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

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

There is no evidence that Evra has made one single claim of racism before now. You are full of shít.

And with your phoney concern for the imaginary harm done to the anti racism campaigns you really are being disgusting.

In good form tonight i see.

Handsome Bob

Well this should be the craic.

Leiva

Don't know why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist .

The FA said it would be Tuesday at the earliest before a verdict .

No guarantees of it today and I ain't hopping on no hamster wheel today.

So have fun you lot .

ilovelamp2000

I'm a little concerned about this.

Articles written over the weekend in the Guardian and Telegraph stated that the word "negro" was used by Suarez, the Telegraph (Henry Winter) says Suarez admits to using it and his defence is that he used it in a friendly manner.

I find it distasteful to stand over the use of the word, so I won't. If it's true Suarez's excuses are way too thin to expect him to get away with this.

And before someone comes in with the obligatory "link?" reply, google it yourself ya lazy ****.

JimsAlterEgo

Decent Article from Sam Wallace in the uk indo - better than Winters biased bile over the weekend

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/sam-wallace-three-wise-men-know-theyre-damned-either-way-in-case-of-suarez-6279057.html

The three men of the Independent Regulatory Commission sitting in judgement on Luis Suarez's racial abuse charges will rise this morning, eat breakfast, flick through the newspapers and then go back to the worst bloody job in football at the moment.

Whichever way their judgement goes, Paul Goulding QC, Denis Smith (former manager of Sunderland, Wrexham among others) and Brian Jones (Sheffield and Hallamshire Football Association chairman) will be held up by an element of one set of supporters as incompetent, biased, useless – maybe even worse. You might say they are on a hiding to nothing.

The FA's charges against Suarez, which allege racism, touch a nerve right through British society, never mind English football.

What Goulding, Smith and Jones – alas, poor Goulding, Smith and Jones – have to decide is whether Suarez's language (and the word negrito seems to be the key, although it has never been officially confirmed) towards Patrice Evra in Liverpool's home game against United on 15 October constituted racial abuse.

The backdrop to this is the most embittered rivalry in English football. This is United v Liverpool in 2011, a fixture that draws bigger worldwide television audiences than Barcelona v Real Madrid. It is two northern cities with an acute dislike of one another. It is the two most successful clubs in the history of English football locked in a perpetual argument about their respective claims to greatness. It is, on many levels, pure hatred.

Throw into that mix a complicated race row with all sorts of nuances to do with language and cultural norms and you have a disciplinary case best described as a hospital pass. And that is before the conspiracy theories begin circulating.

The latest one, doing the rounds on Twitter, is a real corker. Some Liverpool fans claim that the three-man commission is biased against Suarez because of the presence of Smith, who was manager of Sir Alex Ferguson's son Darren when he was a player at Wrexham. They also point to glowing remarks made by Smith about Ferguson in the former's autobiography.

What those who make these accusations have overlooked is that both clubs have the power of veto over any member of an independent regulatory commission. At any point in the fraught legal arguments leading up to this case, Kenny Dalglish or Ian Ayre could have objected to Smith's presence on the panel. It is not every walk of life in which you get to choose your own judge but, hey, this is football.

So while the knives are sharpened for Smith in the event of a guilty verdict for Suarez, it should be known that no-one at Liverpool Football Club objected to him being on the commission. If they had, he would not be there. In fact, it is rare indeed for a club to object to the appointments on an independent commission. Those I spoke to could not recall the last time it had happened.

Why? Because clubs are realistic about the small-world nature of English football.

Finding a connection between someone who has worked at a fairly significant level in the game and does not know either Ferguson or Dalglish or both is hard. These are two of the best-connected, significant figures in the game.

Finding an experienced person in football who did not have some connection with one of the two clubs would be even more difficult.

The independent regulatory commissions that sit in these cases draw upon three groups of individuals who are nominated by the FA at the start of the season and endorsed by the clubs. There is a group of around 12 from which commission chairmen are selected, usually those with a background in the law, of which Goulding is one.

There is a group of around 20 "football experts", including the likes of Graham Taylor, Gary Mabbutt, Colin Murdock (the former Northern Ireland international) and Paul Raven (formerly of West Bromwich Albion among others), from which Smith is drawn. Taylor, for example, would not be able to sit in judgement on Watford, where he is still a director. You would wager Taylor knows both Dalglish and Ferguson but you would also be confident he could put aside any friendship if asked to sit in judgement.

