Suarez verdict

[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.

You're right it's a lifestyle!

never consider that, but i guess theiving instead of working can be a lifestyle choice.

[The Kop]

Post from another forum.
Damning if true.
Sloppy to say the least by the defence…..

I will quote first the FA document on the key point:

“90. Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr
Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro". Mr Evra said that at the time Mr Suarez made that
comment, he (Mr Evra) understood it to mean "Because you are a ******". He now says
that he believes the words used by Mr Suarez mean "Because you are black".”

End quote.

I read the whole FA report. I am a Uruguayan born in Montevideo, currently a university Literature and Language professor in the US. It is clear to me that the Spanish language reported by Evra is inconsistent with Luis Suárez’s way of speaking Spanish. I am surprised nobody (and especially, the Liverpool lawyers) raised this point. The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn't use. Suárez cannot speak as Evra reported him speaking. And that strongly suggests that Evra made the whole thing up.

This is, I believe, key for the case and, if acknowledged, it would destroy Evra’s credibility. The fact that the FA has not noted that Suárez would never say “porque tu eres negro” (that is just not a way of speaking in the Rio de la Plata area), much less “porque tu es negro” or “tues negro” (as Comolli apparently stated), which are gramatically incorrect or just do not exist in Spanish. You don’t use the verb “ser” (to be) in the Rio de la Plata area that way. Luis Suarez would have said “porque SOS negro”. There is no possible variation or alternative to this whatsoever in our use of Spanish. And we of course don’t say “por que tu es negro” (as supposedly Comolli reported) because this is no Spanish syntax. In that sentence “es” is being wrongly conjugated in the third person of singular while it should have been conjugated in the second, “sos” (and never, I repeat, “eres”). Hence, I don't know what Comolli heard from Suarez after the match, but I am positive he got it wrong--unless we believe that Suarez cannot even speak Spanish...

What follows to these is that Evra’s report on what Suarez said is unreliable, just because Evra depicts Suárez speaking in a form of Spanish Suárez just does not use.- Suárez cannot have said “porque tu eres negro”. He would have said--if at all he said anything-- “porque sos negro”. And the problem is that this is not what Evra declared. Once again: Evra reports Suárez to have told him “porque tu eres negro” which just sound unplausible. People from Montevideo or Buenos Aires just do NOT USE that verb “ser” (to be) that way. In such a case we would say “porque sos negro”. How come Evra reports Suárez speaking as he does not speak, and the FA accepts his word? Looks like Evra is making this up.

***

That said, let’s pay some attention to the incredibly sloppy way the FA has managed the Spanish language in their report.

“138. Mr Comolli said in his witness statement that Mr Suarez told him nothing happened. He
said that there was one incident where he said sorry to Mr Evra and Mr Evra told him
"Don't touch me, South American" to which Mr Comolli thought Mr Suarez said he had
replied "Por que, tu eres negro?". (...) Mr Comolli confirmed under cross-examination
that he believed that what he was told by Mr Suarez in this meeting was that the words he
had used to Mr Evra translated as "Why, because you are black"." Endquote.

“Por que, tu eres negro?”…. ??!! This makes no sense. It is no Spanish. “Por qué” means “why” (and not “because” in this case). It is incorrectly spelled by the FA in their official report (they don’t seem to give a damn about Spanish, since they treat Spanish in such a careless way all along the report). It cannot be translated in a way that makes sense. Literally, if I had to translate it, it would be something like this: “why, you are black?” I have no idea what that could mean.

And Mr Comolli’s version is VERY different from Suarez’s own statement. Let’s see what Suarez himself reported:

"141. Mr Suarez's version of this conversation was as follows. He said that Mr Comolli
explained to him that Sir Alex Ferguson and Mr Evra had complained to the referee that
Mr Suarez had racially insulted Mr Evra five times during the game. Mr Comolli asked Mr
Suarez to tell him what happened. Mr Suarez told him that Mr Evra had said to him
"Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez had said "Por que negro?". Mr Suarez told
Mr Comolli that this was the only thing he had said."

