The Banter Thread
- Thread starter CliffyBiro
- Start date
- Status
Remember, Evra also said that the officials must have heard it, it was that clear.
Even though they later stated "umm, no sorry, didn't hear a thing"
Also consider the areas the players actually came together. Right under the linesman's nose, or in the box at a corner kick with the entire players of both teams around them.
The fact no one heard anything at all can't be ignored.
It's shocking, when there's no evidence, so far? I always thought people were innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think anyone on here would defend Suarez, if genuine evidence came to light.
Wasn't the Chelsea/Evra incident when he claimed a groundsman had been racist towards him, but no one else heard it/there was no evidence? Given that past event, and the fact there's no evidence (so far) this time, surely you can understand people defending him?
No it wasn't Evra as you've possibly already read. Not that that was the message that came across in the days afterwards with accusations of 'crying wolf' and 'got form' as you yourself show people who don't have a complete understanding can be easily misinformed. It's only the same as I think people who think Suarez did it because he seems that type are also letting their view be clouded.
There's also a difference between not making a presumption of guilt and attacking or attempting to discredit the accuser when not in possession of the full facts. I would hope people could see the difference between 'I don't think Suarez is that type of player and no direct evidence has come to light that I'm aware of so I'm leaning towards him being innocent' to 'well he has a history of making these accusations and been proven wrong everytime and why didn't he say something during the match and ferguson was even nice about lfc.'
The innocent until proven guilty tag is nice but maybe some people aren't applying that to both players. Shocking I know.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
Based on the history of the FA, it can only be option 2!Surely at some point the FA have to release the evidence, whether it's from the ref's match report, from one of the other officials, or something the microphones or tv cameras picked up? I don't see how they expect fans to understand or accept the decision otherwise. I guess if Suarez loses his appeal and personal hearing then it means he did it, but even that isn't the conclusive proof that we want.
Surely at some point the FA have to release the evidence, whether it's from the ref's match report, from one of the other officials, or something the microphones or tv cameras picked up? I don't see how they expect fans to understand or accept the decision otherwise. I guess if Suarez loses his appeal and personal hearing then it means he did it, but even that isn't the conclusive proof that we want.
I'm pretty sure if there is sound/visual proof sky would have it plastered across their news channel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
Hmm maybe, but maybe the FA requested that they not do that. Still, the FA has a responsibility to let the public know at some point what evidence it is they are relying on. Even if they don't show it, they've got to release a report saying something like 'The referee/linesman/tv camera has caught Suarez saying ...... to Evra'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
Surely they mean that they, the FA, are alleging that Suarez has done it. Like in law, the prosecution in a case will say they allege that the defendant has done whatever it may be they are accused of. If that's not the case though, I agree it is ridiculous.
Like Alpherah said above, they either don't have evidence to make these allegations (quite likely) or they have an idiot writing their statements, which again is actually very likely as they are all tools.
erm.
An allegation is made, an initial investigation is undertaken, if it decided that there is some evidence that there may be a case to answer the player is charged and a formal investigation and hearing take place, the accused is given the chance to plead guilty/not guilty and both parties given a chance to put forward their side of the argument.
he's been charged on the basis of 'alleged' because it's not a proclamation of guilt. The FA have reviewed the evidence and consider that this merits a more formal investigation, guilt has not been established.
I don't see how that's odd?
An allegation is made, an initial investigation is undertaken, if it decided that there is some evidence that there may be a case to answer the player is charged and a formal investigation and hearing take place, the accused is given the chance to plead guilty/not guilty and both parties given a chance to put forward their side of the argument.
he's been charged on the basis of 'alleged' because it's not a proclamation of guilt. The FA have reviewed the evidence and consider that this merits a more formal investigation, guilt has not been established.
I don't see how that's odd?
So it isn't 'alleged' just based on evras word?
The 'alleged' is simply referring to the allegations made by Evra. That's not to say that those allegations are the sole reason for Suarez being charged and an investigation being held; the statement doesn't mention any evidence they may (or may not) have and based their decision on.
Last edited:
no one knows how much evidence there is/isn't. They've simply decided that there is enough for their to be a case to answer. What their criteria for that was isn't open for public consumption and correctly so.
They haven't said he's guilty.
You can draw parallels to a criminal case, someone accuses you of something the police conduct intial interviews and get statements, they then make a decision based on the evidence if there is any case for you to answer. At that point they either charge you/don't charge you. If charged that's when the opportunity is given to prove innocence/guilt and the case progresses from there.
That doesn't mean anything though does it? That's like saying that Suarez biting someone's face or handballing a goal is evidence of poor morale character which could contribute to racism. You can't base anything on that as it lends no weight to the argument and just confuses the issue if people can't make the distinction.
So if proven innocent Evra can be done for damaging his image?
if a charge was levelled and proven against Evra for malicious accusations then possibly. It would have to be positive proof though.
If it's proven that Evra lied, yes. That's nigh on impossible though.
However, you'd hope that some action is taken against Evra for making the allegations on French TV before any investigation had begun.
If he is cleared then I think they would have no choice but to charge Evra with bringing the game into disrepute or similar
no, you would have to have evidence to prove the charge. You could possibly make the charge with limited evidence (as may have been done to Suarez here) but unless you could prove guilt then you couldn't find him guilty of it.
People are seeing this in a far too black and white manner (excuse the pun).
- Status