Then there are 20 FA councillors who have a specific background in disciplinary cases, the group from which Jones was selected. All three would have been carefully picked, not just on the basis of impartiality but also on the training and experience they have had in a particular kind of case.

The other accusation against the FA is that the Suarez case has taken too long.

Unfortunately there is nothing in the regulations or precedent that deals directly with the complexities of Uruguayan racial politics. This is a race case. It is complicated. It cannot be "fast-tracked". It is not the same as watching the footage of Alex Song stamping on Joey Barton and giving him a three-match ban. If the FA needs to take its time then it should.

The FA has charged Suarez with "abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour" towards Evra "which included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race" of the United player. Naturally, Liverpool and Suarez reject those allegations and the FA, now acting as the prosecution, are regarded by the club as the enemy.

But to pre-judge the three men who have been selected to make this decision as true independents, endorsed and approved by both clubs, really does take this complicated, sensitive, dispiriting episode to a new low. Whatever side you find yourself on, at least acknowledge that these three, who reconvene today, have taken on a nightmare of a case. Because someone had to.

manual_man

Latest reports suggest the 3 man panel are upset after golf had to be cancelled today due to ice on the course

PHB

Mod Note

I'm not particuarly happy with the tone that is being taken against other posters. People should keep in mind whether they want to keep posting on this thread, as by in large, this thread has led to the most infractions ever.

Iang87

I feel like i'm 8 years old on christmas morning. Is it going ot be the bike i've wanted for 2 months or is it gonna be the massive ban that i didnt ask for

JimsAlterEgo

based on the wording of the charges, i dont see how he can be acquitted

eigrod

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

based on the wording of the charges, i dont see how he can be acquitted

By proving that he didn't say what he was accused of saying or by there being a lack of evidence to prove that he said what he was accused of saying. There's just 2 ways.

smokedeels

I'm on my Christmas holidays so I think I'll spend the morning infecting Twitter will false rumors about the verdict.

JimsAlterEgo

eigrod wrote: »

By proving that he didn't say what he was accused of saying or by there being a lack of evidence to prove that he said what he was accused of saying. There's just 2 ways.

but he has admitted it AFAIK

eigrod

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

but he has admitted it AFAIK

Nobody knows what he admitted to when he was called to the enquiry.

In the weeks leading up to the enquiry, some papers report he used the word "negrito", others report he said "negro". Confusion abound. They don't know, and they especially don't know what he admitted to at the enquiry last week.

Kess73

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

but he has admitted it AFAIK

No he has not admitted anything. The media have printed a number of different words over the past few months that they all claim is the word he admitted to using.

At this point there are two or three words that are all meant to be the one word that he admitted to saying.


Same things goes with the media claim that Evra said that the ref only booked him because he was black. Disgusting if true, but I reckon there is more chance of that being a media fabrication than that of Evra having made that claim.

If we were to take everything in the papers on this case as truth, then Suarez racially abused Evra and Evra made a very serious claim against the ref.

The only media releases that I am inclined to believe in terms of them being actually what the players said are the two tv interviews, one from each player. Those two interviews are the only things that I know for sure that each player said or that each player admitted as their version. Everything else is either very liberal paraphrasing, fabrication or guesswork including most of what all of us have said in this thread.

manual_man

For me, both players are in a way guilty (if we are to believe what they're reported to have said). Should this prove to be the case, i don't think either player should receive a ban, instead both of them should be ordered to do a number of hours community work, on racial awareness and social inclusion or something like that. Let's try and make a positive of this, instead of the inevitable stone throwing that will continue if either or both get a ban. A bit of common sense is required on such a sensitive subject, and let's hope the outcome reflects that

SlickRic

in light of some recent contributions...just a reminder of the correct answer just a couple of dozen of posts back.

alproctor wrote: »

This really is the single most frustrating thread on boards - it's supposed to be about the alleged racist remarks attributed to Luis Suarez (referring to Patrice Evra)

What it has developed into is a forum for some supporters (not all) to vehemently defend 'their' player.

Never have I seen a thread to go around in circles as much as this one. I'm a Manchester United fan and it really is simple -

• If Suarez is guilty, he should be punished.
• It is possible that Evra reacted to a statement that wasn't meant maliciously - no action would be taken in this case imo.
• It is also possible that Evra made it up, and in that case, if his intention was to get Suarez in trouble, then he should be punished.

What is important, imo, is the wording of whatever statement the Disciplinary Committee publish, and i think it's important for all of us to examine and accept this, before flying off the handle and reacting without thinking. Chances of this are slim, though methinks.

