The FA panel hearing the Luis Suarez-Patrice Evra racial abuse case is due to deliver its verdict today, but what will it decide? Will Suarez be guilty or not guilty?
As this site exclusively revealed yesterday, panel-member Denis Smith has close ties to Man United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, which (IMO) casts doubt upon the overall impartiality of the panel.
With that in mind, I believe the current panel should be disbanded, and replaced with a new panel staffed with people who have no past or present professional or personal affiliation with Sir Alex Ferguson, or Man United.
Of course, pigs will fly before the FA admits its this panel-selection incompetence, so what can we expect from the verdict?
The FA Charge/s
The FA's statement on Suarez suggests two separate charges:
* It is alleged that Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules.
* It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra."
It's unclear whether the 'ethnic origin' claim is a separate charge, or part of the 'abusive and insulting words' charge, though the FA's use of the term 'further alleged' suggests two separate charges.
My Prediction
Suarez to be found guilty of charge 1 (Use of abusive and/or insulting words), but not guilty of charge 2 (reference to ethnic origin).
Reasoning
* The FA will probably use the complex cultural nuances at play here to circumvent the race issue. Given the context of the game, Suarez's intention when allegedly using the word 'negro' (or variation thereof) seems clear. However, it will be next to impossible to prove that Suarez genuinely had racist intent.
* There is a reason why no top-level player has ever been 'convicted' of racial abuse in the entire history of English football: if no one is found guilty, then it doesn't exist, and the FA can keep its unblemished race-record intact. Ultimately, I don't think the FA has the guts to convict Suarez of racial abuse.
* If the FA find Suarez guilty, it will basically amount to a damaging admission that racism DOES exist in English football, something that would reflect badly on the FA, and English football in general.
* It's the same with the John Terry situation; if England's captain was found guilty of racism it would be a massive embarrassment to the FA, and they have done everything possible so far to avoid that happening.
* I also think the FA will view Suarez's Fulham infraction as a possible lifeline. It's easier for them to dismiss the Evra race charge if Suarez has already been severely censured for something else, and I have no doubt that the FA will disproportionately punish the Uruguayan over the Fulham incident (In effect, punishing him for both incidents).
However this ends, I believe Suarez will receive a hefty fine and a minimum 6-game ban; he just won't be convicted of the 'ethnic origin' part of the FA charge.
Just to be clear: If Suarez is proved to have had racist intent then he should, of course, be found guilty of racial abuse, and receive the harshest punishment available.
How do you think it will go? What are your predictions?
Jaimie Kanwar
As this site exclusively revealed yesterday, panel-member Denis Smith has close ties to Man United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, which (IMO) casts doubt upon the overall impartiality of the panel.
With that in mind, I believe the current panel should be disbanded, and replaced with a new panel staffed with people who have no past or present professional or personal affiliation with Sir Alex Ferguson, or Man United.
Of course, pigs will fly before the FA admits its this panel-selection incompetence, so what can we expect from the verdict?
The FA Charge/s
The FA's statement on Suarez suggests two separate charges:
* It is alleged that Suarez used abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour towards Manchester United's Patrice Evra contrary to FA rules.
* It is further alleged that this included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra."
It's unclear whether the 'ethnic origin' claim is a separate charge, or part of the 'abusive and insulting words' charge, though the FA's use of the term 'further alleged' suggests two separate charges.
My Prediction
Suarez to be found guilty of charge 1 (Use of abusive and/or insulting words), but not guilty of charge 2 (reference to ethnic origin).
Reasoning
* The FA will probably use the complex cultural nuances at play here to circumvent the race issue. Given the context of the game, Suarez's intention when allegedly using the word 'negro' (or variation thereof) seems clear. However, it will be next to impossible to prove that Suarez genuinely had racist intent.
* There is a reason why no top-level player has ever been 'convicted' of racial abuse in the entire history of English football: if no one is found guilty, then it doesn't exist, and the FA can keep its unblemished race-record intact. Ultimately, I don't think the FA has the guts to convict Suarez of racial abuse.
* If the FA find Suarez guilty, it will basically amount to a damaging admission that racism DOES exist in English football, something that would reflect badly on the FA, and English football in general.
* It's the same with the John Terry situation; if England's captain was found guilty of racism it would be a massive embarrassment to the FA, and they have done everything possible so far to avoid that happening.
* I also think the FA will view Suarez's Fulham infraction as a possible lifeline. It's easier for them to dismiss the Evra race charge if Suarez has already been severely censured for something else, and I have no doubt that the FA will disproportionately punish the Uruguayan over the Fulham incident (In effect, punishing him for both incidents).
However this ends, I believe Suarez will receive a hefty fine and a minimum 6-game ban; he just won't be convicted of the 'ethnic origin' part of the FA charge.
Just to be clear: If Suarez is proved to have had racist intent then he should, of course, be found guilty of racial abuse, and receive the harshest punishment available.
How do you think it will go? What are your predictions?
Jaimie Kanwar
Ah, stop your moaning. He's as guilty as sin. The guy has a history as long as your arm with disgusting things he's done. Just open your eyes mate!
ReplyDeleteThe FA really do operate on a whim don't they? They take restrospective action on certain incidents only after the media has blown up a sufficient storm over it (Ben Thatcher springs to mind), while there are no set penalties for charged offences in terms of fines or bans so it's very hard to believe that they don't just make up a number on the day and stick with it. Example being the infamous Paolo Di Canio incident when he pushed over a referee. He got 11 games. What sort of number is that? Why not 10 games or 12, why not 3 months from all competetive football? To paraphrase a popular saying over here in Ireland, the FA is a professional association run by amatuers.
ReplyDeleteLike most associations in Ireland
ReplyDeletenob
ReplyDeleteWell if you're referring to the FAI, the banks and the water board you've got a point :p
ReplyDeleteCant the referee have a case against EVRA? as its in the report that when the referee booked him, EVRA said "YOUR ONLY BOOKING ME BECAUSE AM BLACK" also he called Suarez 'DONT TOUCH ME SOUTH AMERICAN' so he is also being a racist and accusing the ref of being one too?? So are the FA going to charge the referee??
ReplyDeleteif he found not guilty does that mean evra gets a six match ban,like he should ov over the chelsea incident but only got a small fine,surely lying about racism is as bad as a racist
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid after mr Red nose getting involved he will be found guilty and probably be summarily executed in front of a full old trafford
ReplyDeleteHe will blatantly be found guilty and punished harshly as so the FA can sweep the more blatant John Terry case under the carpet as to keep his image and being England captain in tact
ReplyDeleteAdd in the HSE and the government too...
ReplyDeleteActually, it's 1 charge, but these are 2 things that must be proved in order to find him guilty. The panel must decide if Suarez used a reference to Evra's ethnic origin/colour abusively - which is very clear cut in Terry's case. I would think there are 2 approaches - 1) like it were a crime, meaning the 2 elements must be proven beyond doubt and 2) as a form of negligence.
ReplyDeleteFor the first approach, the fact is Suarez did utter a word that would have racist connotations to a black European, so the panel has to decide if it was used abusively. Now if Evra did call him a South American, that is equally clearly a reference to Suarez's ethnic origin. Unlike Terry who punctuated his colour description with expletives, these 2 did not. Ordinarily, as an Uruguayan would use negro or negrito, it is non-abusive, however, if the panel believes the tone he used it in was, or the context, then he would be guilty, but that would mean Evra did the same thing and both of them will have to be punished equally. I personally think it is likely both players will face 2-3 match bans.
The second approach will definitely favour Evra. Was it foreseeable that someone could be offended with the word Suarez chose? In England, definitely and it just so happened Evra was offended. However, this is not a lawsuit, so Evra won't be demanding damages. But if this is the approach adopted, the panel would have to take into consideration how badly Evra was affected and punish Suarez accordingly, so that he learns the hard way what he can't say - and I feel this would be unfair as Evra(regardless of colour) is just being a lovemaking lovebox.
Interesting Terry should be in the equation because he really has no defence. I'd imagine given the circumstances, they will try to find Suarez guilty but punish him lightly, so they can indeed get away with punishing Terry lightly too.
AS always FA is biased, why so far a certain Mr Fergie escapes after his taunts at referees while others are warned and sentenced not to be on the bench
ReplyDeleteNo doubt he will be found guilty but liverpool should appeal eve if they have to take it to court
ReplyDeleteThe only person who seems to have a fixation with race and colour is Evra.THIRD time. Does he think his victim status card gives him the right to get away with anything including attempt to incite disorder by kissing the badge in a provocative manner The mealy mouthed' muesli in the beard' gang who want Suarez hung drawn and quartered only encourage the guy to think he is untouchable.
ReplyDeleteI have bit someone, I've also handballed a sure fire goal an it wasn't for anything near a world cup semi final. Does this mean I'm a racist? How is he as guilty as sin? Please explain based on your extensive knowledge of the incident. Really, the only person who knows if he MEANT to be racist or even said those words is Suarez. If Evra thought he was bein racist he certainly kept it quiet. In fact all he did was count the amount of times he was called it. Very strange. If somebody was racist to me they wouldn't get past twice. Or I'D BITE THEM! lol
ReplyDeleteNo, Terry will get away. Why do you think the FA appeal against the 3 match ban concerning Rooney? FA is a regulating body r whatever it is, it should hve a code of conduct and ethics. you cn,t increase the no. of match ban for if appeal made by clubs while FA itself is appealing for clear kick from behind
ReplyDeleteIt is beyond comprehension how Evra has been able to instigate this case without himself being reprimanded for innapropriate behaviour. His hypocrisy is a traversty! That said, Suarez's use of the birdie at Fulham will hardly have endeared him to those who hold his fate in their grubby (dare I say manure soaked?) hands? :)
ReplyDeleteThe timing of this hearing - just before the busy Xmas period - also strikes as somewhat deliberate and arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteThe England FA panel will act like a kangaroo court. No prizes for guessing correct the verdict. Simple as that.
ReplyDeleteThe unproven close ties to Fergie. Are you still banging this boring drum. Except your man is guilty. very full of yourself as this site exclusively revealed yesterday. Joke. Go on silence those who disagree like yesterday
ReplyDeleteWhy do people bother commenting here. If you don't agree with the author your comments get deleted. If you slam the timing of this conspiracy you get deleted. Shame that freedom of speech doesn't exist in a bitter LFC fans head and his biased view is damaging how the rest of a well supported and respected club is portrayed. Shame
ReplyDeleteAs a chelsea fan I am neutral to this issue. Yes Evra has form from the Stamford Bridge incident but that apart there is no evidence to suggest anything untoward in the search for justice.
ReplyDeleteevra has a list as long as your arm of falsly accusing people of racism. He is worse than a racist. People like Evra keep racism alive.
ReplyDeleteHe accused steve finnan... nothing was found to be true, then he accused one of the chelsea staff, and received a 5 match ban himself, now he accuses suarez and in that game said to mariner (ref) its because im black or something when he was yellow carded. Evra is scum, and before u call me racist, im black and i hate people like Evra. I think he should be banned for the remainder of the season.
"lovemaking lovebox" - that is brilliant!!
ReplyDeleteAnd local county councils
ReplyDeleteyour guilty of being a fag - marty mcqueer
ReplyDeletehold on, i've asked loads of spanish speakers, and any south american I can lay my hands on and they all say that Negrito or negro is only endearing if the person you are talking to is your friend, or you are being friendly. If a south american says negrito to a black south american he is having a row with, then he'll get his head battered in.
ReplyDeleteIf suarez had tried that stunt in south america, it would still have been abusive.
South american isn't a reference to ethnic origin either, south american includes people as ethnically diverse as pele, kaka, alberto fujimori, che guevara lynch, gabriel batistuta and alberto morales, it sounds like a frankly bizarre thing for evra to have said.
u shut ur mpith u probably a manure fan just jealoudsnthat u have no player like suarez in ur ranks if e played for u u wudn be sayn ta t and anyway evra is a liar he has a past of lyin few years bak he said finnan abused him and was proved wrong
ReplyDeleteDoes anybody know where I can buy a tshirt that sais "NEGRITO"
ReplyDeleteOh dear. Someone has clearly decided to repeat hearsay without having the intellectual nous to investigate whether what they have heard is true or not.
ReplyDeleteSorry to burst your bubble with a few facts but;
1. with reference to the Chelsea groundsman; It was Micky Phelan and Richard Hartis who said that Evra was racially abused. Evra never made that claim. Evra was banned for 4 games (not 5) for the fight with the groundsman, not for anything else, and certainly not for unfounded accusations of racism.
2. With regards to the racism claim against the (at best) mediocre footballer Steve Finnan, these claims were made to the police by deaf football fans who said that they had lip-read Finnan making a racist remark towards Evra.This is the first time that Evra has ever accused someone of making racist comments.Funny, isn't it, how people use the internet to post comments, but aren't clever enough to take advantage of the information available on the internet to check whether their reconstitued arguments or statements are actually factual correct?Still, why bother checking the facts when quoting that post you read on a biased internet forum, eh?
Hopper, you are partly right. To a Uruguayan the word 'negrito,' is most of the time, the equivalent of 'mate' in the UK. I've witnessed people here in England use the word 'mate' with people other than their mates, and not necessarily in friendly discussions - frequently when trying to defuse potential rows.
ReplyDeletecan you type that again using real words not ones you have just made up
ReplyDeleteIf found guilty he should (as should any player from any team) shouldn't just get a few match ban, he should be kick out of the sport.
ReplyDeleteheh, yeah, and when someone starts calling you mate and pats you on the head during a row, would you interpret it as a sign of friendship?
ReplyDeleteWhat suarez said to evra, in the context he's admitted saying it, is considered abusive even by south americans.
nob heads all of you
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of bollocks. This discussion shouldn't even be happening as he should have never been charged. The FA is playing along with the English media, the referees and Fergusons attempts to unsettle the lad. Xenophobia at it's finest brought to you by an isle full of racists.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how you dress it up Evra has a history. In my opinion he's cried wolf too many times to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteHowever.......on the other hand if anything can be PROVEN against Suarez they should hit him hard. If no proof then lets please clear Suarez and move on!
That is also racism but nothing will ever be said about it
ReplyDeleteTotally agree
ReplyDeleteUsing your biased logic... also research what the fa said in conclusion to Evra's "unreliable and over exaggerated account of events"
ReplyDeleteIt says everything about the 'sport' of football that a team can lose at home 1 - 7 - in the most blatant circumstances imaginable - and nothing is done, while someone will almost certainly be banned for half a dozen games for possibly insulting another player. As for fairness where Man Utd are concerned! Do me a favour. United control British football - doubt if that will ever change.
ReplyDeleteWhy not just execute him and have done with it? No point in pussyfooting around with half measures.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right. What Fergie wants, Fergie gets. If only the United Champions' League matches had British refs! Barça wouldn't have a chance.
ReplyDeletesuarez didnt call him a black c**t like terry did anton. it was in the heat of the match and the word he used is the literal translation for black man, all be it a patronising one. it wasnt the n-word, or the numerous words used to de-humanise black people. i bet you if it was a disgruntled no-hoper wolves player on the wrong end of a 5 -0 beating evra wouldnt have even bothered telling his wife about it. its born from professional rivalry and bitterness. im black and i think suarez should be fined and given a suspended ban, because i dont believe his intent was racist, if it where im pretty sure he knows n****r would be alot more affective.
ReplyDeleteEvra was looking for a fight right from the coin toss at the start of that game.
ReplyDeleteDid we ever find out why he was raging at the toss?
The racism charge is the most serious thing Suarez has ever been accused of, and could massively damage his reputation if upheld. I don't think the FA will go there, and it doesn't seem they have court-quality evidence to say he did it beyond reasonable doubt. He gets a 3 match suspension, in my view.
ReplyDeleteand whilst we have our Irish cousins here, could you each tell me what EXACTLY a (_TW@T_) means in ROI as we ALL know what this means in UK, and possibly Uruguay & France... BUT I REALLY DOUBT IT !!
ReplyDeleteAnd Jaimie, please don't delete this post, I have tried to use non-offensive wording to illustrate how words can be mis-interpreted here in GREAT :( Britain, and I KNOW the answer all our friends over in Ireland will give... A non-offensive, COMMONLY & CASUALLY used word which basically means an IDIOT (eejit)And this is only about 38 miles away tip to tip !!!
Louis is innocent , it is your little french person that is pathetic crawl back into your hole scum
ReplyDeleteQuattroporte83 - I pity your inability to either read or comprehend. Read the facts again and you will see that Evra does not have a history. He has never accused anyone of making racist comments in the past. I appreciate that this might not fit into the fantasy scenario you want to create where the Angel Suarez is as pure as the Baby Jesus and Evra is your Pontius Pilate condemning the innocent man. Do you still believe in Santa Claus? Even though people have told you he doesn't exist? I assume you must do, because you clearly prefer the 'story' over the actual truth.
ReplyDeleteBrowny15lfc - Right. Just so we understand each other, you are referring to this part of the FA report into the Chelsea incident which states: "We do not accept that the verbal exchange - Mr Evra telling Mr Griffin
to put his pitchfork down and Mr Griffin telling Mr Evra in graphic
terms exactly where he would put his pitchfork – happened in that way.
Some such strong language and probably some such phrases were used by
somebody in the course of the overall incident that afternoon. But we do
not see from the evidence that Mr Griffin was raising or holding his
pitchfork in a way which would have led Mr Evra to ask him to put it
down in the first place. We find Mr Evra's account exaggerated and
unreliable."
So, just to clarify, you are saying that Evra's description of the pitch-fork wielding groundsman who stood before him means that he is now reknowned for making false claims of racism, even though he has never done so before?
And this fictitious evidence is greater than the counter argument that the opponent-biting, serial cheating, goal-line handling (with post match celebrating and gloating to boot) Suarez is always looking to to do anything he can to endear himself to his opponents, even if this means using endearing terminology which in every country (outside of Uruguay) is deemed to be highly offensive and downright racist?
Probably from the EDL or the NF.
ReplyDeletethe interesting part in all this is,,,evra could remember to count the amount of times he was called the name,he could still argue back with suarez,he then got himself booked for dissent,but at no time could he remember to tell the ref this was due to him being racially abused,thats until he spoke to old bacon face after the match,and it suddenly became a big issue,the whole episode stinks of manure
ReplyDeleteit's hilarious how you scousers believe that united control the fa. i guess that's why rooney and scholes got bans for pre season sendings off that gerrard escaped. i guess fa bias was the reason ferdinand got a huge ban for missing a drugs test whilst some no mark city player didn't. bent fa officials also punished roy keane twice for the same offence. and banned rooney for swearing after scoring a goal whilst countless others do the same.
ReplyDeleteand to those of you claiming suarez wasn't being racist. can you explain why in the middle of a frantic football match he kept reminding evra of his skin colour? he clearly saw it was upsetting evra but continued.
and those claiming evra is no angel might want to look at suarez's previous charges. a self confessed world cup cheat and a history of biting.
We'll in due course, so who gives a damn what your predictions are, Jaimie.
ReplyDeleteOr why Rooney was allowed to go unpunished for an elbow assault at Wigan. Why Ferdinand went out via the back door because of the social drugs in his system, why Evra 4 game ban coincided with the easiest of games in the season. Why Evra told the ref he was being booked because he is black. Neville with middle finger at City and not charged, the habitual surrounding of referees without charge............look in the mirror. Base judgement on merits. Evra claimed Suarez called him "something" ten times with video evidence. Where is it?
ReplyDeleteFor god sake do the English complain when we are called poms or chalky,do the Irish complain when they are called paddys or chalky,Do the Welsh complain when they are called thick as sh*t sheep sh*gg*rs or chalky,Do the Scottish complain when they are all called junkys sweaty socks or chalky,Do the Americans complains when we call them yanks.
ReplyDeleteSlavery died out a very long time ago its about time Black people got over them selfs and laugh it off like everyone else does!!!
Don't you mean The United Europa league matches!
ReplyDeleteWouldn't you say it's more loosely connected to the tort of defamation? Regardless, it seems strange to be running the tribunal case based on a criminal negligence trial. I find that the tribunal's best approach would be to judge the case to the standard of proof of "on the balance of probabilities". As we can never be sure to beyond reasonable doubt in this kind of case anyway that what he said was intended to be malicious etc
ReplyDeleteThe second approach you described I feel strangely may benefit Suarez (IMO). As surely it is totally unreasonable to contend that someone, anyone can be held personally accountable for another country's moral and ethical no no's if they have never been warned or subject to advisory's on the issue. To me I'm sure Suarez did not get of the plane from Holland and say "right, before I get to the business of playing football in this country is there anything I can and cannot say!" It just doesn't happen like that and will be contested in court if it does come to such a situation. Which i believe a court would have to find in his favor.
Tit for tat. Countless times Pool players have gotten away with murder and the same with United players. For a Rooney elbow, see a Gerrard elbow, for a convenient Evra ban, see a convenient Toure ban. Yes, Neville didn't get charged/fined/banned for the City incident but he got fined did he not for the Pool one. Etc. Get over it.
ReplyDeleteSome utter petty and vile nonsense spouted on this thread.Football fans really do turn into some neanderthal chumps as their common sense goes out of the window when it comes to rivals and their own clubs. Its like they are programmed to talk positive/negative rubbish about their own clubs and rivals.Really do talk a lot of petty nonsense some of you. Tribal nonsense sums it up
Well I'll just in and have a go, but not sure I speak for everyone in the country. As far as I can tell, having lived in both Ireland and England, there's little to no difference in the severity of the word, but then again I've not thought it was a particularly heavy insult in England either.
ReplyDeleteLet's just say you wouldn't hear it on daytime tv, but you also wouldn't slit someone's throat for file a complaint over someone calling you it either.
Well speaking as an Irishman, You could call me pretty much anything you wanted and I wouldn't necessarily mind. But If you called me paddy, I would proceed to give you a very difficult time indeed. If in the past you've referred to an irish person as paddy, they may not have said anything, but they have secretly put you on their C*nt list.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that as in every other walk of life, a person shouldn't have to accept being racially abused. Patrice evra shouldn't have to accept being called negro (which is a very offensive word in french) on a football pitch, and he is fully within his rights to make a complaint.
it's as much a matter of manners as anything else. You shouldn't casually say something to someone that will enrage them. saying that it's all part of a laugh and they should lighten up is only going to make things worse. Because not only have you belittled them, but you are demeaning their right to be legitimately angry, as though their anger doesn't matter.
I mean you won't like it if they start calling you a racist will you?
So He didn't say to the ref you're only booking me because i'm black! You are a Manc scum apologist!
ReplyDeleteSweeneyTodd,
ReplyDeleteSo just to clarify, you're saying that the final sentence of the statement you quote only applies to the immediately preceding sentence rather than summation of the entire passage.
I pity your reading comprehension.
I'm not sure how anyone can be certain what is in someones head when they say something. It's clear he has called him a name but if he says it is meant in a certain manner and there is proof that the term is often used that way in his home country how on earth can 3 strangers who weren't even at the game prove otherwise?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the other charge is concerned, what a total farce. If he's found guilty of effectively winding him up we may as well all give up. Players spend the whole match calling each other offensive names in the heat of the moment.
As far as Evra having a history. I don't think he accused someone of making a racist comment but he was certainly quick enough to react to what Phelan thought he'd heard.
This is really childish! The word "Negro" is a commonly used slang language. I'm from an african country but we have different religions. When i'm among black friends i often address as "nigga" or "negro". Does it me i'm insulting my own friends? If i'm right, Evra's team-mates call him as "nigga" too. Here, we even have a musical band named "Negro For Life". Is the word "Negro" so vulgar and insulting? If yes, then i must be so proud of my country for treating a vulgar word as a sweet and friendly one. Is being black an handicap? I guess no. But Evra makes it like it is. Evra is a cry-baby, Suarez made him dance like a baby-doll. That's the after-effect of Suarez dominance over Evra.
ReplyDeletewhy is it such a bad thing to make racial references if sumones ginginger you call them bung if someones blond you call them blondie if someones irish youll call them paddy, no children no cameras no nothing saw what was said so its clearly not a bad example to children all though every game they see top proffesionals lying about every dicision the offical makes intimadating him (man u/chelsea), suarez is from england and the word negro isnt derogortory or offensive in his language so the FA is cleary not being very open or acceptive of other cultures is that not racist?
ReplyDeletethats isn't from england (miss-type)
ReplyDeleteoh jesus, there aren't two charges, He is being charged with using racist language to wind up evra. not with being a racist, or anything like that.
ReplyDeleteAlso for the last time, Patrice evra has never made a comment or complaint about being racially abused before this one. he specifically said that he didn't hear sam bethell using racist language.
Get a grip of yourself, and try and get more in touch with reality as it is, rather than how you'd like it to be.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteThe reason I overlooked that point is because it is irrelevant to anything being discussed.
In 2008, Evra was arguing that he felt threatened by a groundsman holding a pitchfork. The FA said that they felt Evra's description of the level of intimidation was 'exaggerated and unreliable'.
What relevance does that have to my posts which have been to highlight the fact that people are either hugely misinformed or clear liars over the suggestion that Evra has accused people of racism in the past.
Or would you prefer a more juvenile argument over whether the accusation that Evra's description of intimidation was exaggerated makes him more likely to falsely accuse someone of racism or whether Suarez history of lack of respect for opposing players and fans makes him more likely to have commited the offence?
Suarez is an ugly faced racist that's why Klu Klux Kenny loves him right?
ReplyDeleteOh and Balle being black is not a handicap unless you call having a giant shlong a handicap or being a great dancer.
ReplyDeleteExactly my point "Base judgement on merits...". Would a none FA committee i.e. law of the land, have found Suarez guilty? We all know the answer is NO. You may view it as triabalism, others as passion but that is a matter of opinion and I have been brought up to respect opinion.
ReplyDelete