The FA Independent Regulatory Commission report into the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra situation is a whopping 115 pages long, and goes into great detail about a variety of things, but and one thing that is repeated over and over is the fact the Suarez is not a racist, However, he has been convicted - without proof - of stating things are undeniably racist, which seems to me to be a major contradiction.
You'll have to bear with me whilst I outline my thinking on this issue. I apologise for the length of this post:
Evra's QC Suggests Suarez is Not Racist
FA REPORT - Section 223
"First, this case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Indeed, the Commission will no doubt conclude that there are some indications that he is not"
Patrice Evra Admits Suarez is Not Racist
Section 232:
"I don't think he [Suarez] is racist"
Evra's QC suggests Suarez was 'racially offensive'
Section 223:
"The question is not whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist...it is whether Mr Suarez used language and behaviour which was racially offensive"
The Commission rejects the 'racially offensive' charge
Section 224.
"We would not describe the question as to whether Mr Suarez used language and behaviour which was "racially offensive". Those words are not found in the relevant Rules or in the Charge brought against Mr Suarez, and are prone to mislead.
"The question for us is, as we have stated, whether Mr Suarez used abusive or insulting words or behaviour which included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race".
This is crucial: The Commission has basically rejected the possibility that Suarez used 'racially abusive' language or behaviour.
The FA Suggest Suarez IS Racist
Section 408:
"The FA submitted that an increased sanction was required both to punish Mr Suarez and also to ensure that it is widely understood that the FA deprecates and will not accept racist behaviour"
Accusing someone of racist behaviour seems to suggest that person is racist, does it not?
The FA Contradicts itself and Says Suarez is Not Racist
Section 414:
"The FA confirmed that it has not contended that Mr Suarez acted as he did out of deep-seated racial prejudice, ie because he is a racist"
Now the FA states that Suarez is not actually racist, which falls into line with the view of Evra, and his QC.
FA Charge Against Suarez
"It is alleged that in or around the 63rd minute of the ... fixture you used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards an opponent Mr Patrice Evra contrary to Rule E3(1)."
"It is further alleged that your breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Mr Patrice Evra within the meaning of Rule E3(2)."
What Did the FA Prove?
The only thing the FA's 115-page document proved as a FACT was that Suarez used the word 'Negro' in relation to Evra. Suarez himself admitted this in his witness statement.
FA Report - Section 110: Suarez Witness Statement:
"It seems to me that Patrice Evra misunderstood my use of the word negro"
The Problem
Here is where the contradiction comes into play:
* Both Evra and his QC expressly rejected the possibility that Suarez is racist.
* The Commission expressly rejected the possibility that Suarez used 'racially abusive language or behaviour'
* The only thing that was proven as a fact was that Suarez used the word negro towards Evra.
* As the FA's own experts argued, the use of the word negro can be inoffensive or offensive, depending on the context.
* It was not proven that Suarez used the word negro in a pejorative manner.
So despite the fact everyone argued that Suarez was not racist, and the Commission argued that he was not 'racially abusive', they still convicted him of saying things that were blatantly racist.
This makes no sense to me, especially given the fact that none of Evra's allegations about what Suarez said were proven.
Evra's allegations
Evra alleged that Suarez said some obviously racists things:
- "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
- "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
- "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
Evra's allegations: Totally Unproven
There is no credible, persuasive or FACTUAL proof that Suarez said any of the three things alleged above:
* No witnesses corroborated Evra's version of events.
* The referee and his assistants did not corroborate Evra's version of events
* Video footage did not confirm what Suarez was alleged to have said.
The only slight evidence is the fact Damien Comolli and Dirk Kuyt contradicted Suarez's statement, but even then, given the language differences involved, it's perfectly possible that a genuine misunderstanding took place.
Even if we accept the inconsistencies, is that enough to FACTUALLY label Suarez a racist 'on the balance of probabilities'? This is what the FA Commission did, as illustrated below:
Factually guilty of Racism?
The Commission found Suarez factually guilty of saying everything alleged by Evra.
Section 388:
"Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows"
The Commission then went on to find Suarez guilty of saying the following:
* "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
* "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
* "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
Is Suarez is guilty of saying the above three things then it means that the Commission has said he is racist, and that he was 'racially abusive'. There can be no other interpretation, surely?
As I've argued already, that contradicts with the Commission's own stance that Suarez was not subject to being accused of being 'Racially abusive', and that such a term was 'prone to mislead'.
In any event, how can it be a fact that Suarez said the three things above when there is no evidence to support it? The Commission has made a finding of fact based on no evidence, and this finding will damage Suarez's reputation forever...unless he
appeals.
The Commission's Conclusion
Section 454:
"We conclude these Reasons with the following comment. The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour. We have found that Charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us".
The Commission uses the word 'reference' as singular here, i.e. Suarez used insulting words and made ONE reference to Evra's colour. This is correct - Suarez admitted to using the word NEGRO, which is a reference to Evra's colour.
However, the Commission actually convicted Suarez of making several references (plural) to Evra's colour, yet this is not reflected in the above passage. To be accurate, it should say:
"The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words, which included several references to Mr. Evra's colour"
Observations
* Everyone involved with case (Evra/His QC/The Commission) agreed that Suarez was not racist.
* However, the Commission convicted Suarez of saying blatantly racist things without proof or credible corroborating evidence.
This just sits uneasily with me as it seems like a massive contradiction. It's basically saying 'we don't think you're racist, but we'll convict you of being racist anyway'.
The only thing Suarez should've fairly been convicted of (IMO) is making a reference to Evra's colour, which he admitted. Again, I return to the Commission's conclusion:
Section 454:
"We conclude these Reasons with the following comment. The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour. We have found that Charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us".
This was proved: Suarez admitted using the word Negro, but everything else alleged by Evra was not proved, and it is wrong for the Commission to state that it's a fact that Suarez said the following:
* "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
* "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
* "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
It is not a fact that Suarez said the above, which is why - in my view - Suarez must appeal. If he doesn't, then he will forever be labelled a racist, and people will say it's a fact that he said the above things.
Put yourself in Suarez's position: would you like to be associated with the above racist sentences? If you knew you were innocent, could you just accept that your name would forever be tarnished by alleged FACTS that were never proven?
This is not an apology for Suarez - he deserves a ban and a fine for his stupidity and ignorance in using the word Negro on a football field, and if the Commission had found only that, and still given him an eight-game ban, I would support it 100%.
However, that is not the case. The Commission made a damaging finding of fact without proof, and those alleged 'facts' - i.e. that Suarez said some horrible, racist things to Evra - will destroy Suarez's reputation forever. It's not fair, and in my view, it's not just.
To be clear:
I'm not suggesting that Suarez should appeal the sentence; he should accept the 8-game ban and fine, and publicly apologise for using the word Negro. However, Suarez should appeal against the FA Commission's damaging finding of fact, which stipulate that he made three racist statements to Evra.
As shown in this article, it is not a fact that Suarez made these statements.
You'll have to bear with me whilst I outline my thinking on this issue. I apologise for the length of this post:
Evra's QC Suggests Suarez is Not Racist
FA REPORT - Section 223
"First, this case is not about whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Indeed, the Commission will no doubt conclude that there are some indications that he is not"
Patrice Evra Admits Suarez is Not Racist
Section 232:
"I don't think he [Suarez] is racist"
Evra's QC suggests Suarez was 'racially offensive'
Section 223:
"The question is not whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist...it is whether Mr Suarez used language and behaviour which was racially offensive"
The Commission rejects the 'racially offensive' charge
Section 224.
"We would not describe the question as to whether Mr Suarez used language and behaviour which was "racially offensive". Those words are not found in the relevant Rules or in the Charge brought against Mr Suarez, and are prone to mislead.
"The question for us is, as we have stated, whether Mr Suarez used abusive or insulting words or behaviour which included a reference to Mr Evra's ethnic origin, colour or race".
This is crucial: The Commission has basically rejected the possibility that Suarez used 'racially abusive' language or behaviour.
The FA Suggest Suarez IS Racist
Section 408:
"The FA submitted that an increased sanction was required both to punish Mr Suarez and also to ensure that it is widely understood that the FA deprecates and will not accept racist behaviour"
Accusing someone of racist behaviour seems to suggest that person is racist, does it not?
The FA Contradicts itself and Says Suarez is Not Racist
Section 414:
"The FA confirmed that it has not contended that Mr Suarez acted as he did out of deep-seated racial prejudice, ie because he is a racist"
Now the FA states that Suarez is not actually racist, which falls into line with the view of Evra, and his QC.
