Liverpool FC Forum

by **red till i die!!** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:47 pm

since the release of the f.a's thesis on the incident its all gone quiet our end.
i would expect the clubs and suarez's legal team are sifting through it for inconsistencies and will appeal or bring it to a different court,either a legal one or the court for sport arbitration.
if he appeals to an outside court it will uphold any ban from the F.A till it gets heard and that could be months away.
evra seemed to be well schooled on what to say and i cant believe suarez wasnt given better advice on his statement.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:50 pm

crazyhorse wrote:I dont see the stitch up. I love the guy, he is a talisman and a world class striker but I am not se deluded I cannot see he has done wrong.

8 games. Yes very strong. But at the same time he has been found culpable of racism on the field. One of the things we should have all known when he came here is his desire to win, and his being prone to taking gamesmanship just that little bit too far. In the UTD game it worked as he psyched Evra right out but he went too far. Its time for us to suck it up and move on, and welcome him back for the run in.

I will wait to see what happens to John Terry before I cry stitch up. If he is guilty his misdemeanors are much worse and the penalty much worse.

sums up the situation perfectly.

Suarez has been foolish and to a degree admitted it. It's a harsh sentence but was to be expect with the FA's stance on racism

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:52 pm

58. Rule E3(1) states that a Participant shall not use abusive or insulting words or behaviour. The words are not complicated. The words of the Rule suggest to us that we should ask ourselves: do we consider the words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting? That the question may be difficult to answer in particular cases does not alter the fact that it is a straightforward question, uncomplicated by legal technicalities

59. Secondly, it would be highly surprising if the subjective test applied to some of the other types of behaviour prohibited by Rule E3(1). For example, it can be said with some force that whether a player has used violent conduct should not depend on whether he intended his conduct to be violent. Likewise, whether a player is guilty of serious foul play does not generally, and should not in the context of Rule E3(1), depend on his intention

Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say " hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra
say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment

If the subjective test is not to be applied here, (nor is the Public Order Act as this is not a criminal offence) shouldn't Evra be charged as well?

by **red till i die!!** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:05 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:
58. Rule E3(1) states that a Participant shall not use abusive or insulting words or behaviour. The words are not complicated. The words of the Rule suggest to us that we should ask ourselves: do we consider the words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting? That the question may be difficult to answer in particular cases does not alter the fact that it is a straightforward question, uncomplicated by legal technicalities

59. Secondly, it would be highly surprising if the subjective test applied to some of the other types of behaviour prohibited by Rule E3(1). For example, it can be said with some force that whether a player has used violent conduct should not depend on whether he intended his conduct to be violent. Likewise, whether a player is guilty of serious foul play does not generally, and should not in the context of Rule E3(1), depend on his intention

Mr Evra told us that he began the conversation by saying "Concha de tu hermana". Mr Evra's evidence was that this is a phrase used in Spanish like when you say " hell" in English, but the literal translation is "your sister's pussy". Mr Suarez did not hear Mr Evra
say this. One of the video clips that we have seen, taken from a close up angle behind the goal, does appear to support Mr Evra's evidence that he started the conversation with this comment

If the subjective test is not to be applied here, (nor is the Public Order Act as this is not a criminal offence) shouldn't Evra be charged as well?

thats just another reason why this case is silly.
evra admitted to abusing him so surely both of them should have been rapped with the same charge.
there is no smoke without fire and because evra reported it the F.A took his word as gospel.
evra is never going to be charged in this and its doubtful terry will get a hammering after the police are done with him.
will the F.A charge their captain and not bring him to the euros?.
dont think so!!

by **Kukilon** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:07 pm

I'm not surprised by the penalty because of all the politcal correctness around in todays society. He should have just lied because in all honesty it was just a banter between two angry players.

I still can't understand why it's necessary for example to make saying "nigger" illegal because it should be enough that you make a fool of yourself by using a word like that. A company not wanting to hire the best person because he is for example black will eventually go bankrupt because their competition will get better personel than them. Just let the free markets handle it.

by **red till i die!!** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:32 pm

Kukilon wrote:I'm not surprised by the penalty because of all the politcal correctness around in todays society. He should have just lied because in all honesty it was just a banter between two angry players.

I still can't understand why it's necessary for example to make saying "nigger" illegal because it should be enough that you make a fool of yourself by using a word like that. A company not wanting to hire the best person because he is for example black will eventually go bankrupt because their competition will get better personel than them. Just let the free markets handle it.

i dont think "nigger" is acceptable anywhere mate and proper order.
there's nothing wrong with calling a black man a black man but if that word is used then you are a racist,end of.
not sure where the rest of your post is going though.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:59 pm

I really think some people don't have a full appreciation of the history and nature of racism and prejudice in general if they feel that it is in any sense acceptable or is at least undeserving of a sanction to behave in the way that Suarez is alleged to have done. There is a reason that race, gender and the like are called 'protected characteristics'. The law and the FA rules acknowedge, legitimately so, the difference in simply calling someone a 'kunt' and appendaging that with a term that refers to such a characteristic.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:04 pm

Kukilon wrote:I still can't understand why it's necessary for example to make saying "nigger" illegal because it should be enough that you make a fool of yourself by using a word like that. A company not wanting to hire the best person because he is for example black will eventually go bankrupt because their competition will get better personel than them. Just let the free markets handle it.

football is different.

