Suarez verdict

[Jimbob]

So the truth is finally out! Can't believe Dalglish and Liverpool FC were so supportive of this disgusting little pleb.

[Facts and Stats]

We never supported Evra,

[The Kop]

So the truth is finally out! Can't believe Dalglish and Liverpool FC were so supportive of this disgusting little pleb.

What truth? Read the report. It was all Evra's word against Suarez's based on thr balanxe of probabilities. Which was subject to translation from another language.

Fully expect the club to appeal. There are a lot of dodgy parts of the report.

[Jimbob]

I bet king Kenny is feeling a bit silly at this moment in time. It's a good job there isn't too many 'negros' in the Liverpool squad as well!

[Nice One Cyril]

Can't wait for the next instalment of this soap opera and it will be interesting to see how Liverpool get on with their frivolous appeal. Seems that, at Anfield, it is OK to make racist comments if you yourself are non Caucasian. One wonders what Glen Johnson really thinks about all this or is he just towing the party line.

Given what the report has said, and being independent, they have no reason to lie, Liverpool run the danger of making themselves look a bit daft if they pursue this.

[God is an Englishman]

Can't wait for the next instalment of this soap opera and it will be interesting to see how Liverpool get on with their frivolous appeal. Seems that, at Anfield, it is OK to make racist comments if you yourself are non Caucasian. One wonders what Glen Johnson really thinks about all this or is he just towing the party line.

Given what the report has said, and being independent, they have no reason to lie, Liverpool run the danger of making themselves look a bit daft if they pursue this.

does the report mention anything about evra's racism, or about the fact he's been caught lieing about these things before?

[The Kop]

Can't wait for the next instalment of this soap opera and it will be interesting to see how Liverpool get on with their frivolous appeal. Seems that, at Anfield, it is OK to make racist comments if you yourself are non Caucasian. One wonders what Glen Johnson really thinks about all this or is he just towing the party line.

Given what the report has said, and being independent, they have no reason to lie, Liverpool run the danger of making themselves look a bit daft if they pursue this.

Did you read the report? It would be farcical if they didn't appeal.

[Facts and Stats]

I can't post the whole summary, it's too large (the forum has limits here is a link to it.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary ... ssion.ashx

GIAE, it snot mentioned, amazingly!!

Liverpool can't appeal the result just the suspension with the FA.

They can and probably will go to court and get the FA laughed at.

The whole thing is down to the FA thinking the one with previous was a more sound person to believe.

I know NOC and Jimbob won't have read the whole thing, but here you go, and you will see how it is a farce from top to bottom. Digest the following then come back with reasoned debate :?

[Nice One Cyril]

I know NOC and Jimbob won't have read the whole thing, but here you go, and you will see how it is a farce from top to bottom. Digest the following then come back with reasoned debate :?

You are correct, I CBF wading through pages of legalese but I did read El Cap's post on the other thread....

Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:

(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in
golpe" ("flapping hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").

(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada"
("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los
negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").

(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada"
("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro,
negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).

(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used
the word "negro" to Mr Evra.

(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had
said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que,
negro?".

From the FAs 115 page report:

.....and have assumed it to be a direct quotation and therefore factual. I take it you're disputing the factuality of it?

[Facts and Stats]

What Suarez said is not (mostly) in doubt. Its the context and meaning.

If I called you a yid (being a spurs fan) it's not racist. Context is important, and the FA had decided before the hearing Luis was guilty, is plain wrong.

The report and Evra have said they don't think Luis is a racist.

[Nice One Cyril]

What Suarez said is not (mostly) in doubt. Its the context and meaning.

If I called you a yid (being a spurs fan) it's not racist. Context is important, and the FA had decided before the hearing Luis was guilty, is plain wrong. In law, it could be construed as racist although I personally wouldn't be offended by it. Part of the problem is that some people are actively seeking offence. I think that Suarez's first use of the negro word could be construed as a misinterpretation but once he saw how upset Evra was about it, his subsequent baiting use of the word would have to be seen to have racial overtones. Just my opinion but I think he was stupid and the FA cannot afford to let it go.