FA Charge Against Suarez
"It is alleged that in or around the 63rd minute of the ... fixture you used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards an opponent Mr Patrice Evra contrary to Rule E3(1)."
"It is further alleged that your breach of Rule E3(1) included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Mr Patrice Evra within the meaning of Rule E3(2)."
What Did the FA Prove?
The only thing the FA's 115-page document proved as a FACT was that Suarez used the word 'Negro' in relation to Evra. Suarez himself admitted this in his witness statement.
FA Report - Section 110: Suarez Witness Statement:
"It seems to me that Patrice Evra misunderstood my use of the word negro"
The Problem
Here is where the contradiction comes into play:
* Both Evra and his QC expressly rejected the possibility that Suarez is racist.
* The Commission expressly rejected the possibility that Suarez used 'racially abusive language or behaviour'
* The only thing that was proven as a fact was that Suarez used the word negro towards Evra.
* As the FA's own experts argued, the use of the word negro can be inoffensive or offensive, depending on the context.
* It was not proven that Suarez used the word negro in a pejorative manner.
So despite the fact everyone argued that Suarez was not racist, and the Commission argued that he was not 'racially abusive', they still convicted him of saying things that were blatantly racist.
This makes no sense to me, especially given the fact that none of Evra's allegations about what Suarez said were proven.
Evra's allegations
Evra alleged that Suarez said some obviously racists things:
- "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
- "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
- "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
Evra's allegations: Totally Unproven
There is no credible, persuasive or FACTUAL proof that Suarez said any of the three things alleged above:
* No witnesses corroborated Evra's version of events.
* The referee and his assistants did not corroborate Evra's version of events
* Video footage did not confirm what Suarez was alleged to have said.
The only slight evidence is the fact Damien Comolli and Dirk Kuyt contradicted Suarez's statement, but even then, given the language differences involved, it's perfectly possible that a genuine misunderstanding took place.
Even if we accept the inconsistencies, is that enough to FACTUALLY label Suarez a racist 'on the balance of probabilities'? This is what the FA Commission did, as illustrated below:
Factually guilty of Racism?
The Commission found Suarez factually guilty of saying everything alleged by Evra.
Section 388:
"Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows"
The Commission then went on to find Suarez guilty of saying the following:
* "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
* "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
* "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
Is Suarez is guilty of saying the above three things then it means that the Commission has said he is racist, and that he was 'racially abusive'. There can be no other interpretation, surely?
As I've argued already, that contradicts with the Commission's own stance that Suarez was not subject to being accused of being 'Racially abusive', and that such a term was 'prone to mislead'.
In any event, how can it be a fact that Suarez said the three things above when there is no evidence to support it? The Commission has made a finding of fact based on no evidence, and this finding will damage Suarez's reputation forever...unless he
appeals.
The Commission's Conclusion
Section 454:
"We conclude these Reasons with the following comment. The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour. We have found that Charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us".
The Commission uses the word 'reference' as singular here, i.e. Suarez used insulting words and made ONE reference to Evra's colour. This is correct - Suarez admitted to using the word NEGRO, which is a reference to Evra's colour.
However, the Commission actually convicted Suarez of making several references (plural) to Evra's colour, yet this is not reflected in the above passage. To be accurate, it should say:
"The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words, which included several references to Mr. Evra's colour"
Observations
* Everyone involved with case (Evra/His QC/The Commission) agreed that Suarez was not racist.
* However, the Commission convicted Suarez of saying blatantly racist things without proof or credible corroborating evidence.
This just sits uneasily with me as it seems like a massive contradiction. It's basically saying 'we don't think you're racist, but we'll convict you of being racist anyway'.
The only thing Suarez should've fairly been convicted of (IMO) is making a reference to Evra's colour, which he admitted. Again, I return to the Commission's conclusion:
Section 454:
"We conclude these Reasons with the following comment. The Charge against Mr Suarez was that he used insulting words which included a reference to Mr Evra's colour. We have found that Charge proved on the evidence and arguments put before us".
This was proved: Suarez admitted using the word Negro, but everything else alleged by Evra was not proved, and it is wrong for the Commission to state that it's a fact that Suarez said the following:
* "Porque tu eres negro" ("Because you are black").
* "No hablo con los negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
* "Dale, negro, negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
It is not a fact that Suarez said the above, which is why - in my view - Suarez must appeal. If he doesn't, then he will forever be labelled a racist, and people will say it's a fact that he said the above things.
Put yourself in Suarez's position: would you like to be associated with the above racist sentences? If you knew you were innocent, could you just accept that your name would forever be tarnished by alleged FACTS that were never proven?
This is not an apology for Suarez - he deserves a ban and a fine for his stupidity and ignorance in using the word Negro on a football field, and if the Commission had found only that, and still given him an eight-game ban, I would support it 100%.
However, that is not the case. The Commission made a damaging finding of fact without proof, and those alleged 'facts' - i.e. that Suarez said some horrible, racist things to Evra - will destroy Suarez's reputation forever. It's not fair, and in my view, it's not just.
To be clear:
I'm not suggesting that Suarez should appeal the sentence; he should accept the 8-game ban and fine, and publicly apologise for using the word Negro. However, Suarez should appeal against the FA Commission's damaging finding of fact, which stipulate that he made three racist statements to Evra.
As shown in this article, it is not a fact that Suarez made these statements.
I hope he appeals and gets another 3 games on topReport shows how LFC tried to cover up the facts.
ReplyDeleteHe would be foolish to appeal. Saying I dont speak to blacks is racist. No wonder LFC have no black players in their squad bar Johnson
Read this and you will see what actuallu happened
ReplyDeletehttp://therepublikofmancunia.com/the-suarez-report-broken-down/
It has not been proven as a *fact* that he said 'I don't speak to blacks'. That is the point. Do you not get that? How can the FA say it is a FACT when it has not been proven as such?
ReplyDeleteYou must be a Manure fan who doesn't know of the players Liverpool have at their club because there are many blacks on their "teams". You would be better off just supporting your players accusations mate.
ReplyDeleteI agree Jaimie, it is unfair and the FA will soon be uncovered for their unethical behavior!
ReplyDeleteJamie K... Its quite obvious the hashim fellow is a man u fan. why bother explaining it to him?
ReplyDeleteAnd the irony is that in 2006, LFC Steve Finnan was accused by him and not proven. And in 2008, agst Chelsea, he was involved in some incident as well and banned. Was Evra not one of the masterminds behind France world cup fiasco in 2010? And he is a credible witness? Its a joke!
ReplyDeleteJaime, he admitted saying "because you are black" (which he told to both Kuyt and Comolli - and which matches Evra's accusation, word for word). The panel, based on this, and the fact that Suarez was an unreliable/inconsistent witness then chose to believe Evra's account that he also said the other two phrases. Video evidence supports the series of events that Evra described, and although the video evidence is not conclusive, the panel thought they were "probable".
ReplyDeleteYou can say racist things without being racist. There's nothing contradictory about that. As far as I can tell, the only people calling Suarez a racist are Liverpool fans (and a few so-called journalists from tabloids).
Out of curiosity, since Suarez has admitted saying the first phrase, what makes you think he WOULDN'T say the second and third phrase?
Ace - Evra did not accuse Finnan; he has only ever made one race complaint, and that is against Suarez: http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2011/12/debunking-lfc-myths-no-11-patrice-evra.html
ReplyDeleteVery interesting indeed. The possible extension of his ban as a result of appeal is far less important to me than the possiblity of proving that the F.A. conducted the initial process in an unprofessional (and potentially biased) way.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely ridicules!
ReplyDeleteThe commission rejected the fact he used racially offensive behaviour and instead said it was classified as insulting behaviour based on PE colour/race ect. Not sure what the difference is here.
This is not a criminal court. There is no need for full proof. They mention numerous times that they will judge the case based on probability. LS story change many times to fit in with his theory that is was a positive comment and the fact that it didn't fit in with the stories of KD DC and DK meant PE's story was probably more correct then his.
You are taken the quotations out of context, deliberately im assuming, to try and defend your player. Even had he said it once there is no way it could have been taken as a positive comment due to the wording (if you believe KD DC and DK wordings, and that's the reason LS changed his story) and the fact he was involved with a spat with PE at the time.