What Suarez stated makes perfect sense in the Spanish we speak in the Rio de la Plata area –even though, again, it is ill transcripted by the FA. They should have written: “¿Por qué, negro?”. Then, I have no idea why, the FA believes in the incorrect Spanish of a non-native speaker (Comolli), instead of crediting Suarez about his own words…

The linguistic abilities of the FA are completely under question here, and they seem to have been key in their grounding of the case. Let’s see how lousy their understanding and use of Spanish language is, by looking in detail at just another part of the reasons alleged by the FA:

"284 (...) Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said "you
are South American" to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as
"you are black"." Endquote.

It is ridiculous that the FA, after careful consideration of everything, would even consider relevant whatever Mr Comolli might have understood from Suárez, when it is clear Mr Comolli can barely understands what he himself is trying to say in Spanish. I say this because “tues” is no Spanish word. And “tues negro” cannot be translated at all—let alone into what the FA says it means. It’s simply not a Spanish expression, so it cannot be “translated”. Comolli recollection from his chat with Suárez just after the match is unreliable. A pity since it arrived to the FA jury through a Liverpool official, but the language is so ridiculously wrong it makes me laugh.

In sum: Suárez could not have even said “tu eres” negro, which would be gramatically correct in Madrid, because in the Rio de la Plata area we would never say “tu eres negro”, but “vos SOS negro”. And that is a fact, not a matter of the opinion of anyone, not even the language experts consulted by the FA, of course. I am a native speaker of Montevideo, a PhD in Spanish by Stanford, and currently a professor of Spanish at Brown University, and if I was called to court on this, I would categorically deny that Suarez, who lived his adult life in Montevideo—despite being born in Salto—could have said other than “vos sos negro”. There is no way in the world he could have said to Evra, spontaneously and as a reaction to Evra’s words and attitudes, “porque tu eres negro”—and much less “tues negro”, that doesn’t exist. Simply “tues” is no Spanish.
Despite of that, the FA makes it stand and transcribes it in their report, and substantiate their conviction on these words.

***

Reading Evra’s statement, I understand it could happen that Evra misunderstood Suárez at some point. When Suárez said “¿por qué, negro?”, Evra might have assumed that as a racial insult, while Suárez—even in the heat of a discussion—could perfectly have said that as a way of normally expressing himself (not exactly to calm Evra down, but just because he normally would talk like that without thinking about it). This point is where the cultural clash seems more important, and it is working against Suárez because nobody in the jury (let alone the Daily Mail kind of media) seems to even start understanding the common way we use the term “negro” in the Rio de la Plata area. They heard their experts, and their experts explained the different options of our use of the word depending on different contexts and intentions. Then, the jury just decided that the whole thing was an equally aggressive clash by both sides, and because of that, they concluded Suárez could have not use the "negro" word to Evra in a descriptive way. Why? Their interpretation is not clear to me and doesn’t seem to be the only one possible. “¿Por qué, negro?” (after Evra said “Don’t touch me you South American”) is not offensive, but a question, and a very common one indeed, where “negro” is a DESCRIPTIVE noun, not an adjective loaded with a negative connotation. I completely understand why a British or an American might start not understanding the tone or the intention from Suárez. But I myself can clearly understand the account Suárez does and it seems consistent to me. I hear it more as a common (unmarked and uncharged) addressing to Evra.

Finally, the whole verdict seems to be grounded on 3 elements:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language allegedly used --even though they grounded they verdict on their own interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word "negro" cannot be used just in a descriptive way in the context of a discussion--which means they don't really understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.

A pity. The most important thing here has to do with proportion. Suárez’s name has been destroyed and now the FA has shown there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever of Suarez saying any of the things Evra attributes to him, exception made of Evra’s own statement.

Evra convinced the FA. And I wonder how much of racial prejudice (against the "wild animals" South Americans are supposed to be after Alf Ramsey's famous remark) there is at play on the FA and media heads.

[bapa]

This is so funny to watch

on another note, when does the Racists ban start??????

[God is an Englishman]

This is so funny to watch

on another note, when does the Racists ban start??????

after the decision on whether to appeal and the result of that if they do.

When's Evra's ban for racial abuse start?

[bapa]

This is so funny to watch

on another note, when does the Racists ban start??????

after the decision on whether to appeal and the result of that if they do.

