Ashley Cole

[wayne allisons tongues]

Fa charged terry with racially insulting Ferdinand so that is racist behaviour, did it on purpose they say. So if he did it on purpose how can he be innocent, fa have made a bit of a mess of the whole thing, if he said it in an aggressive manner, how many players say things in spur of moment and not get charged.

Think by saying cole changed his evidence and Chelsea also changed it was a way of justifying there case even though court say he's innocent and fa law say he couldn't be charged.

[nebristolred]

Fa charged terry with racially insulting Ferdinand so that is racist behaviour, did it on purpose they say. So if he did it on purpose how can he be innocent, fa have made a bit of a mess of the whole thing, if he said it in an aggressive manner, how many players say things in spur of moment and not get charged.

Think by saying cole changed his evidence and Chelsea also changed it was a way of justifying there case even though court say he's innocent and fa law say he couldn't be charged.

There are other factors that can change it as well you know... In our system you can intentionally murder someone and be found innocent of murder under the right circumstances. The FA have clearly considered redeeming factors.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

And herein lies the problem. When the FA can use 'balance of probability' it is all too easy to allow 'feelings' to cloud the issue. He was cleared by the law of the land, 'beyond reasonable doubt', and the FA should have been content to lay the matter to rest. Differing opinions on here, naturally, but Cole is a pretty decent full-back and with Terry and Cahill from the same club you would have had the makings of a sound England defence, a defence that was good enough to win the Champions League anyway.

I believe you are absolutely wrong in your assumption, the FA has ALL of the evidence at it's disposal, most importantly little Ashley's sudden change of wording and the Chelsea executive's dodgy statement as well, none of this would have been available to the court proceedings, plus there would have been a lot of evidence suppressed by Terry's high powered expensive legal before the case even went before the court.

and as for the last sentence I am certainly not saying Ashley Cole is not world class and what you say about Terry, Cahill and Cole is probably true, but Terry made his own decision and Cole not only has to look at himself in mirror everyday over his role in this unsavory business but probably make his peace with the FA as well.

[marshy]

I believe you are absolutely wrong in your assumption, the FA has ALL of the evidence at it's disposal, most importantly little Ashley's sudden change of wording and the Chelsea executive's dodgy statement as well, none of this would have been available to the court proceedings, plus there would have been a lot of evidence suppressed by Terry's high powered expensive legal before the case even went before the court.

and as for the last sentence I am certainly not saying Ashley Cole is not world class and what you say about Terry, Cahill and Cole is probably true, but Terry made his own decision and Cole not only has to look at himself in mirror everyday over his role in this unsavory business but probably make his peace with the FA as well.

Not sure what assumption you're referring to here but my point of view is that if someone is to be accused of racially insulting another I would rather they were found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' than guilty 'on a balance of probability'.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Not sure what assumption you're referring to here but my point of view is that if someone is to be accused of racially insulting another I would rather they were found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' than guilty 'on a balance of probability'.

The assumption that the court had ALL, EVERY SHED of evidence to arrive at the 'beyond reasonable doubt' decision, WHEREAS the FA almost certainly DID including Cole and the Chelsea executive altering their statements, which the courts certainly did not have.

in short the FA had more evidence than the court did.

[marshy]

The assumption that the court had ALL, EVERY SHED of evidence to arrive at the 'beyond reasonable doubt' decision, WHEREAS the FA almost certainly DID including Cole and the Chelsea executive altering their statements, which the courts certainly did not have.

in short the FA had more evidence than the court did.

Barnard was not allowed to give oral evidence to the Commision, for whatever reason, and Cole's interview with the FA jobsworths was not recorded. The FA simply had the so-called evidence that they wanted but did not allow it to be challenged in a fair and impartial way.