Liverpool FC Forum

by **Fowler_E7** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:13 pm

This is highly embarrasing for the club, why the hell did we do that T shirt stunt?

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:22 pm

Fowler_E7 wrote:This is highly embarrasing for the club, why the hell did we do that T shirt stunt?

i've no idea...which is why we shouldn't drag this out any more. Take the ban and move on.

by **damjan193** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:31 pm

Fowler_E7 wrote:This is highly embarrasing for the club, why the hell did we do that T shirt stunt?

Because we believe that Suarez was falsely accused and because of the clear double standards of the FA.

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:44 pm

damjan193 wrote:
Fowler_E7 wrote:This is highly embarrasing for the club, why the hell did we do that T shirt stunt?

Because we believe that Suarez was falsely accused and because of the clear double standards of the FA.

and what double standards are these?

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:45 pm

maguskwt wrote: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?

That fact only came to light after the FA had interviewed Evra which took place two days after the charging period had expired.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:02 pm

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

Nope, that's the main argument

by **neil** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:07 pm

I'm going to keep my own council until the club makes the next move.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:07 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.

But we really don't know that, there isn't enough evidence to prove that Suarez used the word ''negro'' in an insulting way to Evra.

by **metalhead** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:09 pm

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

No evidence, just an allegation, that's the main point. If Suarez said what he said then yes I don't think anyone on here would support such action and he should be punished. We wouldn't have this discussion in the first place

by **metalhead** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:16 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.

bloody journalists

by **damjan193** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:26 pm

7_Kewell wrote:
damjan193 wrote:
Fowler_E7 wrote:This is highly embarrasing for the club, why the hell did we do that T shirt stunt?

Because we believe that Suarez was falsely accused and because of the clear double standards of the FA.

and what double standards are these?

Do you read this thread mate? Here's a part from the statement that was also posted here:

178. Mr Evra stated that the goalmouth incident started when he addressed Mr Suarez, beginning with the phrase "Concha de tu hermana". According to the experts, the literal
translation is "your sister's c*nt" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "c*nt". It is thus equivalent to "f*cking hell" or "f*ck me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be
understood as "[you] son of a bitch".

So Evra didn't insult Suarez because what he said has a different meaning, but when Suarez calls him negro he clearly is trying to call him black even though this word also has a different meaning?

by **damjan193** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:33 pm

The only reason why I'm defending Suarez is because of common sense. I doubt that he even called Evra black, but even if he did, the sh!t that Evra said sounds way more insulting to me. I am not black and I live in a country where there aint many black people, but if I were black I would have been a lot more insulted if someone said sh!t about my sister than make a reference about the color of my skin.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:03 pm

metalhead wrote:But we really don't know that, there isn't enough evidence to prove that Suarez used the word ''negro'' in an insulting way to Evra.

It isn't necessary to prove that Suarez used the word intending to insult Evra, merely that it is insulting. Subtle but crucial difference.

by **Thommo's perm** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:07 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

I havent read the FA's report yet because quite frankly I cant be ar'sed.
Theyre a bunch of sanctimonious, hypocritical, incompetent tw@ts no matter what the report says. In a strange way I feel sorry for them because the whole racism issue is unclear. It is wooly, confused and frankly, forgive the pun, a very grey area. We have some saying what words you can and cant say who probably have no clue what racism is, and others, who have been victims of racism confusing the issue even more by using the very same words which others are punished for. Last week Alan Hansen got totally slated and had to apologise for using the word "coloured". So much so that even when he claimed that he meant no offence he was slated for being ignorant. Really? When I was growing up you couldnt say "black" because it was offensive and discriminatory, so you said "coloured". I had a few "coloured" friends some of whom were "mixed race" but were known as "half cast" back then. Then "half cast" was offensive. The word "nigger" has always been offensive to me no matter who said it. Yet the rappers "reclaimed" it and then only they could use it. Non blacks had to say "the 'n' word" if they wanted to refer to the word, never mind use it, even to describe what someone had said, such was the power given to this particular word.
I say stitch up because the gobsh'ites of the FA have played completely into the hands of the ignorant and the scheming who would demonise Suarez and make Evra out to the victim of his "racist" remarks. I am not a black person and so wouldnt be able to imagine the disgust and offence I would take to someone pointing out my colour, or using words to humiliate and belittle me. But, on a football field many offensive and derogatory words and phrases are used constantly, at ALL levels. If everybody who said offensive things on a football field were sent off or punished then believe you me there would be more people in the Alex Ferguson appreciation society than playing. It is the degree of offence that is the key. Also Evra knows that if he used the racism card (even though he has admitted that Suarez is not a racist) then it will be taken much more seriously. If Suarez had said "you little, midget, whingeing, co'cksucking pr'ick" instead, would Evra have taken offence? And if he had, would he have wanted Suarez charged? The problem is that the very word "racism" can be a weapon in itself and once someone is found guilty of it, or even accused of it the media and even politicians jump on it with glee. I would argue that because Evra had had the back torn out of him by Suarez at Anfield again and he couldnt take it. He was getting made a cu'nt of again and wanted revenge and so provoked Suarez into saying what he said. There is no suggestion that Suarez just picked on Evra randomly or said anything derogetory before Evra said something disgusting about his sister. Evra played the wind up game, and Suarez, like Zidane, came off worse because he retaliated.
Suarez was stupid and foolish to say what he said, he was also naive in admitting it if it was just Evras word against his. In doing so he has had a political and cultural backlash against him by these two bob moralists pontificating as if they are the voice of reason while they state that LFC is pro racist by supporting Suarez. This is not a case of blatant and pre-meditated discrimination, it is two players saying nasty things to each other. It happens in all team sports: Cricket, Rugby, Baseball, etc etc. It has become a national story because Manchester United wanted it to become so. Just coincidentally it happened to be us that were the villains. Maybe we should just go along with all the fu'ckers and accept their twisted justice, because we are in a lose, lose situation. We should look at the best time to lose him for 8 games and suck it up. But one things for sure, purple nose has been laughing his shrivelled todger off with all the trouble that has been caused.
Cant wait for the 11th of february

by **7_Kewell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:41 pm

metalhead wrote:bloody journalists

and a bloody good one at that

Liverpool FC Forum

Luis Suarez signs for Barcelona

Who is online