Liverpool v Manchester United, Anfield, 15th October 12:45 - (MOD NOTE - Post #1)

flahavaj wrote: »

This doesn't tie in with what ye were sying earlier. Its Suarez in the dock not Evra. The focus in any investigation whether you like it or not will be on Suarez' innocence or gult. What I would do if I was Suarez and I knew I hadn't done it would be let the investigation prove my innocence and then ask the FA to start a seperate investigation into Evra and make him have to defend his position in the same way Suarex had to. I don't think you can prove both things fully in a single investigation.

Sorry it's Evra has put him in the dock and it's up to him as accusor to prove it. Suarez does not have to do anything.

You have no clue what was said at any stage of any exchange on the pitch to be fair.

C'mon flah it's all over the internet and everyone knows what Evra is accusing him of saying. No need to play games.

And its appalling when anyone does so maliciously - I've even had the racist card played on me once in work. But you can't say that this is the case here either, we'll have to wait to see the evidence either way. All you're doing is speculating and its telling that most of your speculation is aimed to paint the Liverpool layer in a better light.

Had a bit of it myself too, had an afro-american colleague who was offended once when I said a busy bar I was in was 'black'. Also didn't like negative connotations such as 'dark side' or baddies in film being dressed in black.....she was crazy!

I'm not defending Suarez because he's a LFC player. If he's proven guilty then he's a disgrace and should have the book thrown at him.
That said, I've been accused of things wrongly in the past and I feel strongly that Evra should have serous back up for what he says regardless of who he plays for.

Mr Alan wrote: »

That's from the quotes that emerged last night

Just had a look around different sources. Some are using the camera line, some are not. Just makes wonder did he say it. Only a small issue anyway in the whole saga.

I'd say he said it alright.

The accuser isn't trying to prove that he's not lying, because proving a negative is impossible. If there is no evidence to back up his claim then Suarez will be assumed innocent. But that doesn't mean you can assume Evra was lying about it. It just means there's a lack of evidence.

People saying that the cameras would definitely have picked it up if Suarez said it ten times are wrong. Sure there are lots of cameras, but there are not cameras trained on a particular player's face at all times.

Also, just because Evra has said it will have been caught on camera doesn't mean it will either. He's hardly an expert on the effective cover of the cameras. The only time I'm going to believe that there is no doubt that it would have been caught on camera if Suarez had said it, is when some football video camera expert says so under oath.

murpho999 wrote: »

Well I saw both go to ref and it didn't appear to be much coming from Evra at the time. That was when he should have said 'He's just called me a n*****r ten times and I resent it.

Who are you to decide when Evra should have said what? Maybe he is embarrassed and enraged by that kind of thing and he doesn't want to discuss it in front of tens of thousands of people to a guy who hasn't heard it. Maybe he thought it wouldn't do any good saying it then. Maybe he was concerned that the ref wouldn't deal with it sensibly at that moment.

the legal 'knowledge' on this thread is absolute comedy stuff

bamboozling wrote: »

How?

im genuinely unsure how i should respond to you so imma leave it be

Pro. F wrote: »

Who are you to decide when Evra should have said what? Maybe he is embarrassed and enraged by that kind of thing and he doesn't want to discuss it in front of tens of thousands of people to a guy who hasn't heard it. Maybe he thought it wouldn't do any good saying it then. Maybe he was concerned that the ref wouldn't deal with it sensibly at that moment.

I'm not deciding anything just offering my opinion. No need to get all high and mighty and also not a key factor I was only asking why didn't he say it immediately rather than after the match. No need for a big deal to be made of it.

Anyhow, why would he be embarrassed to say to the ref he's being racially abused in front of tens of thousands of people who actually cannot hear a word he is saying?

bamboozling wrote: »

Look Paul, you can't go wading into the thread with reckless abandoan making allegations of a lack of legal knowledge and then saying your not sure how to respond and leaving us all in the dark.

That's not on, son.

With reckless abandon? Do you write for the papers or something?

My response was im not sure how to respond to you, thats specifically you.

Have a nice day, KID

edit: lol at me getting dragged into an argument with someone who calls himself the Bam Man

murpho999 wrote: »

I'm not deciding anything just offering my opinion. No need to get all high and mighty and also not a key factor I was only asking why didn't he say it immediately rather than after the match. No need for a big deal to be made of it.

Anyhow, why would he be embarrassed to say to the ref he's being racially abused in front of tens of thousands of people who actually cannot hear a word he is saying?

Maybe he is embarrassed having to discuss those things, even to just the ref. Having tens of thousands of people there screaming isn't going to help it be a constructive discussion. Anyway this is all just speculation, just like yours was. What is silly is deciding what he should have done.

Pro. F wrote: »

Maybe he is embarrassed having to discuss those things, even to just the ref. Having tens of thousands of people there screaming isn't going to help it be a constructive discussion. Anyway this is all just speculation, just like yours was. What is silly is deciding what he should have done.

He should be more embarrassed about his defensive performances than reporting racial abuse.:p

Final point I did not decide when he should have said it or what he should have done I only just questioned it , can you not see the difference?

Pro. F wrote: »

You didn't question it. You said what you thought he should have done when:

That was when he should have said 'He's just called me a n*****r ten times and I resent it.

Jesus, do you people just take people literal all the time? As I didn't put 'in my opinion', then it just all gets over analysed and picked to death!