I have my opinion about what I think may have happened, but to say it here will just get over the top responses from all angles.

And regardless of the outcome of the investigation on tuesday, the reactions here should make good reading.

Peyton Manning

Damn it Slick, you got my hopes up when I saw this thread at the top of my home page.

Anyway, outcome sweepstakes - I say Suarez is found not guilty, FA will attribute it to a cultural misunderstanding and say they are working towards a reconciliation between the two that will be kept behind closed doors.

Mr Alan

Based on the wording of the charge;

abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour which included a reference to the ethnic origin and/or colour and/or race

Whatever charge they level at him, they have to include the findings of the racial element of the above. I have no doubt that Suarez used abusive/insulting words/behaviour towards Evra & I have absolutely no issue with that whatsoever. Fair play to him. Evra did the exact same. And players do it in every game up & down England every week. Its never been an issue before this.

However, the only reason this case is even an issue is because of the continued racial abuse that Evra alleged. They can't chicken out by simply finding him guilty of using, "abusive/insulting language behaviour", and that's my fear. I fear they'll hide behind the ambiguity of a charge like that.

YouTookMyName

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537.stm

Tim Vickery talking about the case and other things.

_blank_

YouTookMyName wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/16262537.stm

Tim Vickery talking about the case and other things.

Jesus, I respect Vickery a lot, but that's a fluff piece.

Fuhrer

So, nothing at all is happening?

killwill

Seems not. BIG anti-climax!!!

Leiva

killwill wrote: »

Seems not. BIG anti-climax!!!

Is there even a climax in this case for any side ?

killwill

mixednuts wrote: »

Is there even a climax in this case for any side ?

Not really I suppose. I was really hoping to have this over and done with.
As all Pool fans are too I presume. If, and I say if, Suarez does get a ban I presume ye want it out of the way immediately or would it suit to get the busy Winter schedule out of the way first?

Leiva

killwill wrote: »

Not really I suppose. I was really hoping to have this over and done with.
As all Pool fans are too I presume. If, and I say if, Suarez does get a ban I presume ye want it out of the way immediately or would it suit to get the busy Winter schedule out of the way first?

Febs a massive month for us

--amadeus--

The longer it goes the less chance I think it is as simple as a guilty verdict here's your ban, actually. If they were convinced that he did abuse Evra then they wouldn't need this long to talk about it. Even if there was a case of "we understand your context but this is England this is our interpretation" then it would surely have been sorted by now.

IMO they are either split and cannot agree or they feel there isn't a case to answer and are trying to come up with a compromise that is fair but not perceived as soft on racism. If I were a betting man I'd put money on Suarez getting a warning for ungentlemanly conduct and regarding his behaviour in future along with a huge fine and long ban that are suspended and imposed if he's accused of this sort of thing again. Sort of guilty but ignorant of the way the words would be interpreted and so don't do it again. There may also be a warning or follow up charge for Evra if he really did accuse the Ref of only booking him because he is black - that is shocking thing to throw at a professional ref.

5starpool

--amadeus-- wrote: »

The longer it goes the less chance I think it is as simple as a guilty verdict here's your ban, actually. If they were convinced that he did abuse Evra then they wouldn't need this long to talk about it. Even if there was a case of "we understand your context but this is England this is our interpretation" then it would surely have been sorted by now.

IMO they are either split and cannot agree or they feel there isn't a case to answer and are trying to come up with a compromise that is fair but not perceived as soft on racism. If I were a betting man I'd put money on Suarez getting a warning for ungentlemanly conduct and regarding his behaviour in future along with a huge fine and long ban that are suspended and imposed if he's accused of this sort of thing again. Sort of guilty but ignorant of the way the words would be interpreted and so don't do it again. There may also be a warning or follow up charge for Evra if he really did accuse the Ref of only booking him because he is black - that is shocking thing to throw at a professional ref.

Ya, I think the bolded bit is a likely outcome. Almost no one will be happy with that result though I'd say.

killwill

5starpool wrote: »

Ya, I think the bolded bit is a likely outcome. Almost no one will be happy with that result though I'd say.

I think that would be pretty fair tbh.
Why would you not want that? Apart from the fact you hope he is innocent?

Crazy Horse 6

Des wrote: »

Jesus, I respect Vickery a lot, but that's a fluff piece.

Its an excellent piece imo.

Blatter

Matt Lawton, Chief Football Correspondent of the Daily Mail.

It's getting late but feeling is we're going to get a verdict on Suarez tonight