Liverpool FC Forum

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:05 pm

The best bit has to be where the FA deem Evra a more impressive witness as he did not use an interpreter. Seriously

by **7_Kewell** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:05 pm

Dundalk wrote:If its all true and let's face it, it dosent look good, the he got of VERY lightly with a 8 game ban.

exactly...accept it and move on. The lad needs a rest anyway.

by **Greavesie** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:05 pm

this paragraph is pretty daming for me:

Mr Suarez's evidence was that simultaneously with the blowing of the whistle, Mr Evra
said to him "Don't touch me, South American". Mr Suarez took this to be a reference to his
touching Mr Evra's arm on the goal-line a few moments earlier. Mr Suarez said that he
turned to Mr Evra and said "Por que, negro?". He said that he used the word "negro" at
this point in the way that he did when he was growing up in Uruguay, that is as a friendly
form of address to people seen as black or brown-skinned or even just black-haired. He
said that he used it in the same way that he did when he spoke to Glen Johnson, the black
Liverpool player. He said in no way was the use of the word "negro" intended to be
offensive or to be racially offensive. It was intended as an attempt at conciliation.

I can kind of understand this now. Cultural difference eh? Depends what you believe

by **damjan193** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:08 pm

A stupid question, but how do we know that Suarez said all that to Evra? Did he admit it? Or is it Evra's word only? If he did admit it than he is clearly using racist language because the whole thing wouldn't make sense if he meant to say "friend".
But either way this is really stupid, it's just two players insulting each other, Evra threatened to punch him, Suarez allegedly called him black, what's the big deal anyway, I'm sure Evra didn't even feel insulted never mind racially abused, he just used the illogical system to get Suarez in trouble. He's still a bigger kunt in my eyes than Suarez, even if Suarez called him black. Anyway, what happened with Terry?

by **Greavesie** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:12 pm

damjan193 wrote:A stupid question, but how do we know that Suarez said all that to Evra? Did he admit it? Or is it Evra's word only? If he did admit it than he is clearly using racist language because the whole thing wouldn't make sense if he meant to say "friend".
But either way this is really stupid, it's just two players insulting each other, Evra threatened to punch him, Suarez allegedly called him black, what's the big deal anyway, I'm sure Evra didn't even feel insulted never mind racially abused, he just used the illogical system to get Suarez in trouble. He's still a bigger kunt in my eyes than Suarez, even if Suarez called him black. Anyway, what happened with Terry?

I agree. Evra mentioned Suarez' sister (whether or not he actually has one), Suarez mentioned Evra's skin colour, Evra mentioned Suarez' nationality. It's all a load of bull

Kuyt said he's absolutely certain that Evra said to the referee that he was only booking him because he was black. Giggs says otherwise. We reject Kuyt's argument and accept otherwise because it doesn't seem possible Evra would say what Kuyt believes, however certain he thinks

by **LFC2007** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:28 pm

I've only just scanned the page and the excerpts posted by various people but it looks pretty damning to me. As expected, there was more to the charge than simply the use of the word 'negrito' or 'negro', but also other words that indicated the context in which the references to Evra's colour were made that are undoubtedly insulting and that, if true, disprove the suggestion that he used the term merely to identify or call out Evra. In any case, it seems that the references to Evra's colour alone were deemed to be insulting in the context of a game in England and therefore sufficient to constitute the breach, which I find hard to argue against. If that wasn't the rule, that is if the test was a subjective one, then words roundly regarded as offensive might not attract disciplinary action because of argued 'cultural' exceptions and the like.

by **lakes10** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 pm

this bit dont look good.

5. The FA's case, in short, was as follows. In the goalmouth, Mr Evra and Mr Suarez spoke to
each other in Spanish. Mr Evra asked Mr Suarez why he had kicked him, referring to the
foul five minutes previously. Mr Suarez replied "Porque tu eres negro", meaning "Because
you are black". Mr Evra then said to Mr Suarez “say it to me again, I’m going to punch
you”. Mr Suarez replied "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks". Mr
Evra continued by saying that he now thought he was going to punch Mr Suarez. Mr
Suarez replied "Dale, negro, negro, negro", which meant "okay, blackie, blackie, blackie".
As Mr Suarez said this, he reached out to touch Mr Evra's arm, gesturing at his skin. Mr
Kuyt then intervened. When the referee blew his whistle and called the players over to
him shortly after the exchanges in the goalmouth, Mr Evra said to the referee "ref, ref, he
just called me a :censored:

black".

by **Greavesie** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:36 pm

LFC2007 wrote:I've only just scanned the page and the excerpts posted by various people but it looks pretty damning to me. As expected, there was more to the charge than simply the use of the word 'negrito' or 'negro', but also other words that indicated the context in which the references to Evra's colour were made. In any case, it seems that the references to Evra's colour in themselves were deemed to be insulting in the context of a game in England which I find hard to argue with. If that wasn't the rule then words roundly regarded as offensive might not attract disciplinary action because of 'cultural' exceptions.