Clubs will happily hire anyone who they think will help them progress and make more money. Lee Hughes and Marlon King being prime examples...

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:28 pm

Kukilon wrote:I still can't understand why it's necessary for example to make saying "nigger" illegal because it should be enough that you make a fool of yourself by using a word like that. A company not wanting to hire the best person because he is for example black will eventually go bankrupt because their competition will get better personel than them. Just let the free markets handle it.

It's only illegal to use that word in certain contexts. People who discuss the meaning and significance of the word in an academic context, for example, most certainly will not find themselves being charged with using racially aggravated language. Neither will you, for that matter. But those who use it in a threatening, abusive or insulting way risk just that, and justifiably so. There's no justification for allowing companies, or anybody else, to discriminate against the colour of a person's skin, even where the expected consequence of it is bankruptcy.

by **maguskwt** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:34 pm

LFC2007 wrote:I really think some people don't have a full appreciation of the history and nature of racism and prejudice in general if they feel that it is in any sense acceptable or is at least undeserving of a sanction to behave in the way that Suarez is alleged to have done. There is a reason that race, gender and the like are called 'protected characteristics'. The law and the FA rules acknowedge, legitimately so, the difference in simply calling someone a 'kunt' and appendaging that with a term that refers to such a characteristic.

Suarez maybe derserving of his sentence but it's the way the so called independent commitee conducted this investigation that smells of double standards... if Suarez is derserving of 8 match ban and 40,000 pounds than Evra should be penalised at least half of that for instigating the quarell... there is no other explanation for Evra to call out to Suarez referring to his sister's kunt and asking him why he fouled him. And like someone else have mentioned there is no evidence at all that Evra's claim was true. So does that mean that now... if a black player was having a spat with a white player in a football match, he can simply claim that the white player was being racist and then the white player will get a lengthy ban? How about the claim by Suarez that Evra called him "you South American". Not investigated because Evra planned his statement and sounded more convincing and Suarez did not?

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:40 pm

you can't start banning players for swearing at one another...otherwise half the league will be banned overnight :laugh:

by **Kukilon** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:02 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
Kukilon wrote:I still can't understand why it's necessary for example to make saying "nigger" illegal because it should be enough that you make a fool of yourself by using a word like that. A company not wanting to hire the best person because he is for example black will eventually go bankrupt because their competition will get better personel than them. Just let the free markets handle it.

It's only illegal to use that word in certain contexts. People who discuss the meaning and significance of the word in an academic context, for example, most certainly will not find themselves being charged with using racially aggravated language. Neither will you, for that matter. But those who use it in a threatening, abusive or insulting way risk just that, and justifiably so. There's no justification for allowing companies, or anybody else, to discriminate against the colour of a person's skin, even where the expected consequence of it is bankruptcy.

Still can't see why not just let the market take care of racist companies etc. Let them discriminate if they want to because it will only hurt themselves as long as every individual has their natural liberties.

A company that is racist will loose customers and loose to it's competition.

by **maguskwt** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:04 pm

7_Kewell wrote:you can't start banning players for swearing at one another...otherwise half the league will be banned overnight

Well of course that's the most reasonable thing to do...

But if a case is being investigated by the FA shouldn't they observe their own regulations if they want to be fair and squre?

"Rule E3, with the sub-heading "General Behaviour", provides as follows:
"(1) A Participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game and shall not
act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use
any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening,
abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour."

And read how they blatently allow themselves to practice double standards in this written report:

"We remind ourselves that the test for a breach of Rule E3(1) is an objective test. That
means that it is for us to form our own view as to whether Mr Suarez's words or
behaviour were abusive or insulting. It is not necessary for the FA to prove that Mr Suarez
intended his words or behaviour to be abusive or insulting."

How is that feckin objective?

You clearly haven't read the report. If you are a liverpool fan and if you have read the report, you won't be supporting this FA garbage report...

by **Fowler_E7** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:12 pm

has Suarez admitted to saying what Evra said he said?

by **worcester_red** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:17 pm

7_Kewell wrote:
crazyhorse wrote:I dont see the stitch up. I love the guy, he is a talisman and a world class striker but I am not se deluded I cannot see he has done wrong.

8 games. Yes very strong. But at the same time he has been found culpable of racism on the field. One of the things we should have all known when he came here is his desire to win, and his being prone to taking gamesmanship just that little bit too far. In the UTD game it worked as he psyched Evra right out but he went too far. Its time for us to suck it up and move on, and welcome him back for the run in.

I will wait to see what happens to John Terry before I cry stitch up. If he is guilty his misdemeanors are much worse and the penalty much worse.

sums up the situation perfectly.

Suarez has been foolish and to a degree admitted it. It's a harsh sentence but was to be expect with the FA's stance on racism

So is it ok to refer to someone's family member in a derogatory fashion and/or their country of origin but not the colour of their skin?

BTW what actual proof is there that Suarez did anything wrong beyond what Evra squealed to the Man Utd.... err FA panel.

Liverpool FC Forum

Luis Suarez signs for Barcelona

Who is online