Suarez

[Purdy]

Unfortunately the FA don't work like a criminal court so the onus was on the defendant to prove his innocence rather than accuser to prove his guilt. It's effectively guilty until proven innocent and the FA doubted his version of events so charged him

Given the nature of the case it's a pretty scandalous method to decide the fate of a player but that's how the FA work and we along with other clubs agree with.

Hilarious stuff.

 

[One More Solo]

Alpherah,

let's break this down. Evra never accused Finnan of racism. You understand that yeah?

If he says it enough times it must be true.

Liverpool and the majority of their fans have come out of this looking absolutely pathetic. After weeks and months of independent inquiry and a 100+ page report, they still don't have the common sense to admit their player did something wrong. What will it take? Suarez is not a racist but he made a racist comment, and one which he admitted to, so deal with it.

Ironically, Suarez himself has actually conducted himself in a far better way than his employers.

 

[BaZ87]

That's not what Liverpool's lawyer seems to think:

Liverpool knew that this had been said: what they wrote in their official statement is totally fabricated.

With regards to the Chelsea groundsman incident, Evra was found to be unreliable then. But, just as the inquiry didn't consider Suarez's previous disciplinary record, this unrelated incident should have no bearing on this case. Liverpool also can't call in to question the judgement of this independent panel and the validity of their findings, then use the evidence of another independent panel as fact.

Also, I'm inclined to believe an independent panel with two expert witnesses than what either United or Liverpool have to say on the Evra insult.

What was wrote in the statement isn't fabricated, it's their opinion. They believe that Suarez has been found guilty on Evra's word alone, not that there wasn't any other evidence heard at the hearing. And while Suarez's lawyer claimed that it wasn't simply a matter of one man's word against another, both parties claimed that the case centred around the testimony of Suarez and Evra.

The panel did consider Suarez's previous record when determining his punishment and of course Evra's previous will be used as a way of discrediting him, just like it will be used against Suarez in future. As above, it's their opinion that Evra is unreliable not a fact.

In case it's misinterpreted, I'm not agreeing with everything in the statement however I see little reason why Liverpool will change their view on the back of the report being released.

Who cares if he called him a negro once or a thousand times?

Who cares if it was meant in a 'friendly' way or not. Pity Suarez for being so ignorant. He's playing in the ENGLISH premier league. Be as subjective as you want but you don't go up to a black person and say LOL YOU ALRIGHT MATE LOL NEGRO!

I appreciate you're doing your best to put forward a well structured and justified argument but seriously Baz, you're coming across as a massively biased Liverpool fan.

What do you think would be fair punishment? Because to me, racism is racism, saying negro is racist regardless of how many times it was said. Once this is evident, he's guilty. I'm assuming you're just fighting his corner with regards to him being 'less guilty' than what he's been pictured as?

P.s lol at all the pseudo lawyers in this thread

Why does it matter how many times he said it? Hasn't that already been covered and my view been backed up by a Utd fan too?

For then 1000th time, it matters because how many times he said it determined the length of his ban.

What do I think an acceptable punishment would be? Again I've covered this before, based on how the laws are currently set out; I wouldn't have argued with a 4 game ban. I do however disagree with the fact that there is a minimum of a 4 game ban for this sort of incident while it's a fixed 3 match ban for violent conduct or serious foul play.

I'm not sure what the rest of you post has to do with me as I've not claimed Suarez used the term negro in a friendly way. Have you just assumed that rather than read what I've wrote?

 

[Tummy]

Interesting reading a bout this now the report is out.

I think the right decision was made and a suitable punishment was made too.

Liverpool, considering their statement and stance on supporting Suarez have made themselves look very silly. Would like to know why the FA didn't make something of the t-shirts they wore.

Anyway. I'm now interested in what is going to happen re; the Terry racism incident.

 

[Gustov]

Why does it matter how many times he said it? Hasn't that already been covered and my view been backed up by a Utd fan too?

For then 1000th time, it matters because how many times he said it determined the length of his ban.

What do I think an acceptable punishment would be? Again I've covered this before, based on how the laws are currently set out; I wouldn't have argued with a 4 game ban. I do however disagree with the fact that there is a minimum of a 4 game ban for this sort of incident while it's a fixed 3 match ban for violent conduct or serious foul play.

I'm not sure what the rest of you post has to do with me as I've not claimed Suarez used the term negro in a friendly way. Have you just assumed that rather than read what I've wrote?

