The FA has released a lengthy (!) and detailed report into the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra affair, and in this new series, I will pick out the most important parts of the report in a bid to to clarify facts and/or debunk misconceptions.
There are several issues I want to highlight in the report, and I will do so over several articles, but one of the most interesting revelations is the fact that Kenny Dalglish, Damien Comolli and Dirk Kuyt all contradicted Suarez's version of events, and this inconsistency was undoubtedly fatal to Suarez's case.
EVRA'S Claim
FA report. Section 90:
"Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr Suarez replied 'Porque tu eres negro' "
SUAREZ'S Version of Events
Section 104:
"Mr Evra said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?
POST-MATCH: Suarez explains himself to Dalglish and Comolli
Section 283:
"Mr Comolli spoke to Mr Suarez in Spanish to get his version of what had happened. Based on that conversation, first Mr Dalglish, then Mr Comolli reported to the referee what Mr Suarez had said.
"Mr Dowd, the fourth official, made notes and Mr Marriner, the referee, wrote up his report of the incident later that day"
COMOLLI Contradicts Suarez
Section 284:
"Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said 'you are South American' to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as 'you are black'
Section 289:
"In cross-examination on this point, Mr Comolli agreed that he told Mr Marriner that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro".
"Mr Dowd stated that he asked Mr Comolli to spell "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd then noted it down. Those words appear in Mr Marriner's report.
Section 290:
"At the end of his cross-examination, Mr Comolli agreed that he believed he was told by Mr Suarez that the words that he had used translated as "Why, because you are black".
DALGLISH Contradicts Suarez
Section 304:
"Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with 'you are South American' "
Section 284:
"Mr Marriner's report records that Mr Dalglish told him that Mr Suarez had responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American" by Mr Evra".
KUYT Contradicts Suarez
Section 297:
"According to Mr Kuyt, Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American", to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then".
"The Dutch words which Mr Kuyt recalled Mr Suarez using were "omdat je zwart bent mag...waarom mag ik je daarom niet aanraken".
"Mr Kuyt explained to us that the initial phrase in this passage means "because you are black", i.e. omdat (because) je (you) zwart (black) bent (are).
Suarez Claims Comolli Misunderstood Him
Section 292: Suarez's Witness Statement
"There seems to have been a misunderstanding on Mr Comolli's part because he interpreted what I said to him to mean that I said the equivalent of "Why can't I touch you? Because you are black?".
"This was not, in fact, what I said but, even if I had said it, it would have made sense at the time and would not have been intended to be offensive or racially offensive. Nonetheless, I did not say it."
Suarez Claims Kuyt Misunderstood Him
Section 299: Suarez Witness Statement
"Dirk Kuyt also spoke to me after the match and I explained to him in Dutch what had happened. His Dutch version of what was said appears to have lost something in translation because he, too, is supposed to have heard from me that I said "Why can't I touch you? Because you're black?" but all I said was "Por que negro?".
Panel Response to Inconsistencies
Section 291:
"By the time witness statements were served, Mr Suarez and the Liverpool management had become aware of the apparent discrepancy between Mr Suarez's present case on his use of the word “negro” on the one hand, and what Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish had told the referee on the other".
Section 307:
"The discrepancies between what Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli reported to the referee on the one hand, and Mr Suarez's evidence as to what he said on the other hand, have not been satisfactorily explained. At the very least, they demonstrate a confusion in Mr Suarez's initial account of what he said, and an apparent inconsistency between that account and the case that he advanced before us".
----
KEY POINTS
I know it's hard but please try and be objective when considering the above statements and the following questions:
- Kuyt spoke with Suarez in Dutch; Comolli in Spanish. What is the likelihood that both misunderstood him in two separate languages?
- Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli ALL stated on the record that Suarez said 'Tu es Negro' (you are black) or a variation thereof. What is the likelihood that all three would get it wrong?
- Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli basically backed up Evra's version of events, and made the FA's case for them.
- Objectively speaking, it could be argued that it looks like Suarez changed his story after learning that Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli contradicted him.
- It's also entirely possibly that Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli DID mishear/misunderstand Suarez. However, on the balance of probabilities (which is how the Panel assessed the evidence), you would have to say that it's not very probable.
The inconsistency between Suarez's own statement and what he told Comolli, Dalglish and Kuyt after the game was clearly fatal to his case, and I just don't see how three separate people could 'misunderstand' what Suarez told them.
Just look at it from the Panel's POV: The Liverpool Manager, Director of Football and a senior player - all credible and trustworthy witnesses - reported *on the record* that Suarez told them something different to his own personal statement.
Such contradictions introduced significant doubt into the situation so it's hardly surprising Suarez was deemed to be 'unreliable'.
Jaimie Kanwar
There are several issues I want to highlight in the report, and I will do so over several articles, but one of the most interesting revelations is the fact that Kenny Dalglish, Damien Comolli and Dirk Kuyt all contradicted Suarez's version of events, and this inconsistency was undoubtedly fatal to Suarez's case.
EVRA'S Claim
FA report. Section 90:
"Mr Evra's evidence was that, in response to his question "Why did you kick me?", Mr Suarez replied 'Porque tu eres negro' "
SUAREZ'S Version of Events
Section 104:
"Mr Evra said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?
POST-MATCH: Suarez explains himself to Dalglish and Comolli
Section 283:
"Mr Comolli spoke to Mr Suarez in Spanish to get his version of what had happened. Based on that conversation, first Mr Dalglish, then Mr Comolli reported to the referee what Mr Suarez had said.
"Mr Dowd, the fourth official, made notes and Mr Marriner, the referee, wrote up his report of the incident later that day"
COMOLLI Contradicts Suarez
Section 284:
"Mr Comolli said to the referee that Mr Evra first said 'you are South American' to Mr Suarez who responded with "Tues Negro" which translates as 'you are black'
Section 289:
"In cross-examination on this point, Mr Comolli agreed that he told Mr Marriner that Mr Suarez had said "Porque tu es negro".
"Mr Dowd stated that he asked Mr Comolli to spell "Tues negro" and Mr Dowd then noted it down. Those words appear in Mr Marriner's report.
Section 290:
"At the end of his cross-examination, Mr Comolli agreed that he believed he was told by Mr Suarez that the words that he had used translated as "Why, because you are black".
DALGLISH Contradicts Suarez
Section 304:
"Mr Dalglish told the referee that Mr Suarez responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with 'you are South American' "
Section 284:
"Mr Marriner's report records that Mr Dalglish told him that Mr Suarez had responded with "you are black" having first been taunted with "you are South American" by Mr Evra".
KUYT Contradicts Suarez
Section 297:
"According to Mr Kuyt, Mr Suarez said to him that he had touched Mr Evra on the head and he (Mr Evra) said something along the lines of "get away from me South American", to which Mr Suarez replied "because you're black can't...why can't I touch you then".
"The Dutch words which Mr Kuyt recalled Mr Suarez using were "omdat je zwart bent mag...waarom mag ik je daarom niet aanraken".
"Mr Kuyt explained to us that the initial phrase in this passage means "because you are black", i.e. omdat (because) je (you) zwart (black) bent (are).
Suarez Claims Comolli Misunderstood Him
Section 292: Suarez's Witness Statement
"There seems to have been a misunderstanding on Mr Comolli's part because he interpreted what I said to him to mean that I said the equivalent of "Why can't I touch you? Because you are black?".
"This was not, in fact, what I said but, even if I had said it, it would have made sense at the time and would not have been intended to be offensive or racially offensive. Nonetheless, I did not say it."
Suarez Claims Kuyt Misunderstood Him
Section 299: Suarez Witness Statement
"Dirk Kuyt also spoke to me after the match and I explained to him in Dutch what had happened. His Dutch version of what was said appears to have lost something in translation because he, too, is supposed to have heard from me that I said "Why can't I touch you? Because you're black?" but all I said was "Por que negro?".
Panel Response to Inconsistencies
Section 291:
"By the time witness statements were served, Mr Suarez and the Liverpool management had become aware of the apparent discrepancy between Mr Suarez's present case on his use of the word “negro” on the one hand, and what Mr Comolli and Mr Dalglish had told the referee on the other".
Section 307:
"The discrepancies between what Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli reported to the referee on the one hand, and Mr Suarez's evidence as to what he said on the other hand, have not been satisfactorily explained. At the very least, they demonstrate a confusion in Mr Suarez's initial account of what he said, and an apparent inconsistency between that account and the case that he advanced before us".
----
KEY POINTS
I know it's hard but please try and be objective when considering the above statements and the following questions:
- Kuyt spoke with Suarez in Dutch; Comolli in Spanish. What is the likelihood that both misunderstood him in two separate languages?
- Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli ALL stated on the record that Suarez said 'Tu es Negro' (you are black) or a variation thereof. What is the likelihood that all three would get it wrong?
- Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli basically backed up Evra's version of events, and made the FA's case for them.
- Objectively speaking, it could be argued that it looks like Suarez changed his story after learning that Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli contradicted him.
- It's also entirely possibly that Kuyt, Dalglish and Comolli DID mishear/misunderstand Suarez. However, on the balance of probabilities (which is how the Panel assessed the evidence), you would have to say that it's not very probable.
The inconsistency between Suarez's own statement and what he told Comolli, Dalglish and Kuyt after the game was clearly fatal to his case, and I just don't see how three separate people could 'misunderstand' what Suarez told them.
Just look at it from the Panel's POV: The Liverpool Manager, Director of Football and a senior player - all credible and trustworthy witnesses - reported *on the record* that Suarez told them something different to his own personal statement.
Such contradictions introduced significant doubt into the situation so it's hardly surprising Suarez was deemed to be 'unreliable'.
Jaimie Kanwar
and yes i use the word Death for a reason youtry lifing a life without your hearing and then be fortunate enought o get it back ....life without hearing is an almost death not deaf
ReplyDeleteOnly Suarez knows what he actually said. Evra knows what he heard (which actually can be a very different thing, in the heat of the moment, speaking to someone in a language not your own, in the middle of a noisy and fractious game).
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that the 'balance of probabilities' finding is actually a fairly weak way to convict someone. It would not be acceptable in a criminal case.
Maybe Suarez did change his story. Maybe Suarez has simply become more or less confused over time as he has heard more, read more, seen more etc etc etc. Maybe Suarez did say something near to the knuckle and Evra has embelished the incident, pushing Suarez to embellish his own version of events. In fact the report accepts that Evra's version of events is not entirely true either and that his grasp of Spanish is flawed (for instance believing Negro to be Spanish for 'N*gg*r' when in fact it isn't)
The fact that Evra's evidence was presented more reliably and consistently does not actually prove one person was entirely truthful and the other person is lying - which is in fact the basis of the judgement. Can you imagine someone making a complaint about you in work like this and then you being fined and given a final written warning on the basis of their word against yours? Not something most people would accept or see as fair if it happened to them.
Im glad you said that Cgffhgf!! Being a article writer does not make you an expert in law!
ReplyDeleteIm sorry Jamie. Please tell us again what qualifications you have in law??? This reader clearly states that he studied law, did you??? If not you have a bare faced cheek to tell him he is wrong. And to call him blind also. If anyone said the same to you you would throw a hissy fit and ban him from the site.
ReplyDeleteAre you actually getting your info from wikipedia????
ReplyDeletespot on red red man. I can not understand JK's agenda. Constant misleading articles and alway playing devils advocate.
ReplyDeleteYou actually gonna let some anon on hear and call KK a racist?? Jamie you r a disgrace!!
ReplyDeleteand again Jamie??? your website, your responsibilty!!
ReplyDeletevery well said.
ReplyDeletedont even know what this muggins is trying to say. What is origon??
ReplyDeleteJamie K here is another post labelling Kenny a racist.
Thank you Gord. The word negro is not a racist word. Racism by nature must be indicating race. The word negro generally means black. you can be black and come from anywhere on the planet same as you can be white and come from anywhere on the planet. so it can not indicate race. If you see a black man can you tell what race he is from???? If you say yes that would make you prejudiced.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am not defending Suarez. I'm just not sticking the boot into him. There is a distinction between the two and you would do well to recognise that. If I am defending anything, it is the right to a balanced and fair judgement. Suarez has not had that.
ReplyDeleteI can say that because of the likes of you who know no more of what happened than I do and yet are ready to judge. I do not know if Suarez is a racist (although LFC, Evra and the FA say he is not) and I do not know exactly what happened between Suarez and Evra or, indeed, Suarez's intentions and neither do you. I am simply looking at the facts and they are far, far from clear enough to produce a clear judgement of guilt. They are also far from clear enough to produce a clear judgement of innocence, but this is about proving guilt.
It's not about whether Kuyt and Dalglish are dishonest. The suggestion is that there has been a "misunderstanding" and not dishonesty. Another distinction you would do well to recognise.
I repeat, Dalglish's word on what Suarez said was second hand from Comolli. Dalglish does not speak Spanish and Suarez speaks very little English. This is not about Dalglish at all. It is about Comolli and Kuyt and whether they understood Suarez in the manner Suarez intended.
The FA confirmed that both players failed to recollect events fully. Yet, it is Suarez who is not a credible witness whilst Evra is. You see, no balance.
