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

flahavaj

niallo27 wrote: »

No they did not, I was just saying maybe it's a common enough term outside of south America, when Hernandez and pacheo used it was it white or black players they were referring to.

You cited them as an example not me so you should know who they were talking to?

We have already established its a common term in South America, thats not really up for debate. If Chico and Pacheco used it when referring to their friends, that doesn't really change that fact. Context is key.

Evra and Suarez are not friends. They were at each other's throats all game.

Suarez either was using the word in genuine innocence or he knew well that its close relationship to the word "negro" would insult and wind up Evra. That to me is what it boils down to.

ShamoBuc

mixednuts wrote: »

But it has to be !

Otherwise the FA run the risk of labeling a player a racist over a misunderstanding if they are only going on one players word against another .

If there is more evidence then it's not a matter of opinion .

If there isn't, then the FA are the definition of a joke!

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

But it has to be !

Otherwise the FA run the risk of labeling a player a racist over a misunderstanding if they are only going on one players word against another .

If there is more evidence then it's not a matter of opinion .

Ugh, all I was saying is its not about whether he said negro or negrito. Its about far more than that.

Selective posting FTW.

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

You cited them as an example not me so you should know who they were talking to?

We have already established its a common term in South America, thats not really up for debate. If Chico and Pacheco used it when referring to their friends, that doesn't really change that fact. Context is key.

Evra and Suarez are not friends. They were at each other's throats all game.

Suarez either was using the word in genuine innocence or he knew well that its close relationship to the word "negro" would insult and wind up Evra. That to me is what it boils down to.

My point is if the two boys used the term were talking to white teammates, maybe negrito meaning is more friend than black, I mean you would not call a white man a ni**er.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

Ugh, all I was saying is its not about whether he said negro or negrito. Its about far more than that.

Selective posting FTW.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

If there isn't, then the FA are the definition of a joke!

Suarez has already spoken in the media about the fact that he said something to Evra that has differing connotations in his home country. That alone is enough to warrant further investigation, which by charging him is what the FA are saying.

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

I'm quite happy to debate with you, but if you're going to act deliberately stupid I won't.

flahavaj

niallo27 wrote: »

My point is if the two boys used the term were talking to white teammates, maybe negrito meaning is more friend than black, I mean you would not call a white man a ni**er.

We established weeks ago that negrito is a term of endearment. You don't have to prove that.

We are trying to discuss Suarez' intent in using the phrase in the row with Evra and his knowledge or lack of it of how it would be construed by non Latins.

Jesus like.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez has already spoken in the media about the fact that he said something to Evra that has differing connotations in his home country. That alone is enough to warrant further investigation, which by charging him is what the FA are saying.

See that were we differ .

I dont think the FA are bringing it this far cause of Suarezs statement .
I think there is more evidence out there than we know .

Fergusons "silly" comment about Poyet was a big give away for me.

flahavaj

mixednuts wrote: »

See that were we differ .

I dont think the FA are bringing it this far cause of Suarezs statement .
I think there is more evidence out there than we know .

Fergusons "silly" comment against Poyet was a big give away for me.

Suarez' statement alone would probably be enough either way though.

Care to elaborate on what you're getting at with Poyet?

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez has already spoken in the media about the fact that he said something to Evra that has differing connotations in his home country. That alone is enough to warrant further investigation, which by charging him is what the FA are saying.

On the contrary. They did their further investigation, quite correctly - took them long enough- and then they charged him.
Are you saying they investigated found nothing and charged him so they could continue their investigation?
I would imagine they found something then charged him, otherwise it's simply a fishing expedition at suarez's expense - if they have no evidence.

Leiva

flahavaj wrote: »

Suarez' statement alone would probably be enough either way though.

Care to elaborate on what you're getting at with Poyet?

When I read what Ferguson said about Poyets defense of Suarez I got a sense that he was saying Poyet was premature with his defense and he used the word "silly" like he (poyet)will eat his words .

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

On the contrary. They did their further investigation, quite correctly - took them long enough- and then they charged him.
Are you saying they investigated found nothing and charged him so they could continue their investigation?
I would imagine they found something then charged him, otherwise it's simply a fishing expedition at suarez's expense - if they have no evidence.

I'm saying testimony from the player himself that he used a word that could easily be construed as racist is strong grounds for investigation. They don't need to get any more evidence on that front - he has admitted it himself. The only reason that particular aspect of it would need further examination is if Evra claims he said something even more sinister - which is quite possible.

If they are both saying he said the same thing then I suppose the investigation would move onto word itself and its various connotations?

niallo27

flahavaj wrote: »

We established weeks ago that negrito is a term of endearment. You don't have to prove that.

We are trying to discuss Suarez' intent in using the phrase in the row with Evra and his knowledge or lack of it of how it would be construed by non Latins.

Jesus like.

We'll never know, it's impossible to tell, reasonable doubt must fall on Suarez side and he must be proved innocent.

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

I'm saying testimony from the player himself that he used a word that could easily be construed as racist is strong grounds for investigation. They don't need to get any more evidence on that front - he has admitted it himself. The only reason that particular aspect of it would need further examination is if Evra claims he said something even more sinister - which is quite possible.

If they are both saying he said the same thing then I suppose the investigation would move onto word itself and its various connotations?

For investigation, yes, but Not for actually charging him, which they have done. Actual evidence would be needed for that - not hearsay etc, evidence.

ShamoBuc

niallo27 wrote: »

We'll never know, it's impossible to tell, reasonable doubt must fall on Suarez side and he must be proved innocent.

He is presumed to be innocent.
He must be proved guilty!

Leiva

ShamoBuc wrote: »

For investigation, yes, but Not for actually charging him, which they have done. Actual evidence would be needed for that - not hearsay etc, evidence.

Exactly .

Just extend your behind the scenes investigation into the language used by Suarez .

Why would they release a public announced charge ?

It's looking bad for Suarez.

Hope I'm so fcuking wrong .

niallo27

ShamoBuc wrote: »

He is presumed to be innocent.
He must be proved guilty!

It feels more like he needs to be proved innocent.

ShamoBuc

mixednuts wrote: »

Exactly .

Just extend your behind the scenes investigation into the language used by Suarez .

Why would they release a public announced charge ?

It's looking bad for Suarez.

Hope I'm so fcuking wrong .

Correct.

As I said, the FA would be an absolute joke, if after their investigation they had found no actual proof, but charged him anyway.
One can only presume that they have proof.
Hope I'm also wrong.

ShamoBuc

niallo27 wrote: »

It feels more like he needs to be proved innocent.

Unfortunately, that sometimes goes with this kind of charge - add in the media, the characters involved, their clubs etc and you have a point!

niallo27

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Correct.

As I said, the FA would be an absolute joke, if after their investigation they had found no actual proof, but charged him anyway.
One can only presume that they have proof.
Hope I'm also wrong.

Didn't they charge him with abusive behavior which included racial abuse, so it's seems as if they are covering themselves by having two types of abuse, racial and non racial.

Leiva

niallo27 wrote: »

Didn't they charge him with abusive behavior which included racial abuse, so it's seems as if they are covering themselves by having two types of abuse, racial and non racial.

Covering themselves ?????

Well fcuk me that means if anyone calls me a prick on the field of play then I will have them up against the FA .

They are gonna be busy boys.

ShamoBuc

mixednuts wrote: »

Covering themselves ?????

Well fcuk me that means if anyone calls me a prick on the field of play then I will have them up against the FA .

They are gonna be busy boys.

... happens alot yeah:pac:

niallo27

mixednuts wrote: »

Covering themselves ?????

Well fcuk me that means if anyone calls me a prick on the field of play then I will have them up against the FA .

They are gonna be busy boys.

Yes they are opening themselves up for a whole of ****, if they get this wrong.

ShamoBuc

niallo27 wrote: »

Didn't they charge him with abusive behavior which included racial abuse, so it's seems as if they are covering themselves by having two types of abuse, racial and non racial.

I can only presume the abusive behaviour was what he repeated " 10 times" throughout the match - i.e. the alleged racist abuse. I cannot see how they are not totally intertwined, how can you prove one without the other?
Looking forward to seeing the proof ( which presumably brought about the actual charge)- at some stage.

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I can only presume the abusive behaviour was what he repeated " 10 times" throughout the match - i.e. the alleged racist abuse. I cannot see how they are not totally intertwined, how can you prove one without the other?
Looking forward to seeing the proof ( which presumably brought about the actual charge)- at some stage.

He has said himself he said "negrito."

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

He has said himself he said "negrito."

So that's enough proof for racial abuse?

flahavaj

ShamoBuc wrote: »

So that's enough proof for racial abuse?

Its enough to bring a charge which was the original point you queried. By charging him they think he has a case to answer.

niallo27

ShamoBuc wrote: »

I can only presume the abusive behaviour was what he repeated " 10 times" throughout the match - i.e. the alleged racist abuse. I cannot see how they are not totally intertwined, how can you prove one without the other?
Looking forward to seeing the proof ( which presumably brought about the actual charge)- at some stage.

Ther FA are charging the Uruguay international with "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour contrary to FA rules", including "a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race of Patrice Evra".

To me that sounds as if it's not all racial abuse, it is hard to make sense of it.

ShamoBuc

flahavaj wrote: »

Its enough to bring a charge which was the original point you queried. By charging him they think he has a case to answer.

It was enough to start an investigation!
To actually charge him, they must have found some proof that he was racially abusing another player. As has been mentioned, other players have used that word - and no charges were brought against them!

As I said, I look forward to the proof.