FA don't need to judge John Terry, just do what's right for England

The FA are not judge and jury. Their decision will not exonerate or condemn Terry. That is the job of the British legal system, which threw a
grenade into England's camp as preparations continue with a rearranged friendly against Holland at the end of the month by announcing a July 9 trial date - eight days after the Final in Kiev.

The case should have been dealt with prior to the tournament but now the FA have the impossible task of putting something to bed which cannot sleep.
A racially aggravated public order offence is a serious charge which is awkwardly juxtaposed with the honour and pseudo-purity of the England captaincy.

There is no doubt that the romanticised notion English football has for its captains is viewed with bemusement further afield - just ask Arsene Wenger - but, equally, recent battles with FIFA have painted the FA as a champion of moral justice and the implied compromise of Terry's ongoing captaincy is unavoidable.

Were Terry to continue, the furore would raise itself at every turn, particularly were England to falter during the tournament and the scrutiny that already places a great burden of expectation reach unprecedented levels.

My immediate reaction to this was that the concept of innocent until proven guilty should transcend all other concerns.

Terry is today an innocent man facing a fight to clear his name from allegations of a profound nature.

But the question the FA have to ask themselves is this: is Terry's involvement going to hinder the chances of England winning Euro 2012?

If for any reason they believe the answer to be "yes", he should not travel. This is not to make light of the allegations for one minute but rather to place the FA in their appropriate context.

Gary Neville, who famously threatened to lead a strike of England players over Rio Ferdinand's omission in 2003 for a missed drugs test, wrote on Twitter today: "The stance then was player charged/arrested for whatever offence [was] not allowed to play until [the] case [was] determined.

"[The] FA then changed policy post-Rio. I see with this one the issue of potential splits in the camp but that is for manager/players. FA have to have their hearing or wait until after the trial. To ban without process is to sentence. That's what I fought for back then and I still believe.

"[The] FA shouldn't intervene pre-process. [The] Manager or players can in my opinion act if it affects the performance of the team/individual."

And there's the rub. The FA cannot conduct their own investigation until criminal proceedings are concluded so, however difficult it may be, morality has to be removed from the issue.

If, for footballing reasons, Terry's presence is detrimental to the team's involvement, then he must be removed from the squad.

That is a decision only Fabio Capello and his players can agree upon. There can be no hiding place. Capello must meet with the key members of his squad - it must be remembered his squad will not yet be finalised so anticipating all possible problems with Terry is not an exact science at this stage - and determine their mood.

Terry undoubtedly divides opinion but does he divide the dressing room? He remains a superb leader on the pitch with a commitment level that matches any other England international but the squad was split at the 2010 World Cup with Terry one of the fault lines.

The Chelsea centre-back openly questioned Capello's management in South Africa and attempted to rally the players to confront the Italian. But while his form has been good he can arguably no longer be considered the brick wall he was in his pomp.

A susceptibility to pace has become an issue and there are a plethora of other in-form, experienced centre-backs who could take his place.

It may seem inappropriate to assess Terry's involvement in such terms given the gravity of the offence he faces.

But that is all the FA can do. Focus on the football.