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

Blatter · 21-12-2011 03:43AM

kryogen wrote: »

Look, the FA are not going to find him guilty based on one players word against the other, now whether thats some other evidence we dont know about or the reported admission by Suarez they found him guilty

Dont you think if they could be easily overturned and made to look stupid they would find him guilty? there is not a hope in hell they would draw that on themselves

They have something to make it stick, they have to, there is no other reason for the delay only they were making sure they had their own asses covered

http://www.blackstonechambers.com/people/barristers/paul_goulding_qc.html

This guy was part of the three man panel that delivered the verdict. One of the top barristers around.

I doubt Suarez would have been found guilty if they didn't have some sort of credible evidence against him, it's not really logical to think otherwise.

tommyhaas · 21-12-2011 03:44AM

peterswellman wrote: »

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't Suarez admit to calling Evra 'negrito'?

Blatter wrote: »

The word from reliable journalist like Henry Winter and Daniel Taylor is that Suarez admitted calling Evra a Negro, not a negrito.

Obviously we will have to wait for the report to confirm this.

This is the thing though, from the wording of the Club statement, it would appear that Suarez has admitted nothing, and that the ruling has been determined based on Evra's word alone. Given the apparent leaks about the negrito phrase, coupled with the dangers in finding him guilty on the basis of only Patrice Evra's word, it will be interesting to read the report and to see how this decision was arrived at, and what exactly Suarez has admitted to

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play - including Evra's own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials - heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken.

DDC1990 · 21-12-2011 03:44AM

Well from what I've read, the noise coming from the Liverpool camp is that it is just that, one word against the other. No one knows what word Suarez has admitted to saying, but its fairly clear at this stage that it wasn't said 10 times.

"IF" this is true, then Evra is a lier, which should immediatly put the case in doubt.

The issue was never what was said but the context of what was said. If, as the Liverpool sources have said, Not one other person heard what was said, then It comes down to the interpretation of the players. Why believe Evra's word over Suarez.

Now if the FA come out with concrete evidence that Suarez called Evra a Ni**er over and over, or even once with real meaning behind it, then by all means ban him. But Evra and the F.A have admitted that they don't think Suarez is racist! Then why the ban?

kryogen · 21-12-2011 03:44AM

DDC1990 wrote: »

Nice response.

Care to elaborate?

I will try elaborate just on one part, it was enough to make my head hurt and i dont wanna get into this

You say the FA basically came out and said Suarez couldnt prove he was innocent so they banned him or something like that

Thats wrong, thats so wrong it displays a lack of intelligence on where the burden of proof lies with a charge,

screw it ill give you two, Liverpool Football Club had absolutely no problem with the members of the independant commitee and could have vetoed anybody on it that they did have an issue with. Get over it and take your tin foil hat off

And you know what **** it ill give you one more

This is what will leave a dark cloud over Suarez's career???

this? are you insane? do you actually know who Luis Suarez is?

Did you see him bite another player on the pitch? did you see him stick his finger up at fans? did you see his handball in the world cup? the laughing and celebrating he did after it? did you see his attempt to seriously injure a fellow pro then fake injury himself to try avoid punishment?

Have you ever watched him play?

There are plenty of clouds over this "young player"s career

Blatter · 21-12-2011 03:48AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

This is the thing though, from the wording of the Club statement, it would appear that Suarez has admitted nothing, and that the ruling has been determined based on Evra's word alone. Given the apparent leaks about the negrito phrase, coupled with the dangers in finding him guilty on the basis of only Patrice Evra's word, it will be interesting to read the report and to see how this decision was arrived at, and what exactly Suarez has admitted to

Well put it this way Tommy, I just can't believe the FA would convict him on the word of Evra alone and have the neck to stand over it.

It's only logical to think they had something else on him.

Maybe when Liverpool say 'the word of Evra alone' they mean that Evra is the only one saying Suarez meant what he said in a racist context? I don't know, it's not the best statement Liverpool have ever put out in fairness.

tommyhaas · 21-12-2011 03:48AM

DDC1990 wrote: »

Well from what I've read, the noise coming from the Liverpool camp is that it is just that, one word against the other. No one knows what word Suarez has admitted to saying, but its fairly clear at this stage that it wasn't said 10 times.

"IF" this is true, then Evra is a lier, which should immediatly put the case in doubt.

The issue was never what was said but the context of what was said. If, as the Liverpool sources have said, Not one other person heard what was said, then It comes down to the interpretation of the players. Why believe Evra's word over Suarez.

Now if the FA come out with concrete evidence that Suarez called Evra a Ni**er over and over, or even once with real meaning behind it, then by all means ban him. But Evra and the F.A have admitted that they don't think Suarez is racist! Then why the ban?

The number of times is irrelevant. You also don't have to be racist to insult someone racially. The club statement does appear to suggest that Suarez admitted nothing, while the ruling and leaks suggest otherwise. Until this is clarified, most of your post is based on hearsay

kryogen · 21-12-2011 03:51AM

DDC1990 wrote: »

Now if the FA come out with concrete evidence that Suarez called Evra a Ni**er over and over, or even once with real meaning behind it, then by all means ban him. But Evra and the F.A have admitted that they don't think Suarez is racist! Then why the ban?

I really wish people would read the last few pages of a thread before posting in them, saves time going back over stuff that has already been brought up and answered before

Short answer, you dont have to be a racist to commit a racist act

DDC1990 · 21-12-2011 03:53AM

kryogen wrote: »

I will try elaborate just on one part, it was enough to make my head hurt and i dont wanna get into this

You say the FA basically came out and said Suarez couldnt prove he was innocent so they banned him or something like that

Thats wrong, thats so wrong it displays a lack of intelligence on where the burden of proof lies with a charge,

screw it ill give you two, Liverpool Football Club had absolutely no problem with the members of the independant commitee and could have vetoed anybody on it that they did have an issue with. Get over it and take your tin foil hat off

And you know what **** it ill give you one more

This is what will leave a dark cloud over Suarez's career???

this? are you insane? do you actually know who Luis Suarez is?

Did you see him bite another player on the pitch? did you see him stick his finger up at fans? did you see his handball in the world cup? the laughing and celebrating he did after it? did you see his attempt to seriously injure a fellow pro then fake injury himself to try avoid punishment?

Have you ever watched him play?

There are plenty of clouds over this "young player"s career

I'll agree with you on the bite issue, but plenty of players have stuck the middle finger to the crowd, so that's not exactly an issue. As for the handball, you are kidding yourself if you wouldnt do the same. He was dead right, its not cheating. Its playing the game. Its like fouling as the last defender and getting sent off. No issue there. Gyan should have stuck the peno away end of. As for celebrating. His country were not knocked out of the world cup, im pretty sure thats cause for celebration. So yeah, there goes half your pathetic argument.

As for my Tin-Foil hat. You know the reaction Liverpool would have got if they vetoed a committee member. It certainly wouldn't have served their cause. As I said, im not blaming the decision solely on the panel, but their past MAY have had an influence on the decision.

tommyhaas · 21-12-2011 03:54AM

Blatter wrote: »

Well put it this way Tommy, I just can't believe the FA would convict him on the word of Evra alone and have the neck to stand over it.

It's only logical to think they had something else on him.

And I agree, hence why I find the club statement confusing as it seems to suggest otherwise. This is where the report is necessary for clarity. Reading the passage I posted before again though, it is possible that the evidence they say is lacking refers to context as oppose to content of what was said

Dodd · 21-12-2011 03:58AM

Woo cry someone called me names.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVGtB9j7QCg&feature=player_embedded

kryogen · 21-12-2011 04:00AM

DDC1990 wrote: »

I'll agree with you on the bite issue, but plenty of players have stuck the middle finger to the crowd, so that's not exactly an issue. As for the handball, you are kidding yourself if you wouldnt do the same. He was dead right, its not cheating. Its playing the game. Its like fouling as the last defender and getting sent off. No issue there. Gyan should have stuck the peno away end of. As for celebrating. His country were not knocked out of the world cup, im pretty sure thats cause for celebration. So yeah, there goes half your pathetic argument.

