Terry builds ‘bridge of lies’
Chelsea captain John Terry must be relieved that he is not made to live his life by the same standards as most, writes Matthew Syed.
LIKE MANY others, I am hugely grateful that John Terry has pledged to ‘‘ continue to do my part in assisting the club to remove all types of discriminatory behaviour from football’’.
It is such a relief that people like ‘‘J T’’ are on the case. Perhaps we could send him to Serbia as an anti-racism ambassador.
Either way, his statement this week was a paradigm of obfuscation and bad grammar. He apologised to everyone except, specifically, Queens Park Rangers defender Anton Ferdinand, and accepted that his behaviour fell below the standards expected ‘‘by Chelsea Football Club, and by me’’. Quite what these standards are, however, remains unclear.
Perhaps we should be grateful that this entire incident is now over. Certainly, the whole thing has dragged on for so long that it will be a relief to return to football: you know, the game as it is played, rather than the operatic morality play it has become.
Yet we ought to learn some lessons from what has been a profoundly unedifying episode. First we had the John Terry defence. Many of us looked on with incredulity when the Chelsea captain (leader, legend), caught on videotape using racist language, offered the excuse that he had use the epithets (f---ing black c--t) by way of clarification, rather than insult. Pull the other one, John.
When the police got involved, the matter became destined for the courts. It could and should have been dealt with in a matter of weeks, in the time it took for Terry to prepare his defence. Instead, Howard Riddle, the chief magistrate, made the preposterous decision to delay the case until after the European Championships.
Riddle had apparently received a letter from Ron Gourlay, the Chel- sea chief executive, worrying that a trial in March would disrupt Terry’s season. Better to wait until July when Terry would be on holiday. Quite why the magistrate accepted this specious argument defies belief.
But is it any wonder that so many footballers think they are above the law when the criminal justice system subverts its own timetable in deference to the football calendar?
The FA were right (and brave) to pursue Terry after he was acquitted, not least because the magistrate conceded that Terry’s defence was ‘‘ highly unlikely’’. With the threshold of proof lowered at the tribunal, Terry must have known he was in trouble.
His defence was ultimately shredded, described as ‘‘ improbable, implausible,
and contrived’’. But now, even as we digest the news that Terry is not going to appeal, more jarring decisions have emerged. The most bizarre was Chelsea’s decision not to publish his punishment. Only through private sources have we learnt that he was fined less than two weeks’ wages ( NZ$ 430,000) but will, crucially, retain the captaincy.
For a club who ban supporters guilty of racism for life, there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy. But we should not be surprised. When Terry was caught giving private tours of the Stamford Bridge ground for bundles of used cash, the club defended him. ‘‘Chelsea gives our players room to exercise their discretion when contacted personally with regard to visits,’’ they said. And let’s not forget his tawdry affair with team-mate Wayne Bridge’s ex-partner. The only certainty from this entire, sordid episode is that Terry himself has emerged with his reputation in tatters.
Perhaps the deeper problem is his almost pathological unwillingness to accept the blame. For each misdeed is an extravagant excuse.
The training ground tours? Oh, the cash in brown envelopes was destined for charity. Selling his privileged box at Wembley? Oh, just a misunderstanding. The exploiting of the England captaincy for commercial gain? Crossed wires.
With this history, is it any wonder that his statement continued to suggest that the racist language was only used as an attempt at clarification? It is even possible that Terry believes his own version of events.
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful phenomenon. And JT is just full of it.
MARK HUGHES, the QPR manager, confirmed yesterday that Ferdinand had not received a personal apology from Terry. ‘‘I think John Terry feels that he hasn’t done anything wrong . . . so for him to apologise would perhaps be an admission of guilt.’’