Your view backed up by a UTD FAN!?! WOOOOOW! It MUST be true what you say (Sorry...I'm goading you now)

Anyway...No it doesn't. Racism is racism. You can't have that mentality. Oh I know! I'll call him a negro just once, I'll only get a 4 match ban juxtaposed to 8. See how silly that sounds?

Racism is prejudice, foul play is malice. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference.

I remember arguing with you weeks back when I said he said negro and you said nooooooo he said negrito (which you deemed to be a lot more acceptable because of his culture, and no I can't be arsed to trawl through the thread and find it)

 

[One More Solo]

I think that's it really, to give someone a similar ban for racially abusing another player to that which you would get for violent conduct does trivialise the issue somewhat.

 

[BaZ87]

No it doesn't. Racism is racism. You can't have that mentality. Oh I know! I'll call him a negro just once, I'll only get a 4 match ban juxtaposed to 8. See how silly that sounds?

Racism is prejudice, foul play is malice. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference.

No it doesn't what?

The amount of times he said it didn't determine the length of his ban? If so you're wrong. It's stated in the report that Suarz was handed a 2 match ban for insulting Evra, the ban was then doubled because the insult made reference to his skin colour. The ban was then taken from 4 to 8 games mainly down to the amount of times he was said to have used the term.

As for your belief that racism is worse than serious foul play, that's your opinion but I disagree. I don't believe that a player should only receive a 3 game ban for attempting to break anothers leg, yet the very minimum you'll get for making a racist remark is a 4 game ban.

I remember arguing with you weeks back when I said he said negro and you said nooooooo he said negrito (which you deemed to be a lot more acceptable, and no I can't be arsed to trawl through the thread and find it)

You remember wrongly because I made a point of not claiming that he said either negro or negrito before reading the report and finding out for myself.

I think that's it really, to give someone a similar ban for racially abusing another player to that which you would get for violent conduct does trivialise the issue somewhat.

It doesn't trivialise the issue. If you believe that making a racist comment is worse than punching somebody then fine. I believe the opposite and as such believe that a player shouldn't be banned for a longer period for making a racist comment than they would be for punching somebody.

 

[Tummy]

I think the ban/punishment for racism is spot on.

I think the ban/punishment for violent conduct isn't tough enough.

 

[Gustov]

As for your belief that racism is worse than serious foul play, that's your opinion but I disagree. I don't believe that a player should only receive a 3 game ban for attempting to break anothers leg, yet the very minimum you'll get for making a racist remark is a 4 game ban.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. The difficulty lies within proving a player has gone out to potentially kill another player. (kill might seem a strong word but you never know!)

Take Hunt for example, there's no way of knowing if he deliberately meant to almost kill Cech.

Whereas with racism, it's black and white (excuse the pun). If you say a racist term and get caught (or even more stupidly admit to it) you're going to get punished.

When it all boils down to it Baz, all you're debating over now is the length of Suarez's ban? Is it really worth it? The meat of the argument has been and gone.

 

[wedgie]

How often is it provable that someone intended to break a leg? Even Keane was only done for it after admitting it in his book, despite it being clear for all to see that he intended to hurt Haaland.

There are cases where it's been undeniable and suitable punishments have been handed out, Ben Thatcher springs to mind.

It's just arguing for the sake of it, or more so arguing any small thing because it's become diffcult to actually argue the innocence of Suarez. Inconsistencies happen all the time, Ferdinand 8 month ban for missing a test vs shorter bans for failing one. At some point you have to just accept that the player committed the crime and should take the punishment and learn from it, if in doing so he sets an example for all other players then all the better.

Defending your player is one thing, going ultra defensive, 'we're right, everyone else is wrong' certainly doesn't help the image of the club/supporters doing this.

 

[BaZ87]

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. The difficulty lies within proving a player has gone out to potentially kill another player.

Take Hunt for example, there's no way of knowing if he deliberately meant to almost kill Cech.

Whereas with racism, it's black and white (excuse the pun). If you say a racist term and get caught (or even more stupidly admit to it) you're going to get punished.

No, racism isn't black and white and as has been discussed in this thread already, the FA only work on probability, they don't have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt.

Let's not take the Hunt example as that's particularly difficult to state that he probably intended to injure Cech. Take the Cabaye challenge from the Liverpool - Newcastle game; all bias aside I think it's fair to say that Cabaye probably went into the challenge to hurt Spearing. He's looking at Spearing, not where the ball is and he stamps down onto Spearing which isn't a natural way of playing the ball. He shouldn't be given the same ban as Milijas for his challenge on Arteta, yet that's the worst that he'll get (it's not even known whether the FA will charge Cabaye yet).

When it all boils down to it Baz, all you're debating over now is the length of Suarez's ban? Is it really worth it? The meat of the argument has been and gone.

No. I had already given my opinion on the length of the ban. The post you quoted was me responding to somebody that misunderstood my post, where I pointed out that DM was making things up.

 

[Gustov]

No, racism isn't black and white and as has been discussed in this thread already, the FA only work on probability, they don't have to prove things beyond reasonable doubt.

Let's not take the Hunt example as that's particularly difficult to state that he probably intended to injure Cech. Take the Cabaye challenge from the Liverpool - Newcastle game; all bias aside I think it's fair to say that Cabaye probably went into the challenge to hurt Spearing. He's looking at Spearing, not where the ball is and he stamps down onto Spearing which isn't a natural way of playing the ball. He shouldn't be given the same ban as Milijas for his challenge on Arteta, yet that's the worst that he'll get (it's not even known whether the FA will charge Cabaye yet).


No. I had already given my opinion on the length of the ban. The post you quoted was me responding to somebody that misunderstood my post, where I pointed out that DM was making things up.

I don't get what you're saying here? If someone is CAUGHT or ADMITS to being racist, it's not black and white? Judging by the ban, it quite evidently is.

Everything you say about the Cabaye challenge is speculation, you'll never know what his intentions were unless he writes an autobiography about them (aka Keane)

So what are you debating about now then? If it's not the length of the ban? I'm assuming you agree that the FA have come to the right decision, that Saurez said a derogatory term and is understandably and rightly so, being banned for a period of time from playing football? Otherwise, I'm out.

 

[One More Solo]

How often is it provable that someone intended to break a leg? Even Keane was only done for it after admitting it in his book, despite it being clear for all to see that he intended to hurt Haaland.

There are cases where it's been undeniable and suitable punishments have been handed out, Ben Thatcher springs to mind.

That's not actually the case though, AFAIK and from my reading of the FA disciplinary guidelines, the 3 match ban cannot be increased by the FA if a player is sent off for violent conduct. Thatcher wasn't actually sent off so his case was heard separately by the FA.

 

[BaZ87]

I don't get what you're saying here? If someone is CAUGHT or ADMITS to being racist, it's not black and white? Judging by the ban, it quite evidently is.

No. The intent to offend or discriminate against somebody because of their race is racist. The use of a word isn't necessarily racist. Just because somebody has been found guilty, it doesn't make the case clear cut :/

Everything you say about the Cabaye challenge is speculation, you'll never know what his intentions were unless he writes an autobiography about them (aka Keane)

It's not speculation. It's my view that on the balance of probability (which is what the FA use in all their judgements), there's enough evidence to charge Cabaye with intending to injure Spearing. The FA choose to give fixed 3 game bans regardless though.

So what are you debating about now then? If it's not the length of the ban? I'm assuming you agree that the FA have come to the right decision, that Saurez said a derogatory term and is understandably and rightly so, being banned for a period of time from playing football? Otherwise, I'm out.

What am I debating now? Are you for real? I've responded to your post aimed at me, asking who cares how many times he said it?

You're now asking me whether I agree with the decision and ban, and as I've said already, I believe there's enough evidence to suggest Suarez probably did say negro at least once with the intention to offend/antagonise Evra. With how the FA's laws are currently set-out, I'd have no complaints with him being banned for 4 games. Based on what I've read in the report, I do not believe there is enough evidence to make it probable that he said it more than once and therefore I don't agree with the panel using that as a reason for extending his ban.

 

[Gustov]

I believe there's enough evidence to suggest Suarez probably did say negro at least once with the intention to offend/antagonise Evra. .

Probably!? Probably?! Seriously he ADMITTED to it...take those tinted glasses off. I'm out of this thread.

When it all boils down to it Baz, all you're debating over now is the length of Suarez's ban? Is it really worth it? The meat of the argument has been and gone.

No. I had already given my opinion on the length of the ban.

What am I debating now? Are you for real? I've responded to your post aimed at me, asking who cares how many times he said it?

You're now asking me whether I agree with the decision and ban, and as I've said already, I believe there's enough evidence to suggest Suarez probably did say negro at least once with the intention to offend/antagonise Evra. With how the FA's laws are currently set-out, I'd have no complaints with him being banned for 4 games. Based on what I've read in the report, I do not believe there is enough evidence to make it probable that he said it more than once and therefore I don't agree with the panel using that as a reason for extending his ban.

So you are STILL debating with regards to the length of the ban. Give it up ffs. You're making me cringe.

 

[Robbo]

Probably!? Probably?! Seriously he ADMITTED to it...take those tinted glasses off. I'm out of this thread.

So you ARE debating with regards to the length of the ban. Give it up ffs.

Open and shut case from where I'm sitting as well.

 

[BaZ87]

Probably!? Probably?! Seriously he ADMITTED to it...take those tinted glasses off. I'm out of this thread.

Are you really this ignorant or is it a big joke? Admitting to saying something and intending to offend are different things.

And I've used the term probably because (for the 100th time) the decision is based on probability. And because of that, the panel's report uses the term probably too. You're going to take exception to that?

So you ARE debating with regards to the length of the ban. Give it up ffs.

Yes, as you asked me a direct question about the ban. I know it's difficult for you but stop being a clown.

 

[Gustov]

Are you really this ignorant or is it a big joke? Admitting to saying something and intending to offend are different things.

And I've used the term probably because (for the 100th time) the decision is based on probability. And because of that, the panel's report uses the term probably too. You're going to take exception to that?



Yes, as you asked me a direct question about the ban. I know it's difficult for you but stop being a clown.

No I didn't. You initially brought the topic up and I asked if the ban duration is all your have to debate over now? Then you went on about the ban duration AGAIN stressing about how you thought it was unjust (again)

This is the best part though, calling me ignorant? Oh well Baz, i'm sorry for being SO narrow-minded but I can't help but think Saurez just might, just might...have intended to offend Evra when calling him a negro at one of the most heated fixtures of the premier league campaign.

Has it crossed your mind once, to try and look at this from a neutral perspective? Like I say, you're making me cringe and this will finally (thank God - at least there's something we can agree on) be my last post in this thread.

 

[wedgie]

That's not actually the case though, AFAIK and from my reading of the FA disciplinary guidelines, the 3 match ban cannot be increased by the FA if a player is sent off for violent conduct. Thatcher wasn't actually sent off so his case was heard separately by the FA.

I was talking about violence on the field rather than the specific rule of violent conduct. Although you do highlight the what I do agree is the flaw in this system, if it's dealt with by the ref, no further punishment can be taken no matter how severe the incident.

But again, it's still arguing about irrelevant points on the periphery because the actual issue can't really be argued.

A few days ago it was all about the use of the word negrito, it was being disected as if the entire case rested on it. Now that's been blown out of the water we seem to have moved onto probability. What ruling system doesn't use this to some effect? How many cases are proved by confessions or video evidence? Not just football, real world cases? If you have the defendant saying one thing, and 20 credible eye witnesses saying the exact opposite, that's still a decision based on probability.

None of us were there, how can we possibly say whether Suarez came accross like he was making it up as he went along? Clearly that's the impression he gave, and unfortunately for him, the weaker he makes his own argument look, the stronger it makes Evra's side of things look.

 

[BaZ87]

No I didn't. You initially brought the topic up and I asked what you were still debating over it. Then you went on about the ban duration AGAIN.

No. You responded to my post where I was explaining to somebody that I was earlier pointing out that DM was making things up.

In your post you asked why it matters how many times he said it, so I explained it to you as you clearly have no idea how the length of ban was determined by the panel.

You've then gone on to ask me what I'm debating. I wasn't debating anything, I was explaining something to you in regards to my earlier post that you brought up.

You've then gone on to say:

I'm assuming you agree that the FA have come to the right decision, that Saurez said a derogatory term and is understandably and rightly so, being banned for a period of time from playing football?

I done the polite thing and answered that question, despite the fact I've already answered it several times in this thread already. In future I'll just ignore your question?

This is the best part though, calling me ignorant. Oh well Baz, i'm sorry for being SO narrow-minded but I can't help but think Saurez just might, just might...have intended to offend Evra when calling him a negro.

Has it crossed your mind once, to try and look at this from a neutral perspective? Like I say, you're making me cringe and this will finally (thank God - at least there's something we can agree on) be my last post in this thread.

You don't have to be sorry for being narrow-minded. I have no problem with you believing Suarez might have inteded to offend Evra. If you weren't so ignorant, you'd have noticed that I've said the same thing myself several times.

Unfortunately all your posts are based on assumptions of things you think I've said or believe.