Suarez

DanH84 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:32

I tell you what, the FA must be quaking in their boots at the thought of this going to CAS.

Purdy · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:33

woppy101 said:
Point 256,he admits to using the word negro so how anyone can defend him is beyond belief,but no Liverpool fans will still think they are hard done by.the panel already said they don't think he is racist

Guessing you haven't read anything else then :rolleyes:

jakeke · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:34

DanH84 said:
I tell you what, the FA must be quaking in their boots at the thought of this going to CAS.

Liverpool aren't going to take this further, not after that report. I'm curious to see their punishment for Suarez, probably just a fine, but from what I can see, 8 games from the FA is laughable, they must believe he isn't racist and he was doing it flippantly/to wind Evra up, even though they sound like the words of a racist.

the wopster · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:36

Purdy said:
Guessing you haven't read anything else then

Actually I have read all of it!quite boring most of it

Pigeon_Killer · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:38

jakeke said:
8 games from the FA is laughable, they must believe he isn't racist and he was doing it flippantly/to wind Evra up, even though they sound like the words of a racist.

He's either a racist and deserves a far longer ban (perhaps remainder of the season based on the fact the FA believe Evras version of events) or he isn't and deserves no longer ban than Evra who also used foul and abusive language.

Purdy · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:40

woppy101 said:
Actually I have read all of it

Guess you missed the point about if negro was used in the context and way Suarez said it it wouldn't be offensive at all never mind racially offensive.

Jakeke you don't seem to mind the FA not banning players trying to end others careers and get away with a 1-3 match ban if that(see Cabaye last night). But bleat on about a guy using words and only getting nearly treble their punishment at worst.

Oh and the FA and evra have both said he isn't a racist.

jakeke · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:41

Pigeon_Killer said:
He's either a racist and deserves a far longer ban (perhaps remainder of the season based on the fact the FA believe Evras version of events) or he isn't and deserves no longer ban than Evra who also used foul and abusive language.

I don't know, I think it's quite clear he used racially abusive language at least once and that's what he was charged with, I suppose it actually doesn't really matter if he's racist/it is impossible to prove. There are just a few inconsistencies, having read Evra's account, if that's true, 8 games is nothing, he's lucky to ever play in England again, it's absolutely disgusting language, and the thing is, the FA seem to believe that version of things, so why only 8?

jakeke · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:43

Purdy said:
Guess you missed the point about if negro was used in the context and way Suarez said it it wouldn't be offensive at all never mind racially offensive.

Jakeke you don't seem to mind the FA not banning players trying to end others careers and get away with a 1-3 match ban if that(see Cabaye last night). But bleat on about a guy using words and only getting nearly treble their punishment at worst.

Oh and the FA and evra have both said he isn't a racist.

What are you talking about? We're in a thread about racism and I'm talking about racism, open a thread about Cabaye's tackle and I might comment on that?

DanH84 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:44

Changed his evidence in line with video evidence? tut tut.

Purdy · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:44

jakeke said:
What are you talking about? We're in a thread about racism and I'm talking about racism, open a thread about Cabaye's tackle and I might comment on that?

Well go on just tell me here, only interested in your view

BaZ87 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:44

DanH84 said:
The position, therefore, is as follows. Mr Suarez spoke in Spanish to Mr Comolli soon after
the game about this serious allegation. Mr Suarez also spoke in Dutch to Mr Kuyt. Both
Mr Comolli and Mr Kuyt understood Mr Suarez to have told them that when he spoke to
Mr Evra he said words which translate into English as, "Because you are black". According
to Mr Suarez, Mr Comolli misheard what Mr Suarez said in Spanish, and Mr Kuyt
misheard what Mr Suarez said in Dutch.

jakeke said:
Check my edit Baz, Suarez admitted it to both of them then said they both misheard him.

I've got some catching up to do, I'm only on point 144.

If that's the case, I take it that the panel believed that Kuyt & Comolli misunderstood Suarez? Or else he'd have been found guilty of the more serious charge of discrimination?

Purdy · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:45

DanH84 said:
Changed his evidence in line with video evidence? tut tut.

Evra taken into room and talked them through incident whilst video running, Suarez not given the video to explain(from what I've read, could be wrong.) about an incident he wouldn't give a ***** about as he didn't think he was being racist?

jakeke · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:48

BaZ87 said:
I've got some catching up to do, I'm only on point 144.

If that's the case, I take it that the panel believed that Kuyt & Comolli misunderstood Suarez? Or else he'd have been found guilty of the more serious charge of discrimination?

Not sure, as I said a post or two ago, while a lot of the important points seem clear cut, there are still one or two inconsistencies which you kinda expect from the FA I suppose. From as much as I've read, I get the impression the panel think Suarez has lied several times and that they really didn't trust him and his word throughout. Suarez hasn't helped himself at all and he might even have buried himself.

Alpherah · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:48

Firstly:
Saying Evras version was mostly consistent, and Suarez was occasionally inconsistent means the same thing .

Secondly:
There's way too many "perhaps", "probably" and such words for my liking in a case like this

Tom84 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:49

Purdy said:
Evra taken into room and talked them through incident whilst video running, Suarez not given the video to explain(from what I've read, could be wrong.) about an incident he wouldn't give a ***** about as he didn't think he was being racist?

Of course Suarez was given the video evidence? For the third time now

Mr Suarez's account of his admitted use of the word "negro" changed several times. He seemed unsure of when the admitted use took place and what triggered it. His account seemed to change in an attempt to fit in with the video evidence.

How could he attempt to change his story to fit in with the video if he wasn't shown said video?

BaZ87 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:50

jakeke said:
Not sure, as I said a post or two ago, while a lot of the important points seem clear cut, there are still one or two inconsistencies which you kinda expect from the FA I suppose. From as much as I've read, I get the impression the panel think Suarez has lied several times and that they really didn't trust him and his word throughout. Suarez hasn't helped himself at all and he might even have buried himself.

If the panel believe that Suarez said he kicked Evra because he was black, that's clear cut discrimination.

Pigeon_Killer · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:50

382: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened."

This being the best.

G-MAN2004 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:52

I absolutely hate this guy.

jakeke · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:52

BaZ87 said:
If the panel believe that Suarez said he kicked Evra because he was black, that's clear cut discrimination.

I doubt Suarez kicked him because he was black though, he probably just said that to annoy Evra, that must be their belief

BaZ87 · 31 Dec 2011 at 18:56

jakeke said:
I doubt Suarez kicked him because he was black though, he probably just said that to annoy Evra, that must be their belief

So they're going to believe he said it but assume he didn't mean it?