When's Evra's ban for racial abuse start?

difference is, Evra NOT found guilty of bein a racist!

[The Kop]

Was Suarez?

[bapa]

Was Suarez?

Oohhhhh, he must of got an 8 game ban, cos he doesn't have straight teeth then!

[The Kop]

Was Suarez?

Oohhhhh, he must of got an 8 game ban, cos he doesn't have straight teeth then!

Based on the lack of evidence, that’s probably (pun intended) more plausible!

But you said Evra wasn’t guilty of being a racist.
Well neither was Suarez. That wasn’t the charge he faced was it.
More so, the FA and Evra bizarrely went out of their way to explicitly state that he’s not a racist.

But he’s labelled a racist by the ignorant masses.
Another reason why it needs to be pursued.

[Nice One Cyril]

Was Suarez?

Oohhhhh, he must of got an 8 game ban, cos he doesn't have straight teeth then!

Based on the lack of evidence, that’s probably (pun intended) more plausible!

But you said Evra wasn’t guilty of being a racist.
Well neither was Suarez. That wasn’t the charge he faced was it.
More so, the FA and Evra bizarrely went out of their way to explicitly state that he’s not a racist.

But he’s labelled a racist by the ignorant masses.
Another reason why it needs to be pursued.

Just because a person makes an individual racist comment, that doesn't make them a racist. Everyone's entitled to make a mistake, especially if it's not their first language.

Or is that patronising?

[The Kop]

Oohhhhh, he must of got an 8 game ban, cos he doesn't have straight teeth then!

Based on the lack of evidence, that’s probably (pun intended) more plausible!

But you said Evra wasn’t guilty of being a racist.
Well neither was Suarez. That wasn’t the charge he faced was it.
More so, the FA and Evra bizarrely went out of their way to explicitly state that he’s not a racist.

But he’s labelled a racist by the ignorant masses.
Another reason why it needs to be pursued.

Just because a person makes an individual racist comment, that doesn't make them a racist. Everyone's entitled to make a mistake, especially if it's not their first language.

Or is that patronising?

No comprende signor Cyril

The convo happened in a mix of language which is Luis’ first and somewhere between the flawlessly multilingual Evra’s third and fourth.

[God is an Englishman]

I'm waiting for cahill to call someone a paki, and claim it's OK to call people that in australia.

[hero2zero]

From an English forum.

Here’s something to stew over (not sure if anyone else has picked up on it): evidence from Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt and Evra all stated that when asked why he had kicked Evra, Suarez told Evra he had done it “because you are black”. Suarez denies this, but the commission has accepted that Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt and Evra are telling the truth. But surely, in that case, Suarez is not simply guilty of using racist language. By his own admission to four different people on four different occasions in three different languages, he is in fact guilty of a racially motivated act of violence (kicking Evra because he is black). If the punishment for using racist language is eight matches, shouldn’t the punishment for a racially motivated act of violence (in other words, a hate crime) be much more? I can only hope he appeals and that the FA realizes the significance of the evidence.

[Facts and Stats]

dont post rubbish off an unnamed forum, read the report and then report your views.

[God is an Englishman]

From an English forum.

Here’s something to stew over (not sure if anyone else has picked up on it): evidence from Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt and Evra all stated that when asked why he had kicked Evra, Suarez told Evra he had done it “because you are black”. Suarez denies this, but the commission has accepted that Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt and Evra are telling the truth. But surely, in that case, Suarez is not simply guilty of using racist language. By his own admission to four different people on four different occasions in three different languages, he is in fact guilty of a racially motivated act of violence (kicking Evra because he is black). If the punishment for using racist language is eight matches, shouldn’t the punishment for a racially motivated act of violence (in other words, a hate crime) be much more? I can only hope he appeals and that the FA realizes the significance of the evidence.

l

Can you show me in this report where comolli, dalglish and kuyt say this?

evra doesn't count because he's a lying piece of french shit.

[Facts and Stats]

And anyway, no one can understand what the King says, so quoting him is impossible,

[The Kop]

From an English forum.

