1/01/2012 04:00:00 pm

FA REPORT: How Dalglish, Comolli + Kuyt CONTRADICTED Suarez's Evra story...

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





REMINDER: COMMENT POLICY

This is a site for reasoned, adult discussion. ALL views are welcome, and if someone's football-related opinion doesn't fit your pre-conceived notion of what constitutes an LFC 'fan', then tough luck. Posts containing personal insults, belittlement, sniping, deliberate antagonism, etc will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned. Attack the argument, not the person. Ultimately, it's simple: be as vehement and passionate as you like, but please remain civil at all times.Thank you.

312 Comments :

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 312   Newer›   Newest»
Ghnnk said...

If Evra had first called Saurez 'South American', as an insult (ie a remark meant to diminish his standing due to his origin) then Evra was the guilty party. 
Having seen the video of Evra in his Marseille days running through a hotel room shouting mother f....... n...... it would not be a big surprise.So as a response to a racist remark, the FA was unwise to convict Saurez. Saurez might be better considering taking the FA to court. 

Jaimie K said...

What Evra said first is a completely separate issue; I agree that Evra should be charged, but that doesn't mean that Suarez is innocent.  The facts remain the same.

Jevon Johnson said...

Page 382: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened."Thats the only one im shocked by.

R Hurts01 said...

lets hope dalglish and liverpool come out and apologise to evra for trying to drag his name through the mud and also their blind defence of suarez but i wont hold my breath but i would also like to thank him,comolli and kuyt for their evidence which TOTALLY contradicted what they were saying after the verdict.UTID

Gygelhein said...

He should be hanged from the nearest tree and made an example out of what happens when you might or might not have said something terrible! Do FUCK OF Jaime Kanwar 

Jaimie K said...

What's shocking about that? The evidence was assessed 'on the balance of probabilities' - this happens all the time in law. When the evidence is not slam-dunk, how else do you assess things? Suarez's evidence was filled with inconsistencies (i.e. Kuyt. KD and Comolli contradicting him).

Ronb1412004 said...

in fairness what he said is no worse then what evra said to him.

I really wish you would stop writing / "supporting" LFC. you have n common sense what so ever dont appeal the ban despite the fact that the player has reacted to a racial provocation. He doesnt come out covered in glory but 8 games are you serious???

Billcharles56 said...

I am a Liverpool fan but I am deeply ashamed by the way my club has behaved in this matter. We demand sympathy when we are wronged but look at the disgusting and pathetic way our club and players react when WE have done wrong.

Disgraceful.

Widey said...

The FA report proves Evra didn't say "South American" or any other equivalent. Suarez himself said he didn't hear it and video evidence showed Evra siad something about Suarez's sister's pussy!

Matt N said...

A misunderstanding between all concerned is not as unlikely as one would think as Suarez spoke to kuyt in Dutch, not Suarez native tongue, to kenny in English, suarez has a poor grasp of the language (as does kenny!) and to commoli in Spanish which is not commoli's first language. I think it is actually more likely that a misunderstanding could happen. Even then I don't consider what he is alleged to have said, 'I don't speak to blacks', as racist abuse. It certainly implies he has an issue because of his colour but it is not abuse in anyway and certainly doesn't warrant such a ban. If it did then what would the ban be for a genuine racist remark/term?

DavidBolt said...

I've read the report and I don't see where Liverpool or Suarez can find a basis for appeal. The cornerstone of Suarez's defence was based on the context of what he said, i.e. that it wasn't said in an abusive manner. As the commission have rejected context completely and did not investigate intent to abuse, deciding using the words constitutes insulting behaviour, that's that line of defence gone.

Probably the smart move now would be to take the ban on the chin and move on.

Ray Jobsz-Keegel said...

LOL- I think you have missed so much out here. 
1. the issue is statements made through translation, you cannot hang on every word, you have to asses the whole statement and its meaning. All have said that the reference was not a racial slur, but a move to calm Evra down, who from the start was being aggressive and chasing Suarez around. Shouting abuse, Suarez is not acused of creating the issues.
2. Evra was the one who made reference to Suarez's sister's £unt !  ( and i dont mean AUNT!) Makes him sound like a nice fella doesn't it? He also said "Go away South American" Fortunately Suarez did not hear him so cannot be accused of being angry. 
3. Suarez's case has always been :-he reacted to Evra and made reference to his colour in normal Uruguay parlance.
4. The Internationale interpreters appointed by the FA (from University of MANCHESTER!!!! )Stated that for it to be racist he would have to have added a slur, like you silly/skinny/fat/smelly  porque negro or something similar....this seems to have been missed by everyone?????
5. Evra changed his story from "ref he called me BLACK" to "ref he called me a Nigger?" Evra speaks Spanish very well and knows the difference in Spanish of Negro and Nigger
6. Evra claimed it was ten times and then changed it to 7?
therefore his evidence does vary also
7. Both the ref and Ryan Giggs who heard Evra's complaint said to him "get on with the game", Why didn't they (Ryan being of mixed race also) think it serious enough to stop the game and deal with it?
8. The ref Mr Mariner wrote up Mr Dowd's report and threw his (Mr Dowd's) original away....why??? Gross inefficiency on the part of the FA. OR did Mr Mariner think it was a storm in a T cup, as he had no intention of including it in his report until Evra came in with Mr Ferguson and made a complaint.

In short Evra was exposed and hung out to dry by Suarez during the game and tried to wind Suarez up, once he heard the word Negro he did his usual and cried like a Baby, he then unwittingly stated on French Tv and was put in the spotlight and then continued to over state the situation resulting in the current situation and back tracking by claiming he knows Suraez is NOT a racist.....how does he know that unless he knows he is lying???
One last think DeGea the United Keeper is fluent in Spanish, and was no more than 1 m away when this incident happened and he said he heard nothing!!!!!  Or did he and did not want to undermine his teammate, it is hard to beleive being so close and language of his mother tongue he heard nothing?? Yet the FA say he was concetrating on the game....give me a break! This is a stitch up....read all the transcript....I have!

Jevon Johnson said...

Oh yeah sure so the rapist probably did in fact rape 
her? bullshit man

Widey said...

The FA report proves Evra didn't say "South American" or any other equivalent. Suarez himself said he didn't hear it and video evidence showed Evra siad something about Suarez's sister's pussy!

Jason said...

Just goes to show trigger-happy Liverpool and some of its fans should have waited for the full report before playing the victim card. That statement by the club a few weeks, looks even more ridiculous and amateur-like now. 

Of course, some may still whinge and play the victim card again but I don't think the panel has played it wrong here in relation to Suarez.

Only person who alleges that Evra said 'South American' is Suarez, who went on to tell the other three. But considering the inconsistency of Suarez's actions and the knock-on effect on probability, its no surprise that Evra won't be charged. 

Jason said...

'
"We found that Mr Evra did not use the words 'South American' when speaking to Mr Suarez."'

Is what they the commission/panel said.

Kick Racism Out Of Football said...

LFC have probably set their international standing back 10 years... Financial you will be your own down fall.. For some people you might as well have stamped KKK on those Suarez T-Shirts... Do the right thing and help kick Racism Out Of Football..

Justice for the '1'... Evra... Justice for the 'Every1'  Kick Racism Out Of Football.

Jason said...

Out of curiosity, why should Evra be charged?

kofi said...

One player is not bigger or more importnat than the club, so the maxim goes; especially when this player has brought such bad publicity to the club?!

I am from an ethnic minority and have been abused on LFC main website because of my views on this subject by many posters. I have even had my account disabled by the administrators without explanation! Simply because I dared to question if 'one of our players' could have in fact have made racist comments!

I think the whole saga is bringing bad publicity to the club and not painting it in a very good light. For the club to have come out and unreservedly backed Suarez to the hilt without full knowledge of the evidence was unwise and perhaps insensitive. But still people refuse to accept these now detailed findings....does that say anything about their views?

Cgffhgf said...

You are incorrect. I studied law for 2 years and one of the key basic principles is you must be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The other statements while slightly contradictory, still shouldnt be decided as meant in a definately racist way. It was more of a response stating the parrallel fact to what evra said. The fact he has been punished on this is ridiculous and if they take it to higher authorities than the fa then it will be thrown out due to insufficient evidence. In the eyes of the law there would be considered to be a lot of doubt over this.
Its all a matter of the fa wanting to make a statement about racism using the first case to come up.

Jaimie K said...

Rule E3, with the sub-heading "General Behaviour", states:

"(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.

(2) In the event of any breach of Rule E3(1) including a reference to any one or
more of a person's ethnic origin, colour, race, nationality, faith, gender, sexual
orientation or disability

-----------

If Evra made a reference to Suarez's nationality (i.e. South American) in an adversarial context then he is open to a charge for the same reasons as Suarez.

Tw said...

Dont read what Jamie writes as he is allegedly a racist!

Jaimie K said...

That's what they 'found' - they don't know he didn't say that as fact. It's Suarez's word against Evra's. If some corroborating evidence arose then Evra would be liable for a charge. I doubt that will happen but you never know.

Tim said...

Jaimie: The report states that they found that Evra did not make that comment though.

Vg said...

Beyond reasonable doubt is used in the courts Not probability!  it would be thrown out of court

Jaimie K said...

No, I am not incorrect; YOU are incorrect. The FA report even states that it used the 'balance of probabilities. Section 76 states:

"The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of
probability"

Beyond all reasonable doubt is a criminal standard of proof, not civil.

