After reading this about the Suarez case http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...z-patrice-evra it shwos that it was a cultural difference between the meaning of the word negro and no racism was meant by it.
The fact that Evra thought the translation was something else multiple times shows that he believed he was being racially abused but wasn't.
I know myself from numerous visits to Asia and America that the word negro is not racist, nor is the word nigger in Asia, it just means, as confirmed in the FA report, it means 'black'. I take it this Time reporter is racist http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/26/the...alls-to-earth/
So how the hell the FA done him for racial comments from that evidence I don't know.... and apart from Chelsea supporters, I can only really find comments by the media/players/ex-players/etc saying Terry has basically got off with a worse offence than Suarez
Interesting comments from The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...t-8182578.html
There are comparisons to be made with Luis Suarez's case. The Liverpool striker was not judged to be "racist" – as with Terry – but received an eight-game ban because he used "negro" seven times. His suspension was also lengthened because he was an "international footballer playing for one of the best known clubs in the world… a position that carries a particular degree of responsibility. This is a serious breach of that responsibility." What is John Terry, captain of Chelsea, if not an international player with one of the best known clubs in the world?
What I don't understand is that the Terry evidence is based on the fact Terry states he was only repeating what Ferdinand said!!! So Ferdinand called him a "f****** black c***".... is Terry 'black' then??
