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

Mr Alan

That was Mike Phelan who was lying about that stuff.

Evra was involved & could have cleared the guys name before he was branded a racist, but he didn't make the initial accusation.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ok, I thought GeGea was directly at the pair when it happened. Apologies.

Cool.

Mr Alan wrote: »

However, as I said Suarez said the pair exchanged words & there is proof. See how easy it was?!

Thankfully that establishes we definitely had a camera on the pair during the altercation. Unless a power cut out just prior to Suarez unleashing a racial slur upon Evra more than 10 times!? Or the camera men who were catching the action got distracted by something?!

It was never up for debate that they exchanged words.

It establishes that there was a camera on the pair for those few seconds and that Suarez was facing the camera for those few seconds. It still comes nowhere near to establishing that the cameras caught all of what Suarez said to Evra during the game.

The idea that from the existence of that gif we can infer that everything Suarez said to Evra during the game was caught on camera is absolutely insane.

The question of how much of the footage of Suarez speaking can be reliably interpreted by lip readers is still completely un-addressed too.

flahavaj

amiable wrote: »

It's been proved before that he has accused someone of racism before.

It was done in detail in ''50 pages'' in fact

It was claimed by an independant FA council that his evidence was exaggerated and dangerous in the past.( Telling Lies)

I'm honoured you think i'm making myself look stupid( that old chesnut to win an argument)

Carry on Flah

There is no argument - just you recycling a lame line of reasoning that has been disproven by slightly changing the wording to suit your agenda.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

Ok, I thought GeGea was directly at the pair when it happened. Apologies.

No worries, but assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.

Let it be a lesson to you.

amiable

Mr Alan wrote: »

That was Mike Phelan who was lying about that stuff.

Evra was involved & could have cleared the guys name before he was branded a racist, but he didn't make the initial accusation.

No Alan, I've posted the link several times where the FA deemed Evra's evidence as exaggerated

I'll find the link again

Pro. F

amiable wrote: »

Maybe you should re read my post too

Oh okay. You want to play the bullshít game where you pretend that I picked you up wrong and that you really weren't trying to start up the argument about Evra and unfounded accusations of racism. Cool I can play along for you.

amiable wrote: »

Why is it race rows seem to follow Evra around for a few years now?

I didn't think Evra has been responsible for any particular race rows other than this one. Do tell me more.

flahavaj

Blatter wrote: »

No worries, but assumptions are the mother of all f*ck ups.

Let it be a lesson to you.

A lesson that our Liverpool supporting chums have failed to heed more then once ITT.

amiable

Mr Alan wrote: »

That was Mike Phelan who was lying about that stuff.

Evra was involved & could have cleared the guys name before he was branded a racist, but he didn't make the initial accusation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1097017/We-dont-believe-FAs-damning-verdict-Evra-United-Battle-Bridge.html

While Evra's account of events was also said to be 'exaggerated and unreliable.'

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

No Alan, I've posted the link several times where the FA deemed Evra's evidence as exaggerated

I'll find the link again

In fairness he wasn't have said to have exaggerated any evidence with regards to the accusations of racial abuse, so it's not really relevant.

If we were to go down that route we could bring up the Suarez biting incident(capable of anything on a football field, lack of respect towards fellow professionals etc.) but I'd rather not as it's largely irrelevant to this case.

amiable

Blatter wrote: »

In fairness he wasn't have said to have exaggerated any evidence with regards to the accusations of racial abuse, so it's not really relevant.

If we were to go down that route we could bring up the Suarez biting incident(capable of anything on a football field, lack of respect towards fellow professionals etc.) but I'd rather not as it's largely irrelevant to this case.

No but it does prove that evidence given to the FA by Evra before was dangerous

K-9

Suarez can't say the word or elaborate too much as the FA have warned the parties involved to do so. The interview was ill advised, vague as it is and with the Uruguay press.

So, NOTHING can be read into him not explicitly saying what it is. He isn't supposed to say it, saying he should have stated it is pretty stupid tbh, though par for the course.

Mr Alan

Pro. F wrote: »

It was never up for debate that they exchanged words.

Really? I agree, but Flah & others nearly soiled themselves with excitement when Suarez admitted they did have words & sought to make today's input from Suarez a lot more than it was.