CJ said...

Beyond reasonable doubt not on the balance of probabilities, isnt that how people are found guilty ?

Tim said...

The "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" standard only applies to a criminal trail. This was a civil case.

Jared said...

3-2

Kick Racism Out Of Football said...

beyond reasonable doubt is used in a criminal court. The civil courts use probability.  I don't think the FA has ever considered a case on the premise of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.   

Adamplatt said...

So you have a Frenchman speaking mainland Spanish, a Dutchman speaking in his native language, and a Scotsman trying to decipher something from an alleged conversation between a Uruguayan to a Frenchman in Spanish on a football pitch during a match. I would state 100% there would be inconsistencies, translation errors, misunderstandings and obvious problems in working out what was said and how it was intended.
The bottom line is that United with help from their influential friends and fellow board members on the FA presented a more professional consistent case to the panel than LFC did. It has very little to do with who is right or wrong but purely based on who presented the best argument.

Cgjfggh said...

That shows how little you know. Balance of probabilities would only be used in very specific legal cases or in punitive systems like the fa who want to be able to make decisions based on what they want, not neccesarily what is correct. Accusations against someones character based on public order offences (what terry was charged with) are criminal charges therefore if it goes to a court of law you would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt

Jaimie K said...

Are you blind? I repeat:

Section 76 in the FA Report under the heading 'Standard of Proof' states:

"The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of
probability"


The FA used Balance of Probabilities when assessing the evidence. End of story.

RedRedMan said...

this does not happen all the time in uk law, it is beyond reasonable doubt not balance of probabilities the FA are wrong. LFC should take them to a proper court not a tribunal and make them prove beyond reasonable doubt

RedRedMan said...

JK you are incorrect

comebackRafa said...

I agree Man Utd were represented by numerous players all briefed on what to say,with Giggs leading the charge which is a joke just ask his brother.Its gets me that man utd know how to present their cases in a professional manner,why didnt Gerrard or Carra go and stick up for Suarez they never seem to get involved in anything even when the Americans were in they never once criticised H and g it was always left to rafas signings in Kuyt Reina and Lucas to speak their mind.Maybe the panel were dazzled by Man Utds array of stars who turned up in support for Evra same as referees i suppose.Anyway people want to get off suarezs back probability means believing one over another by 51% to 49% doesnt mean Suarez is guilty if anyones guilty its this panel.The way this country has portrayed Suarez to be a cross between Harold Shipman and "Ol Plum Nose" is a disgrace.

Jaimie K said...

*sigh* 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is used in criminal cases:

"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of evidence required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems (such as the United Kingdom and the United States)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt

The FA is not wrong.

"The Civil standard is 'the balance of probabilities', often referred to in judgments as "more likely than not" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Ghhggfhj said...

No im not blind you epic idiot.
I quite clearly didnt dispute this is what thry used. I clearly am questioning the validity of this method in what is effectively a criminal matter based on 1: what i know from being educated in both civil and criminal law and 2: what john terry was charged with.

You quite clearly have issues if you dont realise that the fa have judged this case in an invalid format based on the principles that this is someones life, reputation and livelyhood that they are playing with based on what effectively is a hunch that evra is telling the truth.

jj said...

He insulted Suarez's sister which would be classed as indecent and abusive wouldn't you say?

jj said...

Evra used abusive and indecent comments which is not allowed under FA Rules!

Widey said...

Agreed. The sad fact is that both the Liverpool management and the players KNEW that a racial element was involved...Comolli and Kuyt both said so. Despite that the club still came out claiming Evra was a liar and sought to defend Suarez unreservedly.
What started as an incident between two players has tarnished the whole club's image and the image of the fans round the world.

Jaimie K said...

I'm sorry, but you are still wrong. The Suarez-Evra case is essentially a civil matter; it is not 'essentially a criminal matter'. it has nothing to do with the John Terry case - he has been charged with a criminal offence, therefore a different burden of proof will apply.

Balance of probabilities is the standard for civil cases in the UK; beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard fr criminal cases.

Additionally, the FA has not convicted Suarez on a 'hunch' - he admitted using the word 'Negro', and as the report states, an objective test was used to assess the meaning of that word. In other words - as the report states again - it was a strict liability issue.

lloyd said...

If i were you i would go back and finish the course before opening yourself up to ridicule. I work with a barrister and she has stated they could only do it on the lesser balance of probabilities given no ones liberty was at stake threfore proof only needed lesser proof. She has also said whoever has drafted this document has done knowing that any appeal would likely fail (she is not a football fan in way shape of form). In her words it is so tight it squeaks when you open it. She has also said in would not be in LFC interest to appeal as Suarez was condemed by his own words and in doing so dragged the LFC employees into it.

Widey said...

The video evidence corroborated Evra's side of the story.

lloyd said...

Jamie I work with load of Solicitors and barristers and you are indeed correct in reponse to Cgjfhhh a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...especially when they know so little.

Simon said...

Evra did admit to starting the confrontation on the goal line with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana", the experts have explained that the literal translation is "your sister's c**t" or "your sister's p***y", but in the context it probably meant "f**king hell" or "f**k me" or if directed at someone "[you] son of a bitch"

The commission clearly accept this and it is one of the reasons why Suarez only got 8 match ban

Evra certainly breaches E3 (1) with this remark, but similar things must be said dozen of times every match

Physicalguy2001 said...

Suarez spoke to Kuyt in Dutch, that is not Suarez's first language- so a misunderstanding is likely, Suarez spoke to Comolli who is French in Spanish-misunderstanding is likely, he spoke to Kenny in English- a misunderstanding is likely. Law of probability? Give me a break, you can't just tarnish someone's image based on that. What about the fact that Suarez was a team captain of multi ethnic Ajax team, plays in a multi ethnic Uruguay team, has a black grand father(apparently) ...aren't things like this not included in the law of probability??? If there was evidence that Suarez racially abused Evra, then there would have been no noise from Liverpool and Suarez, there is no evidence even after 115pages of the FA's report. Fairness is important in life, and i think the FA should be fair in cases like this, if they want to be trusted, otherwise people like me will just equate their panels to a Kangaroo court. Liverpool had the right to support Suarez based on what he told them, how many times have we heard of families supporting their murderous relatives because they know them better only to find that they are indeed murderers???
I wouldn't be surprised if Suarez decides to appeal this, it is between him and the FA, not between Liverpool and the FA, like most people seem to think!! I believe Liverpool will try and advise him as much as they can, but at the end of the day it is his life and his career.
Disclaimer: I am not a native English speaker,so misunderstanding is highly likely!!!

RedRedMan said...

you are quoting wiki jk get real. I hope the club appeal and withdraw from the FA Cup. The FA is an outdated organisation that should be disbanded. Football should be run by Premier League not faceless old men with no experiance of the game (Brooking excepted). The sooner the major clubs in Europe beakaway and form a European League the better. The FA are a disgrace from the admin of the game to the debt they incurred in the new wembley.

RedRedMan said...

I hope they dont apologise what have they got to apologise for Evra was guilty

jj said...

As a club we need to understand there are groups in football with their own agenda racist and anti-racist we have to accept football is exploited by these groups on both sides, football is played by every race,colour and creed but is consistently painted in a bad light because it is so popular.
We will have to accept Suarez's ban and move on and get Suarez playing again and hopefully this will be a lesson learnt to footballers and fans that the game is a target of hate groups.

guest said...

Really!! Why? Do you think international people can't read and they can't make their mind on whether there was really any case here! International people might think differently to the British, you see, not all countries have racist past like the UK does. I think the FA have set their standing back as well, i suppose it proves how they can't be trusted! We all want racism to be kicked out of football, progress is being made, but if the FA are going to try to teach someone a lesson without eveidence, they are setting us back. Punish people when there is evidence, not from hearsay.

BarryYates said...

you keep spouting bull crap !! Please list your sources ?? 

3PhDs said...

NEGRO is not a racist word. The United States Census Bureau announced that "Negro" would be included on the 2010 United States Census alongside "Black" and "African-American" - does that mean the US government promotes and condones racism?
 
The trouble here is the judgement has been made by 3 individuals who probably have never experienced a second of true racism in their lives. They are a joke and disgrace to the United Kingdom.
 
THE FA OF ENGLAND IS THE RACIST PARTY HERE, NOT LUIS SUAREZ!

BarryYates said...

'The panel was dazzled by the array of stars who turned up' - Of course they would be. Who would be impressed by washed up stars (Carra, Stevie me) at Pool. But you know what had Rafa been there, he WOULD have stood up to Sir Alex. He would have dug out the FACTS and made a statement.

BarryYates said...

BTW , whose an unreliable witness now? eh ??

Simon said...

Jaimie, you seem to have read the entire report, as did I for hours last night, breaking briefly for 12 second countdown for New Years

I doubt many of the other posters here have read all 115 pages

It is quite compelling that Evra has solid grounds for his complaint, I wish that this wasn't the case

It has been found that Suarez, even if initially provoked by Evra's vile comment "Concha de tu hermana" and physical confrontation, has overstepped the mark with his attempts at "sledging" by using the word "Negro" multiple times

Liverpool had better step carefully here, can't see this being appealed....

It is a blessing that Suarez's pinching action has not been viewed as a racially motivated act.........

Simon said...