As for my Tin-Foil hat. You know the reaction Liverpool would have got if they vetoed a committee member. It certainly wouldn't have served their cause. As I said, im not blaming the decision solely on the panel, but their past MAY have had an influence on the decision.

No no, you just miss the point, Suarez biting a player kinda already brings his character into question, this you say you agree with so explain to me how this would be the thing to bring a cloud over his career?

And yes, it is cheating, cheats have a nice way of turning phrases like playing the game etc... Handball to stop a goal being scored against you is cheating, you wanna think different thats your problem

You dont bother addressing any instances where he has deliberately tried to injure opposition players, i take you rsilence on it as acceptance that this also probably points to him having a poor character so again i ask, how in the name of **** are you going to try blame someone else for putting a black cloud over his career?

He is a talented player, yes, no doubt about it

He is also a nasty piece of work

Jesus Wept · 21-12-2011 04:01AM

Hedman wrote: »

He was assumed innocent, they then had a hearing and he was found guilty.

Pretty much all journalists covering the case say that Suarez himself admits saying something, something based on Evra's race. Is an admission not enough evidence?

Hasn't Evra admitted saying 'don't touch me you south american'.
Admission is enough evidence = where is his ban?

EdenHazard · 21-12-2011 04:02AM

does kenny dalglish and liverpool condone racism?

kryogen · 21-12-2011 04:04AM

The-Rigger wrote: »

Hasn't Evra admitted saying 'don't touch me you south american'.
Admission is enough evidence = where is his ban?

Was Evra charged?

I thought this was Suarez case no?

If charges are brought against Evra then his admission would land him in trouble under premier league rules, I dont think you heard any united fans defending Evra for his alleged admission did you

If he was stupid he should be punished also, Im sure Liverpool will look to have Evra charged so you will get to see anyway

kryogen · 21-12-2011 04:05AM

EdenHazard wrote: »

does kenny dalglish and liverpool condone racism?

not officially no, they deny he was being racist, sure he didnt know what he was saying was offensive!!

yeah...............

Jesus Wept · 21-12-2011 04:08AM

EdenHazard wrote: »

does kenny dalglish and liverpool condone racism?

Jesus Wept · 21-12-2011 04:10AM

kryogen wrote: »

Was Evra charged?

I thought this was Suarez case no?

If charges are brought against Evra then his admission would land him in trouble under premier league rules, I dont think you heard any united fans defending Evra for his alleged admission did you

If he was stupid he should be punished also, Im sure Liverpool will look to have Evra charged so you will get to see anyway

Shows your mindset tbh, it's the Evra v Suarez case obviously.

tommyhaas · 21-12-2011 04:11AM

kryogen wrote: »

And yes, it is cheating, cheats have a nice way of turning phrases like playing the game etc... Handball to stop a goal being scored against you is cheating, you wanna think different thats your problem

Cheating by its very nature involves deceit. Suarez didn't attempt to deceive anyone with the hand ball.Similar to committing a professional foul, he saw a situation, he decided to take action fully aware of and accepting the obvious consequences. A handball on the line equals a sending off and a penalty, just as a foul in the box results in a penalty. Its not cheating, its fouling, and any player who wouldn't do similar is a fool. Were you as critical of Neville for doing likewise in the derby a few years back?

And I said on here at the time, long before he was even linked with Liverpool, so I'm not speaking with bias

kryogen · 21-12-2011 04:13AM

The-Rigger wrote: »

Shows your mindset tbh, it's the Evra v Suarez case obviously.

no shows my grip on reality in comparison to yours

Luis Suarez was charged by the FA

Not Evra

Clear enough?

Suarez - Accused
Evra - Accuser

See

Not an inquiry into who did what, a case against Suarez

Evra may well be charged, then he will have to answer his case

Are you following events yet?

tommyhaas · 21-12-2011 04:14AM

EdenHazard wrote: »

does kenny dalglish and liverpool condone racism?

Yea. They're also directly responsible for knocking down numerous orphanages too. And I heard they laughed at the Tsunami

kryogen · 21-12-2011 04:17AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Cheating by its very nature involves deceit. Suarez didn't attempt to deceive anyone with the hand ball.Similar to committing a professional foul, he saw a situation, he decided to take action fully aware of and accepting the obvious consequences. A handball on the line equals a sending off and a penalty, just as a foul in the box results in a penalty. Its not cheating, its fouling, and any player who wouldn't do similar is a fool. Were you as critical of Neville for doing likewise in the derby a few years back?

And I said on here at the time, long before he was even linked with Liverpool, so I'm not speaking with bias

Cheating by its very nature normally involves deceit, it is not exclusive to it you know

Denying another team a goal in that manner is cheating, he did try to pretend it wasnt handball you know, there is the deceitful part you are after. Maybe if he got away with it you would call it cheating?

Cant believe Im actually having this discussion

You are speaking with bias because he is a liverpool player, the fact that you cant admit that leads me to believe any discussion with you would be pointless

EdenHazard · 21-12-2011 04:24AM

look i dont care about man united/liverpool/suarez or anything but he's been proven guilty so thats that he might not be a racist but he made racist remarks. evra cared enough about that so suarez was given a case and convicted and got banned. no biggie.

Blatter · 21-12-2011 04:25AM

I found this article analysing Liverpool's statement interesting.

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2011/12/20/forensic-examination-of-the-luis-suarez-statement/

Liverpool Football Club is very surprised and disappointed with the decision of the Football Association Commission to find Luis Suarez guilty of the charges against him. Note that they don’t name the charges. When you avoid naming things, they’re easier not to feel guilty about and therefore to deny.

We look forward to the publication of the Commission’s Judgment. Taking the piss, here – how big of them. We will study the detailed reasons of the Commission once they become available, but reserve our right to appeal or take any other course of action we feel appropriate with regards to this situation. So, whilst the case was ongoing they were happy to back its findings in public, now it has found their man guilty of racism, it is to be doubted.

We find it extraordinary that Luis can be found guilty on the word of Patrice Evra alone when no-one else on the field of play – including Evra’s own Manchester United teammates and all the match officials – heard the alleged conversation between the two players in a crowded Kop goalmouth while a corner kick was about to be taken. Words like “extraordinary” are nicely inflammatory.

The Club [interesting capitalisation] takes extremely seriously the fight against all forms of discrimination seriously enough to greet investigations of it with sarcasm and has a long and successful track record in work relating to anti-racist activity and social inclusion. We remain committed to this ideal and equality for all, irrespective of a person’s background. As long as they play for Liverpool, we should suppose.

LFC considers racism in any form to be unacceptable – without compromise. Equivocation is totally ok though. It is our strong held belief, having gone over the facts of the case, that Luis Suarez did not commit any racist act. It is also our opinion that the accusation by this particular player was not credible – certainly no more credible than his prior unfounded accusations.

It is key to note that Patrice Evra himself in his written statement in this case said ‘I don’t think that Luis Suarez is racist’. The FA in their opening remarks accepted that Luis Suarez was not racist. Yes, let’s play semantics! It is not “key to note” whether Suarez is now fixed as a racist or merely as someone who said something racist.

Luis himself is of a mixed race family background as his grandfather was black. Ah, so his racism – inherently illogical – wouldn’t be logical? Really? He has been personally involved since the 2010 World Cup in a charitable project which uses sport to encourage solidarity amongst people of different backgrounds with the central theme that the colour of a person’s skin does not matter; they can all play together as a team. What does this change?

He has played with black players and mixed with their families whilst with the Uruguay national side and was Captain at Ajax Amsterdam of a team with a proud multi-cultural profile, many of whom became good friends. This is not the question, Liverpool.

It seems incredible to us that a player of mixed heritage should be accused and found guilty in the way he has based on the evidence presented. We do not recognise the way in which Luis Suarez has been characterised. “Incredible”: More inflammatory language.

It appears to us that the FA were determined to bring charges against Luis Suarez, even before interviewing him at the beginning of November. A very strong accusation. Nothing we have heard in the course of the hearing has changed our view that Luis Suarez is innocent of the charges brought against him and we will provide Luis with whatever support he now needs to clear his name. Note the use of “we”, encouraging the “us” vs “you” paradigm. That’s a nasty business.

We would also like to know when the FA intend to charge Patrice Evra with making abusive remarks to an opponent after he admitted himself as if this is a game of tell the teacher in his evidence to insulting Luis Suarez in Spanish in the most objectionable of terms. Luis, to his credit, actually told the FA he had not heard the insult. Evra is being put under pressure again for reporting racism.

This is an ugly statement.

tommyhaas · 21-12-2011 04:25AM

kryogen wrote: »

Cheating by its very nature normally involves deceit, it is not exclusive to it you know

Denying another team a goal in that manner is cheating, he did try to pretend it wasnt handball you know, there is the deceitful part you are after. Maybe if he got away with it you would call it cheating?

Cant believe Im actually having this discussion

You are speaking with bias because he is a liverpool player, the fact that you cant admit that leads me to believe any discussion with you would be pointless

Yea that's right. During the last world cup, I had a look in my crystal ball and saw that in 6 months time Suarez would sign for Liverpool. Once I saw this, I thought to myself, better start the biased pro-Suarez posting Tom, and posted these in defence of him

tommyhaas wrote: »

Why are people comparing this to the Henry incident? Suarez didnt attempt to deceive the ref. He did it blatantly knowing he would be sent off and conceding a pen. He saw it as a good deal. Thats the rules of the game, he'd have been foolish not to do it.

Roy Keane is treated as a hero for going in hard on Zidane I think it was, when he was braking forward in the Champions lge semi against Juve in '99 and getting the booking that ruled him out of the final, its no different.

tommyhaas wrote: »

Henry's handball was done so deliberately to deceive the ref.

Suarez on the other hand (blatent pun intended) was blatently obvious, and not intended to deceive. Suarez was happy for the outcome to be a sending off and peno conceded,ie he was happy for the laws of the game to be correctly applied, thats the difference

July 2010. So your bias claim is bollox to be frank

So tell me this, how is the intention of Roy Keane's yellow against Juve in 99 any different to the Suarez handball? Both knew they were breaking the rules, and both broke them for the exact same reason and on similar stages, yet Keane's a hero for his actions and Suarez is a cheat?

niallo27 · 21-12-2011 04:33AM

kryogen wrote: »

No no, you just miss the point, Suarez biting a player kinda already brings his character into question, this you say you agree with so explain to me how this would be the thing to bring a cloud over his career?

And yes, it is cheating, cheats have a nice way of turning phrases like playing the game etc... Handball to stop a goal being scored against you is cheating, you wanna think different thats your problem

You dont bother addressing any instances where he has deliberately tried to injure opposition players, i take you rsilence on it as acceptance that this also probably points to him having a poor character so again i ask, how in the name of **** are you going to try blame someone else for putting a black cloud over his career?

He is a talented player, yes, no doubt about it

He is also a nasty piece of work

Someone shagging his owns brothers wife could also bring someones character into question, but it wouldnt mean he is a racist. He has being labeled a racist in most papers tommorrow morning, even though the Fa and evra and you dont think he is a racist. So could you please stop talking ****e.

kryogen · 21-12-2011 04:33AM

For a start your wrong about keane. Ill be back tomorrow

daithijjj · 21-12-2011 04:37AM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Yea that's right. During the last world cup, I had a look in my crystal ball and saw that in 6 months time Suarez would sign for Liverpool. Once I saw this, I thought to myself, better start the biased pro-Suarez posting Tom, and posted these in defence of him

July 2010. So your bias claim is bollox to be frank

So tell me this, how is the intention of Roy Keane's yellow against Juve in 99 any different to the Suarez handball? Both knew they were breaking the rules, and both broke them for the exact same reason and on similar stages, yet Keane's a hero for his actions and Suarez is a cheat?

Seriously fella, brick walls and all that. Arsenal have just erected a statue of a man who did similar, its a retarded angle to this to even bring it into this thread, some folk live in the land of milk and honey.

Theres really no point getting too deep into it, plenty of this to run yet imho, wouldnt surprise me if the club have thoughts of launching a defamation law suit against the FA and its panel as is suggested could happen in the Guardian.

onemorechance · 21-12-2011 04:46AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

Pro. F · 21-12-2011 04:57AM

Man this thread is hard to keep up with! I've only just now caught up. So apologies for the big bundle of quotes I have below.

I think the ruling itself is in a way not that important. The details of the hearing will be more important when they come out. I doubt anybody on here would trust the FA to get things right, so it will be more interesting to see all the evidence and make our own minds up imo.

Mr Alan wrote: »

Actually, it's worse than that....generic insults should now result in 4 game bans.

This is the mad thing about the FA ruling. The fact that this generic insults rule is on the books in the first place and the fact that it has only now been implemented. It's nonsense that that is a rule and it is doubly nonsense that they ignore any rule so often.

Mr Alan wrote: »

I'm not disputing the Henry Winter article?

Where in does it say he used a racist term or racial abuse?

It simply said he responded to 'get your hands off me south American' by saying, 'what's your problem black man'...that's not racist?

Anyway.....can't wait to read the findings in full.

Bringing someone's race into an argument unnecessarily can of course be sensibly interpreted as a form of racial abuse. Stop pretending that you don't understand that.

In fact you obviously have a very clear understanding of the rule and the spirit underlying it when looking at what Evra said, but you pretend you are confused when it is used to criticise what Suarez said.

If it comes out in the evidence that Evra did say something like ''Get your hands off me you South American.'' then the FA will have to press a charge against him. If they don't it will be an absolute farce.

Iago wrote: »

1 Let's be honest, are they now going to police every game in every English league every weekend? How much time, money and resource are they going to put into investigating every complaint made by a player who says he was called a racist, homophobic or any other type of slur for that matter?

2 It's not that terms should be accepted, it's not that they should be ignored, it's more a question of where do you draw the line. Why is questioning someones sexuality ok, but their skin colour not? What about their parentage or the questionable bedroom behaviour of their spouse/partner?

1: Why wouldn't they? Organising and policing league football is the majority of the FA's role. They police every single game for foul throws, why wouldn't they police every game for racial abuse? I'm sure they will spend as much money and time as they can reasonably afford to and do as good a job as they feel they can.

2. Questioning someone's sexuality is not okay and is punishable by the same rule. You draw the line somewhere, otherwise it would be acceptable to say anything. I would guess the FA's rules follow the British anti discriminatory laws and so it's pretty easy for them to decide what types of abuse are worth extra punishment.

amiable wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/8969308/Patrice-Evra-bound-to-be-feeling-vindicated-after-FA-rule-in-his-favour-in-racism-row.html

Disgustingly inaccurate piece trying to smear Evra as the boy who cries wolf on the race issue. Not really surprising coming from a paper like that though.

Ha! They've changed it now to the truth:
''which resulted in United's coaching staff claiming the Senegal defender was called a “

immigrant”
The article originally said:
''which resulted in the Senegal-born defender claiming to have been called a “

immigrant” ''

mormank · 21-12-2011 04:58AM

Blatter wrote: »

I found this article analysing Liverpool's statement interesting.

http://www.surrealfootball.com/2011/12/20/forensic-examination-of-the-luis-suarez-statement/

you found this article interesting huh?? I find it to be very biased and presumptuous. Was it written by Fergie by any chance?

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

Comments