The more I look into this and digest it, the more farce I see. The whole thing is a pathetic nonsense of "he said, she said" proportions. In court, this would not stand up as guilt needs to be proven "beyond all reasonable doubt". That has not happened. John Terry's case will be heard in court before the FA have a look at it. I will tell you now, he will not be charged with anything and the FA simply cannot charge Terry if the courts exonerate him fully.
Well said Pete. I think this is the FA's way of showing the rest of the world that, "we are not racist" Only two black managers???? How many Asians???? Captain Terry caught blatently racially abusing anton. It is shocking!!!!
ReplyDeleteAll I can remember is watching John Barnes suffer abuse by fans after he scored one of the best goals I have seen in an england shirt against brazil.
Then ol Big Ron comes to mind. It all stinks. The FA are a joke and football is a laughing stock around the world.
Jeez, what is wrong with people? The different between criminal and civil standards of proof is one of the most widely-known legal distinctions out there. Harping on about Wikipedia is not going to change that. Wikipedia lists its sources at the bottom of each page, so why instead of focusing on irrelevancies, why don't you try making a valid point about something...?
ReplyDeleteYes, I am legally qualified. The poster to whom you refer is wrong, and you do not need legal qualifications to know that, just the ability to research effectively.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, the ignorance of some people is truly astounding. The FA report QUITE CLEARLY STATES that 'balance of probabilities' is the standard of proof it employed, yet people still try and argue that it should be the criminal standard of 'beyond a Reasonable Doubt'. It's just ridiculous. And embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteExactly!!!! That is the biggest problem with the people in England fighting against racism. I feel they are only doing it to prove they are not racist because they are aware of how the rest of the world views them. Jokers!!!!
ReplyDeleteWhy cant we say blackboard??? Why was it changed to chalkboard???? They dont sing baa baa black sheep any more. But as soon as they think no one is listening, "That Marcelle is a lazy Ni$%%r". These are the people on the board condemning suarez!!!
Jokers!!
Im not arguing whatthe fa report saysI wanted to know you law qualifications.
ReplyDeleteSo theres no Video evidence of Suarez calling Evra the N word 10 times?
ReplyDeleteStrange how Evra can make all these allegations, and not be punished.
He also accused the Ref of being racist! Sure the FA should be clamping down on that.
But hey if they charge Evra, it will be racist some how???
AWWW poor Evra
I would like to know, as i am not schooled in law, that if you racially abuse someone is that not againt the law? If so is that not a criminal offence?? So if a governing body, like the FA banned me for racially abusing a player and I took it to a court and won my case what then would happen??
ReplyDeleteI noticed there was no reply to this one from Jamie.
ReplyDeleteIm guessing when you said you checked with your black friends you dont have many or you would not need to check. I am black, or at least dark brown, and i have dozens of friends that would laugh their arses off if you called them negro. Evra's move only makes non blacks edgy and then they feel the need to make sure you know they are not racist. Evra is a big boy and i can assure you if he were my friend i would be embarrassed by his whining.
ReplyDeleteoh and if this dont get posted it must be cos i is black.
hahahaha,pull out and and then do what!?!?!?,make the liverpool players take a course in gardening and turn anfield into a garden,grow up!!..trust me thers no way liverpool will appeal.They know too that they messed up bad and will want to end it withought causing further embarassment
ReplyDeleteThere were no kicking - there were no foul. LSs and PEs knees banged together - and PE fell and got a freekick. Watch the video.
ReplyDeletePE felt insulted of the incident, where he had had more than he deserved. He kept talking to LS, where as LS tried to focus on football. Its like when you have a small dog bitting your leg - you try to walk on, but the dog disturbs you until you kick it off. LS was riddled by PE - not by sudamericano, but sudeco, which is slang for lousy southamerican.Why can LS not remeber details - and can keep changing his version of the story. Because he was focusing on football, not on what was said. He tries to remember - whereas in PEs mind this is worth to be remembered and re-told. PE is the storymaker - LS the footballer.LS made a remark against PEs colour, which is wrong. OK. PE made a remark against LSs origin, which is wrong in the same paragraph fra FA. So they should at least stand the same amount of ban - not on presented as an angel and the other as a racist of worst kind possible.By the way - Jaimies examination of the way evidence were given to Suarezs lawyer 24 hours before the hearing is scary reading. It shows how the FA somehow wanted this case to end up with a result just like this. If taken to a court, then the FA would have a lot to count for.
tony that comment is completely unreasonable. i too like kofi am black and as a result i have had mixed feelings about the suarez situation. my whole family are passionate liverpool supporters and we all feel similarly about this.
ReplyDeletewhat kofi is trying to say (correct me if i am wrong kofi) but i am still a fan of suarez and i love what he brings to the club, but the evidence is there that says he is wrong regardless of what evra said, and the fact that the club cant hold thier hands up and apologise or simply condemn what he did wrong is detrimental to the clubs reputation (amongst fans, media players and transfer targets) . It seems as though they are failing to take into account the many ethnicities and nationalities that make up liverpools GLOBAL fanbase.the fact that they are trying not to acknowledge how sensitive the case is for those who love the club but have strong veiws against racism.
i believe kennys moral judgement told him to defend and protect is own but this case was always heading in this direction given the seriousness of the accusation and maybe they should have just apologised publicly whilst reassuring suarez instead of taking an us against the world approach.
i have found myself in a difficult position attempting to defend suarez actions to friends labelling my beloved club racist and the question i ask myself that i ask all other fans is would we be defending him if he wasnt currently such an influential player in the team???
so if i call some body a black so and so its ok.its is a racist word if you use it in a racist way.
ReplyDeleteblack is not a racist word unless you use it in a racist way.IE - you are a black ba*%!#d
ReplyDeleteHave any of you read any of the posts??? As one chap says further ups, a barrister friend or colleague has looked the report over. It's water tight. An appeal WILL fail. Suarez doesn't have a leg to stand on. If J.W. had a spine, Suarez would have been sacked by now.
ReplyDeleteI AM a Liverpool fan of over 40 years and it doesn't matter whether he's the best player or not. I'd rather we were relegated than have racists at the club.
By the way, him having a black grandfather is irrelevant. The only reason any of you clowns is backing Suarez is because Evra plays for Manchester United.
Tim, maybe you should read the report. The referee never said this did not happen, he said he didn't hear it. Same as he didn't hear/see anything to back anyone up. The same 'credible' witness that discarded the most important piece of evidence available. Also, it's convenient that the panel decide to accept certain parts of kuyts testimony and not others. Is he or is he not a credible witness? If he's not then they shouldn't accept his transcript of what was said by Suarez. But they accept this and choose not to accept his version of hat evra said to the ref, even though the ref clearly states he didn't hear it, not that it wasn't said.
ReplyDeletePs I'm no scouser but think the report is a disgrace.
The report doesn't prove anything. It certainly doesn't prove that Evra didn't say that.
ReplyDeleteNo rule from the FA says you can't use the word negro. It translates to black in Spanish. Stop trying to simplify something that is in fact a very complex matter.
ReplyDeletedid evra say the ref was racist??? then why did the fa not charge the ref???? This was heard first hand.
ReplyDeleteThe words Probable, Probably, Probability, Possible and Assume appear exactly 50 times in the FA report. The word Proven is not included.Taken from a tweet!!
ReplyDeleteExpertly said, clean prophet!!
ReplyDeleteAnd if there is not enough evidence to charge Terry how can they even consider charging Suarez???
I dont know about anyone else but it definitely looked liked Terry called Anton a black c£"t!!
IT IS A JOKE!!!The FA are corrupted, their disciplinary hearings are kangeroo courts and football in this county is going backwards
I'd like to invite you down to the Sandon Pub on Anfield Road, where you can reiterate your thoughts to all and sundry. I'd also like to help carry your stretcher on the way out.
ReplyDelete"It's water tight" - really? Simple man by name, simple man by nature. It's about as water tight as the arsehole you are speaking out of right now.
Let spell some things out for you. Evra and the FA stated that Suarez was not a racist. That is water tight. And yet, you are saying LFC should sack Suarez because he is a racist. I don't know what you are, but I know you are definately not a Liverpool fan.
Good point!!
ReplyDeleteSuarez evidence was dismissed and Evra's view was taken as he was "more calm"... its ridiculous, you used alot of words to say nothing
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, your response is only to the first two sentences, and you missed the point.
ReplyDeleteAlso, can you name me a few similar race-related reports that had this much focus? I am sure there are many big cases, but none have had the impact that this case is having. Also dont forget the FA committee is not a real court, they do whatever they like...
Dont be retarded!!!
ReplyDeleteAs if football was holier than thou before this happened.
If i had to list the things that have happened in football before this we would be here all year.
If there is anyone racist in this whole saga it would have to be the corrupt FA. They think its alright to hang suarez out to dry because the one accusing him is a black guy. If white man said a black man racially abused him they wouldn't even listen. They are doing this because its a black man accusing a white guy.
And they hang Suarez easy cos he is not British.
Let us see what happen to John Terry.
Nice response. REAL Liverpool fans will beat the shit out of you for standing up against racism. The logic is getting more and more twisted by the day. I feel like I support the BNP's club of choice.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't say that. Kuyt misheard and the ref effectively dismissed that in his statement.
ReplyDeleteHardly the point. If I got caught in a room with a bloody knife in my hand and a dead prostitute on the floor, it is probable that I killed her. Civil cases are generally based on probabilities and Suarez's explanation was improbable.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how some people can take what they want from a comment isn't it, regardless of the commentator's intent. You might argue that you misunderstood what I was saying, but ignorance is no excuse.
ReplyDeleteMy first paragraph was tongue in cheek. I doubt anyone would genuinely get violent over someone's ridiculous comments. My point wasn't that racism is acceptable or that Liverpool should stand by a racist. My comment was that Suarez was found, by the FA and by Evra, to not be a racist. So, saying that he is a racist and should be sacked is unacceptable.
Have you tried reading? You should give it a go. It dispels ignorance and stops people from having to repeat themselves.
Sorry barry you may as well be wearing a T-shirt that says KKK. King Kennys Klan ... Sad but true...
ReplyDeleteYour calling Suarez a racist when the FA have said he his not a racist.
ReplyDeleteNo No NO. Suarez used the N word and as such should be kicked out of football.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to hurt LFC. Players of Afro/Caribbean decent will think twice before they sign for you lot. Which can only be a good thing for your rivals.
Long live humanity... Die Racism...
Have you any multicultural marriages Black or Asian in your family?
ReplyDeleteTrev - I being a bit presumptive but if you were ever a victim of racism then perhaps you may understand.
ReplyDeleteImaguest. I was born and bought up in the UK in an ethnic minority family. My children are the same and go to school in the UK. They sing baa baa black sheep and the only reason why they don't call a black board a black board is because they have a White Board. So what's your point? Have you been reading the Daily Fail too much?
ReplyDeleteBTW I have have been picked and physically threatened because I'm not white. Having lived and worked in various places in the world this has only happened in England and therefore I say KICK RACISM OUT OF FOOTBALL.
Which N word was that then?
ReplyDeleteMore like tongue in arse cheek mate. To be tongue in cheek you really have to get the humour bit sorted out first. Basically the guy is saying that characters like Suarez should not be at the club. The point that Suarez told Evra "I don't speak to blacks" would actually constitute him to be a racist. I say racist is as racist does and Luis Suarez doesn't speak to blacks, unless he's employed to of course, so the diffence is just semantics to me. You're saying he isn't a Liverpool fan because he doesn't abandon his morals to support a disreputable shoulder biter who will probably force a move away from the club in a couple of years anyway.
ReplyDeleteChopping up the report into little bits and omitting the context on which the judgement was made does you a disservice. It was made perfectly clear about the word negro being positive or negative depending on the situation in which it was used. Suarez's contemporary response to both Commolli and Kuyt in Spanish and Dutch was in translation "because you are black?". That tallies with Evra's statement however Evra states it wasn't a question but a statement in response to his question of 'why did you kick me?". Once the 'negro as a friendly gesture' was put forward by FA linguistic experts Suarez changed his tune to say that he said something like "why, blackie?" with the term blackie used in the way we would commonly say 'blondie' or even 'baldy'. Then he reaches out to pinch Evra's skin as if to say 'look I can touch you if I want'. Evra doesn't remember the touch but it appears to have been done at the time he claims Suarez says "because you are black" in response to his initial question. This would correlate with the video evidence and the clear tone of the dispute.
ReplyDeleteMore was alleged to be said by Suarez and in the light of his changed account of events versus Evra's consistent account it was thought probable that Evra's account was accurate (except the ten times argument which has been shown to be a colloquialism in French in a similar way to us saying "I must have told him a million times". A point supported by our very own Damien Commolli albeit with criticism that he used colloquialism on such an important subject, although it must be stated that Evra was clearly distressed and doing an interview in his native French).
Looking back on Suarez's career long disciplinary record, past dubious character displayed on the field of play and his relatively weird radio interview where he offers to apologise if found guilty (strange action for someone who is genuinely innocent to offer a potential apology if other people judge him to be guilty.. You either apologise for what you did and admit responsibility or you maintain innocence until you die), I feel his explanation is dodgy at best. It is reasonable to assert that he did it and his comment "I don't speak to blacks" would show him to be a racist person rather than just making a racist statement.
The universe implodes and idiots like you emerge as shamen and prophets of the new world.
