John Terry has been banned for four games after a Football Association commission found him guilty of using racist language towards QPR defender Anton Ferdinand during a match at Loftus Road in October.
Terry, 31 - who announced his decision to retire from international football before the start of the FA hearing, saying the association had made his position with the national team "untenable" - has also been fined £220,000.
He had strongly denied the FA charge of "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".
A hearing into the charge against Terry began at Wembley on Monday, and could theoretically have lasted until Friday.
In a statement, the FA said: "The decision 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, and fined the sum of £220,000."
The FA said the commission would provide written reason for its decision "in due course". Terry has 14 days after receiving the written reasons for the decision in which to appeal.
A statement from the former England captain's management said he was "disappointed" by the punishment and would now be considering whether or not to lodge an appeal.
It added: "Mr Terry is disappointed that the FA Regulatory Commission has reached a different conclusion to the clear not guilty verdict of a court of law."
A Chelsea statement said the club "notes and respects today's decision by the Football Association regarding John Terry", adding: "We also recognise that John has the right to appeal that decision. It is therefore inappropriate for us to comment further on the matter at this time."
The FA said the ban would be suspended "until after the outcome of any appeal, or the time for appealing expires, or should Mr Terry decide not to appeal", meaning he will be available for selection against Arsenal at the weekend.
The prosecution in Terry's London court case had been unable to prove that he had called Ferdinand a "f****** black c***'' as an insult. He claimed to have been repeating words he thought Ferdinand had accused him of saying.
Delivering his verdict after a five-day trial at Westminster Magistrates Court, Chief Magistrate Howard Riddle said: "Even with all the help the court has received from television footage, expert lip readers, witnesses and indeed counsel, it is impossible to be sure exactly what were [all] the words spoken by Mr Terry at the relevant time."
Announcing his decision to retire from international football on Sunday - a decision England manager Roy Hodgson said he had "reluctantly accepted" - Terry said: "I am making this statement in advance of the hearing of the FA disciplinary charge because I feel the FA, in pursuing charges against me where I have already been cleared in a court of law, have made my position with the national team untenable."
Liverpool striker Luis Suarez was banned for eight matches after being found guilty of racially abusing Manchester United defender Patrice Evra last December. It had been widely thought likely that Terry would be given a similar ban if found guilty by the FA hearing, at which the burden of proof is lower than that in a criminal trial.
+7
Mustangt125
The Bat-Man
Kuled
Trent
samiz
Novi
wellz
11 posters
John Terry handed 4 match ban
wellz-
- Posts : 1073
Age : 35
Location : Washington D.C.
Supports : The Troops
Novi-
- Posts : 1724
Supports : Arsenal
About time.
Guest- Guest
Anton should have got the ban for calling Terry a "black cunt". Terry just repeated sarcastically as he is not black.
samiz-
- Posts : 3058
Age : 27
Location : Manchester
Suarez racist, 8 match ban. Terry racist, 4 match ban 
Is there something I'm missing?
Is there something I'm missing?
Guest- Guest
Did the trial judge not say no one, except Terry, could actually confirm what he said?
I don't like Terry, I think he's a cunt, but this stinks of the FA wanting to look like it is doing something, and little else.
I don't like Terry, I think he's a cunt, but this stinks of the FA wanting to look like it is doing something, and little else.
Trent-
- Posts : 5521
Supports : Scunthorpe United & St Helens
The FA 
Kuled-
- Posts : 55235
Age : 28
Fucks sake, he'll miss our game.
Kuled-
- Posts : 55235
Age : 28
Terry got fined 180K more than Suarez apparently.samiz wrote:Suarez racist, 8 match ban. Terry racist, 4 match ban
Is there something I'm missing?
The Bat-Man-
- Posts : 4668
Age : 30
Location : Kuwait
Supports : The Voyeur
Kuled wrote:Fucks sake, he'll miss our game.
This.
Mustangt125-
- Posts : 5335
Kuled wrote:Terry got fined 180K more than Suarez apparently.samiz wrote:Suarez racist, 8 match ban. Terry racist, 4 match ban
Is there something I'm missing?
That'll really dent his pockets
Guest- Guest
It's not exactly pocket change either.
Carlos Jenkinson-
- Posts : 10964
That's literally 3-4 weeks pay after he pays all his bills
wellz-
- Posts : 1073
Age : 35
Location : Washington D.C.
