Racism - Mod Note on 1st Post - Read before posting.

daithijjj

There is also a little confusion when it comes to the linguistics 'experts' angle. Its not so much the taking of the evidence, as the conclusions reached from that evidence that is the point of ridicule.

Speak/read anything coming out from a South American stance on the reasons for the ban and it doesnt add up, they are all asking now why LFC are not appealing the decision. But obviously they dont quite know what an exercise in futility that would be, they havent 'grown' down the years with the FA and its procedures.

Seaneh

As for problems with the report as a whole. There is this little gem.

"Mr Evra said that while he was lying on the ground, Mr Kuyt came up to him and said
"stand up, you ****ing prick". Mr Kuyt said "This is untrue. What I did say was something
to the effect of "Stand up, stand up", as if to say that it had been a foul but he was making
too much of it". The video footage did not show Mr Kuyt speaking to Mr Evra at this time,
but Mr Kuyt admitted that he did so.

In the video, at the time Evra and Kyut both said words were exchanged, you can clearly see Kyut talking and gesturing to Evra.


Or this nugget

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 "****ing hell" in 27
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

This means nothing like ****ing hell, it means "your sister's c*nt".

Seaneh

Blatter wrote: »

If the linguistic experts were so inept as you say they were, then WHY DID SUAREZ AND HIS LAWYER ACCEPT THEIR EVIDENCE?

There is nothing in their evidence that damns him, in any way, if he said what he claims he said.


Read the bloody report, specifically this.

Experts' observations on Mr Suarez's account
187. The experts reviewed the interview of Mr Suarez (transcribed in both Spanish and
English), together with video clips of the referee's intervention. They proceeded, for the
purpose of this part of their report, on the basis that the substance of Mr Suarez's account
was accurate. They made the following observations on Mr Suarez's account.
188. To analyse the word "negro" in Mr Suarez's interview it was important to remember that
the word was used during a football match, which establishes the context as one of
informal social relations.
189. Although there was clearly already bad feeling between Mr Suarez and Mr Evra at the
time of their second exchange (by which we understand the experts to refer to when the
referee blew his whistle to stop the corner), the fact that Mr Suarez indicates that Mr Evra
had already spoken to him in Spanish in the earlier exchange means that he could well
have felt that a linguistic and/or cultural relationship had been established between them
(even though Mr Evra subsequently spoke to him in English). 50
190. Given paragraphs 188 and 189, Mr Suarez would not have needed any further sense of
familiarity to use the word "negro", which is to say how well Mr Suarez knew Mr Evra is
not of particular importance; in Rioplatense Spanish the use of "negro" as described here
by Mr Suarez would not be offensive. Indeed, it is possible that the term was intended as
an attempt at conciliation and/or to establish rapport (see 175 above).
191. The question "Por qué, negro?" as transcribed in Mr Suarez's interview sounded right
linguistically and culturally and is in line with the use set out by Mr Suarez when
referring to Glen Johnson; Mr Suarez was also correct in highlighting that "negro de
mierda" would be a clear racial slur.
192. The term "sudamericano" [South American] might be offensive for a South American if
taken as an implied slight against a regional identity; a more derogatory insult along these
lines would be the term "sudaca", a term most frequently used in Spain to label South
American immigrants. Though the experts are not familiar with either "sudamericano" or
"South American" being used as an insult, if they were said with a sneer then they might
well be understood as such.
193. As stated above, Mr Suarez's gesture towards Mr Evra's arm is difficult to interpret. In the
context of the events as set out by Mr Suarez then there is nothing to indicate that the
gesture was racially offensive.
194. The experts concluded their observations on Mr Suarez's account as follows. If Mr Suarez
used the word "negro" as described by Mr Suarez, this would not be interpreted as either
offensive or offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more
generally; it is being used along the lines of paragraphs 172, 173 and 175 above.

Why the hell wouldn't he bloody agree with it? It absolves him if his version of the events is true.

Blatter

Seaneh wrote: »

As for problems with the report as a whole. There is this little gem.



In the video, at the time Evra and Kyut both said words were exchanged, you can clearly see Kyut talking and gesturing to Evra.

Wasn't that 'video' a youtube clip that had been recorded from someone's phone? I'm guessing the commission would not have accessed that unless it was given to them. It's possible that the vieo evidence that they had at their disposal did not show Kuyt talking to Evra.