ReplyDeleteIt's not. But Suarez didn't say that. Even though he claimed that was what he said initially he changed his story. Basically he's a liar who couldn't keep in step with his own bullshit. He lied to the club, he lied to the FA and he's lying to you.
ReplyDeleteNo Evra didn't contradict himself, give different accounts of the situation and his account tallied with video evidence displaying the tone of the dispute. Read the report and you'll see that Suarez's evidence was improbable and inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Suarez an ethnic minority? Or do you know a lot of mixed raced Uruguayans living in England?
ReplyDeleteEvra lied Negro isn't N****R!
ReplyDeleteYes he did he said he was called black to the ref and giggs then it has changed to the word N****R by the time he spoke to Fergie and the Tv crew. He thought Negro meant N****R but told the ref he was called black so he must of known negro was Spanish for black and nothing to do with the N word.
ReplyDeleteThe FA also found Suarez guilty. Like you the man has an opinion and if the poster, like me, agrees with the FA's findings and Evra's account then Suarez saying "I don't speak to blacks" and his response to why he kicked Evra "because you are black" would strongly suggest that this is a racist individual rather than just a racist epiteph. Racist is as racist does.
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say Suarez used the N****R word like Evra said?
ReplyDeleteYou've just made up your own story with regard to Evra.
ReplyDeleteThe final report shouldn't use those words if a man has been found guilty!
ReplyDeleteIt's not a trivial matter. Racism has been the cause of too many atrocious and disgusting crimes including torture, rape, slavery, genocide and abuse. 6 millions Jewish people died in Nazi Germany due to racism. Any creeping influence of it into the beautiful game MUST be stamped out.
ReplyDeleteI'm not debating whether there is a large focus on this case because clearly there is. That doesn't change the fact that the process involved is an in depth one.
ReplyDeleteEvra's character and past actions? In what regard? Suarez bites opponents, if you want to go down that road.
I'll assume you're talking about him serially playing the race card. http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/12/debunking-lfc-myths-no-11-patrice-evra.html
Failing to understand a culture is not an excuse and the fact that he apparently uses such terms in and around the LFC squad means that, on some level, the club should have made him aware of the potential dangers.
That feeds into the fact that I'm not targeting Suarez. I think he's guilty of stupidity more than anything and my main issue is with the club's handling of the situation, which was extremely confrontational, poorly planned and did the most to turn this into a major news story.
Your final comment just highlights the fact that you've already formed a bias against any negative outcome because you allude to the idea that it's a stitch up. No point continuing a pointless argument.
The problem is, Evra seems to realise his mistake and corrects it. Suarez and possibly Liverpool themselves, seemed to have tried to cover it up. Should have fessed up and apologised. Who ever wrote the official statement for Liverpool need to say sorry to Evra and the FA, who handed the case over to an INDEPENDENT BODY (Meaning, not the FA themselves) to study what went on. The point you make about the difference between the word "negro" and "nigger" is irrelevant in this case. Its like comparing being mugged or being burgled, both are crimes against you. Negro might be the less offensive word, but it was used to offend Evra in this case and has been punished accordingly. And please go down the " its not offensive in South America" route, that excuse is rubbish.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you on about Barry? I am a United supporter and am merely quoting from the report.
ReplyDeleteHe also signed Suarez who is of mixed race, one
ReplyDeleteOf his grand fathers is black. So there is another to go with john Barnes. Now let me ask you this, how many black players does a manager have to sign to prove he is not racist? 5? 10? A whole team? Answer how many.
18+5+7 = 30 19+3+11 = 33
ReplyDeleteNo there's no evidence whatsoever. Except for Suarez admision that he used the words and Kuyt and Comolli's storys matching Evra's but lets just pretend that didn't happen, eh La?
ReplyDeleteTo be fair jaimie your interpretation of an offensive word/term is rather strange as you have said in previous threads that the term 'foreign' shouldn't be used due to 'negative' connotations, rather we should use 'overseas player'! Rather strange as all countries have a foreign office and foreign minister, is that offensive? The word negro, or black, is blatantly not racist, we've even got a situation now where pundits are having to apologise for using the term 'coloured'. So if you can't say black or coloured what term do you use?
ReplyDeleteThe main complaints about this report have been that it boils down to "one man's word against another's". Funny that you are finding a bone of contention when it comes to the report dismissing Kuyt's claim that Evra said "You are only booking me because I am black" to the referee because the referee himself - who was inches away from Evra - never heard him say that and neither did anyone else!
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. If you tell someone you kicked them because they were black, that is where the line is crossed.
ReplyDelete"Stop trying to simplify something that is in fact a very comples matter"..? Pot. Kettle. Black.
Yes, the skill Suarez showed when he kicked Evra in the knee was sublime... The couple of shots he had - one well over the bar on the half volley and the other miles wide from 40 yards out were great - and the way he didn't beat the offside trap so many times was stunning.
ReplyDeleteFor all the hype that surrounds Suarez he has socred 5 goals in 1,456 minutes this season. Hernandez has scored 6 in 851 minutes, Berbatov has scored 6 in 345 minutes. His record is bettered by Swansea's Danny Graham (6 goals in 1,374 mins), Wolves' Steven Fletcher (8 goals in 1,102 mins) and Norwich's Anthony Pilkington (5 goals in 1,123 mins), Steve Morison (7 goals in 1,415 mins) and Grant Holt (7 goals in 1,067).
If - as has been contended by some Liverpool supporters - Evra has made these allegations to get one of your best players banned, why hasn't he done the same for any of the other players I mention above, who are actually statistically more likely to cause United trouble?
No, you are right. The word "black" in and of itself is not offensive. Telling a black man that you kicked him "beacuse he is black" however, is offensive and that is part of the reason Suarez has been banned. If you don't believe this is the case, go out into the street, kick a black man and when he asks you why you did that, feel free to reply as Suarez did. Then, please come back and tell us what happened (they have wifi in hospitals now, by the way).
ReplyDeleteThe Mendes "goal" was clearly the wrong decision, but that can be blamed on the linesman being miles away - the ball was struck from just past the centre circle and the lino was level with play. United finished well clear in 3rd place that season and Spurs were well off a EUFA Cup spot. The result made no real difference at all to either side.
ReplyDeleteFunny that you remember that but not the 2005 CL semi-final when a referee ruled that a shot had crossed the line when it clearly had not and with it being the only "goal" in the game, that decision alone got you into the final.
Easy to only remember the things that go against you in recent years though, eh?
"Nani"? Shows how much you know.
ReplyDeleteTry reading the report (and by doing so prevent coming across as a complete ignoramus) before commenting. The only person who said that Evra accused the ref of being racist ("You are only booking me because I am black") was Dirk Kuyt. The referee said otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... so suarez is supposed to have come to terms with English culture in his 2 mins here, but Evra is let off on the grounds that the literral translation doesn't have the same meaning in a foreign language? I canb't see a double standard there in any way shape or form...
ReplyDeleteThere once was a Dutchman a Scotsman and and Frenchman, discussing in European Spanish, English and Dutch what a Uraguayan said in Uraguayan Spanish.
ReplyDeleteNaturally they all came up with quite ambiguous statements as to what the Uraguayan had actually said, even after 115 pages of deliberation. But because the Europeans interpretations resembled each other more and because the Uraguayan was being attacked it was prudently decided that it must have been a heinous retaliation, which in any case could more easily be shoe-horned into said interpretations.
And the punch-line ? Sweet FA
lloyd...
ReplyDeleteIf, as you say, "they could only do it on the lesser balance of probabilities given no one's liberty was at stake" then surely we must look at the terminology behind liberty to assess whether or not it was at stake?
The OED defines liberty as "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed on one's behaviour...". Could it not then be argued that the applicable charge is a restriction imposed to take away Suarez's ability to play football, and thus his liberty would be at stake in the case, therefore meaning he should be, by all accounts, applicable to be tried using a degree of probability which is beyond all reasonable doubt. However i also know from my own studies of law that, this is a case to be dealt with in the private sector, away from the mandatory procedure of English statue and law, thus the body responsible for the trial have the ability to choose the degree of reasonableness as long as it is approved by their employer, in this instance the FA. This does not eliminate the argument that the FA could be biased toward an outcome favourable toward Evra, however it does, in my opinion, clear up the argument surrounding the degree of proof which is necessary and its flexibility.
I am however only a student of law, the knowledge applied in this instance is hypothetical and not based on solid foundations as i do not claim to be fully qualified. Any corrections would be welcomed, as this is my personal perception of the situation.
Good grief, it's a civil case, it works on probability not on reasonable doubt. The more probables you get the more likely you are to be found guilty! A criminal court found OJ Simpson innocent of murdering Nicole Brown because there was enough reasonable doubt. A civil court found him guilty based on evidence showing that he probably did do it. The sad reality is that criminal courts are largely there to prove who has the best lawyer not who is telling the truth. Or maybe that's what this rich, high profile footballer would prefer. After all it worked for Stevie G.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. Still quite haven't grasped the concept of reading and understanding yet I see.
ReplyDeleteSo, now you are judge and jury I see? Suarez definately said "I don't speak to blacks"? I think not. In fact, Suarez firmly denies making such a comment. He may have made that comment, but there is clear and obvious confusion over whether that is fact or not. Although, not in your mind. You are happy to assume and convict it seems.
People mention the fact that Suarez's grandfather is black is neither here or there. But, you are now telling us that Suarez refuses to speak to his own grandfather, because his grandfather is black. Obviously, that is ridiculous but then, so is every other pathetic, biased and prejudiced thing you have said so far.
There is no need for anyone to abandon any principles or morals. I agree about not wanting a racist at my club. The distinction is that people who know more than I and certainly more than you have told us that he is not a racist. This is why I have said he should support Dalglish and his and the club's judgement and not yours. If he doesn't, he is not a Liverpool fan.
Listen, you can take Evra's word over Suarez's word. That's up to you. You clearly have an agenda against Suarez (hence the shoulder biter comment, which couldn't undermine your opinion more if you tried). I choose to not take Evra's word as gospel. I don't. But, I do have a lot of respect for the opinion of Dalglish and his opinion is the one I will back - not your half-arsed, bigoted, prejudiced and totally flawed opinion.
ReplyDeleteThere are various permutations to this one. For example, LFC will point to the reaction in the press and on the terraces to Suarez as an example of the repercussions of a guilty verdict and why guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteThere will also be the considerable financial repercussions for Suarez if he is considered guilty by the FA and treated as such. This will open the door to this matter making its way to the law courts.
No the judge and jury were the commission and he was found guilty. I believe their decision and Evra's account as Suarez's account was inconsistent and out of sync with the clear tone of the dispute. I don't need fingerprints and DNA to assert that, so yeah I'm happy to convict him.
ReplyDeleteIn my mind someone who rapes someone is a rapist. Someone who murders someone is a murderer. Someone who behaves in a racist manner is a racist. Just because he hasn't been caught out before doesn't make him Nelson Mandela.
What those people who say he isn't racist (friends, family, people who rely on him for sporting and economical success) are really saying is that 'he hasn't expressed anything racist to me'. He may not be a feverent enough racist to stand for election for the BNP (who themselves claim they're not racist), but he's enough to denigrate a black man of the base of his colour during what would have been an innocuous dispute.
What you are thus saying is that despite his expressions of racism, no one should make a link to say he is racist and if you do and you wish that he is not associated with the club you're not a Liverpool fan. This is mainly because someone's judgement, who no matter how much of a legend he is, has very arguably been flawed on this matter, says he isn't a racist. Kenny is an expert on Liverpool Football Club, not race relations. And where the two have mixed on this occasion his judgement appears to have been flawed in both his assessment of the situation and the subsequent (embarrassing and crass) show of support given to Suarez. I for one am not going to take Kenny's word on Suarez's character. I won't even take Evra or the FA's view on his character. I'll take my own based on what he is stated to have said, the repetition of what he said and balanced against his altered, unbelievable account of what happened and his propensity to behave in an anti social and unreasonable manner in the past.
PS: I'm not going to dwell on it, but the arsey smugness dripping off your posts is really unneccesary. It makes you come across as a pillock.
Ambiguous in EXACTLY the same way? It's not like they were quoting Shakespeare. It was either "because YOU ARE black?" or "WHY, blackie?". Suarez is relatively fluent in Dutch and commolli is fluent in Spanish. What are the odds that Kuyt and Commolli misunderstand what he said in a short sentence in the exact same way? On an issue of this magnitude? In an official statement? Probabilities people, probablities.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thisisanfield.com/2012/01/professor-in-hispanic-studies-dissects-the-fas-suarez-report/?
You make good points. Suarez does not have a squeeky clean history, but he is involved in charities regarding racism and other such programs, as Liverpools first statement said.
ReplyDeleteAll i want to say is that what happened was an incident of passion. "failing to understand the culture" and saying is he paying for "stupidity" is too harsh. Think about it, as you said, he is the kind of guy that bites people!
He did not prepare an essay on the racism, he merely said a word that in his mind was not a problem and therefore being punished for it. He is just a guy from Uruguay. Then you have Evra is running around hotel rooms shouting the N word and then being extremely upset by a tiny incident like that, as if to say all the other premiership players he plays against treat him like gold. Suarez is being singled out, and I feel that if he is 5% wrong, he is being treated like a murderer.
People are blinded by the controversy that is racism. Suarez is not racist and should not be paying the punishment. Which is alot more than 8 games, his whole name is scarred for the rest of his life, and why???
I think that Evra definitely knows that what he is doing is wrong, therefore I feel I am not biased. Also i'm sorry about my brief reply before and for verbally attacking you, perhaps I should be banned for 8 posts ;)
Furthermore, to all the comments supposedly contradicting themselves. I would recommend reading all of their comments and realising that the differences are so minor, as could be expected from a number of people who are asked describe a story.
ReplyDeleteHow COULD they have perfectly tandem stories? They were not all there at the exact moment, if anything, I would think it would be wrong for all the Liverpool personnel had PERFECTLY correlating stories, as that would CLEARLY indicate that they have pre-meditated their stories.... It is UNACCEPTABLE for 4 reputable men to have their views scratched due to this.
A few things:
ReplyDeleteI don't see that Kenny's testimony is at all important. Anything he knew from Suarez he was told through Comolli, translated. So of course if Comolli reports that he thinks Suarez said something Kenny will say exactly the same. It's a second hand account. It doesn't add anything to say that Comolli AND Kenny contradict Suarez, it's a single person's account relayed to another person. We know what Comolli thinks he heard and that's all there is to it.
Kuyt is not giving testimony as to what he heard on the pitch, he's relaying only what Suarez said to him, after the game in dutch. No one else actually heard the exchange between Suarez and Evra. So in both cases this "contradictory" testimony is where Suarez is giving his account of events to someone else.
It does seem consistent enough to me that both Kuyt and Comolli understand what was said to them as effectively: "why can't I touch you? is it because you are black"? At that point it just comes down to a question of translation. Suarez claims his message didn't come across, the FA don't believe him. Suarez is consistent in reporting the event to both Kuyt and Comolli but he also has to suggest that they both misunderstood what he was trying to tell them.
No doubt it is this difficulty in requiring an extra assumption that damages his trustworthiness. I think it's a reasonable thing to conclude. There is no question that Suarez used a word that has the potentially to be racially abusive and he has to explain both that it's a linguistic issue local to his country AND that he was misunderstood by even those in his own club. It's a step too far for any unbiased judge or panel. There is every possibility that what he actually said was precisely as Evra stated.
However I would refer to the article I posted a link to. It points out that the phrase that both Evra and Comolli put forward is nonsensical in River Plate dialect Spanish.
They have the same liberal culture and dislike of racism in Holland, where Suarez spent several years. He's been in Europe for almost five years now, ignorance can be no excuse.
ReplyDeleteNo, that is really clutching at straws. "Why did you rob the bank?" "Because I anticipated someone else was going to do it later on so I thought I'd better get in there first"
ReplyDeleteAbsolute tosh. Urban myths created by agenda-driven right-wing press and mugs like you fall for it hook line and sinker. If there is any reason for the decline of society in the UK it is because of simpletons like yourself who will believe any negative thing they are told about any subject and repeat it, passing it off as fact without even taking two minutes to check whether there is even a shred of truth to it.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your point? If someone in a match called Suarez a dago or a spic repeatedly, that person should find himslef subject to the same charges Suarez is.
ReplyDelete"There was no kicking...watch the video"
ReplyDeleteThis one you mean? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3TCXA8rFdo&feature=player_embedded
Also, the panel rejected the accusation that Evra said (in English) "South American" - not "Sudaca", which appears to have been an accusation invented by Suarez apologists in recent weeks. So what should Evra be banned for?
That should, of course, say UEFA.
ReplyDeleteWho says there's not enough evidence to charge Terry? The case is being handled by the police because a member of the public reported it to them. Their investigation supercedes that of the FA, so his football-related punishment will be entirely dependent on the criminal conviction.
ReplyDeleteA long article which basically says that Evra and the English are oversensitive idiots, that laughably suggests Suarez had a good name when he arrived in the country and the author's main point of contention is already covered in the report:
ReplyDelete181. The experts noted that the use of the verb form "porque tu eres
negro" is not the most usual form for Montevidean Spanish, since the
form of the verb "ser" most commonly used would be the "vos" form, that
is "porque (vos) sos negro". Nevertheless, a small percentage of
people from Montevideo do use the "tu" form (in contrast to Buenos
Aires, where it is rarely used) or even a mixture of both. In the
interview with Mr Suarez the transcription indicated to the experts
that he uses the "tu" form of the verb, though there are other filmed
interviews published on the internet in which he uses the "vos" form of
the verb. Given that he has spent some considerable time in Europe it is
possible that his use of Spanish alters between Uruguayan and European
contexts. It is also possible that Mr Evra, who may have learned his
Spanish in Spain, where the "vos" form is not used, may, when recalling
the incident in interview, have rendered Mr Suarez’s usage as the "tu"
form, even if Mr Suarez used the "vos" form.
When Suarez moved to Ajax, there were three Spaniards in the squad and one other Uruguayan. Perhaps it is fairly likely that those five players (and possibly some coaching staff) spoke to each other in the more common Iberian Spanish, and that is how he spoke to Evra? Probably in exactly the same way he speaks to Pepe Reina and Jose Enrique every day of the week?
From that article:
1) The FA tends to believe Evra is more reliable than Suarez (a purely subjective element)
2) The FA does not seem to have understood the Spanish language
allegedly used –even though they grounded the verdict on their own
interpretation of that very Spanish language.
3) They believe the word “negro” cannot be used just in a descriptive
way in the context of a discussion–which means they don’t really
understand how we do use it in the Rio de la Plata area. This made them
feel Suarez was unreliable and probably aggravated them.
My reply:
1) It is not subjective, as it Evra's statement weighed against the statements given by others and how closely it matched the video evidence. It matched up to the other evidence much more closely than Suarez's statements. It is that simple.
2) The FA does not understand the Spanish language, that is why it hired interpreters and experts who do understand it and who have already covered the exact point he raises in this longwinded article.
3) They actually state that they DO believe the word negro can be used in a purely descriptive and unoffensive manner. What they found is that in his words and actions he was being antagonistic however and any ambiguity went out of the window at that point.
This guy and others from Uruguay are basically coming from an outside culture where they seem not to understand what racism is - claiming they have no problems with race or equality in their country (something which is obviously untrue) - dismiss our culture in by arguing that we in the UK are all backwards thinking snobs, but who should respect their culture and adopt their rules.
We in the UK decide what we find acceptable and what we do not and we will not be dictated to by someone like Mr Mazzucchelli (someone who's understanding of UK culture is so poor he seems to believe the Daily Mail is a liberal newspaper) or Mr Poyet.
Nice enough reply if you didn't use the words "possible" and "may". It is possible you may be completely wrong on every single point you make.
ReplyDeleteFor me, a true and valid judgement does not employ such vagueness as "possible" or "may".
I think I mentioned that here or somewhere else recently. Suarez was asked during and after the game what had happened and on neither occaison was he asked in his native tongue or even by someone who's 1st language is Spanish. It's laughable that the FA would talk about credibility in relation to Suarez when they ignore what Suarez states as the words he used in favour of something Comolli was told in a language he doesn't fully understand and something Kuyt was told in a language that is not Suarez's native language.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I do feel there is a large over sensitivty by some minorities (there are examples currently with Hansen using the word "coloured" and some people complaining about it) - I do feel that this whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. Evra turned round to Suarez and made mention of his sister's "cunt". Whilst I would laugh if someone said something about my sister's "cunt" - in South America it may be highly offensive - in the same way saying "tu madre esta una puta"or "your mother is a whore" (sorry for the spelling) in Spain is HIGHLY offensive.
ReplyDeleteThe problem you have in this situation is ignorance. Suarez is ignorant. Ignorant of the fact that people in this country make a big deal about racism. He needs to be taught this- but then Evra should be man enough to accept things dished out to him if he is going to dish out - yes the comments made by Suarez shouldn't be made- but then neither should comments be made about the size of his sister's "cunt". It is pathetic little boys stuff and they should be made to stand in the corner Evra has not entirely covered himself in glory either.
For me the FA have made a stance with regards it all -a stance that may come back to bite them in the arse. Suarez has not been found guilty of being a racist- just of making remarks about his skin colour. Does this mean that when John Terry is found guilty by a real court of racially agrevated abuse - that he will have the book thrown at him. I hope that the FA haven't made a rod for themsleves- and make idiots of themselves later on down the line....
I do feel that an 8 game ban for this (when you can viciously assault someone and only get a 3 game ban) is disproportionate. If Suaraz had headbutted Evra instead of calling him a "negro" then this would have all been over and done with ages ago. The problem is there are so many people jumping on the band waggon that it really has become about "punishing the nasty racist" - rather than looking and just seeing someone who is ignorant and needs re-educating. We live in a very politically correct society where so many people use it to their advantage that it is really difficult to try and keep things in perspective. Duncan Ferguson got a 3 game ban for headbutting an opponent - something IMO far worse than being ignorant (and yes I do know that ignorance is no defence!)
The report makes it quite clear that Evra does speak Spanish. He was friends with Carlos Tevez when he was at United and they spoke entirely in Spanish (since Tevez couldn't be arsed to learn any other language).
ReplyDeleteI haven't used the word "possible" or "may". I quoted from the report that used those words. Try reading things properly.
ReplyDeleteIt is the normal way these things are done to use such words. Read any similar report and that is how they are written - in standard langauge for legal procedings and they could not give two hoots what specific words you need to see written before you'll accept it as "a true and valid judgement".
Unlike the guy who wrote the linked article, I do not make definate assertations of what language Suarez would use ("The key is that Evra makes Suárez to appear using forms of Spanish Suárez just wouldn’t use"). Much like the author, I do not know Suarez, however, I stop short of arrogantly claiming my opinion to be irrefutable fact. It is presented as a possibility, just as his should. He clearly has not entertained the possibility that Suarez has adapted his language so that he can converse with non-Uruguayan Spanish speakers such as those he plays football with.
Its not funny at all. If refs heard everything that players said to them every game would end with less than 10 men on the pitch. I'm no lawyer but it seems strange that the FA are allowed to pick and chose bits of a testimony, and that the bits they chose all go against Suarez and for Evra. What the hell does it matter if nobody else heard him say it, does that mean it didnt happen? In that case, no body else apart from Evra heard Suarez say anything derogatory so it must not have happened.
ReplyDeleteAnd for me, the main complaint in this report is that under the laws of the game, which I do not believe talk of racism, rather insulting language etc. which racist remarks obviously fall under, Evra should also be punished for admitting referring to Suarez's 'sisters pussy', which he admits to doing. To use the excuse that the phrase actually could mean something else (ie. f ing hell) when the entire issue here is the use of the word negro and its meaning, is hypocritical to say the least!!
Tim, I urge you to read the report. Suarez never admitting to saying that he kicked Evra because he is black. He admitted to using the term negro once, after he touched the back of Evras head and Evra said 'dont touch me'.
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, the exact term that Suarez says he used and the term that Kuyt and KD said in their testimonies differ slightly. I think Suarez claims to have said 'Why black?' and the testimonies say 'why, because you are black'. Suarez puts this down to translational errors and the FA use this to discredit him. I believe the independent translator during the hearing (who actually speaks Spanish) also made the exact same mis translation of the term that Kuyt and KD POSSIBLY could have made. Im not saying its stone wall, but I find it inexplicable that an 8 game ban can be issued, and that Suarez (whether Evra says otherwise in the report or not) will be branded racist for the rest of his career based on the evidence at hand.
Bigoted. For Christ's sake man. My agenda against Suarez is based on the fact that I strongly believe he has resorted to racism to wind up a black man. I also believe he is lying to Dalglish and the club. We're not going to agree on it, it's a matter of opinion based on the likelihood of the stories offered. But be a man about it. Don't resort to empty, hysterical and frankly ridiculous accusations to somehow 'turn the tables' on me. It's so 'I know you are but what am I?'.
ReplyDeleteHi Mick. Superb post and lots of great points. Thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts; I'm sure the site's visitors will enjoy reading your take on the issue.
ReplyDeleteIf Suarez and his advisors aren't satisfied with the FA ruling, they should take the matter to court, where the FA would be forced to present undeniable proof. I doubt anything would come of it though as Suarez already admitted to the offence and his reasons are shaky at best. It's interesting to read some of the comments here. The animosity I see between posters can only be racially induced. This is not your regular L'Pool vs Man U forum - this is divided right down the middle between supporters of Suarez and supporters of Evra. We all love our clubs but come on people, we all know that it is VERY likely that Suarez abused Evra, yet not a single Suarez fan will admit it.
ReplyDeleteI like your points 7 & 8. Evra can do a lot to mitigate the racist label that is sure to follow Suarez for a while. I'd love to see them shake hands for the media, even wear a Suarez shirt (Sorry, it's just the pacifist in me :))
ReplyDeleteIf the rapist admitted it, told people, then changed his story and started blaming cultural misunderstandings, I think you would definatley expect him to be charged.
ReplyDeleteJJ the N word is probably the same word used last night. Shame on LFC for being sucha bad example. Now prepare to lose out on the best black players in the world....
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post Just a tip about those who don't live in countries that stream world cup online. You can use UnoTelly to remove the geoblock and stream World Cup 2014 in your country free worldcup.unotelly.com
ReplyDelete