Barry, read the report at http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/Disciplinary/NewsAndFeatures/2011/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/Disciplinary/Written%20reasons/FA%20v%20Suarez%20Written%20Reasons%20of%20Regulatory%20Commission.ashx

Paragraph 178

178. Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez,
beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal
translation is "your sister's cunt" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing
anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "cunt". It is thus
equivalent to "fucking hell" or "fuck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be
understood as "[you] son of a bitch".

Sampson said...

Jamie, do you know if LFC had the right to contest or have removed and replaced any member of the people who sat on the panel ? If so, what section of the rules does it come under ?

jj said...

We should take it to court then the film studios it would make a great CARRY ON FILM with all the different accounts,different languages and foriegn induendos.   

jj said...

It's the game of football that brings fans and players of different cultures together and has done for nearly a 100 years.

Widey said...

Indeed. There are a lot of people still claiming it's one man's word against another, but as the article shows...it's actually the word of Evra backed up by Comolli and Kuyt and even admitted and acepted by Suarez! It's very strange how Liverpool allowed themselves to get in this situation...but that's the situation they're in.

R Hurts01 said...

they need to apologise for saying the FA came to their verdict just on the say of one man (evra) and then went on to say he has played the race card before which is false because the incident involving the chelsea groundsman evra said he didnt hear any racial remarks mick phelan and another member of staff reported it

R Hurts01 said...

nnnnnn nineteen

Jaimie K said...

Hi Simon - Yes, I read the whole 115 pages. It was really interesting reading. I agree re Evra - I was reading it hoping that Evra wouldn't have such clear-cut grounds for complaint, but that wasn't the case.

The whole 'pinching to defuse the situation' defence was a joke; based on what happened on the pitch, I can't see how the FA could've come to any other conclusion that the pinching was an antagonistic act.

I also agree about the appeal - I personally can't see any credible grounds.

Jaimie K said...

If Liverpool had not made such a pig's ear of the initial response then I could see them appealing, but the club's credibility is in the toilet right now, so an appeal would just sully the club's name even more.

R Hurts01 said...

what is it liverpool fans blind support of a man who used a word about another mans race/colour to antagonise him,for those who say didnt watch evras reaction and suarez repeated the word/phrase several times and at no point did anybody say suarez is RACIST.

Tim said...

He used the phrase "Concha de tu hermana - Porque me diste un golpe". It translates literally to "your sister's c**t" and is the equivalent of a phrase like "Son of a bitch/f**king hell - why did you kick me?". It's worth noting it is a common profanity that is not taken literally (as with the English equivalents) and that Suarez does not in fact have a sister.

Rovertiger said...

What people seem to forget is the way the phrases saurez used were implied. It's clear for all to see the anger & aggressive manner saurez used when he racially abused evra. If you were to call someone a little bit chubby, this may be deemed acceptable, if you were to call someone an f in fat cxxt, the phrase takes on an aggressive nature. The sooner people accept this the better. Saurez will bring more shame on the club and will end up in more trouble by the end of next season. He has already shown is fiery temper with previous clubs.

Bhoff23 said...

im totally confused, its all just pointless petty shi# started by a trouble maker on an easy target. simple. STICKS AND STONES..................you know the rest.
who cares. he did not call him a black cun# with plenty of witnesses, and a man who knows exactly wat it means and how it comes accross in our country.
also........if rio ferdinand made the aqusations id be more inclined to believe most of it, but evera, say no more. bad penny who happens to be black unfortunatly. shame on the fa, its pathetic.

Tim said...

The evidence is there - it is the testimony from Evra, Suarez, Kuyt, Comolli and the referee (as well as other officials and players) along with the video evidence. The fact is Evra's claims were backed up by Suarez's admission of using the word 'negro' and the statements given by Kyut and Comolli. The "hearsay" has mostly come form people commenting on articles such as this one. For weeks we had people going on about the intricacies of the words 'negrito' and 'sudaca' - all of that was based on rumour and heresay, the people on the panel had evidence that we were not privy to - that is not to say it does not exist. It is nothing short of a conspiracy theory to suggest otherwise.

Tim said...

"It has very little to do with who is right or wrong but purely based on who presented the best argument"

Yes definately... Except for the bit where Suarez admitted using a word he should not have and Kuyt and Comolli's statements backed up Evra's version of events. Other than that, yeah it was all the FA taking United's side again, just like when they banned Rooney for swearing and banned Evra for an after-match behind closed doors fracas.

Widey said...

Correct. Comolli, Kuyt and even Suarez corroborated Evra's story. Open and shut case.
It's this that makes the way Daglish behaved all the more baffling. He continuously tried to insinuate that Evra was lying...when from the report it's clear that the club knew a racial element was involved from the very beginning...Comolli and Kuyt were interviewd after the game.
Now Dalglish may have believed Suarez that he wasn't racist, but it must have been obvious that there was at least a possibility that Evra could have been offended. Where was the apology?
The all out attack, followed by the T-Shirt fiasco and the statement made after the ban all look incredibly ill advised at this point. They could have taken the cultural misunderstanding line coupled with an apology...instead it now looks like a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth and a full on smear campaign.
I don't think this well end well for Liverpool FC.

Widey said...

Unfortunately Comolli, Kuyt and Suarez all backed up Evra's claims.

Not got a leg to stand on, as the old legal saying goes.

comebackRafa said...

I think Suarez was angry at Evra due to the fact Evra was making an issue out of his colour.Suarez has a black grandfather and is of mixed race and I think he heard evra whinging to the ref have you booked me cause im black.This I think has incensed Suarez who is a proud man proud of his roots proud of his grandfad and proud of his mixed race.I think Suarez is someone whose been brought up to accept people for who they are and when he hears Evra bringing his colour into it he sees Evra as someone who is embarressed and paranoid of his colour so Suarez starts saying a few words which you would of got in a junior school playground a few years ago to show Evra how pathetic he is being,Suarez is merely trying to make a point to Evra look stop being so pathetic and be proud of what you are.Unfortunately I think because we are in england Suarez has been told to change his story to try and get off the charge because if he admitted the truth even though there was no malice intended the FA would still say he shouldnt have said that even though he was actually trying to help Evra in a way by saying what he said over and over again like i said what you would of got in a junior school playground,same as fatty or specky 4 eyes.Suarez has responded to Evras insecurity by saying what he said because he was angry Evra was using his colour and Suarez thinks its wrong for that to happen,he actually was very angry as hes proud of his black grandfather and he wants all black people to be strong and not be ashamed or paranoid or trying to get off things by using their colour.

Widey said...

Ha Ha. Good stuff. Very inventive.

Got him bang to rights in the real world.

Jmay said...

Suarez should have called Evra a c*nt and not been racist.

Daibhí Hendrick said...

No it didn't. The video evidence didn't show anything to back up Evra's side of things.

Chris Bertram said...

KD and others who have backed Suarez here are going to start reflecting on the fact that they went out on a limb for someone who probably lied to them. That doesn't augur well for future relations.

Daibhí Hendrick said...

Evra admitted it. Read the report and you'll see it.

Daibhí Hendrick said...

No, the report states that they accept Evra made the comment but did not mean it in the literal sense. 

Daibhí Hendrick said...

Hi Jamie,

When reading the report did you get a feeling that this was a revised edition of the report which had been re-written in the wake of the statement made by LFC after the verdict? It seemed to place a lot of emphasis on certain things that were question by LFC in their statement.

I found it odd that there seem to have been a number of omissions made with this report. No mention that they had the tapes studied by experts who found no evidence of Suarez making racist comments.

I also found it strange that they continually stated Evra was credible despite the fact that they dismissed his claims about what Kuyt said to him when he was lying on the ground after Suarez fouled him. Not to mention the fact that he claimed not to have fully understood what the words he used to Suarez actually meant, or that he changed his story with regards to what Suarez said and how many times he said it.

Widey said...

Respect for having an open mind. I think everyone is shocked at the evidence. Not so much of racism/racist abuse...but the fact that it was obvious that some form of racial dispute had taken place and that the management and players were seemingly aware of it..judging by Kuyt's and Comolli's statements. It makes Dalglish's comments about how Evra should be punished if he was lying seem very strange, because he must already have known that there was some cause for concern...even if it was down to cultural misunderstandings.
From a PR point of view the case has been handled about as badly as possible from a Liverpool POV. It's tarnished the whole club.

ghost said...

clutching at straws sums this post up

Widey said...

Most of the things you've mentioned are just things that people have said on internet sites. Evra is pretty clear in what he says was said...and both the the Liverpool playing staff and the management appear to corroborate his story.
It's hard to say someone is not credible when the supposed opposition is agreeing with him!!!

Tony said...

So what if you're from an ethnic minority...who cares. What difference does that make to Suarez's situation ? If you are suggesting that he must be guilty because you're from an ethnic minority then you deserve all you get from the club. 

Ashbourne said...

Jaime- can you stop sitting on the fence please.  Cut out the vagueness and get to the point, what's your view on Suarez now that we have the report which establishes he made offensive comments towards Evra's skin colour.  

Tl21 said...

Jamie, is this your idea of an apology for previous blogs attacking man utd n Evra etc?

Ashbourne said...

Oh how ignorance is demonstrated by our fans again.   I suggest you read the FA report before you answer such questions.  Clearly you haven't. 

ghost said...

83 of the report concerns the Kuyt-Evra situation. At the end of the day, its one man's word against another. Not much the FA can do about that and nor does it effectively or conclusively brings enough doubt upon Evra in this debacle.

C Lodziak said...

Innocent until proven guilty. Too much misunderstanding on this one for there to be a guilty verdict.