Pro. F wrote:

It establishes that there was a camera on the pair for those few seconds and that Suarez was facing the camera for those few seconds. It still comes nowhere near to establishing that the cameras caught all of what Suarez said to Evra during the game.

I genuinely don't think there's any confrontation between 2 players during a match that wouldn't be picked up on camera. Remember Zidane in the world cup final? Wasn't that totally away from the play & initially 'off camera'? But one of the many many cameras had it picked up perfectly. Id imagine goal mouth/box would be even more scrutinised.

Pro. F wrote:

The idea that from the existence of that gif we can infer that everything Suarez said to Evra during the game was caught on camera is absolutely insane.

Do you not think it'd be sensible once it was apparent there was a tiff going on between the pair that at least one camera would be keeping an eye on them on the off chance it flared up again at any point? Neither player is hardly famed for their cool temperaments!

Pro. F wrote:

The question of how much of the footage of Suarez speaking can be reliably interpreted by lip readers is still completely un-addressed too.

All they'd have to do in reality is show that he didn't call him the same thing over & over again (more than ten times).

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

No but it does prove that evidence given to the FA by Evra before was dangerous

Well the FA's interpretation of the evidence he provided was that it was exaggerated and unreliable but as I said, it's largely irrelevant to whether Luis Suarez racially abused him or not.

amiable

Blatter wrote: »

Well the FA's interpretation of the evidence he provided was that it was exaggerated and unreliable but as I said, it's largely irrelevant to whether Luis Suarez racially abused him or not.

It proves his evidence may be unreliable as he has form for giving unreliable evidence.

It's not that difficult

Mr Alan

amiable wrote: »

It proves his evidence may be unreliable as he has form for giving unreliable evidence.

It's not that difficult

^In fairness lads, he's right^

Its definitely relevant to what we're talking about.
The Suarez biting really really isn't.

Blatter

amiable wrote: »

It proves his evidence may be unreliable as he has form for giving unreliable evidence.

It's not that difficult

Do you think the FA should take his complaint a lot less seriously because they have found he has given unreliable evidence, in one instance in the past, on something that had nothing to do with racial abuse?

If anything, the fact that he was honest with the FA before and said he didn't hear any racism directed towards him, despite contradictory claims from United staff(It would have been in United's interest had Evra backed them up, and he obviously could have easily said he heard the abuse), they will take his complaint more seriously as he has a history of showing honest when it comes to racism.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

^In fairness lads, he's right^

Its definitely relevant to what we're talking about.
The Suarez biting really really isn't.

Ah so it's OK to state the fact that the FA have found Evra's evidence unreliable in the past and use it against his character when he makes a complaint of racist abuse.

But no, nobody can use the fact that Suarez has a history of biting a fellow professional and judge him when it comes to future questions of his conduct toward opposition players on the pitch.

Nice double standard you've got there.




And once again, just for the record, I think both are incidents are largely irrelevant with regards the current case of alleged racist abuse.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

Really? I agree, but Flah & others nearly soiled themselves with excitement when Suarez admitted they did have words & sought to make today's input from Suarez a lot more than it was.

No, Suarez's words today are important because it looks like he is introducing room for the context argument with ''It was just a way of expressing myself. I called him something his team-mates at Manchester call him, and even they were surprised by his reaction.'' Nobody ever doubted that they had exchanged words.

I might be wrong speaking for others here and they can correct me if I am.

Mr Alan wrote: »

I genuinely don't think there's any confrontation between 2 players during a match that wouldn't be picked up on camera. Remember Zidane in the world cup final? Wasn't that totally away from the play & initially 'off camera'? But one of the many many cameras had it picked up perfectly. Id imagine goal mouth/box would be even more scrutinised.

The fact that one incident was caught on camera in no way proves that all incidents would be.

Iirc that Zidane Materazzi incident wasn't even completely caught on camera anyway. Iirc there is no angle that shows what Zidane said during the exchange.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Do you not think it'd be sensible once it was apparent there was a tiff going on between the pair that at least one camera would be keeping an eye on them on the off chance it flared up again at any point? Neither player is hardly famed for their cool temperaments!

Once it was apparent there was a tiff going on, the bad stuff could have already been said. Or there could have been more than one incident of them talking to each other. Or the camera could indeed have been on them but Suarez had his back to it when he was saying the bad stuff. Or the lip readers haven't been able to interpret what he said. All reasonable possibilities.

What's not reasonable is saying that it definitely would have been caught on camera and interpreted successfully.

Mr Alan wrote: »

All they'd have to do in reality is show that he didn't call him the same thing over & over again (more than ten times).

That would require footage of all their exchanges and a full and trustworthy transcript from the lip readers.

Mr Alan

Lying & exaggerating in an FA investigation is relevant.

It's not massively relevant, but there is relevance.

Biting someone isn't.

No more than committing a bad foul on someone would be relevant.

flahavaj

I hope the FA do take Evra's previous into account in this case. He has already shown remarkable honesty in stating someone didn't racially abuse him, even when people from his own club said he did.

Maith thú a Phadraig.

Pro. F

amiable wrote: »

It proves his evidence may be unreliable as he has form for giving unreliable evidence.

It's not that difficult

You asked about race rows following Evra around? What were you talking about exactly?

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

Lying & exaggerating in an FA investigation is relevant.

It's not massively relevant, but there is relevance.

Biting someone isn't.

No more than committing a bad foul on someone would be relevant.

Biting a fellow professional on the field of play could be used to say ''if he's capable of biting, what else will he do to an opponent?''

But as I said already, I think it holds as much relevancy as Evra's previous where he was said to have exaggerated to the FA. Very little relevance and are not worth anymore discussion.

Mr Alan

Flah, I asked you a question a couple of pages back, any chance of an answer?

Pro. F, youre one of my favourite posters on this site-always able to discuss things brilliantly. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree for the minute though. I could dissect the points you've raised & state where I'm coming from, but I've no doubt that you could counter it doing the same. I'm on an iPhone though & dealing with big posts like that is a pain in the hole!

Tbh hopefully the FA will be fully transparent with their enquiry so we'll know what evidence they did or didn't have, particularly relating to tv footage. However, I don't think it'll get as far as a full enquiry.

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

Flah, just out of curiousity, if/when the FA dismiss this case, will you then say, 'yep, Suarez didn't racially abuse Evra. Fair enough.'

Missed this.

I fully expect the FA to dismiss the case. In that circumstance then I won't ever mention Suarez being a racist or racially abusing him again.

But the big question is - will you automatically assume that Evra is a liar? Then again I already know the answer to that as you've said it more than once.....

And if you continue to do so then I will have of coure to point out the possibility that Evra told teh truth and that there was simply not enough evidence to convict Suarez.

Pro. F

Mr Alan wrote: »

Pro. F, youre one of my favourite posters on this site-always able to discuss things brilliantly. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree for the minute though. I could dissect the points you've raised & state where I'm coming from, but I've no doubt that you could counter it doing the same. I'm on an iPhone though & dealing with big posts like that is a pain in the hole!

Tbh hopefully the FA will be fully transparent with their enquiry so we'll know what evidence they did or didn't have, particularly relating to tv footage. However, I don't think it'll get as far as a full enquiry.

Yeah fair enough man. It's subjective and complicated so is going to cause lots of difficult posts and arguments going back and forth. I'm happy to just agree to disagree with you and no worries about it.

Mr Alan

flahavaj wrote: »

But the big question is - will you automatically assume that Evra is a liar? Then again I already know the answer to that as you've said it more than once.....

I'll reassess the situation when the case is brought to a conclusion.

It's ok for opinions to change as new information comes to light you know?!

flahavaj

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'll reassess the situation when the case is brought to a conclusion.

It's ok for opinions to change as new information comes to light you know?!

Boo. Cop out. I gave you a straight answer.

Le King

Le King wrote: »

It's quite sad. If Wayne Rooney had of said the same thing to a black Liverpool player the same posters playing it off now would be jumping the gun.

And vice versa.

It's a game you see.

We're all bored, it's November and the evenings are long.

Blatter

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'll reassess the situation when the case is brought to a conclusion.

It's ok for opinions to change as new information comes to light you know?!

It's always better to reserve judgment until the evidence comes to light. Always. Or else you risk a big fat fried egg all over your face at the end:pac:

flahavaj

LOL actually at Alan's "new information line." He already had his mind made up when the only information he had to hand wasn't even true!!! Gas man.:pac: