Suarez

[dannyjo22]

/thread

Exactly. Clearly they looked at the video and what Evra says stands up as being the truth from what they can see and how many times something is said. Where as Suarez has been found out and so they banned him because they cannot take his word as the truth.

So he may or may not be racist but maybe just a lieing cheat after all.

This is just like the gerrard assault thread all over again, are there actually ever any Liverpool fans that think their players are guilty of anything?

 

[BaZ87]

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

I know

Exactly. Clearly they looked at the video and what Evra says stands up as being the truth from what they can see and how many times something is said.

If you read the report, you'd know that they clearly didn't. The report actually says that they can't make out what was said because there was no video evidence of what was said.

 

[dannyjo22]

If you read the report, you'd know that they clearly didn't. The report actually says that they can't make out what was said because there was no video evidence of what was said.

Yeah so I suppose they made up the fact that Suarez's claims don't bear out with what they can see. Where as Evra's are consistent.

So where exactly does this inconsistency come from. It's pretty clear what Suarez is but clearly no one in red will ever admit that one of their own may have actually done something wrong. Well apart from Diouf, but hang on wasn't he a negro

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

It's pretty clear what Suarez is but clearly no one in red will ever admit that one of their own may have actually done something wrong.

Suarez is a what?

 

[BaZ87]

Yeah so I suppose they made up the fact that Suarez's claims don't bear out with what they can see. Where as Evra's are consistent.

So where exactly does this inconsistency come from. It's pretty clear what Suarez is but clearly no one in red will ever admit that one of their own may have actually done something wrong. Well apart from Diouf, but hang on wasn't he a negro

The inconsistencies were down to Suarez changing his mind as to when he used the term negro after seeing video footage of the exchange. As the report says itself, it's difficult to expect somebody to remember the exact order an argument played out, yet they chose to hold that against him.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The inconsistencies were down to Suarez changing his mind as to when he used the term negro after seeing video footage of the exchange. As the report says itself, it's difficult to expect somebody to remember the exact order an argument played out, yet they chose to hold that against him.

You said when, so he did use ther term negro at Evra?

 

[BaZ87]

Yes.

 

[dannyjo22]

You said when, so he did use ther term negro at Evra?

Yeah but it was done in a nice way friendly and all that...

"He also said that his use of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

"To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument.

So if me and you have a big row Raymond and I say **** off you chink I mean it in a friendly light hearted matey way.

We all know what Suarez is, to try to gloss this over as endearment is a joke. It's not like they were having a friendly chat.

 

[Raymond Lin]

From the guardian

"The report stated that after Evra asked Suárez during the game why he had been kicked, he replied in Spanish: "Porque tu eres negro," which translates as "Because you are black". Evra said he would punch Suárez if he repeated the comment to which Uruguayan said: "No hablo con los negros": "I don't speak to blacks.""

Is this right? And if not, what did he change?

 

[BaZ87]

From the guardian

"The report stated that after Evra asked Suárez during the game why he had been kicked, he replied in Spanish: "Porque tu eres negro," which translates as "Because you are black". Evra said he would punch Suárez if he repeated the comment to which Uruguayan said: "No hablo con los negros": "I don't speak to blacks.""

Is this right? And if not, what did he change?

That was Evra's version of events. Suarez claims that he didn't say 'because you are black' but that he said 'why black', which the independent linguistic experts claimed, if true, wasn't offensive.

As I said in my post earlier, what's gone against Suarez and gave the panel enough evidence to charge him was the fact that Kuyt and Comolli both initially claimed that Suarez told them he said 'because you're black'. That was later claimed to be a misunderstanding.

The 'I don't speak to blacks' was flat out denied by Suarez and there was no evidence other than Evra's word to back it up.

 

[One More Solo]

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.

I've read the whole thing and it's clear that while there is no concrete evidence either way, there are huge inconsistencies in Suarez and Liverpool's accounts which inevitably does not look good.

 

[BaZ87]

I've read the whole thing and it's clear that while there is no concrete evidence either way, there are huge inconsistencies in Suarez and Liverpool's accounts which inevitably does not look good.

There are also incosistencies in Evra's version of events yet these have been overlooked though.

Evra claimed that he told the ref on the pitch that Suarez called him a black (the ref couldn't make out what Evra said), after the game he told the ref that he called him a ******. When asked why he first claimed black but then changed it to ******, his reason was because he doesn't like using the word ****** (there's a clip on youtube showing him use the word ****** quite openly).

In his interview with the FA, he's then said the term was negro and he believed that negro meant ****** in Spanish. That surely raises doubts over his grasp of the Spanish language and therefore what he's claimed Suarez has said to him?

As I've said, the inconsistencies with what Suarez is supposed to have told Kuyt and Comolli give the FA enough evidence to find it probable that he did say "because you're black". Given the inconsistencies in both players accounts and lack of any other evidence, I'm not sure how they've found it probable that he's said any of the other stuff though.

 

[Loki]

BaZ give up with the conspiracy theory, dare I say complex world against LFC. The FA or any independent body would not risk for one minute take Evra's side over Suarez if it was purely 50/50, Suarez Word against Evra.

Again I go back to what I said some days ago. Just because Suarez has never been caught saying anything racist and has many black friends does not exclude him from making racist remarks. Surely even the most blinkered, rose tinted 'Pool fans can see this ??

 

[BaZ87]

What conspiracy theory have I put forward?

I've read the report in full and formed my own opinion based on what I've read. I believe there was enough evidence to meet the FA's criteria to find Suarez guilty of saying "because you're black". I do not believe there is enough evidence to charge him with the rest.

If you take exception to anything I've said, directly respond to what you take exception to and explain why rather than try to put words in my mouth as you have with your last 2 posts.

 

[Koom]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16375963.stm

Some great comments in there. Sounds like he deserves the 8 match ban, they should increase it to 9 for wasting the FA's time when they should be finding other ways to screw Rooney.

 

[carlazai]

From my point of view Evre is as unreliable as they come. I would believe Del Boy selling me a Fijian video recorder more than I would Evre and I only watch him on the telly, god knows what i would think in real life.

And no I am not racist I just don't trust someone who dives, cheats and plays the race card at every opportunity.

 

[Loki]

What conspiracy theory have I put forward?

I've read the report in full and formed my own opinion based on what I've read. I believe there was enough evidence to meet the FA's criteria to find Suarez guilty of saying "because you're black". I do not believe there is enough evidence to charge him with the rest.

If you take exception to anything I've said, directly respond to what you take exception to and explain why rather than try to put words in my mouth as you have with your last 2 posts.

Greatest respect BaZ, the FA and their commission are the experts in this field not me and not you. I would certainly put more trust in their judgement above me & you . That's regardless of Evra being on the right or wrong side of the judgement.

I think the other thing we all need to consider is why on earth did Suarez have to refer to Evra in a term relating to his skin colour :s this must surely confuse anyone looking from the outside in. Everyone knows on the pitch, in the stands, watching on TV Evra is Black. So why on earth did Suarez use a term that differentiates Evra because he is Black, it beggars belief. The argument for the defence is that Evra claimed it was used ten times, Suarez and the Kop say it was never caught on Camera so obviously not the truth. BS to be perfectly honest. Regardless of whether Suarez said it once or ten times, Once is enough !!

Ultimately that is how Racism works, by differentiating on the basis of skin colour. Regardless of how the guy who said it meant it, it's how it's received that matters.

I'm old enough to remember Bananas being thrown at John Barnes just because he was Black Player in his first season at Anfield from away fans. ITV trying to humour over it. I thought Liverpool fans had a little bit more about them

 

[Purdy]

The FA experts in their field?

(Suarez still could have made racist remarks but experts, really ?)

 

[BaZ87]

Greatest respect BaZ, the FA and their commission are the experts in this field not me and not you. I would certainly put more trust in their judgement above me & you . That's regardless of Evra being on the right or wrong side of the judgement.

I think the other thing we all need to consider is why on earth did Suarez have to refer to Evra in a term relating to his skin colour :s this must surely confuse anyone looking from the outside in. Everyone knows on the pitch, in the stands, watching on TV Evra is Black. So why on earth did Suarez use a term that differentiates Evra because he is Black, it beggars belief. The argument for the defence is that Evra claimed it was used ten times, Suarez and the Kop say it was never caught on Camera so obviously not the truth. BS to be perfectly honest. Regardless of whether Suarez said it once or ten times, Once is enough !!

Ultimately that is how Racism works, by differentiating on the basis of skin colour. Regardless of how the guy who said it meant it, it's how it's received that matters.

I'm old enough to remember Bananas being thrown at John Barnes just because he was Black Player in his first season at Anfield from away fans. ITV trying to humour over it. I thought Liverpool fans had a little bit more about them

I'm sure the people on the panel are better equipped than you or me, that doesn't stop us having an opinion and I'm certain that you have and will question the verdict of the FA and/or any other panel or court of law.

I've not once claimed Suarez to be innocent, not now nor before the release of the report or even when the accusations were first made.

After reading the report I've formed my own opinion though. The only thing clear is that there isn't any clear evidence either way. However because the FA work on probability, based on what is in the report, I think it's fair to say that Suarez probably did use the term Negro once in order to antagonise Evra and therefore he should be punished accordingly. I do not believe there is enough evidence to even find it probable that he said it more than once (that doesn't mean he didn't, just that I don't believe there to be enough evidence to charge him with it). That's my opinion and I couldn't care less whether you or anybody else disagree.

You're right when you say once is enough though, however the amount of times he's said to have used the word has been used to increase his ban. This is why I've commented on the fact that I don't believe there to be enough evidence to support the accusations that he's said it more than once.

As for thinking Liverpool fans had more about them. I've not heard one Utd fan cricitise Mike Phelan for wrongfully accusing the Chelsea groundsmen of racially abusing Evra. That's the way football fans are; most will blindly follow their club/player no matter what.

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

Been scanning some legal forums and a few people have said they don't expect us to appeal the charge because Suarez admitted using the word negro which is an offence in the FAs guidelines so the misconduct charge was correct.

What we can appeal is the length of the ban which was based on how many times the FA thought Suarez probably said the word negro according to Evras evidence.

If this was a criminal case it would get thrown out of court through lack of evidence but the FA operate under different rules and guidelines, a few papers could find themselevs in hot water over their headlines and Suarez should sack his lawyer.

Basically nothing more than we didn't already know.