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

Not really been folloeing this do am i am open to correction on all if this:-

If Suarez was merely "misunderstood" in what he said, surly he would ha e stopped saying it after the first initial bad reaction from Evra.

Again if it was a misunderstanding, why was this not revealed by the player or the club on the day of the incident. It seems convenient that this story arose a while after. As far as I know the player denied saying anything, do this all seems very convenient.

As I said I am open to correction in all of the above.

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Not really been folloeing this do am i am open to correction on all if this:-

If Suarez was merely "misunderstood" in what he said, surly he would ha e stopped saying it after the first initial bad reaction from Evra.

Again if it was a misunderstanding, why was this not revealed by the player or the club on the day of the incident. It seems convenient that this story arose a while after. As far as I know the player denied saying anything, do this all seems very convenient.

As I said I am open to correction in all of the above.

I put up the only tv interview Suarez gave. It should be a few pages back as I put it up in both Spanish and English yesterday. In it he does not deny that he was talking to Evra and that there was back and forth between them, but he clearly states he did not use a racist term. It is the only interview the man gave on the topic, so pretty much everything else that has been paraphrased in the media or online gets used by those who see the case in extremes one way or the other.

From what has been officially said by both sides, and from the tv interview that each player gave, I fail to see how anyone could be 100% sure of an outcome based on what information is available in public.

As a Liverpool supporter I would hope that Suarez did not make racist remarks, and I hope that will be the genuine outcome, but there is a hell of a difference between me hoping that is the case and me knowing that is the case. He could well be proven guilty, just as it could be a case that Evra lied and took the lie too far. It could also be a case of something being misheard and neither man is wrong in how they reacted.

There are just too many variables at this point, and it certainly is not an easy case for the FA to have to make a decision on.

Blatter wrote: »

The reports from the trial seem to be indicating that Suarez is claiming he said it once.

I find it interesting that Suarez is allegedly claiming that he said the word Negro at that time when he tried to pat Evra on the back of the head. You know, the time when the cameras were definitely on the pair?Yet going by the logic of you and others earlier in the thread, surely the cameras would have picked up the lip movements and it would have been plastered all over Sky within 24 hours?

If true, hopefully this dispels the myth that cameras should be in anyway reliable with regards lip reading and people should not assume that these incidents should be caught on camera.

I knew I was forgetting to bring something up:p

The thing is Evra is the one who first brought the cameras into it with his own tv interview. He made a claim that the word was said at least ten times and that it would be seen on camera.

If I remember right what Alan said was that if Suarez said it ten or more times that it should be easy to find at least one incident of Suarez saying what Evra claimed he said.

Plus the camera shot you are talking about, the one with the pat on the head, has the players moving towards the camera face on, away from the camera with their backs turned, it has Suarez talking to Evra but with Suarez been seen from the side of his head and so on. As such who is to say when during that exchange the word was said?

Personally I don't think the cameras will prove anything in favour of either man, but I do think the statements from De Gea and Kuyt could play a big part given that both of them are meant to have said that they heard nothing racist being said. If there is any truth at all in the claim about what Evra said to the ref then that has to weaken his case as if true he pretty much accussed the ref of booking him because of his skin colour.

I still think that a serious misunderstanding, as in a wind up being misheard as a racist remark, between two narky sods is the most likely truth in all of this, but that each side is too stubborn to hear the other sides version and is sticking to their own view regardless.

Blatter wrote: »

I agree, from that specific clip of where the altercation allegedly took place, it's extremely difficult to see what was said, and at what point during the exchange it was said.

This is my case in point with regards cameras and lip reading. It can be a wholly unreliable road to go down and I agree that I don't think they will play a big role in this case.

My understanding from Alan, and many others, was that they thought because Evra said it happened 10 times or more, then at least one of these passages should be caught on camera and the camera should be able to clearly pick up what was said, ala John Terry. Not that because he said it 10 times or more, an incident should exist where we can lip read what was said on at least one occasion.

That was my understanding anyway, but even if they meant the latter, I still disagree that cameras should have picked anything up, as they can be far too ambiguous.

Basically, my point is, here we have(allegedly) the passage where it was said, caught on camera, but nobody can actually make out what was said, and when it was said, thus demonstrating the ambiguity of cameras.

I still think that many were using that point to show up what Evra was claiming more than them actually believing that it should be on camera. Now while I don't think that anything said on the pitch will defo be caught on camera, it does stand to reason that the more times a thing is said within a 90 minute period during a live televised the greater the chance of it being caught on camera.

I am more curious as to how a fairly reactive man had racist comments said to him at least ten times but managed to stay so calm about them, yet was flashing imaginary yellow cards for fouls, arguing with the crowd and getting mad with other Liverpool players for other events in the game. Just seems odd that he would lose the head a number of times during the game over footballing matters, yet somehow not blow up over at least ten racist slurs.

Makes me think that there was a degree of exaggeration brought into play after the final whistle because there is no way I can believe that Evra, as an educated man with a temper, would not react to racist comments in a big way and I certainly cannot undertsand why he would not look to report the remarks on the spot to the ref if it happened ten times or more.

It keeps bringing me back to my gut feeling that Suarez was on a wind up and what he said once was misheard by Evra as a racist comment. The at least ten times claim along with the cameras seeing it and the ref knowing claims were then tacked on, imho of course, after the game in anger as the head had not cooled down. What followed was a big ball of media fuelled **** that kept getting bigger as it rolled downhill.

spockety wrote: »

Given the potentially life ruining nature of a guilty verdict, you would have to hope that if there is any doubt at all, the benefit of it is given to Suarez.

Can much be read into the delayed verdict?

Similar to the theme running through Agent Scouse Fonda's film, if there is any reasonable doubt that Suarez did not do what it is claimed he did, then he simply cannot be found guilty. It is too big a charge to be found guilty of if there is doubt.

If he is found guilty next week, and then some years later Evra came out and said he may indeed have misheard what was said or worse still came out and said he made it up, then Suarez would still have mud stuck to his name and would have had to have lived through being known as a racist with all the bile that would come with such a tag.

The flipside of that is that if he did make a racist comment, then I would want the FA to take just as much time to make sure that they can prove it with no room for doubt as racism is just something that I cannot stomach and I would not want any proven racist at the club.

Massive decision for the FA, and one that warrants as much time as they think they need.

Ordinary man wrote: »

Did suarez ever come out with an apology to evra? All i've heard is where he said he said he wasn't racist. If it was pointed out to him how negro would offend, why didn't he come out with a grovelling apology to evra in public?

Why would he have to do it in public? For all we know something like that could have been suggested behind closed doors and been knocked back by either party.

eigrod wrote: »

If they have concrete evidence that Suarez racially abused Evra, then I really think this would have been done and dusted yesterday.

If they don't have concrete evidence, then there can be no suspended sentence for Suarez, no warning about future conduct, no punishment whatsoever for him, otherwise Liverpool's lawyers will be all over it with an appeal which, if successful, could have huge ramifications for the FAs methods in this regard. The FA simply cannot leave this as "Suarez might be a racist, but we couldn't prove it".

Totally agree. The FA will have to give a clearcut verdict based on clearcut evidence. Anything else is just asking for cans of worms to be opened all over the place, which is only marginally better than cans of whoop ass being opened all over the place.


WHAT?

WHAT?

joe123 wrote: »

Alot of the "itk" people I follow on twitter and facebook are saying Suarez will be cleared of the racism charge but will be banned for the fulham incident.

By the way....Kenny,Clarke and Comolli are all at the Wigan v Chelsea game. Playing them next, but obviously we are about to buy Victor Moses Torres back for 20 odd million as well.

Ordinary man wrote: »

Surely anyone in his position would come out and publicly state that he was deeply sorry if he offended evra with the term negro, that it wasn't his intention to cause offence and he realised that term isn't acceptable. Instead he publicly said it was a name evra's team mates call him, so what's the problem. Not exactly the words of a remorseful man

Eh ? That's ridiculous on so many levels, not least the fact that the investigation is still ongoing.

tommyhaas wrote: »

Has it been confirmed whether Evra's team mates nickname him negrito or something similar?

Nothing like that has been confirmed, but with Spanish speakers like De Gea and Hernandez in the squad there would be a chance that Negrito could be a used word amongst some of the players on the pitch and in training etc., similar to how the same word has been used on twitter and in interviews by a couple of Liverpool's spanish speakers in the past.

mixednuts wrote: »

... hence why Suarez said it's something his (Evra) own team mates call him .

bit presumptuous on Suarezs part , but fact !

I know he said what he said was the same word that Evra's teammates were using, and I know based on the two languages that Suarez speaks that Negrito is the most likely word, but until someone official confirms what word Suarez used all we can do is guess at the word.

But I am sure others will just keep spouting out the word Negro as if it is fact that it was said.

menoscemo wrote: »

Negro and negrito are the same thing in spanish. One is no more offensive that the other if said in a non-insulting manner. If anything negrito is more offensive in the circumstances of a confrontation, comes across as patronising.

Negrito is more patronising in an arguement in a "yeah right whatever mate" kinda of way and can be used on anyone regardless of skin colour, but I would not regard it as being more offensive in racial terms. For someone whose spanish is of the south American variety it would be a common word to use in terms of being friendly and for being sarky, but generally not a racist word.

Even for a European spanish speaker it is usually (not always of course) a colour blind word that can be used in a friendly nature or in a sarky manner.

I must admit I am very curious to find out what the offending word was, and which language it came from. I think we can safely assume that the offending word was not in english otherwise I think a verdict would have been reached by now. So unless Dutch is one of Evra's five languages, I think we have to go with one the various spanish words.

I do feel that if Negrito turns out to be the word and if the same word is indeed used by some of Evra's United teammates when they speak to him on the pitch, then it will be very hard to for the FA to find Suarez guilty.

mags1962 wrote: »

saw a vid on another site where Hernandez refered to one of his team mates as negrito, whilst he was still in South America and also saw a vid of Evra abusing Drogba, calling him a stupid ni**er, he was playing Chelsea for a French team in a Euro tie.

Any chance of a link to these videos?

Forlan was also at Utd with Evra and would know his personality and possibly also called him the same, it's more of a friendly term and in a pally context.

Forlan left United in the summer of 2004, Evra joined in January 2006. So yeah...

I just do not get Evra's reaction during the game, said nothing to the ref,
spent the game sniping at not just Suarez, waving for cards and even had a bit of a play act.

How is that relevant to anything?

His first act was to raise the matter with a French TV station straight after the match and so the cat was out of the bag so he had to later go to the ref and make a report more than 20 mins after the match.
Even if he had gone straight to the officials he would then not have been able to go on TV and repeat the claims, he knows the story having been there done that at Chelsea with the groundstaff and found to have no case.

Ugh.