Here’s something to stew over (not sure if anyone else has picked up on it): evidence from Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt and Evra all stated that when asked why he had kicked Evra, Suarez told Evra he had done it “because you are black”. Suarez denies this, but the commission has accepted that Dalglish, Comolli, Kuyt and Evra are telling the truth. But surely, in that case, Suarez is not simply guilty of using racist language. By his own admission to four different people on four different occasions in three different languages, he is in fact guilty of a racially motivated act of violence (kicking Evra because he is black). If the punishment for using racist language is eight matches, shouldn’t the punishment for a racially motivated act of violence (in other words, a hate crime) be much more? I can only hope he appeals and that the FA realizes the significance of the evidence.

What drivel.

1. This is the "kick" on Evra that had him so furious and made him feel the need to incite an abusive conversation about 5 minutes afterwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH50lwwBRms 1:14 onwards....gruesome.
[for those who read the report - you will also see Kuyt mouthing off to Evra while on the ground. According to the report this is unsubtantiated and weighed against Kuyt as a credible witness....yep]
2. Suarez never admitted to saying "because you are black"
3. "because you are black" makes no sense is impossible syntax to be used by a Spanish speaker of Uruguay as explained in an earlier post.
4. Dalglish "knowing" isn't worth the paper it's printed on as it's third hand hearsay info.
5. Infact the entire case against Suarez is heresay.
6. A hate crime? Like proceeding in a real court of law? Where the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. Odds of 100/1 if it lasts more than a New York minute.
7. Yet another reason why appeal is needed.....

[totsreds08]

Kop, you are brilliant at what you do. I honestly don't know why people bother replying back to you

[BTAC]

Kop, you are brilliant at what you do. I honestly don't know why people bother replying back to you

I sometimes don't know why he wastes his time posting when he gets such nonsense back.

[BTAC]

Wow.

[Stewie Griffin]

Liverpool have confirmed to the Football Association they will not contest the eight-match ban handed to Luis Suarez for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

As a result Suarez's suspension begins with immediate effect meaning he will miss Liverpool's Tuesday night clash with Premier League leaders Manchester City at the Etihad Stadium.

An independent commission found Suarez guilty of abusing Evra in Liverpool's game with Manchester United in October and the FA released the findings on New Year's Eve.

A statement on the FA's website read: "Liverpool FC have this afternoon [Tuesday 3 January 2012] informed the FA that they will not be appealing the decision of an Independent Regulatory Commission in relation to the recently proven misconduct charge against Luis Suarez.

"Suarez will be suspended with immediate effect for a period of eight matches, starting with this evening's fixture against Manchester City. Suarez was also fined £40,000 and was warned as to his future conduct."

In a statement on Liverpool's website the club said: "Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act.

"Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his teammates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant.

"Continuing a fight for justice in this particular case beyond today would only obscure the fact that the Club wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the Football Association, the Football League and the Premier League to put an end to any form of racism in English football.

"It is time to put the Luis Suarez matter to rest and for all of us, going forward, to work together to stamp out racism in every form both inside and outside the sport. It is for this reason that we will not appeal the eight-game suspension of Luis Suarez."

If everyone is so wrong and LFC are so right and Suarez is the Angel that you make him out to be then why this?

For the good of the game? :?

[Nice One Cyril]

Liverpool have confirmed to the Football Association they will not contest the eight-match ban handed to Luis Suarez for racially abusing Patrice Evra.

As a result Suarez's suspension begins with immediate effect meaning he will miss Liverpool's Tuesday night clash with Premier League leaders Manchester City at the Etihad Stadium.

An independent commission found Suarez guilty of abusing Evra in Liverpool's game with Manchester United in October and the FA released the findings on New Year's Eve.

A statement on the FA's website read: "Liverpool FC have this afternoon [Tuesday 3 January 2012] informed the FA that they will not be appealing the decision of an Independent Regulatory Commission in relation to the recently proven misconduct charge against Luis Suarez.

"Suarez will be suspended with immediate effect for a period of eight matches, starting with this evening's fixture against Manchester City. Suarez was also fined £40,000 and was warned as to his future conduct."

In a statement on Liverpool's website the club said: "Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act.

"Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his teammates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant.

"Continuing a fight for justice in this particular case beyond today would only obscure the fact that the Club wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the Football Association, the Football League and the Premier League to put an end to any form of racism in English football.

"It is time to put the Luis Suarez matter to rest and for all of us, going forward, to work together to stamp out racism in every form both inside and outside the sport. It is for this reason that we will not appeal the eight-game suspension of Luis Suarez."

If everyone is so wrong and LFC are so right and Suarez is the Angel that you make him out to be then why this?

For the good of the game? :?

Nah, they just wanted to prove Kop wrong

Sensible decision IMO under the circumstances. Here endeth the Suarez thread

[Facts and Stats]

full statement. Disappointing but understandable.


It is our strongly held conviction that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suarez based on an accusation that was ultimately unsubstantiated.

The FA and the panel chose to consistently and methodically accept and embrace arguments leading to a set of conclusions that found Mr. Suarez to "probably" be guilty while in the same manner deciding to completely dismiss the testimony that countered their overall suppositions.

Mr. Evra was deemed to be credible in spite of admitting that he himself used insulting and threatening words towards Luis and that his initial charge as to the word used was somehow a mistake.

The facts in this case were that an accusation was made, a rebuttal was given and there was video of the match. The remaining facts came from testimony of people who did not corroborate any accusation made by Mr. Evra.

In its determination to prove its conclusions to the public through a clearly subjective 115-page document, the FA panel has damaged the reputation of one of the Premier League's best players, deciding he should be punished and banned for perhaps a quarter of a season. This case has also provided a template in which a club's rival can bring about a significant ban for a top player without anything beyond an accusation.

Nevertheless, there are ultimately larger issues than whether or not Luis Suarez has been treated fairly by the Football Association in this matter. There are important points we want to make today that overshadow what has occurred during the past two months.

The issue of race in sports, as in other industries, has a very poor history. Far too often, and in far too many countries, the issues of racism and discrimination have been covered over or ignored.

In America, where Liverpool ownership resides, there was a shameful bigotry that prevented black athletes from competing at the highest levels for decades.

English football has led the world in welcoming all nationalities and creeds into its Premier League and its leagues below, and Liverpool Football Club itself has been a leader in taking a progressive stance on issues of race and inclusion. The Luis Suarez case has to end so that the Premier League, the Football Association and the Club can continue the progress that has been made and will continue to be made and not risk a perception, at least by some, that would diminish our commitment on these issues.

Liverpool Football Club have supported Luis Suarez because we fundamentally do not believe that Luis on that day - or frankly any other - did or would engage in a racist act. Notably, his actions on and off the pitch with his teammates and in the community have demonstrated his belief that all athletes can play together and that the colour of a person's skin is irrelevant.

Continuing a fight for justice in this particular case beyond today would only obscure the fact that the Club wholeheartedly supports the efforts of the Football Association, the Football League and the Premier League to put an end to any form of racism in English football.

It is time to put the Luis Suarez matter to rest and for all of us, going forward, to work together to stamp out racism in every form both inside and outside the sport.

It is for this reason that we will not appeal the eight-game suspension of Luis Suarez.

[The Kop]

gutted for him.

[BlackBrian_7]

I think it is pretty poor that Liverpool have decided to not fight the case.

Suarez rightly or wrongly will always be tainted by this incident as a racist. I think this sets a very dangerous precedent where malicious accusations can be made against players without any substantiation and people like Evra can manipulate an opponents reputation to fit their own agendas.

[The Kop]

I totally agree.
But I think there was too much political pressure behind the scenes.

I suspect the sponsors would have made their feelings heard too.
Standard and Chartered - big Asian bank and growing African - in particular I imagine could have been very aphrensive about an appeal and more media frenzy. The reality is they pay 25m per annum, and branding is a two street. You can't just take their money and tell em to shut their traps.

[bapa]

Yeah he is innocent??




Sucked in u Cabernet piece of merda!

[The Kop]

Yeah he is innocent??




Sucked in u Cabernet piece of merda!

Probably! (pun intented)

[The Kop]

It looks over but it's not...

When the salem witch trials are over and Luis is forced out of England and/or when Dalglish retires from management there might be some fireworks it seems.

The following is a transcript from the Liverpool press conference after the Anfield club's 3-0 defeat at Manchester City on Tuesday night:

Reporter: "Kenny, the wider world is pretty shocked that, if a player can call someone 'negro' and the player who is the victim in this takes offence, that there is no apology or contrition offered from your club."

Dalglish: "I would have thought that, if you pronounced the word properly, you maybe understand it better. I think it was Spanish he was speaking and I don't think you were speaking Spanish there."

Reporter: "OK, if a player calls someone 'negro' [Spanish pronunciation], surely the player who takes offence deserves an apology?"

Dalglish: "Ask a linguistic expert, which certainly I am not. They will tell you that the part of the country in Uruguay where he [Luis Suárez] comes from, it is perfectly acceptable. His wife calls him that and I don't think he is offended by her. We have made a statement and I think it is there for everybody to read. Luis has made a brilliant statement and we will stand by him."

Reporter: "But the FA verdict said it was 'simply incredible' to suggest it wasn't used in an offensive way when they were clearly arguing and it wasn't friendly."

Dalglish: "There's a lot of things we'd like to say and a lot we could say but we would only get ourselves in trouble. We are not trying to be evasive … well, we are being evasive because we don't like getting ourselves in trouble. But we know what has gone on. We know what is not in the report and that's important for us. So without me getting ourselves in trouble, I think that's it finished."

Reporter: "Why take the ban now and not play the next three games, including the Carling Cup semi-final against Manchester City?"

Dalglish: "He could have played for a fortnight but he has to serve eight games at some stage and this time is as good as any, isn't it? It was better to get the situation over and done with."

Reporter: "Mark Lawrenson was saying on the radio that you've got to fear now whether Suárez may feel unsettled playing in England. Is that a concern?"

Dalglish: "Because Mark Lawrenson said it? No. I don't see why we have to reply to anybody. If you're asking if I have any concern about Luis playing in England, then no."

Reporter: "Is he strong enough?"

Dalglish: "I don't have a problem with Luis playing in England."

Reporter: "Do you regret wearing the T-shirts?"

Dalglish: "You see, if one of you guys were in trouble, would you help him? Would you support him if you knew the truth and you knew it was right? Would you support him?"

Reporter: "But not with T-shirts when he has been found guilty …"

Dalglish: "Why not? If they want to show their support for their team-mate, what's wrong with that? It was a fabulous statement to make visually of their support for a guy who is endeared in the dressing room, one of their closest friends in the dressing room, and all of his friends in the dressing room can speak up adequately and perfectly well for him. And I think it is very dangerous and unfortunate that you don't actually know the whole content of what went on at the hearing. I'm not prepared, and I can't say it, but I am just saying it is really unfortunate you never got to hear it. That's all I'm saying."

Reporter: "Kenny, given how the wider public are so opposed to your view, what do you have to lose by telling us and revealing what you're saying was not included in the FA statement?"

Dalglish: "It's up to the club to decide what they want to do."

Reporter: "But if you have something to say, surely say it – because the alternative is you are digging a bigger hole for yourself?"

Dalglish: "I don't think we are digging a bigger hole but I just think it's unfortunate we can't be more forthcoming. That's the unfortunate thing."

Reporter: "In your two statements you basically accused the FA of a conspiracy against your club."

Dalglish: "So they have made a statement then …"

Liverpool press officer intervenes and asks for no more questions on Suárez.

Reporter: "The hearing was to lay out all the evidence, 115 pages of evidence, and you have said they [the FA] have done it subjectively. So why do you think the FA are targeting Liverpool and Suárez?"

Dalglish: "Maybe wrong place, wrong time. It could have been anybody. I can't answer for the FA, you ask them."

Reporter: "You think there is an agenda against Liverpool?"

Dalglish: "No. You said that. I never. You get yourself in trouble, I'm all right."

Reporter: "Are you concerned Suárez's first game back could be at Old Trafford?"

Dalglish: "I'll just be delighted to get him back."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... CMP=twt_gu

[Jimbob]

I'm actually quite surprised Dalglish hasn't already retired from management due to the stress caused over the Suarez race scandal.

[God is an Englishman]

I'm actually quite surprised Dalglish hasn't already retired from management due to the stress caused over the Suarez race scandal.

I'm actually quite suprised ferguson hasn't retired yet due to being a a blind alcoholic. What's your point?