The report and Evra have said they don't think Luis is a racist. I would not consider myself a racist in any way, shape or form, but I've certainly made racist comments, which I've later regretted and apologised for, in the heat of the moment.

[The Kop]

I know NOC and Jimbob won't have read the whole thing, but here you go, and you will see how it is a farce from top to bottom. Digest the following then come back with reasoned debate :?

You are correct, I CBF wading through pages of legalese but I did read El Cap's post on the other thread....

Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:

(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in
golpe" ("flapping hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").

(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada"

("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los
negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").

(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada"

("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro,
negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).

(4) When the referee blew his whistle to stop the corner being taken, Mr Suarez used
the word "negro" to Mr Evra.

(5) After the referee had spoken to the players for a second time, and Mr Evra had
said that he did not want Mr Suarez to touch him, Mr Suarez said "Por que,
negro?".

From the FAs 115 page report:

.....and have assumed it to be a direct quotation and therefore factual. I take it you're disputing the factuality of it?

Direct quotation of whom? That's Evra's version of events corroborated by no witnesses or video evidence. Which they deemed to be "probably" accurate (that was the burden of proof).


There's definitely more to come in this soap opera. Suarez doesn't apparently talk to blacks? So he never talked to his grandfather?

[Nice One Cyril]

There's definitely more to come in this soap opera. Suarez doesn't apparently talk to blacks? So he never talked to his grandfather?

Ever heard of 'do as I say, not as I do'?

As I said, I haven't read the whole report, but Matt seems to think that what was said is not really in contention, more the import of what Suarez said. I've already given my view on that in the previous post.

I always used to think you were one of the more intelligent posters on here but, on this issue, you seem to have let your heart rule your head purely because it's a Liverpool player.

If Liverpool appeal and lose (which looks distinctly possible), they run the risk of being seen as a club that tacitly condones racist behaviour. Obviously they're not, but that perception might hurt them in the future.

[Facts and Stats]

you make jokes about scousers often.

So you are a racist, guilty as charged :?

[Nice One Cyril]

you make jokes about scousers often.

So you are a racist, guilty as charged :?

What, the bin dippers? I know you have a thick skin

[Facts and Stats]

I don't, i want you banned from here

[Nice One Cyril]

I don't, i want you banned from here

Sorry, typo. Just thick.

[God is an Englishman]

you make jokes about scousers often.

So you are a racist, guilty as charged :?

As much as they want to be and we want them to be, scouse is not a race.

[Facts and Stats]

You can be charged with racism if stereotyping.

[Rampant Antagonism]

You can be charged with racism if stereotyping.

Did you come to that conclusion by yourself or being a typical scouse just steal it?

[God is an Englishman]

You can be charged with racism if stereotyping.

what if the stereotype is true.

eg. french people stink, aussies are sheep shaggers, scousers steal, mancs are all drug dealers,

It seems that if suarez had just called him a european cunt he would have been fine.

[Facts and Stats]

You can be charged with racism if stereotyping.

Did you come to that conclusion by yourself or being a typical scouse just steal it?

Its called being educated,something no Aussie, Black Person or Millwall fan is (and of course I m a taking the p*ss, before anyone is offended)..

[God is an Englishman]

You can be charged with racism if stereotyping.

Did you come to that conclusion by yourself or being a typical scouse just steal it?

Its called being educated,something no Aussie, Black Person or Millwall fan is (and of course I m a taking the p*ss, before anyone is offended)..

you were right with 2 out of the 3 though.

[Facts and Stats]

Sadly I was thinking of you whilst typing it....

Your son will be an educated Aussie Milwall fan won't he???

[God is an Englishman]

Sadly I was thinking of you whilst typing it....

Your son will be an educated Aussie Milwall fan won't he???

He's only half aussie.

[Facts and Stats]

This article sums it all up.

After two months and 115-pages, the entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s.

There was no evidence nor supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the events.

And in the end, the much discussed linguistic nuances of the word “negro” and its use in South American Spanish mattered little.