Anyhow, what did they have to gain by this? It has practically no bearing on the verdict.

Or this nugget



This means nothing like ****ing hell, it means "your sister's c*nt".

Here's what the experts had to say:

- Paragraph 178 of the report.

According to the experts, the literal translation is "your sister's ****" and it can be taken as a general swear word expressing anger, although the word "concha" is not as taboo as the English word "****". It is thus equivalent to "****ing hell" or "**** me". If directed at someone in particular, it can also be understood as "[you] son of a bitch".

And yet again, Luis Suarez disagrees with you.


- Paragraph 196 of the report.

It is important to note that both the FA and Mr Suarez agreed the contents of the experts' report.

Nugget, you say?

Blatter

Seaneh wrote: »

There is nothing in their evidence that damns him, in any way, if he said what he claims he said.


Read the bloody report, specifically this.





Why the hell wouldn't he bloody agree with it? It absolves him if his version of the events is true.

Because he agreed with the contents of he experts report. You know, that means all of their findings.

You are saying the experts are wrong with some of their findings. If Suarez also found that some of their findings were wrong, he could have disputed them.

He didn't dispute anything, he accepted them.

This is bloody simple, and I'm absolutely amazed that you're still not getting it.

Seaneh

Blatter wrote: »

Because he agreed with the contents of he experts report. You know, that means all of their findings.

You are saying the experts are wrong with some of their findings. If Suarez also found that some of their findings were wrong, he could have disputed them.

He didn't dispute anything, he accepted them.

This is bloody simple, and I'm absolutely amazed that you're still not getting it.

Are you trying to be an idiot or is it your default mode?

The experts findings DO NOT DAMN HIM IN ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER.

The Experts gave their findings on both versions of the events and of the two found Suarez's to be more consistent in anything.
They did not, in any way, say which version they believed to be the true version of the events, that was not their job, their job was to review both sides and give two individual reports, they did that and that alone, without indicating which was more likely.
The experts did not pass judgement on Suarez, a committee of random plebs did, using their bias toward one side of events, the side that is far less likely given the evidence, in my opinion.


My belief that the experts are, in fact, not sufficiently qualified either way is a separate issue.

Blatter

Seaneh wrote: »

Are you trying to be an idiot or is it your default mode?

The experts findings DO NOT DAMN HIM IN ANY WAY WHAT SO EVER.

The Experts gave their findings on both versions of the events and of the two found Suarez's to be more consistent in anything.
They did not, in any way, say which version they believed to be the true version of the events, that was not their job, their job was to review both sides and give two individual reports, they did that and that alone, without indicating which was more likely.



My belief that the experts are, in fact, not sufficiently qualified either way is a separate issue.

Jesus Christ, where on earth did I say, or even insinuate, that the experts indicated which version they believed to be the true version of the events?



This is fairly fúcking simple.

The linguistic experts delivered a report.

The contents of the report included both Evra's version of events and Suarez' version of events.

You are not accepting all of the content of that report, because you are disputing the conclusions they came to with regards Evra's version of events.

Suarez accepted the contents of that report. That means, he accepted the conclusions they came to with regards his version of events and Evra's version of events.

Suarez could have disputed the conclusions the experts came to with regards Evra's version of events, whilst maintaining Evra's version of events didn't happen.


He didn't. He accepted their conclusions.





Now I don't know how more simple I can make it for you, but there you go.

Seaneh

Blatter wrote: »

He didn't. He accepted their conclusions.

And denied it ever ****ing happened.

The main problem with the verdict isn't the experts reports or findings, it is the fact that the comittee chose one side over the other with out evidence, totally ignoring the fact that the burden of proof was on the FA and Evra.

daithijjj

Blatter wrote: »

Because he agreed with the contents of he experts report. You know, that means all of their findings.

You are saying the experts are wrong with some of their findings. If Suarez also found that some of their findings were wrong, he could have disputed them.

He didn't dispute anything, he accepted them.

This is bloody simple, and I'm absolutely amazed that you're still not getting it.

Jaysus, how many times does it need to be said, he agreed with the evidence gathered (from panel). Clearly he did not agree with the conclusions reached from it (by FA). Thats the whole point.

Evidence = agreed with.
Conclusions reached = not agreed with.