Please reread the report and try and report the truth. Liverpool are a great club, a family club, a traditional club and they shouldn't ruin it over this. LS made a mistake, do the crime and do the time. Only then can he be forgiven.
well noted
ReplyDeleteJamie, I'm confused. Cant someone say racist things w.o being an actual racist person? Cant a person steal even tho hes not a professional criminal? its getting sad that we have to get into splitting hairs with semantics here. Its got to the point that the above quotes actually do NOT bear out with what you claim. I used to respect your well thought analysis but you have just lost me with this. Think we shd accept he is culturally confused, but having said that ... just apologize for any offence created instead of giving further offence by continued intransigence. LFC dont need the ban being extended, which is apprent is real risk now.
ReplyDeleteI have just watched this video and report, and it
ReplyDeleteshows the
FA have obviously not done their home work properly
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1005734-video-why-the-fas-report-could-be-inconsistent-in-the-suarez-evra-saga#/articles/1005734-video-why-the-fas-report-could-be-inconsistent-in-the-suarez-evra-saga
Copy and paste this in to your browser.
It shows the initial incident, and from this angle it shows Suarez did not kick
Evra, so Evra really has no reason to ask why he was kicked. So throws Evra's whole argument out of the water, and his credibility as a reliable witness.
Has anyone else any other similar videos reports that conflict with the FA's
report.
If you agree that this video shows the FA have missed a vital part of this saga,
then
please repost this video in as many places as possible to
highlight why we rightly feel Suarez is being victimised.
Jamie
ReplyDeleteFirstly, thank you for taking great time to read the report and provide such interesting and compelling articles. I myself, have not had time to read the report, but do intend to do so soon.
I have heard this, but this may not be true, so was wondering if you could clarify for me. i heard that the length of the ban was somewhat determined by the number of racial references the commission believed Suarez to have made? Is there anything in the report that gives some understanding to how the 8 game ban was reached?
Thanks again
Suarez did not admit to saying 'Because you are black' - Kuyt and Comolli stated that is what they *thought* he said. In his witness statement, Suarez argued that Kuyt and Comolli misunderstood him.
ReplyDeleteThat is entirely possible; I concede that it is also possible that Kuyt and Comolli heard him correctly.
However, it is not a *fact* that Suarez said 'because you are black'.
Kuyt and Comolli also conceded in the report that they may have misheard. Are they lying? Possible. It's equally possible that they did actually mishear him.
It is also not a fact that Suarez said the other two things.
The FA has stated that he said all three as a FACT.
This is unfair, even on the balance of probabilities IMO.
They gave Suarez absolutely no benefit of the doubt anywhere in the report, despite the language difference, expert testimony, cultural differences etc.
If the report goes uncontested, anyone - including the media - can go around saying that Suarez said 'Blackie, blackie, blackie' to Evra, even though there's no proof he said that.
That doesn't seem fair to me.
Totally agree, Tornike. The FA needs to be held to account, and if Suarez has to risk an increased ban to do that then he should do it. It's ridiculous that thee commission can make a finding of FACT when such facts have not been proved.
ReplyDeleteNo point responding to this because you clearly haven't read the report. I haven't taken anything out of context; and the notion that I am trying to defend Suarez just because he's a Liverpool player is ridiculous considering I have probably been his biggest critic, and strongly argued that we shouldn't sign him in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhat a rubbish report. Liverpool FC should apologise for their disgraceful behaviour..... I hope they do appeal and his ban is increased!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteDon't be naive. You really think that two different people "misheard" the exact same phrase? The same phrase that Evra accused Suarez of saying? C'mon. You seem like a reasonable person, but you are blinded if you don't see this for what it is. He said it. You know he said it. In fact, everyone other than Liverpool fans knows he said it.
ReplyDeleteHi Mraven - No problem, it's my pleasure. re the ban: you're right - The length of the ban was dictated by /'aggravating factors, the first of which was the number of times Suarez used the word 'negro' (only one use actually proven though)
ReplyDeleteSection 431.
"The first aggravating factor was the number of times Mr Suarez used the word "negro" or
"negros"
other factors that played a part were the use of insulting words, and the FA pushing for a harsher penalty due to Suarez 'damaging the reputation of English football'.
The key things for me were the fact Suarez was found not to have heard the slur uttered by Evra but the reason they said his use of the word negro was negative was because he was responding to it. How can they conclude that he didn't hear it but responded to it anyway?
ReplyDeleteAlso he was convicted on the basis of "probability" and not any form of meritable proof beyond any reasonable doubt. They decided he might be lieing because he wouldn't want to admit to the charge and his statement - which had been interpreted into english, translated into spanish then translated back into english - didn't quite match was he said in the tribunal. And Evra was seen as a reliable witness because he spoke english (was the inferrence) and knew how the system worked (from making previous allegations).
Many grounds for appeal and a civil case could even be brought against the FA and Evra.
No need for full proof! Judge the case on probablilty? Nearly all the things most countries look upto England is our laws and court system the FA or panel should base their enquiries on truth and fact and our law system!
ReplyDeleteI watched a great film last night called The Conspirator and it reminded so much of the kangaroo court Suarez endured
ReplyDeleteIt's not naive at all. I posted an article the other day specifically highlighting how Kuyt et al had contradicted Suarez, and I posed the same question: how likely is that two people misheard?
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point though: Kuyt and Comolli allegedly mishearing Suarez does not prove anything as a fact. The FA Commission stated that it was a FACT that Suarez said 'because you are black'. It is NOT fact, and they should not state that it is a fact.
Whilst it possible that Comolli and Kuyt heard Suarez correctly - and I am more than willing to accept that, it is equally possible that they did, in fact, misunderstood him, something that you are seemingly unwilling to accept.
Suarez spoke with Kuyt in Dutch and Comolli in Spanish; of course there is potential for misunderstanding, especially given the complex linguistic nuances at play.
You should try being objective; this is not a Man United vs. Liverpool issue - it is about fairness and justice.
Is it fair that the Commission found that it was a FACT that Suarez said those three sentences, even though there is no real evidence to prove it?
No.
he should appeal or take it to court tho i think someone mentioned the decision of the FA cannot be challenged in a court( i dn,t knw). Why give a sentenced and then threatening to increase the sentence if appeal made. Would the FA have appeal if such was the case in Rooney international red card? iIs FA supreme to the uefa??
ReplyDeletejamie from legal standpoint, proof can be based on hearsay (when there is no better proof) esp in this case as compounded by the proof being provided by 3 LFC staff. What are the chances all 3 misheard to the same degree and contradicting him? There are many instances there is not much better proof. Think abt rape cases, its also often word of one person against another and yet many charges are proven criminally. And yet this is only a civil matter. Think its time for dmg limitation now.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jamie for clarifying that.
ReplyDeleteI know you don't agree with appealing on the grounds of trying to get the ban reduced (or dare i even say over-turned), and to be honest, i can't really argue with that. My personal opinion is that he probably deserves the 8 game ban based on what i imagine he said and intened to say to Evra.
However, my opinion doesn't matter in this context. What should matter are facts, and what can be proved. And Liverpool and their legal team, i think could well take a similar stance to you and agree that supposed facts stated from the commission were not facts at all. And therefore, the length of the ban could and probably will be contested, given these supposed facts had at least some baring on the lenght of the ban.
hearsay is admissable in civil cases in the UK but that doesn't mean the judge in a given case will just accept it hook, line and sinker. The following will be considered:
ReplyDelete* Reasonableness of the party calling the evidence to have produced the original maker
* Whether the original statement was made at or near the same time as the evidence it mentions
*Whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay
*Whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters
*Whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another, or for a particular purpose
* Whether the circumstances of the hearsay evidence suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight
FACT! FACT! FACT! Are you Rafa in disguise? :))
ReplyDeleteJaime, I agree with most of what you're saying there, but then you said that Suarez deserves the 8 game ban for his stupidity, for using the word negro. I think that's a bit silly for you to say that.
ReplyDeleteSuarez was speaking Spanish, not English. This is the way people speak in South America. This is the way he would have spoken since he was a kid, and Evra would know this from his own South American team-mates. I live in Madrid, and negro doesn't have the same meaning as it does in England. He can't be punished for saying something that's offensive in English when he wasn't speaking English.
One of the main reasons for the whole affair in the first place is that Evra clearly misunderstood Suarez's language. Evra was already wound up by the kick, by the coin toss, by the match. There's no doubt that Suarez wound him up, but only after he was provoked. But Evra wasn't thinking clearly and he's not fluent in Spanish, never mind South American Spanish, which is quite different. They don't say "tu eres" for a start.
Misunderstandings happen with language barriers all the time. In Italian and French (languages that Evra is supposed to be fluent in) negro has a much stronger connotation, comparable to n***er which is what Evra originally claimed he was called. The whole thing started because Evra claimed he was called that. But he was wrong. And later he followed up the complaint, and the FA went ahead and charged Suarez even though the word he used, negro, is not a racist word in Spanish. And he was speaking Spanish.