Supports : The Troops
"Say no to racism" but if you must it will be a 4 match ban
Guest- Guest
how much did rooney get for mouthing a swear word? honest question, i forgot. wasnt that something ridiculous
Moose-
- Posts : 1652
Age : 29
samiz wrote:Suarez racist, 8 match ban. Terry racist, 4 match ban
Is there something I'm missing?
http://sulia.com/channel/chelsea-fc/f/b0973c5c-2554-454b-825d-a89efc51eee5/?source=twitter
If found guilty, it is expected that a ban will be issued: likely to be more than the standard three games for a serious red card, but less severe than the eight games handed to Suarez for his admission that he repeatedly used racial language (Terry is accused of one breach of the rule).
Mustangt125-
- Posts : 5335
wellz wrote:"Say no to racism" but if you must it will be a 4 match ban
And 8 if you play for Liverpool FC
Guest- Guest
Fonseca wrote:That's literally 3-4 weeks pay after he pays all his bills
He makes about £150,000 a week before taxes and expenses. We have no way of knowing who much he spends a week on expenses. A month or more of one's salary (no matter how much you make) isn't pocket change. Imagine if you lost a month's worth of wages.
wellz wrote:"Say no to racism" but if you must it will be a 4 match ban
So you want a lifetime ban?
Forest-
- Posts : 4381
Age : 30
He shouldnt have even had this hearing with the FA.
The courts didnt find him guilty, and a court must be as accurate as possible.
Maybe the courts should hand every case that's been proven innocent to the FA, seeing as they possess much better knowledge of events
JFJT
The courts didnt find him guilty, and a court must be as accurate as possible.
Maybe the courts should hand every case that's been proven innocent to the FA, seeing as they possess much better knowledge of events
JFJT
wellz-
- Posts : 1073
Age : 35
Location : Washington D.C.
Supports : The Troops
ahlycotc wrote:wellz wrote:"Say no to racism" but if you must it will be a 4 match ban
So you want a lifetime ban?
No it just shows how much of a joke these trials are, if there truly is racism involved in a match the punishment should be much worse than a 4 or 8 game ban. And if they can't prove it, then they shouldn't hold some dog and pony show without any facts. If I were to straight up fight someone on the pitch I would most likely be banned for months. I can call someone the N word to their face and get a few match ban. It's just stupid that's all
Guest- Guest
the court didnt find him guilty with CRIMINAL CHARGEForest wrote:He shouldnt have even had this hearing with the FA.
The courts didnt find him guilty, and a court must be as accurate as possible.
Maybe the courts should hand every case that's been proven innocent to the FA, seeing as they possess much better knowledge of events
JFJT
this ban is for using foul language, racist slurs in a football match
Carlos Jenkinson-
- Posts : 10964
ahlycotc wrote:Fonseca wrote:That's literally 3-4 weeks pay after he pays all his bills
He makes about £150,000 a week before taxes and expenses. We have no way of knowing who much he spends a week on expenses. A month or more of one's salary (no matter how much you make) isn't pocket change. Imagine if you lost a month's worth of wages.
I didn't say it wasn't a lot
Trent-
- Posts : 5521
Supports : Scunthorpe United & St Helens
ViVaRooney wrote:the court didnt find him guilty with CRIMINAL CHARGEForest wrote:He shouldnt have even had this hearing with the FA.
The courts didnt find him guilty, and a court must be as accurate as possible.
Maybe the courts should hand every case that's been proven innocent to the FA, seeing as they possess much better knowledge of events
JFJT
this ban is for using foul language, racist slurs in a football match
Footballers swear all the time, he wouldn't be fined for that.
Carlos Jenkinson-
- Posts : 10964
Trent wrote:ViVaRooney wrote:the court didnt find him guilty with CRIMINAL CHARGE
this ban is for using foul language, racist slurs in a football match
He swore into a microphone, which is illegal during the daytime...
Trent-
- Posts : 5521
Supports : Scunthorpe United & St Helens
When did Terry do this?Fonseca wrote:Trent wrote:
He swore into a microphone, which is illegal during the daytime...
Carlos Jenkinson-
- Posts : 10964
My bad, was thinking of Rooney because that's Viva Rooney's name for some reason
Marvin- .
- Posts : 13039
Age : 34
Location : Hollyoaks
Supports : Hollyoaks
Paragraph 6.8 of the FA's own rulebook 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."
So why bother with the trail? Especially when they didn't even have any new evidence, seems silly and in the end they ended up charging him with abusive language which included a reference to colour/race.
"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."
So why bother with the trail? Especially when they didn't even have any new evidence, seems silly and in the end they ended up charging him with abusive language which included a reference to colour/race.