Jaimie K said...

Definitely not. Hell will freeze over before I apologise for being critical of Man United :-)

Allenagnew said...

As a United fan I will throw my two pennies worth into the Lions den of a Liverpool blog. Do I think that Suarez is a racist? No. Could Evra have handled things better? probably (with a little help from Liverpool). Did Liverpool make a complete pigs ear of handling the situation, in my opinion, definately.
Despite all the arguments defending Luiz Suarez, its clear that he used language that he would be better off not using. But in the heat of a Liverpool - United game were passions are running high and for ninety mins common sense can fly out the window, these things do get spoken sometimes. Saying them does not make you a bona fide racist.
The whole case about no insulting intent was meant due to a cultural misunderstanding of the terms seems to me to be proposterous given the context of when the comments were made. At the very least he was trying to wind Evra up.
Where I think Suarez and Liverpool fell down was not realising what was done, apologising, and holding out an olive branch to Evra, who I hope would have been big enough to accept it, then both could move on.
I dont know for sure if Liverpool did not try this of the record or not, but I can remamber Alex Ferguson saying a day or two after it, that the club had spoken to Evra about the situation and that he felt the same way. This would indicate to me that United left the decision up to the player, and once he made up his mind they backed him.
I know nothing about what lines of communication had been opened up between the two clubs and different bodies like the PFA, so I will not comment about it. But after the charges were made by the FA, Liverpool, in my opinion, made a bad situation ten times worse, both for themselves, and the player. The statement they released blamed every body else apart from Suarez himself. Lets not forget, it was Evra who was abused here and who was the victim. Was Suarez responding to a name call by Evra? he might have been. But there in lies the sadness of the situation. People say things during a football match that they would never say in normal life. This should have been realised by both parties and a line drawn under it, and Liverpool should have tried thier hardest to make it so.
Suarez is a fantastic player and I genuinely hope that this does not destroy his place in English football. But I dont think Liverpool FC have helped him by the stance that they have taken, thats my two pennies worth.  

Ashbourne said...

The FA's report is out and it was found clearly that Suarez made offensive comments towards Evra's skin colour.  He's guilty.  The bigger and more important question which LFC fans dare not to answer is what do we think of Suarez now?  

Bhoff23 said...

so the honest fa say eh???
evra had 2 inconsistancys in his well rehersed play.
just how important are these 2 things?
dont believe everything you read and look whos wrote it

John said...

Jaimie kunt lol fuck off u manc twat

Jaimie K said...

It hasn't been established as an irrefutable fact that Suarez made 'offensive comments towards Evra's skin colour'. He definitely made a reference to skin colour, but whether it was *deliberately* offensive has not been proved.

* It is Suarez's word against Evra's

* On the balance of probabilities it looks like Suarez made a racially motivated comment, but there's no way to know for sure.

* It's perfectly possibly that Suarez may have only said 'Por que negro' in a non-offensive manner.

* It's also possibly that Evra lied and deliberately exaggerated the issue.

* Conversely, it's possibly Suarez is indeed racist.

What is certain is this: Suarez used the word 'Negro' and made a reference to Evra's skin colour. For me, that IS worth an 8 match ban because in Europe, using the word Negro in an adversarial context is inarguably negative.

We're not in South America, so the 'cultural differences' argument doesn't cut it.

I don't believe that Suarez is racist, but he is stupid, and he deserves the ban. We can't have a situation where it's acceptable to use the word 'negro' in any negative context.

So, in short: Suarez is guilty of stupidity and and deserves an 8 match ban for being culturally ignorant.

Widey said...

Yep. It's impossible to understand the Liverpool position in this after reading the report.

They were aware that some reference to race had been used...as this article shows.

The cultural misunderstanding thing may have alleviated things...IF accompanied by an immediate apology. Something like "Liverpool FC don't condone racism of any kind, and Luis Suarez, being mixed heritage himself, is equally against racism. We believe Evra may have incorrectly interpreted a word used in an Urugyuan sense, and apologise for any offence caused. We will be happy to work with United, the PFA, the FA and anyone else to clear up this matter".

But instead they went on the full offensive and tried to insinuate that Evra was playing the race card. That seemed shocking at the time, but in relation to what we've now seen...thoroughly indefensible.

Ashbourne said...

Heat of the moment equates to one moment, Suarez made racial references to Evra on a couple of occasions.  

READ THE BLOODY REPORT!

Stat said...

'how many times he said it'

figure of speech is one possible and legit excuse

Bhoff23 said...

has evra not been found to be abusive towards suarez??
broken the fa law?? wats the difference between verbal abuse and racism? is it the same thing?
seems to me one outweighs the other.
id be more offended if someone said something not nice about my sister say than i would if they said something about my skin, which is olive in summer (lucky me)
it all just contredicts itself, regardless wat kuyt,comolli said.
evra just a trouble making grass, sorry.

Bhoff23 said...

its even more clearer the fa are on utds side.
dodgy gits

bjjh said...

Jaime.

You are a very ignorant person. I can't believe that you type *sigh* just before you 'correct' people using Wiki as a source. As an academic, I continuously advise my students that if one is to argue a point using Wiki as a 'source', their credibility is immediately blown. I should not need to explain why this is, any attempt to argue with this point would only further compound your lack of credentials as an authority of any kind.

Your ignorance displays why journalism is dead, a journalist would understand why this is the case (and must be). Furthermore, your arrogance towards posters to your site, whilst making such juvenile conclusions such as those I read in your article, only serve to further discredit the credentials and merits of 'the blogger' as ever being a viable 'news' contributor of any merit. You are not qualified in legal matters, nor are you a journalist (clearly) - If you ever ask people for their 'sources' (as you likely do, I know your type) then that is even more laughable, seeing as how you clearly do not know what constitutes a proper 'source' in the first place.

*Sigh* (annoying, isn't it).

Kingkong said...

I wonder why the Liverpool witness had different version of the stories. They should have practiced the story consistent with each other before the FA. I mean, look at the Manc's team, they had practiced the script and that's why they won...being consistent. I'm ashamed that the club didn't do its homework before the FA. It's as if LFC were too confident that they will win the case. And for that they deserved to be punished - for being over-confident.

Ashbourne said...

Jaimie you're not stupid, read between the lines the FA did not want to go down the road of branding Suarez a racist, it can become quite a lengthy and costly legal exercise.  Therefore, they left it there.  

Suarez is a PROFESSIONAL footballer, playing for a football club which clearly sets out in their values that they do not tolerate racism of any SHAPE OR SIZE.  Yet Suarez uses words which I assure you (and i have checked with my black friends) many black people would be offended by. 

As a PROFESSIONAL footballer there is no reason to refer to another player's skin colour whilst on the pitch. Why would you want to??? 

Suarez's story under questioning fell apart, FA stating that Suarez's account was unreliable, in other words mean he was lying.  

Bhoff23 said...

wat punishment for evras comments?? funny how the fa always make there clamp downs in liverpool vs utd games at liverpools expense, ie respect the referee bull, mascherano runs 20-30 yards to disagree a dodgy decision then gets shown a straight red, for wat? united carried on doing it that season and still do it now. its one rule for one blah blah blah.
now its the racist clamp down, not abuse clamp down, say wat you like but dont mention colour of my skin.
its all so obvious the dodgy fa favour united in most things, even fixtures etc etc.some you united supporters on here are no better than evra, your just after trouble. like evra was in that game.

Kick Racism Out Of Football said...

Sorry Guest you make absolutely no sense... Get rational...

Allenagnew said...

You fail to grasp my point, perhaps the term
" in the heat of the moment" was a bit misleading. Ive heard people use foul language multiple times in a short space of time, when ninety mine percent of the time they never use foul language. Having played football myself, I can testify of the fact that people can and do say the most offensive of things in the heat of a football match. Im not condoning what he said, just trying to be balanced. This is the real world, not some kind of Utopia, things get said and done that are wrong. Punish who needs to be punished, address the problems that caused it, learn from it and move on.

Ano said...

 i believe h suarez racism is supported by his manager check his transfer record . my comments on dalgleish could go on and on bottler

Bhoff23 said...

wind evra up?? wat game were you watching??
evra set out to get suarez in trouble, either sent off or get a reaction. how can you totally defend a man like evra?
evra couldnt live with suarez so resorted to winding him up and trying to cheat.
try watching the game again, try sitting on the fence and watch

Anon said...

i hope u do pull out loser u're second rate and managed by a racist

Gary said...

so why is he banned?

Allenagnew said...

Dont agree with every thing you just said there but it you are on the right lines in the way that Liverpool should have handled it. If hes not a racist, but he used racist language then apologise for it and promise that it will never happen again. I think people are more sympathetic if you admit to your mistakes and try to learn from them. Its when you try to justify yourself when you are wrong that it ends up rubbing people the wrong way. I think the fact that Suarez is such a good player has clouded Liverpools judgement in this case.

Gary said...

dont disagree with Jaime, he just deletes your comments and corrects his original story lol.

Allenagnew said...

I never said "in the heat of the moment" I said " in the heat of a Liverpool- United game"

Allenagnew said...

If you think that he is not racist but made a mistake and is sorry then forgive him and move on. But if you think that he is racist and is not sorry then thats a different story all together. A lot would depend on how you view racism. Most clubs have players on the books that ask a moral question of the fans in some way or another. Lets be honest about it, what goes on at football clubs at times is not the best barometer to use when measuring morality in society.

jj said...