I think Suarez should take the FA to court, with Liverpool's help, because his reputation has been tarnished by this, and you're dead right: there's no proof.
Great points, and I see what you're saying, but Suarez is not in South America. He has played in Europe for years, and he should understand by now that in Europe, it is unacceptable to refer to someone's colour by using the word 'Negro.
ReplyDeleteIf he only been in the country for a few months then it would be more understandable, but that's not the case.
That is why I consider him stupid.
Re: Guest who spoke earlier. You said: "This is not a criminal court. There is no need for full proof." I hope you're never in a situation in your job where you've been accused of sexual harassment or racism (which you are innocent of). If you are in that situation and you're reputation is at stake, I doubt you would use the same rational.
ReplyDeleteThough Evra has been at the centre of many racial slur cases, he just didn't make the first accusation. It was interesting seeing a video of him on youtube running through a hotel shouting MotherF...ing N.g.rs and again something about eating a pussy.
ReplyDeleteI usually squirm in anticipation of a nonsense article when is see your name but provided this is your own work, well done.
ReplyDeleteA great football club -- steeped in tradition and fighting for justice of its own --- has just shown itself willing to sacrifice all that for a Uruguayan chap (who has elsewhere been sanctioned for biting and giving people the finger) who thought he would be clever and try to provoke a black footballer in a bout of unacceptable gamesmanship. "Sledging" as it is known has always gone on -- it got Zidane dismissed from what should've been the game of his life. Suarez should apologize and take his punishment.
ReplyDeleteJaime, how can you assign the same probability that Kuyt and Comolli "misheard" what Suarez says? That's where your argument falls down. It is highly improbable (basically what the panel arrived at) that both of these people "misheard" him, and both then changed their story to match his (and AGAIN, they both misheard EXACTLY what Evra reported!!!) It is NOT the same probability. The panel did not find any FACTS, as you put it. Where does it say that the findings are fact? All findings are based on the balance of probability. I think you will find that I am being objective. Read every other (read: non-Liverpool affiliated) response to the verdict. How can you possibly accuse me of not being objective? Do you really think everyone but Liverpool supporters have got this terribly wrong? The more likely (Probable?) reason is that you are not being objective.
ReplyDelete"por que" = why
ReplyDelete"porque" = because
Can you see how easily the translation can be butchered. Especially when you are trying to defend a "nig**r" allegation minutes after the conclusion of the game.
Me, Ashfah loves to hate the England FA, rotteh to the care.
ReplyDeletehe called evra negro[ black ] if the fa charge him on that they are saying america,spanish,south american,etc all use the word so does that mean u think all these people have a problem[in his words evra said he told the ref suarez called him black now i no fergie gets alot of time added at the end of a game but not enough that in the match he new what suarez meant in spanish,yet after the match when he talked to his team mates he had forgot and thought he suarez said n.....r for somebody who speaks spanish and being such a truthful guy do u not think he changeed it to suit his story
ReplyDeleteI understand your point too, but negro for him is like you saying buddy or mate or big fella. It's the way he speaks. I don't think he intended it in an insulting way at all. He would have been using that type of language with his team-mates all the time, and I'm sure none of them called him to task on it. I don't think it's stupid enough to get an 8 game ban. If we were to punish footballers for being stupid, there would be a lot of bans handed out. :)
ReplyDeleteHe has definitely learned a hard lesson now. I would say he was very surprised by the charge, and that is how his post match reaction has been described.
It takes a long time to learn the cultural subtleties in another country, but when we go back to speaking our own language, we slip into our habits, because they're natural. He will be extra careful now not to use that word again, but it will be difficult for him. It's like trying to change your accent.
Was not one of the FA's reasoning that evra was more confident when questioned on the video evidence? I think I might do a better job if I'd already seen it!
ReplyDeleteBut Evra instigated the conversation be in Spanish by his comment "la concha de tu hermana". Which by the way doesn't mean "fucking hell", it means "the pus*y of your sister (with the insinuation that you have intimate knowledge of it)".
ReplyDeleteWell considering Evra first addressed Suarez in spanish, insulting him in a way that shows a good uinderstanding of spanish insults but also an insult that particularly offends Uruguayans. IMO Evra new this! So in response, Suarez spoke back in Urugayan thinking Evra would understand the context of his words!
ReplyDeleteAnd as a result Evra has Exaggerated the accusations. Hmmm isnt that what the FA have called evra previously!!!
ReplyDeletesuarez called evra what evras team mates call him, luis never lied about this as all he called him was negrito, i think the fa will look as they should once this is cleared out.
ReplyDeletego and smoke more crack as you seem you are on it too muh.
ReplyDeletejust a thought what ever football team u follow can anybody say that if one of there family was in suarezs position they would trust the fa to deal with it in a fair way[ any one who says they would is daft or not telling the truth]
ReplyDeleteTrineo - please read the post properly. I've posted the section where the Panel state that they make a finding of fact. That you refuse to acknowledge that means you are not being objective. The panel made an unambiguous finding of fact, as evidenced by section 388 in the report:
ReplyDelete---
388. Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:
(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in
golpe" ("Fucking hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").
(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada"
("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los
negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada"
("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro,
negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
Are you now still going to erroniously argue that the panel 'did not find any facts'?
The commission simply believed Evra and didn't believe Suarez. That's the long and short of it. I have to say, much like Jaimie, I had my doubts when we signed Suarez. His exploits at the World Cup were beyond reproach. And the less said about his Ajax cannibalism the better. So I expected to read this report and come to the conclusion that he was guilty as charged. BUT...
ReplyDeleteThe entire report reads like 50% Evra-evangelising and 50% Suarez-bashing. Its bias is laughable. I'm paraphrasing here, but this is the gist "Evra is a thoroughly nice chap, blah, blah, blah, captained France, blah, blah, blah, very convincing witness, speaks very well blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum. And then "Suarez is is a dirty rotten liar, blah, blah, blah, lies through his teeth, blah, blah, blah, oh, and have we mentioned he's a complete liar?!"
I mean, to say someone is credible because they admitted to saying something naughty, then to ignore the fact that the other bloke did the same and so should also have a standing on his credibility reeks of pure bias.
The FA are a bunch of jokers. There is no doubt about that. With a little research, it would be quite easy to make a case so as to completely crush the FA's credibility, I tell you that. I have first-hand experience of their ineptitude.
Let's just hope that the top brass get a proper cross examination in an open court.
The wording that the FA determined was used by Suarez was "porque tu es negro" (because you are black). That isn't even proper Uruguayan Spanish. Luis would never say that. That is the way a person from Spain would say the phrase. A Uruguayan would say "porque tu sos un negro".
ReplyDeleteSuarez admits to saying "por que, negro" (why, black(man)).
Also the FA have determined that Suarez used the phrase in response to Evra questioning the foul on him, but he testified that he used it after the tap on the head (when Evra pushed away his arm). Two totally different confrontations. This is important because the FA rejected Suarez's testimony because the "por que, negro" didn't make sense in the context of the question Evra posed about the foul. Thus the FA are classifying Suarez as unreliable by a complete fabrication of language and context on their part. If you are going to discredit what some one testifies to saying, you must use their own words of testimony, not what you twist and fabricate to be their own words.
Hashim:
ReplyDelete"Saying I don't speak to blacks..." is what Evra said Suarez said.
I agree. To protect his honour, Suarez should take this to the courts. Of course he would risk further suspensions etc, but nothing is more important that a person's honour and reputation. If he loses, he can leave England and play elsewhere, and he won't find it difficult to find another club. I'm curious to know though how the South American players at ManU view this whole issue. Yes, Evra is your captain and teammate, but don't they feel that there is some injustice done here towards Suarez? I just hope one of these days, one of them will speak-up.
ReplyDeleteSomething being highly probable does not make it a fact. The case uses balance of probabilities as a standard, not being beyond questionable doubt. The issue HERE is that something highly likely was called a "fact" without conclusive evidence. If something hasn't and cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it can't be called a "fact".
ReplyDeleteEspecially when you consider that he walks into the referees office with Ferguson and accuses Suarez of calling him a "nig**r" five times. Also goes on French TV and says he was called a "nig**r" "at LEAST 10 times". Evra knew exactly what negro means in Spanish.
ReplyDeleteRacially offensive behaviour = offensive behaviour directed against a certain race.
ReplyDeleteInsulting behaviour = can be general or personal
Suarez never made any derogatory comments about anyone's race, but he did intentionally offend Evra by referring to his colour. If I called you spastic and you got offended, does it mean I have said anything offensive about someone with cerebral palsy? Does it infer I am prejudiced against the mentally handicapped? That's the difference! I wouldn't have insulted spastics, neither would it suggest I've got anything against them, but I would have insulted you and referred to spastics.
Nice one. That's exactly what I've tried to get across.
ReplyDelete1) Anyone watching the game could see that Suarez was trying to wind up Evra throughout. Given that this was the case Suarez claim that the pinch on the arm and tap on the head were meant in a friendly way suggest that he was not being honest in his testamony. If he had been up front and said "Yes I was trying to wind him up but I never said these words" he might have been believed.
ReplyDelete2) The chances that 2 people independantly misheard seperate conversations in 2 different languages in exactly the same way and that what they thought they heard matched what was said by a 3rd party is so small that, in my opinion, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Suarez did say "because you are black".
3) I believe that it is consistant for Suarez to have said what has been claimed and not be racist. I belive that he said to provoke a response from Evra and he succeeded. Evra got a yellow card as a result of his being "wound up". What Suarez did not anticipate was that his gamesmanship would become public knowledge.
4) Suarez is no stranger to lenghty bans and damaged repuations. His nickname in Holland is "The Cannibal" following his 7 match ban for biting an opponent. I have been waiting for some similar indiscretion ever since he arrived at Anfield. Even his wife says she doesn't like the man he becomes on the field.
Yes! I think Suarez shouldn't be doubly penalised for what is 1 offence. The purpose of a harsher penalty is to deter racism, but since it was found that Suarez's comments were not racially offensive, he should only be penalised for bringing the game into disrepute, which is 4 games out, and Evra should be slapped with the same ban too!
ReplyDeleteGreat article Jamie. I agree that the whole process is flawed and confused, and Saurez's reputation is now left in tatters without any firm evidence. Regarding the issue of probabillity of evidence, you can equally make the case that given the FA brought the case against him, there is inherent bias which means that the probability was that they would find him guilty.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to your point above, I don't agree. I'm not aware that Negro is an unacceptable or racist term in this country and I have lived here most of my life. Some people in the english speaking world find the word Black more offensive than Negro. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negro
Also Negroid is a scientific definition in anthropology for Black people, as Caucasian is for whites. Words are words at the end of the day. It is the context that they are used in the creates communciation. As per the Alan Hansen situation, who got slated for using the word "Coloured" which was once deemed to be PC, but is no longer. Is it really his fault that he didn't know this when his intentions were PC? IMO over sensitivity in these situations get percieved as witc hunts and this tends to set back race relations rather than improves them.
Again, the entire findings are based on the balance of
ReplyDeleteprobability legal test - this is clearly stated in the document. I'm assuming the term "findings of fact" is standard legalese in
these types of docs. Fair enough if you've decided to take isue with the semantics of the document rather than admit your player was probably/likely in the wrong.
I'm also curious, since you seem so concerned with this attack on Suarez character, if you
think Liverpool and Kenny should publicly apologize for insinuating that Evra had previously made false racist accusations? My guess is no...
My only question is, did the FA give Evra popcorn while he was reviewing the video evidence?
ReplyDeleteThere is also a BIG inconsistency in what Evra alleged Suarez told him in Spanish, because the place where Suarez comes from they would have never used those words.
ReplyDeleteSimply: Evra gave a version of the Castellano Spanish. And Suarez speaks the River Plate Spanish, and would never have said: "Por que to eres negro", but instead would have said "Por que SOS negro". Big inconsistency. As were the changed over the time "he called me black", then changed to "he called me n****", then 5 times, then 10 times. Then admitted that the word negro was used, but he took it for N***** because his Italian is better than his Spanish, etc. All that was ignored by the commission, as many other facts.
And what Comolli was reported to say: "tues negro" doesn't make sense. There's no word like "tues" in any version of Spanish.
jaime, is there a legal recourse for suarez? i know you mentioned earlier that it cannot be challenged, but can suarez sue the FA and/or evra for libel/defamation?
ReplyDeleteforgot to add: this will bring the burden of proof bit into play, wouldn't it? also, did you read law in school?
ReplyDeleteevera did not know the correct translation of negro.
ReplyDeletebut he correctly translated every other word uttered by suarez in spanish.
i find this hard to believe.
My old man used to say "you can tell the Integrity of a man by the backing he gets from friends"! It's funny how the whole Liverpool squad, friends, footballers (intenational teammates), journalists, Newspapers(Uruguyan) have all jumped to Suarez' defense and not one person has come out and staked their reputation on Evra's word and integrity!
ReplyDeleteI'm not wasting my time on this pointless discussion any further. You just don't get it. We'll agree to disgree.
ReplyDeleteso he'd call steven gerrard (or any other white player) negro then?
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting piece of info in all this, is one that never gets a mention:- Mr Kuyt is "absolutely certain" he heard Mr Evra say " YOUR ONLY BOOKING ME BECAUSE IM BLACK! Hmmm.... Why wasn't this taken seriously????? Is it because it would have made the FA and Evra look silly?? So why didn't they believe Kuyt over Evra??? Two words..... STITCH-UP!!!!
ReplyDeleteOf cause he does because he told the ref and Giggs he had been called black and then changes the word n****r to make the whole situation even worse he lied as simple as that but then they call him an impressive witness! What for lying to the world!
ReplyDeleteGreat Article Jamie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you said.
Whether he used the word Negro with racial intent or not does not matter. He is in another Country with a different culture therefore he should have though twice.
Branding him a racist so publicly is wrong however. You see the difference between him and Terry? Why? Because the FA are Bias.
And the mirror should be sued by Liverpool and Mr Suarez.
The FA are clueless and Liverpool should not have come out and 'blindly' support Suarez just because he is one of our players. Because now the the FA and the media have made a meal out this, Liverpool are getting a tainted name for showing support to a 'racist'. -_-.
Shame on the FA for being inadequate in dealing with this in a respectful and tactful manner and withholding evidence, shame on Suarez for not using his common sense regarding calling Suarez a 'Negro', shame on Evra for over milking it, shame on Man Utd and Fergie for supporting Evra when it was Evras words against Suarez so 50-50 one of them was lying or being honest, shame on the Media but the Mirror especially for defaming and tainting Suarez name and reputation, shame on Liverpool for blindly supporting Suarez instead of waiting for a full verdict and explore all options and facets.
Oh and shame on Carroll for not scoring vs Newcastle lol
Indeed! They chose to completely disregard Kuyt's evidence here, yet decided his evidence which contradicted Suarez was good to go!!!
ReplyDeleteWhydon't you answer my question regardingthe attack on Evra's character?
ReplyDeleteFor some reason the fact Evra lied about the word that was used doesn't matter!
ReplyDeleteIf Evra hadn't come out with the N word which has been proved wasn't used which caused the club to take its stand it has, we wouldn't have this trouble . Evra said he doesn't like saying N****R but was shouting it after the game but wouldn't say it to the ref on the pitch after hearing a N word which he knew meant black in Spanish not N****R.
ridiculous comment. liverpool have had more black players than most clubs in the uk, and currently have not only johnson as stated. it is a multi-national squad and club. the implication of hashims comment is blatantly racist. 'saying i dont speak to blacks' is only an allegation by evra, that even his own team mates cannot support.
ReplyDeletethe point being, that if there is anything left of our national beliefs that one is 'innocent until proven guilty' not 'guilty because 3 english blokes believe patrice evra' without evidence or witness. would be laughed out of a real court, which is where liverpool and suarez should take it.
ReplyDeleteJaimie, LFC is looking for a journalist, and I think you have written enough solid articles-some of which I was critical about-to apply for that job. But more seriously, are you in contact with the legal team at Anfield? Does it seem like we'll appeal? Do they know anything about these "revelations" of yours?
ReplyDeleteyou talking nonsense here. this is a malicious accusation by a man who has repeatedly used the race card to get himself out of hot water .. and been shown to be a liar. but you want to believe him. they believe him because theyre 3 english blokes with no respect for foreign language, foreign culture, in what has turned into a highly racist witch-hunt
ReplyDeleteyou miss the point yourself. people are not guilty because someone thinks it probable or because they choose to believe. no witnesses. no corroboration. no evidence. nothing ..... = not guilty or at worst unproven. get a grip
ReplyDeleteand against torres .... and against finnan ... andf against a chelsea groundsman ...... never ending
ReplyDeleteone person's word against another, in relation to what Kuyt allegedly heard from Evra, you pair of Clouseaus
ReplyDeletea crime ? well actually PROBABILITY or the fact they they choose to believe Evra is no justification to condemn a man. Evras history makes him a far from credible witness. There are no witnesses to support what was said. He said it was said repeatedly. nobody but nobody heard it. he said he told the ref who cant remember being told. no camera evidence either. nothing. if it goes to court, as it should, it will be laughed out. no witness, no evidence = not guilty or unproven. end of. this is just a highly racist witch-hunt to point the finger at a foreigner and detract from the england captaain
ReplyDeletedid evra actually misunderstand suarez or just choose to ?? i think the latter. given that the 'offensive name' is what he is called by anderson, the silva twins, hernandez ..... i think he probably understands it perfectly
ReplyDelete100 percent right
ReplyDeleteJaime, its the testimony of three people against the testimony of one.
ReplyDeleteIf you threatened to kill some one and three people heard you say it, but you later claimed that you didnt say it then the weight of evidence supports the three, not the one, especially when two of those people are hostile wtnesses who are actually on the side of the accused. thats how these things work. They cant prove conclusively that you said those words, but on the strength of a threefold testimony they would say that in all probability you did. Its called forensic evidence and its what a fair percentage of our criminal system is based on. If Comolli and Kuyt did misunderstand Suarez, which I dont think they did, then it underlines how badly Liverpool handled the situation. They should have realised the gravity of the situation and made sure that what Suarez was trying to communicate was correct. Compare that with Alex Fergusons handling of the initial conversation with the referee when he insisted that the conversation should be written down word for word. The fact that Liverpool did not get this intial communication with Suarez consistent with each other leaves Suarez wide open to the accusation that he claimed that he was misunderstood to save his own bacon.
Jaime, being objective about this, whats the chances of Evra saying exactly what Kuyt and Comolli communicated were the initial words of Suarez and all three getting it wrong?
Are you saying that the commission should take the word of one person over the word of three? Its a game of probabilities mate and Im afraid that Suarez's version is the least probable by some distance. No way can the commission reject the testimony of one person who claimed to have heard him say it, plus the testimony of two others who claim that the accused admitted saying it in the initial stages.
if he called gerrard 'pale face' would u be so upset lol anything to attack suarez .....
ReplyDeleteHi Noskee. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm not really interested in the job. I prefer to work for myself, which means that I can say what I want without having to adhere to anyone's editorial agenda.
ReplyDeleteThe legal team must know of everything we've been discussing, but in my view, they've been negligent from day one. The entire response of the club, from the manager, to the players, to the legal team has been amateurish IMO.
did FA take into consideration of the conversation between 2 players was in Spanish? different language have different meaning to it. It may be offensive in one country but not for the others. as you all know.
ReplyDeleteIs calling a person "black" in England offensive? (i'm from Asia)
if it is, we have to consider the intention, their conversation in Spanish language, his understanding of England culture (not other country)...etc which i strongly believe the 8 matches ban is too harsh....to the extend of crazy.
by the way, if anyone feel offended by being call "black/white people". please do not come to Asia.... in my opinion you will feel very offended.
cheers
suarez was winding evra up ... by running rings round him for the 2nd time in a year ... gonna ban him for that ?
ReplyDelete100 percent correct IMO
ReplyDeleteTotally agree, Jaimie. In fact, our side had 2 months before the hearings and went there unprepared, and was caught on such a stupid thing as linguistic discrepancies.
ReplyDeleteAnd WHY OH WHY didn't LFC wait for the written report before issuing such a statement.... really, the legal teams and the club management did not do ourselves any favours with the way they handled it all... Dug ourselves a big hole and now trying to get out of it and digging even deeper...
Regarding the use of the work "Fact". Legally speaking, "fact" is defined as "the standard of proof may require that a fact be proven to be "more likely than not", that is there is barely more evidence for the fact than against, as established by a preponderance of the evidence; or true beyond reasonable doubt."
ReplyDeleteIn life, irrespective as to whether the majority consider a statement to be factual, there are alweays people who will claim the statement is not factual, therefore, beyond reasonable dout is the cut of point for whether something is factual or not.
Are you for real? The word negro might not be insulting in a lot of instances in Spanish. But when it is part of a sentence that was used to answer Evras original question of why Suarez had kicked him, it takes on an offensive meaning.
ReplyDeleteEvra " Why did you kick me"
Suarez " Because you are black (negro)
Stop playing the its not an offensive word in Spanish card, look at the whole sentence and the mindset behind it, he hasnt a leg to stand on. This is what Evra said was Suarez's answer, and this is what Kuyt and Comolli understood Suarez to have said after they asked him, that is a fact.
Allenagnew - It has not been proven as a fact that Suarez said 'because you are black'.
ReplyDeleteI concede that he may have said it, but it's equally likely that he didn't say it. What is true though is that it was not proven as a fact, and if you're going to condemn someone to a life of being labelled a racist then there should be no doubt over what was said.
Wow. How do you think the justice system works? People are found guilty every day based on who a judge/jury chooses to believe. And stop saying there is no evidence! Two of Suarez' teammates gave evidence supporting Evra's side of the story. My goodness you are delusional.
ReplyDeletePlease tell me how/when Evra "repeatedly" played the race card to get himself out of water, whatever that means? Please, let's see your evidence? Evra has never accused anyone of racism or racists acts until the Suarez case. Please stop trying to defame Evra's character.
ReplyDeletewhen the punishment was announced like
ReplyDeleteMost Liverpool fans no doubt i was furious
8 games, On what evidence I thought if the
F.A have evidence then release it, instead of
Holding it back, now they have released there
Massive report wow 115 pages to be precise,
I to think there are flaws in the report I'm not
Sure what action the club will take?im not sure
If Suarez's advisers will appeal but what I do know
Is if this was in a court of law you would not get
Anywhere with probabilities??. And this is remember
Based on just Evra's evidence who I seem to recall
Accuse Steve Finnan many seasons ago now let's not
Forget as you have pointed out very well and in depth
Suarez as not denied saying " negro " but he is not a
Racist says Evra so If Suarez had been sent off
For foul and abusive language in any manner
I believe it carrys a 2 game ban and the F.A can up
To 4 if they seem fit so is 8 not just a little
To steep. It is I.M.O!
Jaime, Im a United fan, and I genuinely feel sorry the guy, its a situation that has gotten way out of control, largely due to the handling of it by Liverpool FC and Suarez's acts of self preservation, which is probably understandable. But if you read what I said carefully, what I said was a fact was that Evra said Suarez,s words were "because you are black" and that Kuyt and Comolli confirmed this after speaking to Suarez. This alone was proof enough that an offense was committed. Try seeing it through the commissions eyes. Yes the question of misunderstanding was possible, but was it probable, in thier opinion, it wasnt.
ReplyDeleteWhich they clearly stated in the findings.
I agree with the two of you. I feel we prejudged this case, and we have boxed ourselves up into a corner here. If our legal team claimed they had enough time, can they reverse that claim anymore? Can a deed that has been done be undone? I think it's all a mess at the moment. Our reputation is more important long-term, because players come and go. This is just making me sick!
ReplyDeleteAgreed, term of suspension is irrelevant if he truly did nothing wrong and wants to appeal it
ReplyDeleteI've always felt uncomfortable that a charge like this, which will sully Suarez's character forever, could be tried outside of the legal system
But, I suppose everyone who plays professional football in England is subject to the rules of the FA, no matter how antiquated they may seem to be
Three people stated that Suarez said "because you are black (negro) Evra, Kuyt and Comolli. Do you not understand this.
ReplyDeleteEvra " Why did you kick me?"
Suarez " Because you are black (negro)
Evra claimed that this was the phrase that Suarez used, and Kuyt and Comolli said that Suarez repeated this phrase to them after they asked him what happened. Its not ones mans word against another, its three mens words against one. There are three witnesses to what Suarez said, one directly and two indirectly, they provided the evidence. And its actually four if you count Suarez, though he later said that Kuyt and Comolli misunderstood him.
Evra made the false statement in using the N word!
ReplyDeleteI would say that Evra has strong grounds for taking Kenny Dalglish to court for the statement he made about Evra when he spoke to the referee after the game and possibly Liverpool FC for some of the stuff in their official statement.
ReplyDeleteAll Liverpool were worried about after the match was that Suarez had been accused of calling Evra the N word which was proved wrong or does everyone forget that the word was N****r that Evra said, this is why the club Kenny and supporters took this stand because that word was never said so how can Evra make a complaint when he used the wrong word ?
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the Commision rejected Kuyt's first hand evidence because it would have indicated Evra was a serial accuser. It has by that action called Kuyt a liar when he was the only credible witness.
ReplyDeleteThis referee did not discount the statement, just said he did not hear.
Why should hearsay evidence from the MU dressing room be admitted as truth when even the individual uttering the statements misunderstood the meaning as an insult. If Suarez utterings are now according to Evra not racist how can the words be insulting.
Racists are socially engineering the use of 'black' to be offensive.
Can a black person insult a black person by calling them black?
Jaimie, you are making a very common mistake. Suarez wasn't charged with being a racist, because that is difficult to prove. But he was charged with making reference to colour or race to insult someone. (racially abusing them)
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is not the motivation of the person accused, but its effect on the victim. The first part of the charge is were you insulted, the second part is were you insulted using reference to your colour. When you look at it this way, you can see why there is no reference in the charge to whether or not the person involved is racist. Instead it is were you racially abused.
Ultimately it's to stop racists, but also to stop players from winding up players using their colour or nationality. There are lots of players who would say anything to wind up an opponent. It doesn't mean that they believe it. However the important thing is that everyone has the right to go about their business without being racially abused.
Luis suarez was found guilty of saying that he kicked evra "Because you are black." and "I don't talk to blacks" amongst other things. I think that it is fairly safe to say that that counts as racist abuse, even if suarez goes home and lights a candle for his black grandfather every night. Luis suarez would do pretty much anything to wind up an opponent on the pitch. It doesn't mean that he's like that in his private life
Evra did lie! The N word was never used by Suarez this has been proved, remember Evra used N****r to the tv cameras and to Fergie not negro.
ReplyDeletePlease I read this blog as a Manchester United supporter as I find it, on the whole balanced. I have however great difficulty with the argument above. If Suarez said Negro and I think it is fairly clear that both players were not organising a dinner party then it is FAIR to assume that it wasn't meant in a friendly way.
ReplyDeleteCan we at least agree on that?
The club prejudged because of what Evra told the world that Suarez had called him the N word. That is why Liverpool never got all of Evra's tapes because he would have had to admit the word N****r was never said and the case would of had to been dropped.
ReplyDeleteWith respect, you have misunderstood my point of view. I haven't argued that Suarez was charged with being a racist. In fact, I specifically argued the opposite in several articles over the last few weeks.
ReplyDeleteI have argued that:
* The FA have convicted Suarez of saying certain things that are undoubtedly racist.
* They did this despite going to great lengths to make it clear they don't think he is racist.
The Report states:
388. Our findings of fact which are directly relevant to the Charge are as follows:
(1) In response to Mr Evra's question "Concha de tu hermana, porque me diste in
golpe" ("Fucking hell, why did you kick me"), Mr Suarez said "Porque tu eres
negro" ("Because you are black").
(2) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Habla otra vez asi, te voy a dar una porrada"
("say it to me again, I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "No hablo con los
negros" ("I don't speak to blacks").
(3) In response to Mr Evra's comment "Ahora te voy a dar realmente una porrada"
("okay, now I think I'm going to punch you"), Mr Suarez said "Dale, negro,
negro, negro" ("okay, blackie, blackie, blackie).
--
Whatever way you look at it, the things Suarez is accused of saying above are racist.
As such, whether the FA originally charged Suarez with being racist is irrelevant - by convicting him of saying the above things, they have basically branded him a racist, and that is what people will take from the report.
Yes, I agree with that, and the FA should've found Suarez guilty of saying that word in a negative way. It's a fact because Suarez admitted it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, to then go and say that it's a fact he said all the other UNPROVEN stuff is unfair, especially when it means he'll be condemned as a racist for the rest of his life (unless it's overturned on appeal)
Pity it didn't go to court with Evra on TV and witnesses saying the n word which was never said! Soon as it got to what was said on the pitch and Evra,Ref and Giggs says black they will want to know why he used N****r and it would be thrown out of court for being unreliable witness he would of had to prove the word N****r was used like in his original complaint of racist abuse.
ReplyDeleteLike what Liverpool proved that N****r was never used.
Branded a racist by whom. The people that want to hate him will hate him anyway, you would hope that a normal person can tell the difference. As seen on this site and others condeming/ supporting him the lines are drawn. Outside the Manchester United Liverpool divide I think people have understood what happened! The mindless minority will never understand.
ReplyDeleteEvra misheard Suarez! N****R when it was negro 10 times but still told the ref black and Giggs but he thought Negro meant N****r in Italian !
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly while I'm a liverpool fan i'm also black and in my view Suarez using the world Negro eight times certainly leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This is a man who has made in Europe for years now and clearly IMO know what is acceptable and what is not. In fact Suarez has admitted that he has used this term with Glen Johnson which I also find unacceptable that Suarez is using this term to describe Glen Johnson perhaps if someone had put a stop to it then this whole situation could have been avoided. At the end of the day it feels like we are playing semantics here. These are two players that had been battling on the pitch all day and clearly don't like each other. So for Suarez to argue that he used the word 'Negro' in a positive term when he's winding up Evra who has insulted him (according to Suarez) stretches credibility. I don't know what's in Suarez's heart but at the end of the day he used the word Negro which the F.A. have determined in their view that the word was used to racially describe Evra in their view. Suarez needs to learn from this take the ban with good grace and rebuid his reputation no good can come from further legal action or any other kind of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a nutshell thats it.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. They say he said racist things, but don't attribute intention to it. I don't think that Luis Suarez is a racist. But I think that he said racist things to evra to make him angry. Not because he is racist, but because it would make patrice evra really angry.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he realised how serious an issue that is in england, and he found himself way over the line, with exactly the very worst person to try it on with. So you see a person who isn't a racist, using racist language, to wind up a black man. Some People are just going to see a racist, but that is his own fault.
He either shouldn't have said those things, leading to evra's complaint. Or he should have made a better fist of denying what happened. His testimony was riddled with so many inconsistencies, but ultimately his story didn't make sense.
He claimed that he said "Negro" in a friendly way. But the video showed they were having a row, so according to the spanish experts, that "negro" then became an insult. If you look at paragraph 357 of the judgement, they don't just reject his evidence, They basically say it is so absurd that they can't believe a word that comes out of his mouth
357. Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened Even Mr McCormick accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the reliability of his evidence.
Basically he destroyed his own defence. He had to do two things. Convince them of what he said, and then convince them that evra had maliciously made the whole thing up. He couldn't convincingly explain his own behaviour. His evidence was so bad, it was used against him (it's the seventh time they say he says negro), and after that there was no way he was going to be able to convince them that evra was maliciously targeting him. It was simply too incredible, to meet any balance of probability
Evra Said nothing to make the FA doubt Him, and even admitted to saying what suarez would have understood as "F~cking Hell" So they basically accepted what Evra said because suarez had only managed to make them doubt suarez, not evra.
Liverpool never asked for any previous incidents for Evra to be included, (mostly because because suarez bit someone, and is the least popular footballer in africa) so being called unreliable by a previous tribunal wasn't a factor. Because Suarez's defence was so bad, it was effectively Evra's word against no-one. And that is why he was convicted. He didn't successfully deny anything evra said. And with no denial, they had no real choice other than accept evra.
It would be easy to make the same mistake, as the word for because and the word for why are the same in Spanish. The only difference is the way you pronounce it.
ReplyDeleteDon't Worry Trineo. Down here its fair to make judgement about Evra's character. Also it is assumed that whatever Evra is saying is a lie but Suarez is .. well .. misunderstood by the FA,people,his own teammates,his own club etc etc etc. Especially jj down here. "Evra made a false statement about the NWord". Even Liverpool football club doesn't believe but still they bang on and on and on. Syarez was rightly punished. And he knows. You know why. Coz i spoke to his mum. I may have misunderstood her though. Please don't ban me.
ReplyDeleteReminds of Rafa's facts. Thats when Liverpool fans promoted the 'highly probable' (in Pool fans' eyes) scenario of FA being lenient on United. The same fans now advocate the opposite saying that 'What Suarez said' is NOT a FACT. Do you see the irony here ??
ReplyDeleteSorry? What you trying to get at?
ReplyDeletedo you have a life ??
ReplyDeleteDo you really have a life ??
ReplyDeleteJohn Terry's case, handed to the Met Police as the FA know that due to reasonable doubt he will walk away without charge, and the FA need their captain to be squeaky clean, Suarez case handled by the FA in house, so they can take a strong stance on racism, even if they fail to prove it!
ReplyDeleteBoth cases should have been referred to the Police & CPS, if they had the Suarez incident would have been rejected by the CPS and not even gone to court, Just another case of the FA's inconsistency!
The FA are unfortunately the laughing stock of the football world, and lets face it Suarez will be banging goals in and destroying defence's again by Mid Feb,,,, The FA will always look like the incompetent fools they are.......
Given the overwhelming secondary evidence in favour of the first statement he is accused of making "porque tu eres negro", (disregarding the amateur experts in the River Plate dialect that have deliberately overlooked the FA reporting that Suarez used the pronoun "tu" whilst testifying), I think that even a finding that the second two statements weren't definitively established and the sixth and seventh uses of the term negro were pure extrapolations would only further tarnish Suarez's reputation. It would be like Reina claiming criticisms of his performance last night were mitigated by him not being at fault for the penalty. As you've said yourself, the possibility of Suarez's statement being correct and Kuyt, Daglish and Commolli all misunderstanding in different languages is pretty slim.
ReplyDeleteHe'll be condemned as a racist for the rest of his life for the simple reason that he didn't issue a statement after the match indicating that in the heat of the moment he'd made a stupid sarcastic comment (which he didn't expect Evra to take seriously given his own mixed racial background) and regretted continuing to argue rather than immediately apologising. Which both the FA (which could have given him a statutory ban without any drawn-out hearing) and Evra (who doesn't think Suarez is a racist) quite possibly would be prepared to accept is actually what happened.
Raul, The commision takes into account that tu eres negro would not be in common usage in rioplatanese Spanish, but the linguistic experts point out that it would not be uncommon for suarez to use the more common term when talking to someone who wasn't from uruguay or argentina. They wouldn't really understand him. In the same way that a born and bred scouser would tone down the idiomatic sayings unique to liverpool if talking to an american.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Suarez reportedly used the Tu rather than the vos construction during the hearing. If he was talking to the uruguayan press he would have used vos.
The evidence of the Spanish language experts was that Negro was a term of affection in the way that suarez said, however not if used in the context of a row. Then it is offensive. Suarez was pinching evra, and touching his head, and the FA concluded that they were having a row, and ruled that what suarez said wasn't friendly but was offensive. They ruled that suarez's defence simply didn't make any sense, even on its own merits.
The "linguistics experts" are English speaking natives.
ReplyDeleteThey are not qualified to tell a Spanish native speaker what words in Spanish mean. The arrogance of that stand is simply outrageous. End of the story and you can parse this in any way you want, evidently.
The author wants to have it both ways. He won't admit that Suarez said the word negro, when Suarez himself defended his use of the word negro. You (and Suarez, Danglish, and Liverpool FC) are splitting hairs in trying to determine what is "fact". Is it a fact he said this, did the cameras hear him say that, was something lost in translation, etc. The FACT is, in his own statement, Suarez defended his use of the word negro. There would be no need to defend it had he not said it, and more importantly, had he not used it in an abusive manner. I think (Blackburn striker) Jason Roberts said it best: This was an argument, and whether he thought the word was inoffensive or offensive, common sense dictates that in the course of an argument, he was using the word abusively. That's all that matters here, because that's the letter of the law in Rule E3(1). His language was abusive. Whether the cultural meaning is benign or malicious in the UK, the US, or Japan, he was using abusive language, so it is case closed at that point. It shouldn't matter if he were calling him a 'crybaby', if he was doing so abusively, he is in violation of the rule and the FA can slap him with whatever punishment it sees fit.
ReplyDeleteSuarez defended his language, because like the cat with the canary in his mouth, he knows he's guilty. I believe he is racist, and I believe there's a lot more racist footballers out there. For a long time, English football was blatantly racist, and maybe now they're trying to make amends. I think Liverpool fans are so peeved because for a long time now(and I know I'm generalizing here) they have had to harbor those racist sentiments at football matches. When Evra accused Suarez, many of them secretly loved it. They felt like Suarez was doing all the things they could no longer do and they loved it. That's why the outpouring of support has been so strong I believe, because deep down, whether you admit it or not, you can relate to a footballer who says that he doesn't talk to blacks.
He pinched him in an attempt to defuse the situation.
Yeah, OK.
What are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteThe author wants to have it both ways. He won't admit that Suarez said the word negro, when Suarez himself defended his use of the word negro.
I don't deny Suarez used the word 'Negro', and I have never denied it. In the article I even state:
"The only thing the FA's 115 page document proved as a FACT was that Suarez used the word 'Negro' in relation to Evra. Suarez himself admitted this in his witness statement".
If you're going to paraphrase me then please be accurate.
OK, so it seems that you are so hell bent on being right, that you've blinded yourself to when you are wrong. So, let me dumb this down a bit for you. Refer to your opening paragraph and you'll see how idiotic and contradictory you are.
ReplyDeleteOnly an idiot can say that Suarez has been "convicted - without proof -of stating things [sic] are undeniably racist" and then go on to say that Suarez admitted to using the term 'negro'. Suarez IS THE PROOF, genius. If Suarez stated that he used the word 'negro' in reference to Evra, then cameras, witnesses, and the like are unnecessary. It's called a confession. Suarez's argument has never been that he didn't make the remark that you call "undeniably racist", he has hid behind the age old argument that his remarks were taken out of context. Suarez would have you believe the term 'negro' is one of endearment (you probably would).
You shout again and again about "FACTS", but then make an asinine statement like "one thing that is repeated over and over is the fact [sic] the Suarez is NOT a racist". Explain to me, dumb-ass, how do you prove for a "fact" that someone is not racist?
And THIS is what I mean about having it both ways. If the utterances he is accused of saying are "undeniably racist" (your words), and there is no need to prove that he said them (because he admitted to such), then how the hell is he not a racist, nimrod?
As I said before, you are pissed off not because Liverpool FC will be without its star player for a while, but because the racist inside you HATES to see when other racists are punished. You (and a lot of other people in this comments section) create all sorts of conspiracy theories to distract away from the fact that you don't see anything wrong with what Suarez said and you probably don't see anything wrong with the actions of the goons who killed Stephen Lawrence.
The reality, you wanker, is that racism is racism, and whether it is black on white, white on black, or Pakistani Muslim on Englishman, it is wrong across the board. Because it is (no pun intended) a black and white issue. One can't be a "tad bit racist", you are or you aren't. And it doesn't matter which race is inflicting racism against another because it is wrong, period. The things you write are asinine and off-base, but if I saw you being attacked because you were white, black, or Indian I'd do something to stop it because it's wrong. If you were being attacked for being a dumb-ass, well then, that is a different story.
I hope that is "accurate" enough for you.
Be a man, grows some bollocks, and admit that the Uruguayan got what he deserves.
Evra seems to have got away with using sexist derogartory language when he said "Concha de tu hermana" which in the very literal sense means "your sister's pussy". In this 115 page report that the FA insisted on making public it clearly states that when a player uses derogartory language they are subject to a two match ban, so where's Evra's? Everbody talks about Suarez facing up to what he has said but what about Evra, when will he face the consequences of his actions? According to the FA football is a family game so where exactly is the respect for women then? One rule for one and one for another wheres the equality in that!
ReplyDeleteWell said Jamie,i read the report and was gobsmacked when I heard they were not to appeal,i agree with you again on the fact he is guilty of using the word negro or negrito,in his own words but to be labelled as fact on the other statements,we will lose this player unless we get this straightened out,he will suffer all forms of abuse from here to the end of his career.
ReplyDeleteRaul, so who's laws should we apply here? I'd rather not start taking account different people's linguistic habits, while here in the uk, so they can start commenting on irrelevent things during an argument. If they want to do that at home, good for them, I'm happy not to visit their country, and if they want to bring that behaviour here, I'm happy if they do not visit mine.
ReplyDeleteRaul, it is a shame that you find it arrogant and outrageous that an English panel should make a decision on what happens on an English football pitch. I'm sure Uruguay is a paragon of open minded and tolerance of all sorts. Really, that is great for them.
ReplyDeleteWhat they are telling the spanish speaker is what he should keep away from when speaking on an Enlgish football pitch. And I don't believe he did not know that already from all those years in Holland.
what did he use the word negro for while in a football match, in a seemingly heated exchange, with a person he doesn't know??? i'd say the evidence is more in favour of him actually saying those things.
ReplyDeleteI kicked you because your black???? do u people even have a brain? your line of argument is pathetic.
ReplyDeleteIt is FACT when you simply arrange all the possible word formations and find the count of innoffensive ones to be 0
ReplyDeletelol if i said i kicked you because your white would you be upset
ReplyDeletelol the guy know as a 'cannibal'- get real he has no rep to protect.
ReplyDelete