I genuinely find it hard to believe Suarez' use of words extend as far as what Evra alleges. I don't believe he said he 'doesn't speak to n!ggers' or whatever the statement reads. Suarez may have been winding him up about his skin colour which I find 100% plausable but it seems any accusation by Suarez such as the 'dont touch me South American' seems to be completely ignored...

by **lakes10** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:38 pm

Greavesie wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:I've only just scanned the page and the excerpts posted by various people but it looks pretty damning to me. As expected, there was more to the charge than simply the use of the word 'negrito' or 'negro', but also other words that indicated the context in which the references to Evra's colour were made. In any case, it seems that the references to Evra's colour in themselves were deemed to be insulting in the context of a game in England which I find hard to argue with. If that wasn't the rule then words roundly regarded as offensive might not attract disciplinary action because of 'cultural' exceptions.

I genuinely find it hard to believe Suarez' use of words extend as far as what Evra alleges. I don't believe he said he 'doesn't speak to n!ggers' or whatever the statement reads. Suarez may have been winding him up about his skin colour which I find 100% plausable but it seems any accusation by Suarez such as the 'dont touch me South American' seems to be completely ignored...

well in the report it say "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks".

by **Greavesie** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:40 pm

lakes10 wrote:
Greavesie wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:I've only just scanned the page and the excerpts posted by various people but it looks pretty damning to me. As expected, there was more to the charge than simply the use of the word 'negrito' or 'negro', but also other words that indicated the context in which the references to Evra's colour were made. In any case, it seems that the references to Evra's colour in themselves were deemed to be insulting in the context of a game in England which I find hard to argue with. If that wasn't the rule then words roundly regarded as offensive might not attract disciplinary action because of 'cultural' exceptions.

I genuinely find it hard to believe Suarez' use of words extend as far as what Evra alleges. I don't believe he said he 'doesn't speak to n!ggers' or whatever the statement reads. Suarez may have been winding him up about his skin colour which I find 100% plausable but it seems any accusation by Suarez such as the 'dont touch me South American' seems to be completely ignored...

well in the report it say "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks".

thats the one. In the report it says 'Evra alleges he says. I've only skimmed through it but does Suarez admit to this? I find it hard to believe Suarez would say that

by **lakes10** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:44 pm

Greavesie wrote:well in the report it say "No hablo con los negros", meaning "I don't speak to blacks".

thats the one. In the report it says 'Evra alleges he says. I've only skimmed through it but does Suarez admit to this? I find it hard to believe Suarez would say that[/quote]
i am on page 52 right now. doing my head the way this report has been set out.

by **lakes10** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:48 pm

now this bit has got me

215. It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is
not simply a case of one person's word against another. Mr McCormick nevertheless
submitted that the case turns very substantially on the evidence of the two main
protagonists, that we should think very carefully before reaching a conclusion based
solely on the word of the main protagonist for the FA, and that we should look at the
other evidence, and see whether there is other evidence that corroborates Mr Evra's story.

so going by that they mean that they have taken the word of others that he has sais it, yet at the time no one said he said anything....not even the Ref

by **worcester_red** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:50 pm

Did the players have their lawyers with them, otherwise it's a bit unfair to expect footballers to be able to give a convincing account of themselves, seeing as they are not exactly blessed with brains.
It's clear that Suarez has been a naughty boy but I still think it's being blown out of all proportion by Ferguson, who I assume is heavily involved in this judgement.

by **Basil** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:51 pm

According to the Echo, they only interviewed Suarez once, with no video assistance but they interviewed Evra several times with the use of video evidence to assist him.

If this is true, most of this evidence is based on Evra's version of events which doesn't seem to be a very fair way of conducting the case.

by **lakes10** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:51 pm

and this

223. Mr Greaney emphasised the limited nature of this task in his opening written argument
for the FA as follows:
"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.
For example, Mr Suarez is himself of mixed heritage, it seems clear that he has
experienced the diversity of life and it is plain from the materials submitted on his
behalf that he has done good work in the field of community relations. Moreover,
even Mr Evra says in his witness statement: "I don't think that Luis Suarez is racist".
However, the question is not whether Mr Suarez is in fact a racist. Rather the
question is whether, on 15th October 2011, for whatever reason, Mr Suarez used
language and behaviour which was racially offensive. This is an important
difference and, we submit, that the Commission will need to take care to ensure that
the questions it answers at the end of these proceedings are the narrow questions
posed by the charge and not any broader question as to the personal attitude of Mr
Suarez."

so lets get this right, they agree he is not a racist but do him for a racist act?

Liverpool FC Forum

Luis Suarez signs for Barcelona

Who is online