Evra contadicts himself.

Mr Giggs said to Mr Evra "what's happened?". Mr Evra replied "he called
me black".
After the game.

Sir Alex said that as he was
speaking to David De Gea, Mr Evra approached him. He said"Boss, Suarez called
me a nigger."
Refs report.

According
to Mr Evra,
the referee said to him "Oh, that is why you were talking about being called
black",
referring back to what Mr Evra had said to the referee on the pitch. Mr Evra
said"Yes."

According to the
experts, the Spanish word "negro" cannot simply be translated as "nigger".


What was it you were
called Evra if you were called the N word why say to the ref he called you Black
but to Fergie you say you were called a N word why change
words?

Anon said...

top man i think your club especially your manager have been blinkered or even blindfolded in their support of a racist bully  his actions after the referees words proves the bully. he's being supported by a manager who has got a questionable history on his transfers of coloured nationals . he'll never be a solution to liverpool's drought he walks away to easily. p.s i think he's an effing racist cos only coloured footballers he's bought are internationally capped english footballers

tissen said...

Every comment in here are from Manu fans

comebackRafa said...

I think the FA now have siai if  someone annoys you on the field dont say anything or you get an 8 match ban,instead when a fify-fifty ball comes along just break the guys kneecap who has annoyed you and while he writhing around in agony we will allow you to spit in his face,but be warned you will get a 3 match ban for this quite acceptable behaviour compared to words what you used to hear in a primary school playground.The FA will look kindly to the physical assault and the spitting,but woe be tied anyone who dares to utter any mutterings.

Anon said...

there's a sensible scouse argue with eufa u only won european cup by losing everything else . and another year passes you by come on chelsea . oh and dalgleish retires again! sad racist t!£t that he is.

Digidocguides said...

Absolute nonsense. Suarez's version of events NEVER changed. He always stated that he said negro once, in a non-offensive way. The unreliable'ness related to second, third and fourth hand information, based on the testimony from Kuyt, Comoli, Dalglish and Marriner. I find it ridiculous that people accept the findings in the report as fact when they're obviously biased and the report's sole purpose is to justify their decision. So it needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. If they're going to use Kuyt's testimony against Suarez, then why do they not also accept Kuyt's testimony that Evra said to the referee 'you're only booking me because I am black'? Kuyt said he was absolutely certain that he heard this, but the committee decided not to accept this testimony.

Also, Evra said that he was unaware that the word negro meant black, he tought it meant n*gger. Are we expected to believe this when he also admitted to knowing and using a very specific cultural phrase called 'your sisters c*nt'. Surely he would know the spanish word for black, in that case, with that level of fluency in Spanish? Even Dalglish testified that he knew what the word negro meant in his 'restaurant Spanish'. Therefore it is VERY unreliable for Evra to claim not to know what the word negro translates to. So the rest of his evidence can, and should, be called into question too.

The whole report seems to accept all of the testimonies from those on Evra's side, whereas they accept none of the testimonies from Liverpool's side, unless it assists Evra's case. An example is when Commoli said the phrase 'more than 10 times' that Evra used on Canal TV was not a common phrase used in France. Surely they should take further advice on this rather than accepting Evra's version of events? It smacks of hearing what you want to hear and I find it disgraceful. There is absolutely no evidence to support Evra's case, other than his own word.

Another point is why did they use language experts from Manchester? There's nothing to suggest that they were not impartial but surely they could have found experts from another city?? Just a thought!!

Tim said...

Hmm, yes. Except that they found that only Dirk Kuyt claimed that Evra said that referee was booking him "because he was black". The referee said that did not happen. This was after Suarez - by his own admision - had called him 'negro'.

Try reading the report (paragraphs 104-116) before making up such brown-nosing apologist tripe.

Digidocguides said...

Did you read the report? It doesn't sound like you have. How is it an open and shut case? All Kuyt and Commoli said was that Suarez said 'because you are black' - nothing else. If you read the report you would see that this could easily be lost in translation. The independent translator actually got the same phrase lost in translation during the hearings. The translator made the exact same mistake as Kuyt and Commoli. This is fact. If a professional translator got it lost in translation then it would be perfectly plausible for other non-professional individuals to make the same mistake when discussing the same phrase. Both Kuyt and Commoli admitted to the committee that they may have translated incorrectly and the correct translation should have been 'Why Black?'. The independent language experts acknowleged that the phrase 'Why Black' would not be considered offensive in this use.

Hardly open and shut then is it?

Anon said...

liverpool and redredman have tried to use the british judicial system to support a bully of south american origon' while forgetting the fact they are managed by a racist! well can anybody name any coloured national other than an all ready capped english player?

Tim said...

Yes, innocent until proven guilty... which is what has happened. ]

Paragraph 104: "Mr Suarez said that he turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?""

There's his admission of using a word that is not permitted under FA rules. Even if you completely disregard everything else in the report, you cannot put that confession down to a misunderstanding.

Malahide Mojo said...

Evra:
- was the main aggressor in this altercation.  This incident would not have happened without his repeatedly aggressive and arrogant behaviour
- used insulting and derogatory language in addressing Suarez (your sister's c**t etc)
- lied about the number of times he was apparently called 'negro'
- either lied or was mistaken in believing he was being called a 'n***er' rather than 'black'
- may also have instigated the situation by referring to Suarez's nationality / origins in a derogatory way

Suarez:
- admittedly was guilty of at best gross stupidity or at worst low level racism by referring to Evra's skin colour
- definitely deserves a ban but not an 8 game ban IMO 

(I am summarising LS's transgressions here because they are outlined very well in the FA's report.  On balance, LS is more sinner here than sinned against)

However, what do the FA do - throw the book at Suarez and let Evra play the innocent victim.  There is very little justice here.  Feels more like vengeance than justice

A fairer result may have been a 4 game ban for LS and a 2 game ban for PE

Digidocguides said...

Why were you reading it hoping that Evra wouldn't have such clear cut grounds for complaint? Surely you expected it to justify their decision to ban Suarez? After all, it took over a week to write up the report, so it was obviously checked by appropriate legal depts to give Suarez/LFC as little flex as possible with an appeal. It was only going to be written in one way. You need to read between the lines to get an impartial view.

Have another read, but do so from a perspective of questionning their decision and you will see some strange comments. For example, the expert advice from the language experts seemed pretty impartial to me. Yet towards the end of the document, the committee actually used a different part of the expert's report to put a negative slant on Suarez's use of the word 'negro'. This is suspicious to say the least. The experts were pretty clear on the fact that Suarez's version of the use of the word was not offensive.

Also, take notice of how many times they say they take into account various things (such as Suarez's reputation, his good work on racial matters, his mixed heritage etc), but they don't say how they took it into account. It was just words on paper - it seemed to play no part at all in the outcome.

It also seemed strange to me how much they tried to make out that Suarez was not racist. This just implied that they were leaving as little room possible for LFC/Suarez to appeal the decision. If Suarez had said what Evra proposed he said, then it IS racist. So is it just to make their case as watertight as possible?? It certainly makes me wonder.

Whatever the truth, I think it's important to remember that this document is a highly subjective report and not fact. It's ass covering and should not be taken as an impartial report. I'm not saying that the individuals weren't impartial, but the report justifying their decision is definitely not!

One final point is why did Marriner destroy crucial evidence? Marriner seems to be the most unreliable witness in all of this. He heard nothing and destroyed crucial evidence. An absolute waste of space!

Tim said...

Mascherano got a second yellow because he was in the ref's face all match. It was not a straight red card. Off the top of my head Wayne Rooney was carded for dissent a few months later against Newcastle and Rio Ferdinand got booked for dissent just two weeks ago at QPR, so bang goes that theory.

The rest of your post is just blinkered nonsense. We have a "Kick Out Racism" campaign in English football. Suarez could have said whatever he liked to Evra to wind him up, but colour should not come into it. It's due to a mixture of his own stupidity and ignorance and the way Liverpool have handled him (surely they could have made him aware of the consequences of using such language) and the situation that he is now banned for 8 matches. All they had to do was say they would deal with the player, were opposed to the use of racist language in football and apologise and you'd probably have gotten a warning and a slap on the wrist fine. Instead, blame it on someone else, accept no guilt and accuse the other party of being a trouble maker (whislt making false accusations of him with regards "past form") and you suffer the (obvious) consequences.

jj said...

Why was Evra allowed to use 2 different racial insults? On the field it was Black, off the field it had changed to the N****R word and the FA were happy with him changing the term of racial abuse in fact giving him an excuse that he had translated it wrong! Tells Fergie he was called a N word but to the ref he said he was called Black? 

Allenagnew said...

After trouble? definately not. Im just calling it as I see it. Footballers trying to wind each other up, tell us something we didnt know. If Evra is guilty of provoking the situation and is chargeable in any thing he done then throw the book at him. But that doesnt change the fact that what Suarez said was out of order. Staying objective is the thing that evades people when it comes to judging people or things that they have an emotional attatchment to. I think your right that the incident was magnified due to to Sepp Blatters comments, which might have led the FA into thinking about making an example of someone .But the FA didnt make Suarez make those comments, he done that himself and Liverpool didnt deal with it well. If Suarez hadnt of said the things that he did then there would be no issue. 

Tim said...

There's a third option - he's not a racist but he's also not sorry. This appears to be what has come out of this case. He has been backed by many people who know him as not being racist. Evra also said he did not believe he was a racist. However, he admitted to using a phrase that is deemed to have racial connotations, ilicited an angry response from Evra and is contrary to FA rules... Yet not once has he or anyone at his club apologised.

Your final point is true, but the inquiry wasn't about defining morality, it is about finding whether a player had broken FA rules in the field of play.

Anon Mouse said...

so proud to be an arsenal supporter - i used to respect liverpool but reading the comments of many fans (not the blog author) and the manager's ridiculous t-shirt stunt, i'm awakened to the fact that liverpool is one of the most socially backward clubs in the premier league. let us know when you haul yourselves out of the 70s.

Neil said...

The worst thing about all this for me, was that Suarez absolutely took the piss out of Evra on the pitch with his skill...this whole affair just leaves a sour taste and is bound to fuel hostilities between the club's fans further.

Tim said...

Please sir, instead of launching a personal attack on someone for using Wikipedia (specifically a couple of articles that clearly list their sources at the bottom of the page) perhaps you could actually discredit the point he was making rather than the author himself. It seems to me that "an academic" would have considered this of paramount importance to their argument.

Themarkedman said...

Liverpool. A club, players, fans and Management alike has branded itself Racist.

The disgraceful lying by Kuyt. Dalglish etc to protect this heinous and unrepentant racist Suarez is a dark day for football globally.

To give one  story and then change your account to protect a racist is disgraceful.

What a truly vile gang of villans.

The final straw being the utterly dishonest attack on Patrice Evra post suspension and the wearing of t-shirts to support this race hater Suarez.

What absolute fools Liverpool are making of themselves around the whole world.

I should think a public apology is in order.

Liverpool fans should be thanking Evra. His support of Suarez as not being racist has no doubt saved his career.

Support he clearly does not deserve as he is an unrepentant racist.

Shame Liverpool. 

Anon said...

you are so blinkered by oh my god dalgliesh and liverpool have been and should be. you are blind to video evidence that saurez was clearly guilty racial bullying right infront of the ref . i think liverpool fans want to be looking at dick head kenny, he'll lose a match by 4or 3 or on a bad day and retire!  a scottish person who does'nt respect one of the best exports in sir alex

Trev said...

agreed jamie i think we have to take our medicine and get on with it but id like to see evra

Anon said...

cgffhgf loads of nothing to say! we all have racist tendancys , a bit of an f now and then ! saurez did not do that, in fact  after the ref spoke to both players saurez showed exactly the person he is a racist bully! he's guilty. when are people going to wake up and realise it's a kenny directive!!

Steventeague said...

Your some craic Jamie...

jj said...

Most probably got lost in the translation with Kuyt speaking Dutch to Suarez who was then spoke to in Spanish by Comolie and then in English at the hearing with a Spanish interpreter it must of been confusing for Suarez! Evra as well giving his version in English after the argument was in Spanish, Evra should of given his version fully in Spanish as well with no English.

Tim said...

In the terminology of the report they "found" that he did not say that. It means the exact same thing as you have said.

Caught_pants_down said...

Blinkered and blindfolded would be to claim Suarez is a racist bully when it has been proven and even acknowledged by the FA and Evra that Suarez isn't racist. He is punished for making racist remarks to provoke Evra into hitting him. He was trying to get Evra red carded, that is what he is guilty of.

Tim said...

Evra said that when he asked Suarez why he kicked him, he replied "Porque tu eres negro" - "Because you are black". Comolli said that Suarez told him he said the same phrase. Kuyt also said that Suarez had said that phrase. Suarez then said that he only said "You are black". So the two Liverpool men's testimony matched what Evra claimed Suarez said, but not what Suarez claims he said himself. That is why they found his testimony to be "unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance".

jj said...

Evra says he was called Black on the field to the ref and Giggs but changes it to the N word to Fergie. 
Suarez has used the Spanish word Negro in a bad way, this means Black but Evra tried to turn the word into N****R when speaking off the pitch. I can see why the club supported Suarez because Evra was trying to use the N word when it was never used in the way Evra says.
We should accept the ban.

Caught_pants_down said...

For deliberately trying to get Evra sent off. He taunted Evra in the hope Evra would hit him.

RedRedMan said...

and Chelsea dont have a racist in there team do they Anon you sadowont even leave your name 

RedRedMan said...

I hate Mancs does that make me racist ........... course it doesnt ....... I use a mans choice of football club to antagonise him.

Stat said...

An academic, my backside.

Stat said...

including you? :)

Allenagnew said...

My point about morality was not in regards to what Suarez done, but how the fans should view him in light of being found guilty What team does not contain a player or two that behave in ways that some people would find questionable.

Stat said...

I take it you did not read the report properly, as it deals with this to a certain extent. 

Give up the ghost.

Stat said...

bloody hell, what are you like

comebackRafa said...

18+5 =23   19+3 only=22

Michael said...

How can it possibly get any more embarrassing for our club. 

I'm sorry but Kenny should resign over this disgrace. He knew all along Suarez was lying. 

This is a disaster for the club.

Neil said...

Evra and the FA say quite clearly they believe LS not to be racist. I think you should apologise publicly for not knowing the difference between someone using language that has racist connotations and actually being a racist. If I use violent adjectives in a sentence should I be labelled a violent person? Why should LS apologise for being a racist? He's not. How can Kuyt, Dalglish and Commoli all be lying when they're stories all corroborate with each other? Wouldn't their stories be more tighter if they got together and decided they wanted to kill it dead? Evra got raped by LS on the pitch, got made a fool of, tried to wind LS up verbally and started crying when he got some back from LS, that's the short version. LS said he didn't hear the things Evra said to him, perhaps a gentlemanly gesture towards a man who tried to ruin his career? I'm a Liverpool fan, not a racist and I support LS as I have worked in Argentina and they have many names for different shades of colour of people and use it in everyday conversation and no offence is meant or taken. I also believe LFC is not a racist organisation, nor are it's staff and players. They just showed support for one of their own. An 8 game ban is a ridiculous punishment, it should have been 2-3 game ban. I do feel there is a political agenda with the FA and FIFA and post WC bid sour grapes being played out here with Blatter. The FA have basically branded South American culture as racist. A bit of an up itself attitude if you ask me.

RedChica said...

LFC should not have published such a strong statement until they received anything in written. They should have made a short and professional statement, saying that exactly, we remain with our position towards our player, and will wait for the written report to make up our minds what to do. Instead there was a serious pop at FA, at Evra (unacceptable for a club statement, imho) and literally, the club behaved in an aggressively-defensive manner, which never finds sympathy with ANYONE, except for some club fans (not all)
Also, LFC had like 2 months to get ready for the charge. Why was it so hard to get prepared for the hearings? Utd, as if follows from the report, were well prepared.
We should definitely sack the lawyers who were working on this case. Very unprofessional job, and sadly, approved by the KD, who, let's face it, is a footballer, not a lawyer.

comebackRafa said...

Suarez saying because you are black could have meant he was saying because you are black anticipating this is what Evra was thinking,its how you in terperet it.

RedChica said...

This is all very nice as you put it on here. But you forget one small detail: it is not too easy to apologise when you feel that you are being smeared. SAF and Evra, as it follows from the report, were shouting in the corridors of Anfield that Suarez called him N***** 5 times.
Also, let's get back to the game. Evra was the one to behave aggressively from the very kick off of the match. Evra was the one to start to be cocky with Suarez. Well, Suarez is a simple Uruguayan, he replies to an insult with an insult. Then Evra cries wolf. And makes N word our of negro. And makes it 5 times. And then not less than 10 times.
He also attempted to involve Kuyt, by claiming that Kuyt told him "get up you prick" which Kuyt claimed was not true, as he just said "stand up, stand up!"
I can't understand WHY the commission ignored the aggravating factors in the Evra's behaviour, but instead found him a more reliable witness... if that is not a subjectivity, what then?? 
I wish all this never took place. I wish they just apologised to each other there and then. But Evra took it to the press first, and that burned the bridges for Suarez to apologise, because he was called a racist in the press, all over twitter, etc.
So, I wish LFC handled all this in a more professional way, without unnecessary confrontation. Now we found ourselves in a very delicate situation. And I guess you as a ManUtd fan will secretly gloat to find out one fine winter morning that Suarez is being sold abroad.

Tj3456 said...

Probably is NOT good enough to convict someone of a racist act that WILL destroy his future livelihood!!  If there is no HARD and CLEAR cut evidence simply throw the case out, which is what should have been done and get on with things. 
Sorry Jaimie but this is not as simple as you make it out to be - if YOU WERE labelled as committing a RACIST act and you know that you DID not do so, would you sit there and simply accept that you "probably" did it, and just take the punishment and move on?
I see no point in appealing as the appeal is once again before the FA "Independant" commission - its appointed by the FA - the FA are the ones that have charged Suarez AND are WANTING to prove him guilty - so there is little chance in changing their views.
If i were Suarez i would take this matter to a REAL court of law and sue the FA for labelling me with this charge and for falsely charging me of using racist terms (therefore by implication branding me as a racist for life). 
I would fight this to the end and make sure the FA have to PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE and SO TOO MR EVRA, .. and of course there would have to be a large sum of money that they are also sued for in the process.
There is no way any court of law would find a man guilty based on "probabilities" such as these - Mr Evra ABUSED SUAREZ first and called him a Sth American!- why shouldnt Suarez respond ? So they are either both guilty or they both are NOT !! One or the other - it cant be that one is guilty. 
Hence this is why a Court of Law will throw this out immediately..

Bhoff23 said...

wat a load of drama queens
YNWA

Pete said...

I believe passing extreme punishment on probabilities sets a very bad precedent for the FA. Suarez was very stupid for even saying negro in a charged game against bitter rivals united such that the 8 game punishment can be palatable but to then impose a further sanction of a potential life ban on here-say is pretty damning.
The report is full of inconsistencies itself for example Kuyt alleges Patrice Evra the ref of only booking him because he was black but the the commission dismissed this as not making sense but then go on and accept Giggs submission that Evra was upset because Suarez had not been booked for being racially abusive. 
It stands to reason if Evra felt the ref did not deal with the racial abuse from Suarez he would then adopt a victim mentality in believing he was getting a raw deal from the ref because he was black since Mariner a white, did not punish Suarez who everyone at that point in time never knew was mixed race so the assumption/probability could also be very different.
Suarez needs censoring for what he said but this case has also revealed a deeper lying animosity within the game and society. 
The FA seems to have exploited this to send a message to FIFA and UEFA about dealing racism in the English game by homing in on Suarez who is already unpopular with Africans for his antics at the world Cup against Ghana and then stupidly using the term negro in a high profile game.
We also have the PFA's Taylor who represents players meaning he should be speaking for both Evra and Suarez passing judgement on how a good judgement had been made before he had a chance to see the report something that also belies the fact judgement had been passed long before the deliberations. 
The media has been frenzied in its attack on Suarez and his club by trying to move goalposts in saying Liverpool should castigate Suarez because the media says so when there is a due process still pending. The media is now presently urging Liverpool and Suarez to drop a possible appeal to protect themselves because many opened themselves up to lawsuits by labelling Suarez racist. It therefore follows that if an appeal is dropped, Suarez will technically be proved to be racist in a court of law because he accepted a charge that implied he is inclined towards racism.
The same media that has been so outspoken about racism in the game regards Evra-Suarez has been surprising quiet about the charge hanging over the FA's player ambassador captain Terry. Terry understandably is awaiting judgement in a court of law so not much has been said by the media as it would be undermining a court of law but by the same extension the media should also have let the due process take root before labelling Suarez.
From my estimation, the English game has many glaring areas the FA needs to take into account themselves in that while a huge percentage of players in the game are black, you can count black managers on one hand in the 92 league team structure overseen by the FA.
The media and oppositions fans of almost every team are antagonistic towards foreign player who in some cases play a handful of games or non at all to be labelled flops while a local players can score 5 goals one calendar year after being the most expensive local player before the same scrutiny is applied.

Redbaronn2 said...

Go Fuck yourself

nashequilibrium said...

Good work Jaimie.

A logical breakdown of the facts of the situation.

It's heartening to see there seem to be more sober and reasoned evaluations from some Liverpool supporters despite the continued hysterical finger pointing of the majority. 

timbo59 said...

You hit it perfectly - I said something almost identical elsewhere.

Liverpool and particularly Kenny Dalglish have totally embarrased themselves over this and shamed the name of a once proud club. They could have extricated themselves over it with some carefully chosen words and a measured apology, instead of which they hunkered down in their bunkers, adopted a siege mentality, and shot their mouths off, including leaving themselves legally liable for the scurrilous comments questioning Evra's integrity via the false allegations regarding his supposed track record for making racist accusations. The T-shirt episode made them all look like first class dopes and supporters of racist commentary, and the FA report just released makes them look even more absurd and blind.

Redbaronn2 said...

Are you all there mate? I would be very careful if i were u because legally you can get yourself in a whole mess accusing someone of condoning this behaviour. Grow up!!! This is not Kenny's directive and if you continue I will take the relevent steps to shut you right up legally.

Redbaronn2 said...

Go F##k yourself... Evra should have just let it go ..what happens on the field stays on the field...so what he was called a 'negro' ' black ' whatever ...the guy is a little poof who should just concentrate on the game rather than try to get every footballer that turns him over charged with racism..thats not being racist ...if he wants to hear racist ill give the little f.ck racism.

Rob said...

For the sake of anyone who might seek the services of a lawyer, I sincerely hope you are not a qualified one. I have no respect whatsoever for a learned lawyer who cannot even spell "definately" and "likelyhood".

BarryYates said...

ok. I didn't see that. But come on do you think that by calling him a 'cunt' evra should face a ban just like Suarez. After all every act of racism is 'provoked'. Isn't it ?? It does not absolve Suarez of the blame in anyway but certainly Evra was wrong if his words provoked a reaction from Suarez. But this was after Suarez had allegedly said 'because you are black'. So the jury is pretty much out on who provoked whom. Had Suarez simply called him a 'cunt' back, then all this woudn't have happened. If I were a pool fan Id be more worried about the stigma now faced by suarez. This report is a pretty damning account. 

Allenagnew said...

Read my comment again, I stated that I hoped that this incident DID NOT destroy Suarez playing in England. Most players in United Liverpool games are fired up and aggressive, football is a competitive game played with passion, so dont condemn Evra for that. The fact is that these confrontations happen all the time in football, but this time Suarez crossed the line and used language that he should not have used. He could have chose a dozen or more words to say that would have been derogatory but at the same time not as explosive. Instead he used words that reffered to the colour of Evras skin, for this he is totally responsible, no one else. Your right, Evra did initially say that he was called "nigger". But he acknowledged later that he was wrong and that Suarez had called him black "negro"
The detail might have been wrong but this does not change the basic fact that Suarez used language that was out of order and its why he has been found guilty. Instead of suggesting that Evra was burning bridges, you should be recognising that Liverpool should have been trying to build bridges, it was they for thier handling of the situation, and Suarez for causing it that needed to do this, which they might have done for all we know so I will not condemn them without knowledge. But the way Liverpool handled it from the day Suarez was charged has been a PR disaster and I doubt very much wether you will find many people apart from Liverpool supporters who would agree with stance Liverpool and some of its supporters have taken. If you want some one to blame for the mess Suarez is in look no further than the man himself, with help from the men who framed the official Liverpool statement that blamed practically everybody else except Suarez himself.
You can still support some one and recognise that he has done wrong. Liverpool would do well to remember that and try to claw back some of the damage done. This was never about club rivalries or FA plots against Liverpool, it was about a confrontation between two men, and its a pity that those two men couldnt have sorted it out together. But to try to blame every one else apart from Suarez is just blindness and plain wrong. . 

Annonymous said...

As a lawyer of African origin, what is happening to Mr Suarez is completely unacceptable. A 100+ page report on an incident, based on a few seconds, with the majority of the evidence dismissed (as they "believed" Mr Evra), is totally unacceptable. 
Mr Evra's character and past actions were NOT taken into consideration. Neither was Mr Suarez's current situation, in which he admitted to not understanding the strict verbal culture of the UK.The fact of the matter is that Mr Evra's skin colour was NOT a motivator for Suarez to make his comments. If so, he should also be labelled an anti-feminist, that is IF he called him a ****. In addition to Mr Evra breaking the same rules by singling Mr Suarez out by naming him "South American". Furthermore, as Mr. Suarez has proven how he has family ties, namely his Grandfather, as being of African decent, it is UNREASONABLE and ridiculous for this South American lad can be labelled a racist. 

Finally, I believe that racism should not be part of the game. However, this incident is being treated as if it is the first time a racist incident has occurred. What about all the other real racist crimes which have been motivated by race? I cannot believe that certain actions in the past, which are of a much higher magnitude can all go unpunished. If anything, this case shows that racism IS being stamped out of football, as it does not compare to previous incidents which everyone is aware of. 

In conclusion, such a detailed report, and media frenzy, over the incidents is directly due to the fact that the case involves both Manchester United and Liverpool. 

Chee Wei Sin said...

I'm not sitting down and read a hundred over pages, what I felt is whatever the contents in that documents is well thought of and written, it will be very difficult to appeal against, what the club can do now is admit Suarez is racist and let him take up the ban...

Anyway I didn't know that there is such a thing call balance of possibility, think it only meant that a better liar can make use of such system...

Ashfah Hussain said...

Such trivial matters is akin to an abuse of court process, wasting taxpayers time and money and the FA too. This has dragged more than necessary. The Fa is more intersested in nailing Suarez done that working hard to host the World Cup. All I can say is that the FA is rotten to the core. Me. Ashfah loves Suarez.

nods said...

arent all british people racist anyway, so why even bother with this issue? totally stupid.

Eric said...

How is...why can't I touch you? Because you're black? A racist remark? I could see how "I don't want to touch you becaause you're black" would be but how is asking it racist?

Ponies That Bite said...

If you're going to spout utter drivel can you at least try to make a little sense.
ie We won the European cup by losing everything else ??? Really ? Do they award the CL trophy for failure ? How many consecutive seasons have Chelsea been in the CL now ? And your virtual Billion pound squad capable of buying any player on earth has won it how many times ? NONE.Surely you deserve a Massive trophy for such incompetence.You might be a little bitter after taking such a beating and becoming a 6 point team for LFC over the last 2 seasons.
Try spelling 'The King' as you obviously FAIL at spelling and European football.It's Dalglish you moron and when has Dalglish EVER been accused of being a racist by even the most pathetic of tabloids ? I think you're confusing managers and clubs.You seem to be confusing Ron Atkinson's vile tirade with Dalglish defending a player amidst the dodgy one-sided media speculation and the might of the MUFA.
Evra's admission of guilt has been completely ignored.By supposedly lessening the ban the FA have shown their true colours as everything benefits MUFA.Reading your nonsense is hilarious considering your own Captain's criminal racism charge, which will no doubt be settled by a back-hander out of court.               

Ponies That Bite said...

What happens now if a black player called 'Black' joins the premier league ?
It's a fairly common surname afterall...
Imagine reffing that game after this nonsenseBlack is not offensive

Digidocguides said...

The whole conversation was in Spanish. Is Evra a Spanish expert? Do you think he may have translated 'Porque' to mean 'because' instead of 'why', just the same as the independent translator did? The fact that Evra makes out that he doesn't know what the Spanish word Negro translates to doesn't convince me that his Spanish is top notch. Although I don't believe him when he says this because he is able to insult Suarez in a pretty advanced use of the Spanish language!

Besides, this is only one small part of Evra's story and you are only talking about Suarez's reply. Evra and LFC totally contradict each other on the reasons for Suarez replying, so they hardly corroborate Evra's story. LFC testify that Suarez replied to Evra calling Suarez a South American, which Evra denies.

The fact that the commission found Suarez's testimony as unreliable is hardly a surprise. What do you think they would put in the report once they found him guilty? They've got to justify their decision. That is irrelevant and highly subjective. Looking at thinks objectively, there is no evidence whatsoever EITHER way. But the burden of proof should be on the FA and I don't think there is enough proof to destroy someone's reputation in this way.

Ponies That Bite said...

and when they banned Mascherano for smiling after Torres got kicked 3 or 4 times in one run ! While St. Rooney clearly swore at refs for about 5 years unpunished
Goal scored by a beachball allowed to stand while one 4 clear yards over your was ruled no-goal.

Lfclfc said...

are you sure lfc would get in a european league

Lfclfc said...

if you stand in a court and said i did call him a negro.but at home its ok.the court would say your not at home your in the uk and you have to answer to uk law

Gord said...

Negro is not a racist word......

Lfclfc said...

so does every player that plays the game.but suarez went to far.

Brad Joy-Clavis said...

Are you sure you're a lawyer? Detailed reports are written up for all cases and this one highlighted how closely evidence is processed. It's not like they flipped a coin and suddenly decided that they'd believe all of Evra's testimony because it landed Heads.

They dismissed parts of Suarez's story because it was contradicted by Dalglish, Comolli and Kuyt, as you can clearly see if you actually bother to read the article right at the top of this page, so kindly posted up by Jaimie.

Honestly, the amount of outrageous denial within LFC ranks would be almost comical if I didn't count myself as a supporter.

Brad Joy-Clavis said...

FLAWLESS VICTORY!

Brad Joy-Clavis said...

I'm sure there was, at one time, a 'Pretentious Wank' button just near the 'Like'. I miss that button.

TomBom said...

I believe that in all probability, racial, nationalistic, taunts were said by both players, to each other, these taunts although abhorrent were said in the heat of the game, both were wrong to do it, and both should be punished, and made to appologise to each other. Liverpool, without any further evidence to refute the report, should accept the punishment and move on.
On a seperate note the FA should retrospectively charge Evra for his part in this, as he is not an innocent party, by his own admission.

Jacob said...

Where in Evra's statement does he admit to using racial or nationalistic taunts?

Jacob said...

Well said!

Alex said...

Just a question, Jaimie: the prosecution office will charge JT with criminal offence. In parallel, could the FA also charge him under CIVIL law?  It seems both are different, so the FA shall ultimately charge JT, regardless of the outcome of the criminal charge?

Jacob said...

PE was not main aggressor. LS started with the kick and PE went over to him to complain. He did start the incident under question but to say that its his fault he was racially insulted is ridicules.
PE did not lie about amount of times he was racially insulted. The only time he did not say it was 5 times was on the french radio station where he said 10 times. If you read the FA report, this was   discussed and it was agreed, with the help of Comolli, that it could just have been a way of speaking.PE said he was called a 'negro'. he, in his statement, said he originally thought this word meant nigger but was mistaken and changed it to black. The judges agreed it was a mistake not a lie.LS had no proof of PE saying anything about LS south american origins. In fact LS changed his story about this, apparently unsure if this was said in English or Portuguese. The word LS claimed was used, sudoamericano (unsure of spelling) is not a real word and therefore the judges rejected this claim.The conclusion of the report was that, LS changed his story to fit in, he disagreed with KD DC and DK, and that his story didn't make sense or fit in with video footage and therefore rejected his evidence on the balance of probability. PE story made sense, fitted in with all other evidence and video and was never changed without an accepted reason.

There is a whole section on the number of games he was banned for. The entry point was 4 games (double a normal suspension) and was increased due to number of times he used this word, aggressively used, the fact he was directing it at one person in particular, and perhaps one or two games as a sort of deterrent, and in recognition of the FA's kick it out campaign. 

Feel lucky, he could have and should have had a longer ban!

cleanprophet said...

It is important to note that the evidence of Dalglish is not something that can be considerd. Dalglish does not speak Spanish. It seem his understanding of what happened came via Comolli and not from Suarez direct.

It is also worth noting that Comolli's first language is not Spanish. Although he does speak it fluently, there are many differences between European Spanish and Uruguayan Spanish.

Suarez speaks very good Dutch, but it is not his first language.

Suarez, it seems, suggest that he said "why can't I touch you? Because you are black?". I do not see that as a racist comment. So, the question is whether Comolli and Kuyt understood what Suarez said fully. Keeping in mind that, in such a situation during a game and immediately after a game, midunderstandings are not an unacceptable outcome - especially when people are not talking to each other in their 1st language.

When we start talking about "balance of probabilities" and general supposition, we are into territory where a clear judgement is difficult and somewhat unfair. On the "balance of probabilities" and supposition, I wouldn't want to be walked to the gallows and no court in the land would convict on such evidence.

BarryYates said...

I don't care. I am still wearing the Suarez T-shirt. United get away with everything.Not fair.

BarryYates said...

NO NO NO.Suarez INNOCENT. UNITED BAD.

Alex said...

this is fine, mate. keep supporting Arsenal, which is a great team playing excellent football.  we will keep supporting Liverpool! let's embrace diversity and tolerance and not be too critical of each other.

jj said...

The Commission asked Mr Evra why, then, did he not tell the referee that he had been called nigger, as opposed to black. Mr Evra's answer was that even when he pronounced the word "niggers", it was not a word he liked to use. He added that maybe it was also because he was speaking in English, that "black" was the English word in his mind, and he felt he had done enough to complain by telling the referee that he had been called black.
Evra's complaint was that he had been called a N word how can a witness be reliable if he can't even use the correct racial abuse to the ref after only being called it moments earlier.

It seemed to us that Mr Evra's understanding of the Spanish word "negro" was influenced by his knowledge of Italian. In his interview with the FA on 20 October, Mr Evra said that he thought "nero" meant "black", whereas "negro" meant "nigger". This was what he thought from his knowledge of Italian, and he went away to check the position in Spanish. However, he did say in that same interview that it was still unacceptable to be told that you had been kicked because you were black. The expert witnesses told us that the Spanish word "negro" cannot simply be translated as "nigger"

The argument was in Spanish! What the hell has Italian got to do with anything if he was called the N word fair enough but not to try and turn a Spanish word for Black into an English racist word of N****R through the means of an Italian translation? Talk about making it up, which was then used by Fergie when it was wrong, how can that stand up in any sort of inquiry if you don't use the words that were used in the argument?
The FA even mentions Evra can speak several languages but doesn't know the Spanish for black? He should just keep his mouth shut and stick to French ! 

Jaimie K said...

Hi Alex - If Terry is found guilty of a criminal offence then I don't see how the FA could avoid charging him under their own rules. However, if he's cleared in Court, I doubt the FA would charge him. For all intents and purposes, he would be 'innocent' so there would be nothing to charge him with.

Rayvens said...

Mortal Kombaaaaaat!!
That's a good a one!

Mike2012 said...

How can Liverpool fans still defend him?! It is pathetic. First you called Evra dishonest. Now are you going to call Kuyt and Dalgleish dishonest? Then you said the term was said in a friendly way. It came out he said it seven times in an aggressive manner. This report shows that Evra's recollection of events is closely correlated with all other sources including Liverpool staff. It also shows that Suarez is a liar. Next you'll say that Suarez cannot speak three languages well enough, so was lost in translation again and again and again.

Richard Seizer said...

I'm sorry but I read the report (reading again) and trully believe Liverpool should persue this till they receive the out come that clears Luis' name. 

If you are of black origin and find words such as Negro offensive on the basis discrimination then how has Evra escaped a ban?

"Why, because you are black", is in my opinion a reasonable response to discriminative provocation and how the fuck is that racist; the context has been completely overlooked. 

"Why, because you are black" is evenmore valid now because Evra has even been warned.

You black guy, you white guy, you south american its all stupid and Evra the twat that he is has made a meal of it even though he started the whole bloody thing. 

This was the FA showing FIFA how things should be done (Incorrectly)

Luis should have gone into the hearing and said nothing, as the panel had already made it's mind up. 

Rich Seizer

Peteadonald said...

children in the playground get over it he said this she said that to say one is less of a believable witness is silly after the previous verdicts from the FA regarding NANI ...seen the video i was born death i learnt to lip read its obvious from the boby language both said things they shouldnt have said but hasnt Nain been rebucted by the Fa teice before for being an unreliable witness ?   .....rest my case

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 312   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment