Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…6263656768…222

Comments

  • #1922
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    abouttobebanned wrote: »
    That's what dagleish and co should have done.

    What he say then?


  • #1923
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Unless you or anyone in here knows someone in the FA willing to give out details and evidence in the case, it's impossible to know what evidence is available to the FA.

    I'm just going by what little we all know, maybe this thread should be shut until new developments happen.


  • #1924
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    niallo27 wrote: »
    I'm just going by what little we all know, maybe this thread should be shut until new developments happen.

    It's keeping the superthreads quiet ;)


  • #1925
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    It's keeping the superthreads quiet ;)

    I know but ill probably end up banned:)


  • #1926
    Leiva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Leiva


    Maybe I'm reading too much in Fergusons small statement on Poyets comments but I think there might be some key evidence that's not in the public domain .

    They way he used the word "silly" suggests he knows Poyets comments are gonna come back and bite him .

    Hope I'm wrong or it could be just him being the ultimate troll .


  • Advertisement
  • #1927
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    I don't see why Fergie saying there has been drip feeding of info on the Liverpool side is wrong. How else is the world and its mother suddenly aware of the "negrito" defence?

    The general reaction to this has been bloody awful on the LFC side, from Liverpool connected journalists spreading the story that "Evra has made inaccurate claims about racism" which was latched onto by the usual die hards on here for days on end, to Suarez himself defending himself in the media when specifically told not to, to those headlines appearing a few weeks back that Evra shold be charged if Suarez couldn't (when the club must have been aware he was going to say it was a misunderstanding anyway), to the fact that if he is indeed going to go with it being a misunderstanding, Suarez should simply apologise anyway and the whole thing might have a chance of being dropped.


  • #1928
    tommyhaas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭tommyhaas


    niallo27 wrote: »
    The big question is can the FA prove beyond reasonable doubt that Suarez used the term is used in an offensive way, I don't think they can.

    Do they need to? If its against the rules, surely they could just find him guilty regardless of intent? I'm not saying that they necessarily should, but can they?


  • #1929
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    flahavaj wrote: »
    I don't see why Fergie saying there has been drip feeding of info on the Liverpool side is wrong. How else is the world and its mother suddenly aware of the "negrito" defence?

    The general reaction to this has been bloody awful on the LFC side, from Liverpool connected journalists spreading the story that "Evra has made inaccurate claims about racism" which was latched onto by the usual die hards on here for days on end, to Suarez himself defending himself in the media when specifically told not to, to those headlines appearing a few weeks back that Evra shold be charged if Suarez couldn't (when the club must have been aware he was going to say it was a misunderstanding anyway), to the fact that if he is indeed going to go with it being a misunderstanding, Suarez should simply apologise anyway and the whole thing might have a chance of being dropped.



    Can you provide the proof of Liverpool drip feeding information? You didn't provide any quotes last time, simply an article written without any quotes. Fergie is no saint. Claiming Suarez shouldn't talk to the media then running to them and shooting his mouth off.


  • #1930
    tommyhaas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,100 ✭✭✭tommyhaas


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Can you provide the proof of Liverpool drip feeding information? You didn't provide any quotes last time, simply an article written without any quotes. Fergie is no saint. Claiming Suarez shouldn't talk to the media then running to them and shooting his mouth off.

    Who else would have revealed the negrito angle?


  • #1931
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Chucky the tree wrote: »
    Can you provide the proof of Liverpool drip feeding information? You didn't provide any quotes last time, simply an article written without any quotes. Fergie is no saint. Claiming Suarez shouldn't talk to the media then running to them and shooting his mouth off.

    Suarez giving interviews alone justifies completely what he said.

    Fergie wasn't commenting directly on the case on the other hande, just on the fact that we seem to have a lot of stuff coming out from the Liverpool side in the last few weeks. Everyone is suddenly very well aware of the fact that Suarez is claiming this whole thing is just a misunderstanding - this didn't happen by accident nand could only have dcome from one source. In fact the "Negro/ito defence" was reported in the papers a few weeks before Suarez ever spoke to Uruguayan TV. Again, it could only have come from one place aand one place only.

    He was spot on in what he said.


  • Advertisement
  • #1932
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    flahavaj wrote: »
    The general reaction to this has been bloody awful on the LFC side, .

    There's been nothing wrong whatsoever with the official line from LFC.


  • #1933
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    There's been nothing wrong whatsoever with the official line from LFC.

    I didn't really suggest there was, I referred to LFC connected journalists, LFC supporters and Suarez himself.

    As tommyhaas points out above though, the fact that the negro defence was being reported in newspapers at least a week before Suarez made his comments to Uruguayan media means someone is feeding fairly specific info out.


  • #1934
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Suarez giving interviews alone justifies completely what he said.

    Fergie wasn't commenting directly on the case on the other hande, just on the fact that we seem to have a lot of stuff coming out from the Liverpool side in the last few weeks. Everyone is suddenly very well aware of the fact that Suarez is claiming this whole thing is just a misunderstanding - this didn't happen by accident nand could only have dcome from one source. In fact the "Negro/ito defence" was reported in the papers a few weeks before Suarez ever spoke to Uruguayan TV. Again, it could only have come from one place aand one place only.

    He was spot on in what he said.

    It's all a conspiracy


  • #1935
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    It's all a conspiracy

    It could only have come from Liverpool, the FA or United. It would clearly suit Suarez more than the other two to have this explanation for the alleged racism in the public domain. The fact that he went himself the following week to the media and made comments that tie in with this explanation (in direct defiance to FA orders as Fergie said) would appear to back that up.

    Call it tin foil helmet stuff if you will, but it makes perfect sense if you allowed yourself to actually consider it.

    Bottom line, Fergie had every right to say what he did.


  • #1936
    Chucky the tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Chucky the tree


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Suarez giving interviews alone justifies completely what he said.

    Fergie wasn't commenting directly on the case on the other hande, just on the fact that we seem to have a lot of stuff coming out from the Liverpool side in the last few weeks. Everyone is suddenly very well aware of the fact that Suarez is claiming this whole thing is just a misunderstanding - this didn't happen by accident nand could only have dcome from one source. In fact the "Negro/ito defence" was reported in the papers a few weeks before Suarez ever spoke to Uruguayan TV. Again, it could only have come from one place aand one place only.

    He was spot on in what he said.


    Sorry I though you were referring to official stuff from Liverpool footbal club.


  • #1937
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    flahavaj wrote: »
    It could only have come from Liverpool, the FA or United. It would clearly suit Suarez more than the other two to have this explanation for the alleged racism in the public domain. The fact that he went himself went to the media and made comments that tie in with this explanation (in direct defiance to FA orders as Fergie said) would appear to back that up.

    Call it tin foil helmet stuff if you will, but it makes perfect sense if you allowed yourself to actually consider it.

    Bottom line, Fergie had every right to say what he did.

    Course he had every right to say what he wanted, it's not Iran.

    Doesn't mean he's right.


  • #1938
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    Course he had every right to say what he wanted, it's not Iran.

    Doesn't mean he's right.

    It was a fair comment, given what we have seen in the last few weeks and given that the world and his mother are now suddenly aware of the defence being used by the defendant in what was supposed to be a behind-closed doors investigation - an explanation that paints him in a better light than the original allegations would suggest.


  • #1939
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    flahavaj wrote: »
    It was a fair comment, given what we have seen in the last few weeks and given that the world and his mother are now suddenly aware of the defence being used by the defendant in what was supposed to be a behind-closed doors investigation - an explanation that paints him in a better light than the original allegations would suggest.

    A behind closed doors investigation that started with Evra running to the media.


  • #1940
    ShamoBuc
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 34,950 CMod ✭✭✭✭ShamoBuc


    flahavaj wrote: »
    Again, it could only have come from one place aand one place only.

    He was spot on in what he said.
    flahavaj wrote: »
    It could only have come from Liverpool, the FA or United.

    Not sure I am reading it properly. Are you talking about the same thing in both quotes? A tad confusing if you are.


  • #1941
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    A behind closed doors investigation that started with Evra running to the media.

    Given that we now all seem to accept that he was called a derivative of the word negro, his anger and subsequent reaction in the aftermath of the game is at least a little more understandable.

    The Liverpool stuff on the other side came in direct defiance of FA orders and looks to me a little more calculated.

    Though you do raise a good point. We had uproar in here for pages and pages of Liverpool fans clinging to the fact that Evra went to the media. I hear less condemnation from them of the use of the media by the defending side in the case. Funny that.
    ShamoBuc wrote: »
    Not sure I am reading it properly. Are you talking about the same thing in both quotes? A tad confusing if you are.

    Your selective quoting in the second instance omits the subsequent sentence where I clerly indicate where I think the info is coming from. I don't see how its confusing at all or indeed why you prefer to pick on a tiny point of detail instead of actually debating the overall point at hand.


  • Advertisement
  • #1942
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    rarnes1 wrote: »
    A behind closed doors investigation that started with Evra running to the media.
    The investigation and FA involvement started after that as well you know :rolleyes:


  • #1943
    Blatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,832 ✭✭✭✭Blatter


    Daniel Taylor confirmed the negrito story did not come from United. So that leaves Liverpool or the FA.
    Daniel Taylor

    only three of us, one of whom also covers Liverpool. It's not really important where it(negrito story) came from but - genuinely - not Utd


  • #1944
    ShamoBuc
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 34,950 CMod ✭✭✭✭ShamoBuc


    flahavaj wrote: »

    Your selective quoting in the second instance omits the subsequent sentence where I clerly indicate where I think the info is coming from. I don't see how its confusing at all or indeed why you prefer to pick on a tiny point of detail instead of actually debating the overall point at hand.

    Well you said it could only be coming from one place - and then say it's possible for it to come from 3 places ( the fact that it may or may not suit suarez if it is from the other 2 is irrelevant)
    The point is we don't know for certain where it came, do we? Or do you?
    Where it came from is part of the overall point in hand isn't it?
    If Taylor is to believed then the choice is down to 2, (unless someone else leaked it.)

    I've read most of this thread and the amount of comments with little or no actual 'facts' is remarkable.
    Does anyone here really know what was said by each player, why it was said,the way it was said, the intent behind it, etc?
    I look forward to when all the 'evidence' is firmly laid out on the table - by all sides, as all the conjecture/opinions etc is tiresome at this stage.


  • #1945
    niallo27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,137 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    tommyhaas wrote: »
    Do they need to? If its against the rules, surely they could just find him guilty regardless of intent? I'm not saying that they necessarily should, but can they?

    Is it against the rules though, I doubt it is, it probaly can be proved it is a racial slur but then it probaly can be proved it's harmless. If there is doubt then surely he cant be found guilty.


  • #1946
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    ShamoBuc wrote: »
    Well you said it could only be coming from one place - and then say it's possible for it to come from 3 places ( the fact that it may or may not suit suarez if it is from the other 2 is irrelevant)
    The point is we don't know for certain where it came, do we? Or do you?
    Where it came from is part of the overall point in hand isn't it?
    If Taylor is to believed then the choice is down to 2, (unless someone else leaked it.)

    I believe the quotes to have come from Liverpool. Blatter's post from DT makes me even more sure. It basically narrows it down to either LFC or the FA - it would be bizarre in the extreme for the FA to leak information to the media on a case they specifically asked both sides to keep quiet on.

    Now I don't have absolute proof of this but anyone looking reasonably at it would agree that the most likely source is LFC. If you don't agree with this I would invite you make a cogent argument as to why you think the FA would do such an extraordinarily unusual thing?


  • #1947
    Will I Amnt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,222 ✭✭✭✭Will I Amnt


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Is it against the rules though, I doubt it is, it probaly can be proved it is a racial slur but then it probaly can be proved it's harmless. If there is doubt then surely he cant be found guilty.
    It's the context that will decide it.
    Plenty of words have other meanings.
    Eg:I call you a knacker for picking your nose and eating it :) quite harmless.
    I call a traveller a knacker,not so harmless.


  • #1948
    Mr Alan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,372 ✭✭✭✭Mr Alan


    The media having sources in the FA?

    Extraordinarily unusual? Are you for serious?! :confused:

    The negrito defence could have come from Utd, Liverpool or the FA-without it being an official leak that club/organisation did intentionally. All three would be full of people who trade info with media.

    Or it could have been the media putting 2 & 2 together and coming up with it themselves. People on various Liverpool/Utd fan sites did within 48 hrs of the incident.


  • #1949
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    Mr Alan wrote: »
    The media having sources in the FA?

    Extraordinarily unusual? Are you for serious?! :confused:

    The negrito defence could have come from Utd, Liverpool or the FA-without it being an official leak that club/organisation did intentionally. All three would be full of people who trade info with media.

    Or it could have been the media putting 2 & 2 together and coming up with it themselves. People on various Liverpool/Utd fan sites did within 48 hrs of the incident.

    Be God Al, I was worried about you you've been fierce quiet lately.:pac:

    You also have to factor in that we also have Suarez himself speaking to the media directly and giving statements that tie in directly with the story that circulated prior to him blabbing.

    Either way, we must return to the original argument that Fergie was wrong to say what he did in the press conference yesterday. He wasn't.


  • #1950
    ShamoBuc
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 34,950 CMod ✭✭✭✭ShamoBuc


    flahavaj wrote: »
    I believe the quotes to have come from Liverpool. Blatter's post from DT makes me even more sure. It basically narrows it down to either LFC or the FA - it would be bizarre in the extreme for the FA to leak information to the media on a case they specifically asked both sides to keep quiet on.

    Now I don't have absolute proof of this but anyone looking reasonably at it would agree that the most likely source is LFC. If you don't agree with this I would invite you make a cogent argument as to why you think the FA would do such an extraordinarily unusual thing?

    Sorry fella, not sure what a cogent argument is.

    So did it come from LFC - no idea.
    Could it have come form LFC, Suarez himself, a LFC fan, a friend of Suarez, a tabloid newspaper, Utd, the internet, twitter, facebook etc - possibly.
    I would not be as sure as to the source as you, for whatever reason.


  • Advertisement
  • #1951
    flahavaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,235 ✭✭✭✭flahavaj


    ShamoBuc wrote: »
    Sorry fella, not sure what a cogent argument is.

    Clearly.:pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement