Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,072
- Location
- Shepley
Not quite, the experts said it could be inoffensive, not that it was inoffensive. The panel then deemed in the context it was said that it was likely to cause offence.
Suarez
- Thread starter the wopster
- Start date
- Status
Not quite, the experts said it could be inoffensive, not that it was inoffensive. The panel then deemed in the context it was said that it was likely to cause offence.
Did the experts say that in the context it was used or that 'if that was the context' or words to that effect? From what I read, the panel weren't asked their opinion on who to believe or the context, they were asked whether something was offensive based on the different version of events put foward.
Anyway, what I said to Raymond still stands. Suarez's admission to using the word negro is not conclusive proof on it's own to claim he was racist.
edit: I've just checked and as I thought, the experts were asked to give their opinion based on Suarez and Evra's accounts being accurate and as above, they found that if Suarez said what he claimed, it was offensive or racially offensive.
Last edited:
Suarez has lived and worked long enough in Europe to know that referring to someones colour in the context of an argument is unacceptable. His excuse where he stated that he used the word 'blackie' in the same way as 'blondie' really doesn't stand up, specifically he said that he used the same term in the same context to Glen Johnson....are people seriously considering that Glen Johnson would like being called 'Blackie' in any context...if he did indeed refer to Glen Johnson in such a way, you can be sure that Glen Johnson told him that sort of language wasn't acceptable in our culture. I would be very surprised to find out that Glen Johnson found it acceptable.
He may not be a racist in the conventional sense, but he did use language that he should have been fully aware is not acceptable behaviour on a football pitch...or any professional situation for that matter in the country in which he resides and works. To my knowledge he has made no personal apology. if the words were misinterpreted by Evra, any normal person when faced with an accusation like that when they had no intent would have explained and apologised...Suarez seems to have made several conflicting statements, none of which included an apology if his words caused offense, even if they were not intended to.
Suarez should accept that what was said was unacceptable, learn from that and serve the punishment in good grace....there was no good reason to refer to evra's ethnicity regardless of the context in that, or any situation.
He may not be a racist in the conventional sense, but he did use language that he should have been fully aware is not acceptable behaviour on a football pitch...or any professional situation for that matter in the country in which he resides and works. To my knowledge he has made no personal apology. if the words were misinterpreted by Evra, any normal person when faced with an accusation like that when they had no intent would have explained and apologised...Suarez seems to have made several conflicting statements, none of which included an apology if his words caused offense, even if they were not intended to.
Suarez should accept that what was said was unacceptable, learn from that and serve the punishment in good grace....there was no good reason to refer to evra's ethnicity regardless of the context in that, or any situation.
Last edited:
The problem with this argument is that even within Europe, we have different levels of acceptance to the term negro. Spain being the obvious example. I have little doubt that in Holland terms such as negro are thought of in the same way as they here, however just because it's not acceptable in Holland, it doesn't therefore mean that it's not acceptable here. Just like because it's acceptable in Spain, it doesn't make it acceptable here.
I don't think we need to bother too much with the cultural misunderstanding though. Once both Kuyt and Comolli have claimed (in 2 different languages) that they believed that Suarez told them he said "because you're black" rather than simply, "why black", it's difficult to believe that they both misunderstood him and as such, there's enough evidence there to find him guilty of using the term in an offensive way at least once.
Last edited:
Racism in the countries in question is still racism... every single day of the week. They aren't some mythical place where people call each other a 'negro' all of the time so therefore it's okay.
He also claimed to call Glen Johnson it an awful lot didn't he? That's very strange (and most likely nonsense).
You're looking for excuses when there really aren't any. As I've said lots of times, ignorance may be a reason, but it isn't a valid excuse.
He also claimed to call Glen Johnson it an awful lot didn't he? That's very strange (and most likely nonsense).
You're looking for excuses when there really aren't any. As I've said lots of times, ignorance may be a reason, but it isn't a valid excuse.
However, even in Spain stating that you did something 'because you are Black' infers the reason something was done was predicated by their ethnicity...this is simply unacceptable in world football (as well as Spain). As I said refering to someones ehnicity in a negative way is unacceptable...and no right minded person would assume that Suarez (or Evra) was being anything but argumentative in his interaction with Evra...It is not conclusive that Suarez is inherently racist, however it is indicative that he was intentionally offensive, and as such was found to be guilty.
Besides the specific language used is pretty immaterial...'Negro' simply means 'Black', it was the context and situation in which it was used that is important. There was no good reason to refer to Evra's colour in that situation...or at all. This was, as far as I know anyway, the opinion of the linguists they asked.
The full report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/01/fa-report-luis-suarez-patrice-evra?newsfeed=true
Last edited:
What excuse have I given. I've said very clearly and on several occasions that I believe there's enough evidence for him to be found guilty of using the term negro in an offensive way.
People are putting forward other arguments regarding other aspects of the case that I disagree with and in some instances, the linguistic experts have not agreed with either.
It just seems to me that you're trying to lessen the damage to his character as much as possible, which I suppose is fair enough, but it does come across as if you are looking for excuses in every possible part of the report.
I agree, the "because you're..." part is what's done for him. You don't even have to look at any possible cultural misunderstanding because of that which is the point I was making in my 2nd paragraph.
Case closed then
.The panel did not find the evidence from Suarez to be untrustworthy just because they felt like it, they're effectively calling him a liar and must feel they have reason for this. They're totally independant of either side and have not come into this with some pre existing desire to go anywhere other than where the evidence takes them.
So now it's either believe in the people that have all of the facts available and have based their decision on said facts, or believe Liverpool and their fans who want us to accept he's either innocent or at least not quite so guilty based 100% on the fact that Suarez plays for their club. That inherent bias simply does exist one way or another for the people that have come to this ruling, yet they still saw enough to find Suarez guilty.
Racist or not, I frankly dont care, he is a good footballer, thats enough for me
Josef Mengele was a good scientist and anthropologist...ergo...
(invokes Godwins law)
Sorry, how is my explanation as to why I don't buy an argument against the lesser charge of 'cultural misunderstanding' an attempt to lessen the damage to Suarez's character, when I go on to say that he's guilty of a more serious charge of intentionally offending Evra?
edit: He's either guilty of a cultural misunderstand or he's guilty of intentionally using a racist term to offend. I've claimed he's guilty of intentionally using a racist term to offend and I'm trying to protect his character? Come on Robbo, I expect that sort of thing from people like Gustov but you're better than that.
*******! You know what I meantCase closed then
Last edited:
lol
I thought that was what I was stating anyway...that the explanation of a cultural misunderstanding simply doesn't stand up.
Anyway, I understand Liverpool and their fans frustration at losing one of their better players for a considerable spell but I think it would be folly to appeal this on the basis of innocence, and I think the Liverpool players decision to publicly show their support in the way they did while understandable, was ill concieved and premature.
Yes, I wasn't objecting to you saying cultural misunderstadning doesn't stand up, just the part of the argument about living in Europe.
As I said, as soon as there's the misunderstanding with Comolli and Kuyt, you can kiss goodbye to any arguments of cultural misunderstanding.
Regarding the appeal, because of the above and because the FA don't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, I can't see how they can appeal the guilty verdict. They might be able to appeal the length of the ban though.
The point I was making was that refering to someones colour as Suarez is accepted to have done is unacceptable everywhere in European Football and Europe in general, he would have known this.
Given the climate in World Football regarding racism, implied or otherwise they run the risk of increasing his punishment.....I would advice against it if I was in a position to do so, accept the judgement, apologise for any unintentional offence caused and let the whole thing die down...it won't be long until John Terry does something worse, and all the focus will again shift to him...
- Status