Actions = pointless going any further as per the article linked an hour or two ago.

Also, the 'green shoots' of others in the English media are starting to come through as to the nature of the procedure and the 'halo' status of one or two involved. (But i havent read them fully yet, the telegraph, mail and independent (uk) are either motioning towards Evra's credibility or the FA and also the structures in place at the FA (and LFC) to varying degrees). Now that operation smear Suarez is complete they are looking for other stuff, and what is coming out, are angles that turn and point at others for their part.

Who knows, by next week the FA could become a joke..... again :rolleyes: ....as there is nothing left to write on Suarez right now. Then after a few weeks, eyes will turn to Mr.Terry, and no doubt, gobsh1tes like Ollie Holt (who got stuck into Suarez) will conveniently deflect from the video evidence that the planet already knows, but, and lets be clear, it will have nothing to do with the fact he ghost wrote Terry's book. Wait for it, its coming, a wave of double standards.

Blatter

Seaneh wrote: »

And denied it ever ****ing happened.

The main problem with the verdict isn't the experts reports or findings, it is the fact that the comittee chose one side over the other with out evidence, totally ignoring the fact that the burden of proof was on the FA and Evra.

I know he denied it ever happened, I was not arguing that. It's bloody obvious he denied it ever happened.

The whole point of the debate with you was that Luis Suarez accepted all of the evidence gathered by the linguistic experts, and you disputed some of the evidence gathered.

daithijjj wrote: »

Jaysus, how many times does it need to be said, he agreed with the evidence gathered (from panel). Clearly he did not agree with the conclusions reached from it (by FA). Thats the whole point.

Evidence = agreed with.
Conclusions reached = not agreed with.

When I was said 'conclusion' , I was obviously referring to the conclusions drawn in the report of the linguistic experts, not the conclusion the commission came to, using the report. That's what I've been clearly arguing with Seaneh about.

Obviously Suarez didn't agree with the conclusion the commission reached by using it.

Leiva

baz2009 wrote: »

I actually refuse to get into it with you because I know it'd piss me off to watch the argument go back around in circles. All I'll say is read the thread because your points have been picked apart already.

baz2009 wrote: »

Originally Posted by hadepsx
cam,
its only severe if the FA deem it severe. lots of other cultures do not deem the word severe at all, in latino countries especially . The FA do not realise this. suarez is appologising for his own ignorence,for he did not realise the effect of the word he used, not for an apparant racist attack on evra, of which imo it is not. his grandad is black like, and he has grown up in a mixed setting, loving all people of all types. open your mind up to other cultures pls.

---

Read the fúcking thread.

baz2009 wrote: »

It's been proven by language experts that "Negro" is not an affectionate term in South America, especially when you're just after kicking someone "because they're black" and then proceed to pinch their skin. That argument is bollocks. Don't know where I offended you, tbh.

Strike x 3

Wrong .

The word "negro" is by no means, however, always used offensively. The term can also be
used as a friendly form of address to someone seen as somewhat brown-skinned or even
just black-haired. It may be used affectionately between man and wife, or
girlfriend/boyfriend, it may be used as a nickname in everyday speech, it may be used to
identify in neutral and descriptive fashion someone of dark skin; several famous people in
Uruguay are known as "el negro/la negra such-and-such".

LuckyLloyd

Seaneh wrote: »

No it bloody well has not!

The report highlights a a few extremely rare situations where the word Negro can be used in an offensive way.

They also used cases in ****ing colombia as their bases.

They word colombia appears in the report over twice as often than the word Uruguay, that in itself is retarded.

They didn't focus on the linguistic realities of the Rio Da La Plata region at all.

The two experts used are not linguistic experts at all, they are sociological and anthropological professors respectively, neither of whom have worked in the Rio Da La Plata region, one of whom has spent his time, almost exclusively, in manchester, for the last 8 years, the other who specialist area is rural Colombia.

The findings do not prove ANYTHING, the FA are just retards and used something they didn't actually understand as the bases on which they gave their verdict.

You're the worst Liverpool hater ever Seaneh!

Seriously though, good work in this thread. I can only imagine how frustrating the whole thing might be for people who have lived in South America.

Leiva

daithijjj wrote: »

Also, the 'green shoots' of others in the English media are starting to come through as to the nature of the procedure and the 'halo' status of one or two involved. (But i havent read them fully yet, the telegraph, mail and independent (uk) are either motioning towards Evra's credibility or the FA and also the structures in place at the FA (and LFC) to varying degrees). Now that operation smear Suarez is complete they are looking for other stuff, and what is coming out, are angles that turn and point at others for their part.

Who knows, by next week the FA could become a joke..... again :rolleyes: ....as there is nothing left to write on Suarez right now. Then after a few weeks, eyes will turn to Mr.Terry, and no doubt, gobsh1tes like Ollie Holt (who got stuck into Suarez) will conveniently deflect from the video evidence that the planet already knows, but, and lets be clear, it will have nothing to do with the fact he ghost wrote Terry's book. Wait for it, its coming, a wave of double standards.

Very well said as it does seem that now the fog has cleared some jurnos are starting to see the wood from the trees .

From today's Guardian ;

That is believed to refer to Liverpool's contention that Evra was guided through his witness statements by the FA while being allowed to watch footage of his confrontation with Suárez. The United defender did not, for example, recall being pinched by Suárez until after a review of the incident and that action formed a large part of the case against the Uruguayan.
The Liverpool striker's request to study the same footage while submitting his statement, his club alleges, was refused. Suárez was subsequently described as giving "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence by the commission while Evra changed his initial allegation of being labelled a "******" by Suárez 10 times, and was deemed a credible witness.
Liverpool also claim that many of their submissions were dismissed by the commission or not included in the 115-page document compiled by Paul Goulding QC. That prompted the allegation from the club on Tuesday "that the Football Association and the panel it selected constructed a highly subjective case against Luis Suárez".

I have been saying for days now about the section in bold ... It doesn't and should not make anybody comfortable when trying to see if justice or the level of punishment was correctly served .

It seems now that LFC were concerned about what I highlighted in what Evra believed to have heard and repeated only for all statements (from the day) to show and record what he believed the word to mean days later .
They (FA) allowed and believed Evras explanation of black been the word and allows six other statements to be changed and reflect that ???.... IMO that is re writing history !
They either heard him say ****** or black , simples .
Then the only time he says ****** in the whole evidence is while he is in the dressing room with Fergie , Marriner & Dowd .... Bull**** .

See everyone is taking the 115 page document as the gospel , it's now been questioned by anyone with half a brain .
It seems now to be a well edited document with missing vital transcripts and submitted statements and swaying in favour towards not even the players in some cases but the FA themselves .

Remember folks it wasn't just the players careers/credibility at stake .

DoctorGonzo08

Seaneh wrote: »

And denied it ever ****ing happened.

The main problem with the verdict isn't the experts reports or findings, it is the fact that the comittee chose one side over the other with out evidence, totally ignoring the fact that the burden of proof was on the FA and Evra.

I have been reading back over your comments and am amazed at the stance you are taking on this. In your opinion, there was no evidence to make a descision on Suarez allegations? Yet ever other body involved, directly or indirectly, have said that this investigation was carried out completley exhaustive.

This can and obviously is a circular argument where one will produce a snipet that 'proves' their point. So if you were to ask some common sense questions:

Why speak Spanish to a French player?
Why pinch to 'difuse the situation'?
Why explain your motive for a tackle to be 'Because you're black'?

Not to dispute whatever the translation to a dialect is, if, in the league you are playing the same word means something else, you are not allowed to use it. The only real excuse to this is that Suarez has some medical condition with which he cannot comprehend social situations.

And besides, this is the same player who was bought by Liverpool while he was serving a 6 match ban for biting a player???? Are you serious?

Blatter

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You're the worst Liverpool hater ever Seaneh!

Seriously though, good work in this thread.

Yeah, apart from him vehemently disagreeing with linguistic evidence that Suarez accepted.

No contradiction there:pac:

I can only imagine how frustrating the whole thing might be for people who have lived in South America.

It's a pity for Suarez that the incident didn't happen in South America(who's views on racism are comparatively lax), but happened in England.

opr

monkey9 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8992915/Liverpool-to-complain-to-FA-over-handling-of-Luis-Suarez-case-and-demand-reform-of-disciplinary-process.html

Surprised no one has mentioned this piece yet. If true it's shocking stuff.

Liverpool are unhappy that Evra was granted three meetings with the FA and given access to video evidence well in advance of the December hearing.
It is Liverpool’s belief that Evra was coached by the FA disciplinary team before meeting the commission, enabling him to piece together his version of events to tally with the footage and appear more consistent in his verbal evidence than he had been in earlier statements.

Suárez, who did not have access to the same video evidence until he sat in front of the commission, according to Liverpool, inevitably had a sketchier memory of what had happened at particular points of the game which had been played two months earlier. This made him seem less sure of what took place at certain moments considered of importance by the commission

Opr

Blatter

DoctorGonzo08 wrote: »

I have been reading back over your comments and am amazed at the stance you are taking on this.

You shouldn't be that surprised, he had made up his mind on the facts of the case before the report came out! Here's a previous post from him before the release of the report:

Seaneh wrote: »

And even at that they are right.

One person claims that he said something, they didn't mention it during the game and nobody else heard it, nobody else complained about it until after the game. The ref didn't caution/send off the player accused. It's Evra's word against Suerez's, which is bull**** enough. The lad is, obviously, not a racist.

It's a bull**** accusation and a bull**** punishment.

Riddled with inaccuracies and filled with assumptions. It would be quite a back track for him to have changed his mind after the report was released, wouldn't have?:)

opr

opr wrote: »

monkey9 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/8992915/Liverpool-to-complain-to-FA-over-handling-of-Luis-Suarez-case-and-demand-reform-of-disciplinary-process.html

Surprised no one has mentioned this piece yet. If true it's shocking stuff.

Liverpool are unhappy that Evra was granted three meetings with the FA and given access to video evidence well in advance of the December hearing.
It is Liverpool’s belief that Evra was coached by the FA disciplinary team before meeting the commission, enabling him to piece together his version of events to tally with the footage and appear more consistent in his verbal evidence than he had been in earlier statements.

Suárez, who did not have access to the same video evidence until he sat in front of the commission, according to Liverpool, inevitably had a sketchier memory of what had happened at particular points of the game which had been played two months earlier. This made him seem less sure of what took place at certain moments considered of importance by the commission

Opr

Explains Liverpool stance and Kenny comments

Leiva

opr wrote: »

Surprised no one has mentioned this piece yet. If true it's shocking stuff.



Opr

I call BS on that surely that's not true :eek:

Blatter, are you on shift work in this thread :-)?

opr

I haven't access to the whole Guardian story but this is an extract which states that Liverpool actually requested to be shown the footage which was refused

"The Liverpool striker's request to study the same footage while submitting his statement, his club alleges, was refused. Suárez was subsequently described as giving "unreliable" and "inconsistent" evidence by the commission while Evra changed his initial allegation of being labelled a "******" by Suárez 10 times, and was deemed a credible witness."

Opr

Giggsy11

That telegraph article was written by Chris Bascombe. Google search says he moved from "Liverpool Echo" and is a Liverpool fan.

Guardian article was written by Andy Hunter who is from Liverpool.

They may be right, but untill it is reported by other reporters or unless Liverpool releases statement and proves it, I wont believe it.

SlickRic

that report better not be true.

if it is, somehow, well, then it's an explanation for Kenny's stance (as ridiculous as i still think the t-shirts were), and also it'd be proof that the FA were looking for a scapegoat.

if Liverpool do complain, they'd better make sure the case is fúcking watertight, because if it's thrown out, then it just makes us look like a bigger laughing stock unfortunately.

all big ifs....

i'd love this to meltdown the FA

Blatter

opr wrote: »

Surprised no one has mentioned this piece yet. If true it's shocking stuff.



Opr

I'd take it with a pinch of salt for now. The amount of false leaks that surely came from the Liverpool side throughout this saga has been amazing to say the least. (sudaca, negrito etc.)

If it was true(big if), you'd still have to ask questions like:

Did Evra request the video tapes? Did Suarez request the video tapes? Was Evra's request accepted but Suarez's rejected? Or was Evra just given the tapes without request and Suarez wasn't? And why?

With regards him having more meetings with the FA, wouldn't that have been natural? As people have been pointing out, the onus was on Evra to prove Suarez's guilt, not on Suarez to prove his innocence. This fact was especially true when the FA were holding their initial inquiries.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Blatter, are you on shift work in this thread :-)?

Ha, no. It's just annoying when you see people like Seaneh are continuing to talk through their hole despite being called out on it on numerous occasions and WON'T leave it down.:p I'm going to probably bow out soon enough, have already spent way too much time studying the case. The thread probably isn't too far away from being locked anyway.:p

LuckyLloyd

opr wrote: »

Surprised no one has mentioned this piece yet. If true it's shocking stuff.



Opr

Em, wow?

Pro. F

Seaneh wrote: »

The main problem with the verdict isn't the experts reports or findings, it is the fact that the comittee chose one side over the other with out evidence, totally ignoring the fact that the burden of proof was on the FA and Evra.

And yet here you are criticising the report on the incorrect basis that the linguistic experts were wrong in their findings:

Seaneh wrote: »

The report highlights a a few extremely rare situations where the word Negro can be used in an offensive way.

They also used cases in ****ing colombia as their bases.

They word colombia appears in the report over twice as often than the word Uruguay, that in itself is retarded.

They didn't focus on the linguistic realities of the Rio Da La Plata region at all.

The two experts used are not linguistic experts at all, they are sociological and anthropological professors respectively, neither of whom have worked in the Rio Da La Plata region, one of whom has spent his time, almost exclusively, in manchester, for the last 8 years, the other who specialist area is rural Colombia.

The findings do not prove ANYTHING, the FA are just retards and used something they didn't actually understand as the bases on which they gave their verdict.

You are just floundering around rather than sensibly picking holes in the report.

Also you are spoofing about ''concha de tu hermana''. It is not nearly the same as saying ''your sister's cnut'' in English. It's debatable quite how mild it is in comparison to the English, but saying it is the same is completely untrue. The Spanish words for ''cnut/pussy'' are much more acceptable and usable in expressions of intensity in Spanish than they are in English. The rude words for lady bits are more comparable in their use to the English word ''fùck'' in that they are often used to add feeling to an expression.

spockety

Pro. F wrote: »

And yet here you are criticising the report on the incorrect basis that the linguistic experts were wrong in their findings:


You are just floundering around rather than sensibly picking holes in the report.

Also you are spoofing about ''concha de tu hermana''. It is not nearly the same as saying ''your sister's cnut'' in English. It's debatable quite how mild it is in comparison to the English, but saying it is the same is completely untrue. The Spanish words for ''cnut/pussy'' are much more acceptable and usable in expressions of intensity in Spanish than they are in English. The rude words for lady bits are more comparable in their use to the English word ''fùck'' in that they are often used to add feeling to an expression.

Er, but as we have seen with what Suarez said, it doesn't matter how it's perceived in the country of origin, only on the field of play in England. In England, saying "your sister's pussy" to most men would result in some sort of violent reaction due to the highly offensive nature of the phrase.

DoctorGonzo08

SlickRic wrote: »

that report better not be true.

if it is, somehow, well, then it's an explanation for Kenny's stance (as ridiculous as i still think the t-shirts were), and also it'd be proof that the FA were looking for a scapegoat.

if Liverpool do complain, they'd better make sure the case is fúcking watertight, because if it's thrown out, then it just makes us look like a bigger laughing stock unfortunately.

all big ifs....

i'd love this to meltdown the FA

I think the main support to this argument will be how JT is treated. As unlikely a story it is, at least Suarez made an excuse for what was siad, whereas JT point blank refuses he said anything! By the precedent in the Adebola case a while back, and the Suarez punishment, JT should be looking at a 10 week ban. What will be interesting will be if the fact he is an England International affect the outcome.

opr

Blatter wrote: »

Also, the FA did not deliver the verdict. It was an INDEPENDENT commission.

Just on this point.

Liverpool are also unhappy that the Independent Regulatory Commission, led by Paul Goulding QC, was selected by the FA, which was itself bringing the charges. They feel this represents a conflict of interest where the accusers are in effect selecting the jurors. That brings into dispute the notion of full independence.

Although Liverpool were within their rights to challenge the make-up of the commission and made no representation to oppose its members, they say it would have been pointless to do so because the FA would also have picked its replacements.

For a commission to be genuinely independent, it is Liverpool’s view that the FA should not have jurisdiction on who sits on it.

Opr

cloptrop

eh football clubs record or get tapes from every match to look at them in training ,
that is the biggestpile of horse**** ever , he probably didnt get them because he refused to co operate with them until he was made to go to the hearing