Language experts brought in by the FA concluded that what Suarez admits to having said – “what, negro?” – wouldn’t be considered offensive in his native Uruguay, but what Evra says he hurled at him would be.

So it all came down to who the three-man panel believed.

They decided Evra was the more credible witness, chiefly because his version of events tallied closer to the television footage of the incident than Suarez’s

It is worth noting, however, that while the Frenchman was allowed to give his evidence while watching the video of the confrontation, Suarez was not.

The FA report also claimed that the Manchester United player’s testimony was preferred because he remained calm throughout – importantly, though, he was not the one on trial.

As a result of the report’s publication, most media outlets are now presenting Evra’s claim to have been racially abused “seven times in two minutes” as fact when that is far from the case.

Unlike in a court of law, the panel did not need to be satisfied that Suarez was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, working instead to a balance of probability rule. And the word “probably” can be found in plentiful supply in the report.

Essentially the Liverpool striker has been convicted on the hunch of three men.

Is that acceptable when a man’s reputation is on the line?

If Suarez used the word negro with the frequency and in the manner in which Evra alleges, he deserves every game of his eight-match suspension.

But that hasn't been proven, with only the two players aware of the truth. And try as the FA might to suggest otherwise, the report hasn’t changed that.

[Nice One Cyril]

This article sums it all up.

After two months and 115-pages, the entire case came down to one man’s word against another’s.

There was no evidence nor supporting witnesses to back up either player’s version of the events.

And in the end, the much discussed linguistic nuances of the word “negro” and its use in South American Spanish mattered little.

Language experts brought in by the FA concluded that what Suarez admits to having said – “what, negro?” – wouldn’t be considered offensive in his native Uruguay, but what Evra says he hurled at him would be.

So it all came down to who the three-man panel believed.

They decided Evra was the more credible witness, chiefly because his version of events tallied closer to the television footage of the incident than Suarez’s

It is worth noting, however, that while the Frenchman was allowed to give his evidence while watching the video of the confrontation, Suarez was not.

The FA report also claimed that the Manchester United player’s testimony was preferred because he remained calm throughout – importantly, though, he was not the one on trial.

As a result of the report’s publication, most media outlets are now presenting Evra’s claim to have been racially abused “seven times in two minutes” as fact when that is far from the case.

Unlike in a court of law, the panel did not need to be satisfied that Suarez was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, working instead to a balance of probability rule. And the word “probably” can be found in plentiful supply in the report.

Essentially the Liverpool striker has been convicted on the hunch of three men.

Is that acceptable when a man’s reputation is on the line?

If Suarez used the word negro with the frequency and in the manner in which Evra alleges, he deserves every game of his eight-match suspension.

But that hasn't been proven, with only the two players aware of the truth. And try as the FA might to suggest otherwise, the report hasn’t changed that.

Hard to argue with any of that, but it also pays to remember that the accused is very unlikely to tell the complete truth. Everyone lies to get themselves off the hook, which would probably explain why Evra's testimony tallies with the video evidence and Suarez's doesn't. Liverpool fans are assuming that Suarez is innocent and telling the truth and United fans the same with Evra, but the commission was independent with no axe to grind and made a non-emotive judgment.

You only have to look at Evra's reaction to see he was incensed by something but I find it hard to believe that, this long after the event, he'd be deliberately bending the truth to get Suarez in trouble. Not impossible granted, but imo, unlikely.

I still think Suarez was either arrogant in thinking he'd said nothing wrong despite Evra's obvious upset, or stupid, or both. I'm sure if he'd have gone to Evra immediately after the game and said "look, it was the adrenalin talking and I'm really sorry", we wouldn't be here now.

[Facts and Stats]

Some of what Evra says is wrong, video evidence backs that up...but you, me and the panel don't know the full truth.

[Nice One Cyril]

Some of what Evra says is wrong, video evidence backs that up...but you, me and the panel don't know the full truth.

You want the truth? You can't handle the truth

Isn't that what the commission and the report was all about? To find the best 'truth' they could.

[Facts and Stats]

no, to find the truth they wanted.........