Liverpool FC Forum

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:19 pm

maguskwt wrote:
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...

I've read it and, it’s pretty damning.

Suarez is guilty of the offence because he's made racial insults and admitted as much to the ref after the game.

He’s then tried to change his story when confronted by the FA and they’ve seen straight through it.

Is he a racist? No...has he been a fool? Most certainly and i find it sad that some Liverpool fans would rather trivialise racism than face up to that fact.

by **maguskwt** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:20 pm

Fowler_E7 wrote:has Suarez admitted to saying what Evra said he said?

No he didn't... Suarez said that he used the word "negro"only one time when he responded "Por que, negro" which can't be seen as racist. Evra said he used the word "negro" 10 times such as "because you are black" "I don't talk to a black" which can be seen as racist. Evra also alleged that Suarez used the word "nigger" instead of "negro" and later accepted that Suarez used the word "negro" which means "black" instead.

But somehow the FA finds Evra credible and Suarez not credible... :laugh:

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:23 pm

maguskwt wrote: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?

No, I agree on the main point you're making, the principle of it at least. The report establishes that Evra used what was undoubtedly insulting language when he said "concha du termana" (or however the feck you spell it) to Suarez. Under FA rules that should warrant an automatic two-match suspension, but since it wasn't dealt with by the referee at the time (Suarez didn't hear it and therefore didn't report it) I don't think anything more can be done about it. It's unfair but if that is the rule then he'll get off scot-free despite having provoked the argument with Suarez.

On the credibility of Evra's account, I tend to agree that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove his account of events. Much of the judgment is founded upon some fairly questionable inferences drawn from the demeanour of the two players and how this tallied with their witness statements. Naturally, once they had made one finding of fact, this was used to justify finding in favour of the remainder of Evra's account e.g. if he's used the word 'negro' to insult on one occasion, it's more likely that he said it on every other alleged occasion.
My point is simply that on Suarez's account alone I think the Commission would have found the charge proved. This wasn't made explicit in their judgment, but the impression was left that, irrespective of his intent, to utter the word 'negro' to a black player in a game in England under FA jurisdiction was to use it in an insulting way.

by **Kukilon** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:23 pm

Wasn't "negrito" which is very different. Negro in spanish just means black. Supposedly negrito is something you use in a none agressive way.

It's to make something smaller/younger... for example Ronaldinho. When you use the word inho or ito it means that it's a younger or smaller version of something.

by **worcester_red** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:24 pm

7_Kewell wrote:
maguskwt wrote:
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...

I've read it and, it’s pretty damning.

Suarez is guilty of the offence because he's made racial insults and admitted as much to the ref after the game.

He’s then tried to change his story when confronted by the FA and they’ve seen straight through it.

Is he a racist? No...has he been a fool? Most certainly and i find it sad that some Liverpool fans would rather trivialise racism than face up to that fact.

Doesn't racism imply power, what power does Suarez have over Evra.
The term racism is to easily used these days, it is an appalling thing but this was not a racist act. If anything it was a very stupid an naive thing to do from Suarez but I really doubt that he's racist, he is after all mixed race himself isn't he?

by **maguskwt** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:25 pm

7_Kewell wrote:
maguskwt wrote:
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...

I've read it and, it’s pretty damning.

Suarez is guilty of the offence because he's made racial insults and admitted as much to the ref after the game.

He’s then tried to change his story when confronted by the FA and they’ve seen straight through it.

Is he a racist? No...has he been a fool? Most certainly and i find it sad that some Liverpool fans would rather trivialise racism than face up to that fact.

how is it damning? because you believe what Evra said?
where is the evidence?

I can't speak for others but I'm not trivializing racism... I'm pointing out the double standards and the injustice in this process. In fact double standards and injustice are exactly the qualities of racism...

by **worcester_red** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:27 pm

Kukilon wrote:Wasn't "negrito" which is very different. Negro in spanish just means black. Supposedly negrito is something you use in a none agressive way.

Not true negrito is not really aggressive but it is only used between close friends, which I assume Suarez and Evra aren't so it was certainly naughty of Suarez.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:28 pm

guys, if you want to understand why the FA don't believe Luis then re-read this...

319. There were clearly a number of changes in Mr Suarez's account, both of the incident in the
goalmouth and the incident where Mr Suarez admitted to using the word “negro”
between his initial account as reported by Mr Dalglish and Mr Comolli, his interview on 2
November, his witness statement, and his case as presented at the hearing.

He had changed his account in a number of
important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about
accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses
unless there was solid evidence to support it.

by **Kukilon** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:29 pm

worcester_red wrote:
Kukilon wrote:Wasn't "negrito" which is very different. Negro in spanish just means black. Supposedly negrito is something you use in a none agressive way.

Not true negrito is not really aggressive but it is only used between close friends, which I assume Suarez and Evra aren't so it was certainly naughty of Suarez.

I'm not doubting that... I wasn't implying that Suarez was just trying to be friendly but it's not like using the "Nigger" word.

by **maguskwt** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:33 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
maguskwt wrote: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?

No, I agree on the main point you're making, the principle of it at least. The report establishes that Evra used what was undoubtedly insulting language when he said "concha du termana" (or however the feck you spell it) to Suarez. Under FA rules that should warrant an automatic two-match suspension, but since it wasn't dealt with by the referee at the time (Suarez didn't hear it and therefore didn't report it) I don't think anything more can be done about it. It's unfair but if that is the rule then he'll get off scot-free despite having provoked the argument with Suarez.

On the credibility of Evra's account, I tend to agree that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove his account of events. Much of the judgment is founded upon some fairly questionable inferences drawn from the demeanour of the two players and how this tallied with their witness statements. Naturally, once they had made one finding of fact, this was used to justify finding in favour of the remainder of Evra's account e.g. if he's used the word 'negro' to insult on one occasion, it's more likely that he said it on every other alleged occasion.
My point is simply that on Suarez's account alone I think the Commission would have found the charge proved. This wasn't made explicit in their judgment, but the impression was left that, irrespective of his intent, to utter the word 'negro' to a black player in a game in England under FA jurisdiction was to use it in an insulting way.

Well I just don't understand how when Evra himself admits to saying that reference to Suarezés sister's kunt... they cannot do anything because the referee and Suarez did'n't hear it? A murderer turns himself in and confesses to the murder and he can't be sent to prison because nobody saw it?

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:34 pm

Kukilon wrote:
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.

But companies should nevertheless be allowed to disciminate until the point that they lose their competition etc. or 'go bankrupt' as you put it. You'd be content with people having their livelihoods compromised because society 'naturally' tends to reject such organisations eventually? :no

How long would such a person have to wait and who's to say that in all circumstances racist views would necessarily be rejected?

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:39 pm

worcester_red wrote:
7_Kewell wrote:
maguskwt wrote:
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...

I've read it and, it’s pretty damning.

Suarez is guilty of the offence because he's made racial insults and admitted as much to the ref after the game.

He’s then tried to change his story when confronted by the FA and they’ve seen straight through it.

Is he a racist? No...has he been a fool? Most certainly and i find it sad that some Liverpool fans would rather trivialise racism than face up to that fact.

Doesn't racism imply power, what power does Suarez have over Evra.
The term racism is to easily used these days, it is an appalling thing but this was not a racist act. If anything it was a very stupid an naive thing to do from Suarez but I really doubt that he's racist, he is after all mixed race himself isn't he?

Whether Evra is lying or not, Suarez's apparant responses - "I don't talk to blacks" and "because you're black" are clearly racist.

by **worcester_red** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:54 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:
worcester_red wrote:
7_Kewell wrote:
maguskwt wrote:
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...

I've read it and, it’s pretty damning.

Suarez is guilty of the offence because he's made racial insults and admitted as much to the ref after the game.

He’s then tried to change his story when confronted by the FA and they’ve seen straight through it.

Is he a racist? No...has he been a fool? Most certainly and i find it sad that some Liverpool fans would rather trivialise racism than face up to that fact.

Doesn't racism imply power, what power does Suarez have over Evra.
The term racism is to easily used these days, it is an appalling thing but this was not a racist act. If anything it was a very stupid an naive thing to do from Suarez but I really doubt that he's racist, he is after all mixed race himself isn't he?

Whether Evra is lying or not, Suarez's apparant responses - "I don't talk to blacks" and "because you're black" are clearly racist.

Yes they would be, IF he said them, whihc there is of course no proof of.

As far as I understand it Suarez admitted to using the word negro (Black) which is a bit dodgy although not necessarily racist. Everythign is just uncorroborated accusations by Evra, who is deemed more trustworthy by the FA, surprise su_ :censored:

ing_prise.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:58 pm

Suarez has changed his story several times...THATS WHY THE FA DON'T BELIEVE HIM

by **red till i die!!** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:11 pm

7_Kewell wrote:we were hesitant about
accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses
unless there was solid evidence to support it. [/i]

who are these credible witnesses they speak about? and exactly what is it that they heard?.

neither player has any "solid evidence" to support their case other than their own statements.

Liverpool FC Forum

Luis Suarez signs for Barcelona

Who is online