Suarez

[Raymond Lin]

The important point is that because this isn't a criminal court, the test is not beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probability. With all the evidence in hand, it is more likely that Suarez was being racist with what he said.

The fact that he changed his evidence is what ultimately shot himself in the foot in my opinion. No judge will look favourably from a witness who changes his story, he immediately loses most if not all credibility. If he had stick to one version of events then it would more like one person's word against another but now it looks like one person's word against a liar (liar as in if he changes his version of events, one or the other time he was lying, they can't all be true).

I especially like the paragraph where the Guardian says "Paul Goulding QC did not write a 115 pages document for the love of writing" that is so true.

 

[BaZ87]

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 the appeal is handled in the same way as appeals for bad challenges (ie it's got to be absolutely clear they've made a **** up) then it's probably not worth appealing.

If they've found it probable that he's said negro all those times, I'm not sure what new argument can be put forward to change that view now.

 

[drunkenmaster]

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.

Sorry but this is grinding my nerves, the amount of Pool fans in here banging on about lack of evidence and "in a legal court xxxxx" is ridiculous.

Firstly, evidence, Suarez has SAID HE CALLED HIM NEGRO and from what I can tell he admitted to saying it more than once.

Here is a hint, that IS EVIDENCE, Evra gave testimony, this IS EVIDENCE. The claim that there is no evidence is utterly utterly without question incorrect.

Video evidence is simply one type of evidence, the lack of video evidence in no way can be represented as there being no evidence so everyone in this thread should stop suggesting it, because it is pure nonsense.


Baz, you seem to consistently not mention the fact that in the report Suarez at first when Evra made the claim he tried to pinch him on the cheek and called him blackie, or negro, or whatever it was, that it was a friendly gesture, video evidence suggests this is not true, the situation suggests this is not true and Evra was clearly wound up several times to this point, was in no way in a joking mood and it would be ridiculous for Suarez to do what he claims in a "friendly" way.

He changed his mind later on and admitted this was done to wind him up. As far as I can tell, this means he pinched him at the same time as in one way or another calling him black........ with the intention of annoying him?

Sorry but, there is a buttload of evidence, Suarez's own testimony is the most damning and his actions actually seem quite clear.

That doesn't make him a racist, I actually don't hate gingers but if I got in a verbal slinging match with someone who angered me who happened to be ginger I might bring it up and call him a ginger ****** or something.

However, the idea that he after several times having called him black in various ways, against a clearly annoyed and possibly upset Evra, decided to annoy him AND with intent to annoy him brought up his colour, again.

Personally I both think that is clear proof that he is guilty, and guilty of rules he, his manager, his club and his league have all signed up to play by.

Personally I don't think using race is any worse than using anything else to wind someone up, someone who is racist and actually hates black people is one thing, someone who happens to get in a fight with a black person and knows it will annoy him so uses it is a different matter entirely if people want to admit it or not.

However, he has signed contracts to play in this league, and this league has rules against racist remarks, not against calling ginger people's names, it's that simple.

The law outside of football has NO RELEVANCE AT ALL here, Terry's case has no relevance here, what Suarez did, and the rules he and his team have to play by are the only relevant things here. He broke them, he got a big ban, I think that is fair.

I also love that the word "probable" has suddenly made an appearance in so many posts. Suarez has said in testimony that he called him negro, there is NO probable/probably about it. Some things most certainly are down to interpretation and what they think is the probable intention, so what, legal cases are decided on that all the time. That he called him negro isn't down to probabilities he said he did it.

 

[BaZ87]

DM where did you read that Suarez admitted to calling him negro more than once and later admitted that he called him negro to wind him up? Have you again wrote an essay based on your imagination?

 

[nicktay2605]

Having read the report, I've made the following conclusions:

1) The FA was correct in accepting that the objective test should be used with regards Rule E3(1), meaning that it was irrelevant whether Suarez intended his words to be insulting or abusive. That they had this effect was enough.

2) The FA and independent commission both accepted that the charge against Suarez was of a more serious nature than other charges might be, and so the burden of proof was greater.

3) Dirk Kuyt's evidence on the latter part of the incident has correctly been viewed as unreliable, because it conflicts with Giggs, Evra, and the referee's accounts (which all tally with each other), and Suarez admits to having called Evra black once by this point.

4) The expert witness evidence was fair and balanced; both experts based their findings on each player's statement and draw no conclusions as to who was more likely to be correct.

5) The commission was able to use video evidence to support their decision, and were able to see that Suarez's facial expression towards Evra was hostile, and that the pinching gesture and the pat on the head were intended to aggravate. Suarez eventually admitted that the pinching gesture was not intended to calm the situation.

6) The commission found that, based on the hostility and animosity between both players during the whole incident, Suarez's use of the word 'negro' was intended to offend and insult.

7) The referee's report of the day conflicts with the evidence given by Suarez. Suarez claims he said 'Por que, negro?', and not 'Porque tu es negro?' as appears in the referee's report. Given that it is accepted that Mr Comolli understood the seriousness of the allegations, it would be surprising if he were to get this wrong, particularly without seeking precise clarification from Suarez.

8) Suarez contends that both Dirk Kuyt and Mr Comolli understood him wrong, despite speaking to the former in excellent Dutch (in Mr Kuyt's own admission) and the latter being a fluent Spanish speaker. It appears that Suarez, having had the benefit of seeing certain evidence, has attempted to twist and alter his evidence to suit the situation.

What does concern me is that, despite not considering the amount of uses of the term 'negro' in any great detail, the commission comes to the conclusion that Suarez used the term seven times, and states that this is a fact. As far as I can see, having read the report in full, they base this on Evra's evidence being more reliable than Suarez's evidence, which they state contains many inconsistencies. To go from suggesting that Suarez used the term 'negro' twice in an abusive or insulting way, to then suggest that he used it seven times in the penalty area, seemingly by relying solely on the credibility of Evra's evidence being greater than that of Suarez, is worrying. This is particularly important as it effects whether the burden of proof has been discharged or not, being greater than that of many other cases (to the commission's own admission).

I am also concerned that they have partly based Suarez's punishment on the amount of times he supposedly used the term 'negro'. The commission suggested an entry point of a four-match ban, and then increased this based on a number of factors, including (and seemingly somewhat centred around) the amount of times he used the above insult.

Having read the report and considered all the evidence, I think there is enough conflicting evidence given by Suarez, Dirk Kuyt, and Mr Comolli, to suggest that Suarez may well have said 'negro' in a hostile manner towards Evra on at least two occasions, and to therefore suggest that Suarez's evidence is somewhat unreliable and questionable. However, to then suggest that because of this unreliable evidence, without any other supporting evidence, he used the term 'negro' seven times, is presumptuous and alarming.

 

[Tom84]

At this juncture I have to say I feel Liverpool have come out of this far worse than Suarez himself, the fact that they knew only to well what Suarez admitted to saying yet still questioned Evra's reliability as a credible source is quite disgraceful

Like I've said all along fair enough defend your player and defend his reputation for not being a racist (and that includes the wearing of those god awful T-Shirts) but they were well out of line mentioning Evra whatsoever in their initial statement

 

[awaybreaktoday]

His ban should have been longer as this is a lot more worse than the cantona incident. A fuill season ban would have sent a clear message. Also the club should see a points reduction of some sort.

 

[Tom84]

His ban should have been longer as this is a lot more worse than the cantona incident. A fuill season ban would have sent a clear message. Also the club should see a points reduction of some sort.

Don't be daft

 

[awaybreaktoday]

Don't be daft

I am not.

 

[BaZ87]

.....

Very good post for a lot of reasons but 2 in particular:

1. The part about the assumption without further evidence that Suarez used the word negro 7 times and then basing his punishment on that. I got accused of being bias and believing there's a conspiracy against Liverpool for saying the same.

2. You read the entire report so it's clear I'm not the only boring ******* that read all that on nye

 

[Pigeon_Killer]

Sorry but this is grinding my nerves, the amount of Pool fans in here banging on about lack of evidence and "in a legal court xxxxx" is ridiculous.

I mentioned court because plenty of people, including myself earlier in the thread, said we should take the FA to court. After reading some unbiased legal views it has become clear we don't actually have anything to take them to court with! The FA were very clear in stating they didn't think he was racist, even though they appear to believe Evras version of events which paints a different picture, and they operate under different rules and guidelines so criminal law is irrelevant.

If Suarez didn't admit using the word negro and was found guilty we could take this further but he's admitted using it at least once so he's been charged with misconduct according to the FAs guidelines. All the club can fight is the length of the ban and ask why Evra hasn't been punished for foul and abusive language. Suarez can take it further and seek damages against those who accused him of being an outright racist and that's about it.

The SBL (Society of Black Lawyers) said they would look at taking this further once the evidence was made available so they could turn this in to a criminal matter. At the moment given most people have come to the conclusion Suarez is racist that might not be the worst thing to happen.

 

[sammo62]

His ban should have been longer as this is a lot more worse than the cantona incident.

Really? I'm no Suarez apologist but that is ridiculous.

Also the club should see a points reduction of some sort.

We do anyway, it's called playing bad teams at home ... zing.

 

[drunkenmaster]

DM where did you read that Suarez admitted to calling him negro more than once and later admitted that he called him negro to wind him up? Have you again wrote an essay based on your imagination?

Seriously have you read the report or any story on it at all?

The BIGGEST incident that made Suarez a non credible witness was Evra accused Suarez of after the initial incidents, pinching his skin and calling him negro. At first Suarez insisted he was pinching him in a defusing/friendly way and meant the term negro in a friendly way.

He later CHANGED HIS STATEMENT and admitted this was NOT done in a friendly way.

So he is seemingly admitting that after the first couple bits, the tackle and the first time he called him negro, to pinching him to wind him up...... and he called him negro at least a second time when he did this. But that means he called him negro....... while trying to wind him up.

"Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation. 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. That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters.

"There were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to what happened."

In evidence to the commission, Suarez eventually admitted that the pinching of Evra was not an attempt to diffuse the situation.

"This was one example of where Mr Suarez's witness statement was demonstrated to be inconsistent with the facts as shown in the video footage. No satisfactory explanation was given for this inconsistency," said the report.

TO be fair I don't think it actually does say that he said anything about being black when he pinched him, I thought it did, it reads like it and I think Evra is claiming he did but Suarez hasn't admitted using the word negro then.

But the point being his initial statements and version of events was everything, including calling him negro, was done in a friendly way. He has later changed his mind and admitted he didn't pinch him "in a friendly way" but to wind him up further. Again this all backs up what Evra apparently said when questioned and Suarez changed his mind.

So according to Suarez, everything he did start to finish, initially at least, was done in a friendly way, later on he admits some of it was done to wind him up..... to me it comes across as everything he did was to wind him up, that Evra's account is FAR closer to what really happened and that Suarez did several things purely to wind him up but we're supposed to believe calling a guy negro, having spent what 5-6 years in Europe, was done out of the kindness of his heart, pull the other one.

It's really pretty simple, in this case and ANY legal case for any other matter involving anyone else, when one party is proven to have lied, admitted he's lied and changes his story, which also then matches the other persons story who hasn't been proven to provide false evidence......... all of his evidence becomes basically tainted and, unreliable.

Really? I'm no Suarez apologist but that is ridiculous.



We do anyway, it's called playing bad teams at home ... zing.

lol

 

[BaZ87]

I'm not sure if you're being serious now.

You initially claimed that Suarez admitted to calling Evra negro more than once and that he later admitted to calling him it in an attempt to wind him up. I claimed that both things were wrong. You've now wrote another essay that doesn't back-up what you've sair nor disproved what I said. Similar pattern to our Klose argument :/

I'll make it very clear for you. Suarez never admitted to calling Evra negro several times nor did he admit to trying to wind Evra up by calling him negro. That's what you initially claimed and I questioned. I didn't (and generally don't) go any further into your post as it was based on your imagination.

 

[the wopster]

I'm not sure if you're being serious now.

You initially claimed that Suarez admitted to calling Evra negro more than once and that he later admitted to calling him it in an attempt to wind him up. I claimed that both things were wrong. You've now wrote another essay that doesn't back-up what you've sair nor disproved what I said. Similar pattern to our Klose argument :/

I'll make it very clear for you. Suarez never admitted to calling Evra negro several times nor did he admit to trying to wind Evra up by calling him negro. That's what you initially claimed and I questioned. I didn't (and generally don't) go any further into your post as it was based on your imagination.

Here you go

260. Finally, on this point, in paragraph 35 of his statement (which is referred to in paragraph 13 of his statement), Mr Suarez said:
"It seems to me that PE misunderstood my use of the word negro. As I have said, it was meant in a conciliatory and friendly way in the context in which I have used the word throughout my life and as set out earlier in this Statement." (emphasis added). Bang to rights

 

[BaZ87]

Here you go....Bang to rights

Sorry, what? I know Suarez has admitted to saying Negro, I've said as much countless times in this thread.

I'm commenting on DM's claim that Suarez has admitted to calling Evra Negro several times and that he later admits that he called him Negro to wind him up. Neither claim are included in the report.

The (lack of) reading ability of some people on this forum is incredible.

 

[the wopster]

What does it matter how many times he used it,be it one time or six hundred times its still racist

 

[BaZ87]

What does it matter how many times he used it,be it one time or six hundred times its still racist

It matters generally because the length of his ban has been based on the number of times he said it.

Why it matters specifically in relation to my initial reply to DM is because, as usual, he's making things up and writing a whole lot of stuff based on things he's imagined.

 

[One More Solo]

Sorry, what? I know Suarez has admitted to saying Negro, I've said as much countless times in this thread.

I'm commenting on DM's claim that Suarez has admitted to calling Evra Negro several times and that he later admits that he called him Negro to wind him up. Neither claim are included in the report.

The (lack of) reading ability of some people on this forum is incredible.

The difficulty is obviously that Suarez acts in an aggressive fashion, and that according to Dalglish Suarez was responding to Evra calling Suarez "South American" in a pejorative sense. These aspects do not tally with Suarez's assertion that he only used "negro" when he responded in a friendly way.

 

[BaZ87]

The difficulty is obviously that Suarez acts in an aggressive fashion, and that according to Dalglish Suarez was responding to Evra calling Suarez "South American" in a pejorative sense. These aspects do not tally with Suarez's assertion that he only used "negro" when he responded in a friendly way.

Ok and what does that have to do with the post you quoted?