No.
Suarez
- Thread starter the wopster
- Start date
- Status
No.
It is one mans word against another, simply stating that is wumming?
Since you are avoiding answering it in this thread want to pm me what I asked you before?
Note that the FA have left themselves a way out on the Terry case too by saying that the length of the ban is related to the number of times the term was used...
Terry will get away with a shorter ban based on one/two uses, if they find him guilty at all.
Terry will get away with a shorter ban based on one/two uses, if they find him guilty at all.
Quote of the thread right their Ladies & Gents. Despite the vitriol from both set's of fans, this should be a very (pardon the pun and not intended) black and white case.
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
The greatest friend of truth is Time, her greatest enemy is Prejudice, and her constant companion is Humility. - Charles Caleb Colton
Another arm chair lawyer when it suits
Be fair Loki, there's just as much of that on both sides. I very much doubt the majority of people that are commenting both ways have even bothered to read the report and instead are relying on snippets from newspaper reports and/or twitter.
Supposedly the FA work on probability rather than reasonable doubt which I'd have thought was pretty dangerous given the serious nature of this case.
Aye but one thing that 'Fans' are taking for Gospel is that the panel operates under the same guidelines as common law i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. They may operate under a different set of rules that ALL clubs sign upto and accept whether it goes against them or not
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yeah, a way out, personally I'd expect someone who did a single red card challenge to get the same ban as someone who was getting his third red card in a month. Or a guy to get the same jail term for shooting one person, as shooting 6 people..... yup, its a way out, not the bog standard way life works in just about every situation, for everything, including football, and always has.
As for the snippets of the report, what I'm getting from the snippets is, Suarez had one story for various things, and at a later date, changed his mind and admitted even more things he did wrong, when the first time they spoke to him, he admitted to calling him negro multiple times already.
So, he admitted to calling him a negro, lied, changed his version of events on at least one fairly crucial part of his testimony and, errm, admitted he did it, several times........ yeah, Suarez should totally appeal...... its not clear cut at all.
Ok, all read (well some was skimmed over).
Given that there was no (real) evidence other than both players testimony and as above, the FA works on probability rather than proving something beyond reasonable doubt, it all boiled down to the credibility.
One of the inconsistencies in Suarez's testimony was that he changed his mind as to when he said negro to Evra after seeing the video evidence. I personally don't read anything into that. As the panel said themselves, it's difficult to expect somebody to be able to remember the exact order an arguement played out. Similarly, I don't read anything into the "10 times" stuff from Evra as we're all prone to exaggerating things when they've happened a number of times.
What's done for Suarez is the "becuase you're black" misunderstanding with Comolli and Kuyt. As above, because the FA simply work on probability, that probably was enough for the panel to find him guilty of saying negro in an insulting way. I do find it strange though that they've accepted that he's said it but guessed that he didn't mean it.
Given Evra's questionable grasp of Spanish and the lack of any other evidence, I'm not sure how they've even found it probable that he's used the term negro any more times though.
How they've come up with the 8 game ban is also questionable imo. Based on how the laws are set out, I'd have little to argue with had he been banned for 4 games; 2 game ban for insulting a player and that ban doubling because of the reference to colour, nationality etc. However as above, given the lack of evidence to firmly prove that Suarez used the term more than once, to increase his ban based on the number of times he's said to have used the word is wrong.
To sum up, I agree with some of what's been found but not all.
Whether I agree with the FA working on probability on such serious matters and whether I think a minimum of a 4 game ban is fair for a charge like this, given that you can attempt to break an opponents leg and only receive a 3 game ban? I don't but this is how the FA works and it's not going to change, not in time to effect the Suarez case anyway.
Given that there was no (real) evidence other than both players testimony and as above, the FA works on probability rather than proving something beyond reasonable doubt, it all boiled down to the credibility.
One of the inconsistencies in Suarez's testimony was that he changed his mind as to when he said negro to Evra after seeing the video evidence. I personally don't read anything into that. As the panel said themselves, it's difficult to expect somebody to be able to remember the exact order an arguement played out. Similarly, I don't read anything into the "10 times" stuff from Evra as we're all prone to exaggerating things when they've happened a number of times.
What's done for Suarez is the "becuase you're black" misunderstanding with Comolli and Kuyt. As above, because the FA simply work on probability, that probably was enough for the panel to find him guilty of saying negro in an insulting way. I do find it strange though that they've accepted that he's said it but guessed that he didn't mean it.
Given Evra's questionable grasp of Spanish and the lack of any other evidence, I'm not sure how they've even found it probable that he's used the term negro any more times though.
How they've come up with the 8 game ban is also questionable imo. Based on how the laws are set out, I'd have little to argue with had he been banned for 4 games; 2 game ban for insulting a player and that ban doubling because of the reference to colour, nationality etc. However as above, given the lack of evidence to firmly prove that Suarez used the term more than once, to increase his ban based on the number of times he's said to have used the word is wrong.
To sum up, I agree with some of what's been found but not all.
Whether I agree with the FA working on probability on such serious matters and whether I think a minimum of a 4 game ban is fair for a charge like this, given that you can attempt to break an opponents leg and only receive a 3 game ban? I don't but this is how the FA works and it's not going to change, not in time to effect the Suarez case anyway.
Or worse, Terry being found guilty and given a £2,500 fine and the FA saying the matter is over as the Police have dealt with it.
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,303
- Location
- newcastle
There is no way the FA could get away with that,they would be under too much pressure to ban him
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
/thread
Shouldn't we be allowed to discuss and debate these so called inconsistencies and the validity of the reasons given?
And because I'm not sure whether you read the report, I hope you're not thinking the 'video footage' stuff refers to footage of the conversation because as the report says, nothing can been seen from the video footage available.
Nor does the video evidence follow Suarez or Evra for a full 90 minutes. The lack of evidence does not mean the lack of guilt
- Status