirade at the FA, something which saw him charged with misconduct on Monday.
English football's governing body announced on Tuesday they were set to introduce a code of conduct for England players and Lord Triesman, who was their chairman between 2008 and 2010, wants something similar included in contracts at club level.
He said: "What I think is important is for clubs to tell their very highly-paid employees what general standards are expected of them on the pitch or in the training ground. Every club should set those standards and say, 'Here's a set of standards we expect you to stick to'."
He added: "Some clubs have done elements of it, but what hasn't happened is saying to people, 'What you've done off the field impacts on our brand', and that should have been said years ago.
"Contracts have subsidiary documents of all kinds which get attached all the time, and I don't see any good reason why a general code of conduct in relation to people who are absolutely in the spotlight all the time should not be part of that."
related stories on msn
He's right. There should be something written in a footballers contract to handle this kind of thing. There should also be something in there to stop petty minded people like Ferdinand & co goading & insulting people into saying things that they & others find offensive. Otherwise there's not a level playing field. The race card is played far too often & as soon as it is others jump on the bandwagon & people's lives are ruined.
Think of it this way. If somebody insulted your mother, What would your responce be? if somebody you, your family & your inteligence, What would you do? In a nutshell, that's what happened here & it wasn't the player who heard & took offence to what was said. He was too busy goading & insulting the other guy. No, It was someone off the field of play. Why has nothing been done about the way Ferdinand insulted JT? Double standards me thinks!
John Terry was found not guilty in a English Court of Law through lack of evidence his defence was that Anton Ferdina accused Terry of saying you called me a F****** B**** C*** Terry was only repeating what ferdinand had said and there was no tv footage to corroberate ferdinands version of events John Terry has been made a whipping boy here and lets face it if it wasnt for Mr Rio Ferdinand sticking his nose in this would not have got to court all i can say is Anton grow a pair and no im not a Chelsea fan
The FA seem to have concluded, based upon what they intimated was (to them) incontrovertible evidence that, on the balance of probability (how do those two statements sit side by side, even at the FA - "incontrovertible evidence" and "on the balance of probability"? (small wonder that Mr. A. Cole thinks so lowly of the FA executive)) Mr. Terry abused and/or insulted Mr. A. Ferdinand by making specific reference, we are reliably/unreliably informed, to the colour of Mr. A. Ferdinand's skin ....ummmm what colour is his skin by the way?, or the colour of his eyes?, the colour and condition of his hair..? and should be punished for it.
OK. I think I understand... One naughty footballist insults another footballist and it becomes what, an Oxbow Incident within the footballing fraternity? And this is after the most stringent examination in a COURT OF LAW where the charge(s) against Mr. Terry were NOT UPHELD because it was not proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - from the same evidence presented to FA Disciplinary Body - that Mr. Terry was NOT uttering the remarks by way of response to an accusation that he had, allegedly, insulted Mr. A. Ferdinand, in the first instance, by reference to the colour of his skin.
Is that it?
And, one needs to ask... exactly where was Mr. R. Ferdinand positioned when this alleged vocal abuse took place? How close was Mr. R. Ferdinand to this incident? Mr. R. Ferdinand was, others might recall, an extremely vocal social network co-accuser, an agitated social network protagonist, a keen social network supporter of the case against Mr. J. Terry.
And this Treisman fellow wants to what... impose a much harsher penalty on Mr. Terry because Mr Treisman thinks, on the balance of probability, that the punishment is not severe enough? Well... in that case, Mr. Terry...? off with your head. And let that be an end of it.
