John Terry defence 'improbable, implausible and contrived'
John Terry's defence against claims he racially abused Anton Ferdinand was "improbable, implausible, contrived", according to the Football Association panel which found him guilty.
A 63-page report explaining why he was banned for four games and fined £220,000 has been published.
The document says it is not the FA's case the Chelsea captain and former England international is racist.
Terry, 31, cleared of abusing the QPR player in court, has 14 days to appeal.
The incident between Terry and Ferdinand occurred during QPR's 1-0 victory over Chelsea at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
It was alleged Terry described Ferdinand as "black" and used extreme sexual swear words.
Terry's case was that he used the word "black" and swore at Ferdinand but insisted he had only been repeating words he thought the Rangers defender had accused him of saying.
But the report says parts of Terry's defence were "improbable, implausible and contrived, and which serve to underline and reinforce our decision.
"His repetition of words that Mr Terry claims were said to him first by Mr Ferdinand is implausible if they were really intended to be a robust denial," it states.
"A much more plausible and likely explanation is that Mr Terry was angry; angry at Mr Ferdinand's taunting and provocation of him, angry at the way the match had gone, and angry at the way in which it seemed likely to end.
"The much more likely explanation for what he said is that all of this provoked him into saying [the words]."
Explaining its decision, the report says: "In the light of those findings, the commission is quite satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry's defence that his use of the words were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry.
"Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult."
The report questions Terry's demeanour if he had been accused of making racist comments.
"The commission is entitled to use its collective experience of life and people to judge demeanour," it states.
"We have watched the film footage many times. In the critical phase, during which he uses the words, Mr Terry can be seen to be smiling initially, before his facial expression changes to disdainful and contemptuous.
"At no point is his demeanour and facial expression that of someone who is imploring, injured, or even quizzical in the face of an unfounded allegation by Mr Ferdinand that he had just been racially abusive towards him.
"Anger is a conceivable reaction to such an accusation, but at no time does Mr Terry convey any sense of 'no, I didn't‟t' with his facial expression, or body language."
The report adds: "It is not the FA‟s case that Mr. Terry is a racist. There is a large body of testimonial evidence, including statements from black footballers, to say that he is not."
John Terry's defence against claims he racially abused Anton Ferdinand was "improbable, implausible, contrived", according to the Football Association panel which found him guilty.
A 63-page report explaining why he was banned for four games and fined £220,000 has been published.
The document says it is not the FA's case the Chelsea captain and former England international is racist.
Terry, 31, cleared of abusing the QPR player in court, has 14 days to appeal.
The incident between Terry and Ferdinand occurred during QPR's 1-0 victory over Chelsea at Loftus Road on 23 October 2011.
It was alleged Terry described Ferdinand as "black" and used extreme sexual swear words.
Terry's case was that he used the word "black" and swore at Ferdinand but insisted he had only been repeating words he thought the Rangers defender had accused him of saying.
But the report says parts of Terry's defence were "improbable, implausible and contrived, and which serve to underline and reinforce our decision.
"His repetition of words that Mr Terry claims were said to him first by Mr Ferdinand is implausible if they were really intended to be a robust denial," it states.
"A much more plausible and likely explanation is that Mr Terry was angry; angry at Mr Ferdinand's taunting and provocation of him, angry at the way the match had gone, and angry at the way in which it seemed likely to end.
"The much more likely explanation for what he said is that all of this provoked him into saying [the words]."
Explaining its decision, the report says: "In the light of those findings, the commission is quite satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there is no credible basis for Mr Terry's defence that his use of the words were directed at Ferdinand by way of forceful rejection and/or inquiry.
"Instead, we are quite satisfied, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the offending words were said by way of insult."
The report questions Terry's demeanour if he had been accused of making racist comments.
"The commission is entitled to use its collective experience of life and people to judge demeanour," it states.
"We have watched the film footage many times. In the critical phase, during which he uses the words, Mr Terry can be seen to be smiling initially, before his facial expression changes to disdainful and contemptuous.
"At no point is his demeanour and facial expression that of someone who is imploring, injured, or even quizzical in the face of an unfounded allegation by Mr Ferdinand that he had just been racially abusive towards him.
"Anger is a conceivable reaction to such an accusation, but at no time does Mr Terry convey any sense of 'no, I didn't‟t' with his facial expression, or body language."
The report adds: "It is not the FA‟s case that Mr. Terry is a racist. There is a large body of testimonial evidence, including statements from black footballers, to say that he is not."
