• Liverpool Message Board

  • dsteer_lfc_68 dsteer_lfc_68 Dec 11, 2012 13:46 Flag

    Little morality in football

    Not sure if I wanted to start this thread, as sometimes letting sleeping dogs lie is best, but I do think its worth commenting on, and besides sooner or later some troll would come along as use this as proof of what an evil and morally bankrupt club LFC is, so why not give then a single place to air their bile:

    http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/football-ouseley-little-morality-football-081350222.html

    Seems to me there has been a lot of talk lately about the end of football because of the horrible behavior of fans and players alike in recent times. While you cannot defend actions of individuals, when you consider how many people watch football each week I think it’s clear it’s a case of a few bad eggs rather than some systemic problem. You throw away rotten eggs when you find them, but to read Hayward’s piece in the telegraph you'd think it was time to shut down the farm.

    So yet again the press swing from one extreme to another pleading moral outrage which they will bleat away at for 5 seconds or until the next big story comes along they can all chase like sheep. But we've come to expect that from the press, while those in positions of authority in the game I'd hope would take a more measured view before speaking out.

    Which takes me to the comments of Ouseley. The organization he runs has a worthy cause, and should get support. However I do think some of his comments are rash and or not well thought through. Is he suggesting, both CFC and LFC abandon their players during the investigation of the cases brought? Why therefore did he not go after the FA, as surely if your morally bankrupt for supporting an accused person, Clattenberg should have been thrown to the wolves.

    Yes both LFC and CFC supported their players, and some on here did not like that, but to call it a lack of morality I think is a bit much. If your son was accused of a crime he told you he did not commit (let alone handbags that crossed the line) would the moral thing be to stand by your child or abandon him?

    But they were both found guilty I hear some cry. Yes they were, and both then faced the punishment assigned to them. The clubs and the players accepted the punishment and moved on, they did not fight it, and so why is that a sign of a lack of morals?

    I'm sure some may want to open a big debate on this, which is fine. But my intention was not to open up the Suarez or Terry cases again, but rather just say my peace.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Your really are a hypocrytical moron, steerage.....shake your head in shame

      whilst there are still blind fans like you in the world, is it any wonder clubs support their players blindly??

      you refer to protecting your children.....WTF, that is no comparison.
      These are grown men that produced racial abuse, got punished, deservedly so and now we move on. If you and or any journo wish to continue the dabte, thats up to you, but yet again your retrospectively defending the guilty and indefensible.

      For years, decades, the Hillsborough families sought to seek an injustice, and finally did so, many factors where guilty in not only the days events but the cover up thereafter.
      Would it be now acceptable after they have been proven of a guilt, to still defend there actions and defensive quotes ??

      NO...........would it fook, yet here you are trying to apply those same rules to a proven guilty team member.

      YOU, need to accept that Suarez was guilty, proven guilty and punished and also accept that his venet and those thereafter will be talked about for years to come, just as those that are guilty of Hillsborough will pay their penance for years to come............and rightly so-- that is the price of his crime.............GET OVER IT

      • 1 Reply to Seanicemanreturns
      • First off I do accept that Suarez has been found guilty (and Terry) as does Suarez himself and the club, they have both accepted the punishment and moved on, but that was my whole point. Ouseley raised this, I'm just commenting on both why he's raising settled cases, and that he feels from what is stated in the article that when it comes to racism we should accept guilt at the point of being accused, not the point when someone is shown to actually be guilty. He seems to have forgotten the principle of innocent until proven guilty which would imply maybe the club should have lynched Suarez (and Terry) as soon as the case was reported, but let’s not go there as that opens up a whole new can of racist issues.

        Not sure I understand why you would equate this to Hillsborough, and in fact think that might really be in bad taste, and you of all people I think would know better. Liverpool supporters were the victims of Hillsborough the tragedy, but also victims, along with all the people of Merseyside by associate of the smear campaign. I'm not trying to defend the actions of those who participated in the cover up; the idea is ludicrous, in fact I’m stating quite the opposite. Accepting guilt based on the press reports, the talking heads is what happens when you ignore the principle innocent until proven guilty. That is what too many ignorant people did when they believed the words in the Sun, and what it seems Ouseley thinks we should do when it comes to racism, and I say they are both wrong.

    • Also without particularly wanting to re-open old wounds, I think CFC have little to be criticised for over the JT racism affair. Yes, AVB twice unwisely made comments supportive of JT in press conferences when he was asked questions. Other than that CFC held its counsel other than to respect the decisions made by the court and the FA, and then when JT was found guilty also penalised him internally.

      LFC took a quite different approach.

      Ouseley claims JT's guilt was "proven". It wasn't, of course. There is still today only one person who knows the truth of it and that person has never admitted guilt. Ouseley's enthusiasm to overstate his case is reminiscent of his overblown outrage when JT was found not guilty in court. Why is it that someone who is concerned about racial abuse is keen to see a verdict that there was racial abuse rather than a finding that the abuse may not have happened?



      Robert

      • 1 Reply to Robert M
      • My take on this is simple, when something is highlighted by the media there are plenty who want to ride on the back of that to have their personal profile raised.
        Where was Ousley when this abuse was going on for years through lots of different clubs?
        I agree that those that are guilty should be punished regardless of who they play for, but I have to agree with dave on the point that until you are proven guilty, you should have the support of your club manager and fellow players, Once found guilty then take the punishment.
        This is not a LFC thing but right through the world and it is not exclusive to football but all walks of life. I know i have been on the receiving end many a time.

    • Robert I'm not defending the actions of Dalglish or the club, but the principle that they can, and imo its appropriate to support, in any way a player who has been accused of misconduct.

      It’s fair to debate if the actions taken were appropriate, and it seems that is what Sean wants to do. But I'm not entering that debate. What I'm saying is why should a club not stand up for one of its own? It seems from reading Ouseley's statement he feels the club should have rolled over as soon as the accusation was made which is what I disagree with.

      It is interesting he did not also talk about Rio's little Twitter statements, and we can only speculate why he does not think it does not deserve the same condemnation as Suarez and Terry's offenses. But to stay consistent with his logic, he should also have talked about Clattenberg, because if someone accused of racial abuse deserves no support, surely the FA were in the wrong not to throw him out of football, rather than protect him while a full investigation took place.

    • they didnt defend him
      they suspeneded him until it was proved he was not guilty

      the pure reason you dont want to and cannot enter into debate on your statement is yet again, you have been found out

      HYPOCRITE

    • I said they "protected him" not "defended him", you need to put your specs on every now and again.

      The reason I'm not entering in the debate over the appropriate tactics used when supporting someone is first in cases of Suarez and Terry its well covered ground, and two, as you so loudly show, its subjective, so there is little point arguing with you or anyone else over simple opinions as your notion of what is right is the view shouted the loudest.

    • Oh dear.

      Actually you can't see him saying on the famous video "You f++++++ black c+++", no. The first word is missing. Go and check it. Yes, he said the other three words. No-one denies that. Not JT, not me, not anyone. The question is simply the context of it. The court found that it couldn't be sure the context was that it was being used as an insult. The FA thought on the balance of probabilities it was. What of it?


      Robert

    • Robert....the first word is missing ? So who exactly was he addressing at the time as a"F++++++ black c+++" ? Or is it that u are suggesting because it the word "you" isnt "clearly" discernible to lip read then he wasnt in actual fact addressing ANYBODY ?
      Can we assume that JT himself is a victim as he is a sufferer from
      ...TORETTES SYNDROME ???!!!
      Grow up Robert or go find some CRETINS on the Chelski board who might find u bizarre rants and inflexible attitude amusing whats the big attraction of our board to u anyway ?

    • Obviously, as well as not understanding the Suarez case you don't understand the JT case.

      See if this helps. It's obvious spelling and grammar aren't your strongest points but tell me in which of the two following paragraphs I'm calling you a tosser.

      1. Colin, you fucking tosser! Yeah, yeah! fucking knob head!

      2. Colin, what did you say I called you? "Fucking tosser?" yeah, yeah! Fucking knob head!


      Robert

    • Robert m...Enuff...sic...of this nonesense Robert.FYI...Im actually an english major from back when a degree was actually worth the paper it was printed on. As for spelling and punctuation cant be bothered when Im typing posts for this board precision sacrificed on the alter of speed u arent looking at spelling mistakes u are seeing typos. I speak four languages three fluently English French Spanish and Arabic. I also possess a degree in fine art and am a working artist and jobbing actor...does any of this place me in the same vaunted academic league as your very good self . I assume u come ranting onto our board with u "JT and just exactly what did he say" obsession because u cant find anybody on the Chelski board to debate with either cos they have tippled to the fact that u are a nutjob or u consider them all to be cretins and beneath your unquestioned academic/intellectual standing ?

    • That's an awful lot of waffle to concede an argument.


      Robert

    • View More Messages