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

Handsome Bob · 21-12-2011 12:50PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Really can someone please give me an explanation why the evidence wasn't released with the verdict ??

They're probably not obliged to.

Leiva · 21-12-2011 12:51PM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

They're probably not obliged to.

Obligation ???

Fúck me if ever there was a time to show beyond any doubt now is it .

mike65 · 21-12-2011 12:51PM

homerjay2005, you are being notably belligerent.

Don't you think it wise for the panel to both have done the right thing as well as be seen to have done the right thing?

Refusal to publish would merely play into the hands of conspiracy theorists and makes no real sense in itself.

Brain Stroking · 21-12-2011 12:52PM

mixednuts wrote: »

If all the evidence is two conversations in the box and what was said and only heard between two players then I hope Liverpool persue this to the end and take it to a higher level/court .

Cause I firmly believe that if that's all the FA are going on this has the potential to bring them down ... Yes bring them down .

This could easily get politicalised if over turned in a court of law and some serious questions been asked why this course of action was taken .

What the hell are you on about? I have read the last few hours of this thread and you make the same point over and over and over and over. We get it. You think Suarez should have got off despite admitting to using racial language to Evra which is a disgraceful standpoint.
What will be a stick in the mud in a court case (and trust me, it wont get that far) is that Suarez has admitted he used the offending word. An admission of guilt pretty much opens and shuts the case should it go to Court. Imagine a guy being charged with rape, pleading guilty, turning up to Court and the victim getting harangued by the Judge? Not going to happen is it? What is it about all of this that is so hard to understand?
The verdict has been given. You complaining about it despite the FA looking at the case for 4 weeks, hearing the testimony of both players etc is quite amusing given that your own arguments are based on nothing more than your own unfortunate views on Liverpool and on the the issue of stamping out racism.
I know you'll be too stupid to get what i'm saying and will likely retort with more guff about this being decided on Evra's word etc and he is so unreliable based on past accusations etc (accusations which have been completely outlined here and elsewhere as not having come from Evra at all) so i'm not expecting much.
You'll Never Walk Alone is an apt anthem for you as it is unlikely that your carer will let you get too far from the group on any day trips you might go on

K-9 · 21-12-2011 12:52PM

parker kent wrote: »

You could at least say why people get annoyed at references to Evra's alleged suspect past. He did not make any previous claims. The Chelsea incident is one such example where others claimed they heard it directed towards him and Evra actually told the FA he did not here any racist language. The Steve Finnan incident came from somebody lip reading it on TV. Again Evra made no claims.

This thread is doomed to continue in circles if people wilfully ignore things said countless times.

The FA found his evidence suspect in the Chelsea case, its been quoted here in newspaper articleS numerous times. Evra didn't make the claim himself, FHACT, the FA found his evidence suspect, FHACT!

homerjay2005 · 21-12-2011 12:53PM

parker kent wrote: »

You could at least say why people get annoyed at references to Evra's alleged suspect past. He did not make any previous claims. The Chelsea incident is one such example where others claimed they heard it directed towards him and Evra actually told the FA he did not here any racist language. The Steve Finnan incident came from somebody lip reading it on TV. Again Evra made no claims.

This thread is doomed to continue in circles if people wilfully ignore things said countless times.

exactly. its the persecution complex of most liverpool fans. even if there is no substance in it, they will use it anyway. evra is being accused of things, nothing to do with him. but sure, who cares, just make up a pack of lies and keep going with it. eventually enough mud will stick.

even their own club statement is taking this stance. perhaps it comes from the club manager who is like a delusional old sheppard leading a bunch of lost sheep, sheep who used to be king of the hills before, but have been left out in the wilderness for years now and need to fulfill a sense of self importance.

this afternoon, im sure we will get a full re run of the waybe bridge incident if terry is found guilty.

SlickRic · 21-12-2011 12:54PM

Des wrote: »

someone walks the picture in this "video evidence" so you cannot see the full extent of Terry's utterance.

If the CPS have other video, not yet in the public domain - it could be someone's HD Camera for all we know, that shows Terry's version - "Oi Anton, I didn't call you a black cúnt" - is true, then he can't be charged.

of course he can.

just because Terry denied it on the field, doesn't mean it didn't originally happen.

it then comes down to whether Anton would like to push a charge, and then you have the exact same scenario as the Suarez case.

Liverpool fans will feel aggrieved until the full details of the respective reports are released and we can see what happened. if Suarez and Terry's cases are identical, or at worst Terry's incorporates video evidence and he gets off, well then, i think it's normal for Liverpool fans to feel slightly hard done by.

on another point linked to the FA...they aren't anti-anybody in general. they're just useless in a lot of cases. they've been useless in dealing with all clubs, including Utd in the past. yes, some of our fans enjoyed Utd being hard-done by, and now Utd fans will delight in this.

but the way in which fans back the FA to the hilt when a decision goes against a rival is awesome. in this case, so many rival fans are delighted at the "right decision" in the Suarez case.

i can't wait for the next decision that goes against Utd for instance. they FA will be useless good-for-nothings again in no time.

Le King · 21-12-2011 12:54PM

mike65 wrote: »

homerjay2005, you are being notably belligerent.

Don't you think it wise for the panel to both have done the right thing as well as be seen to have done the right thing?

Refusal to publish would merely play into the hands of conspiracy theorists and makes no real sense in itself.

Probably but it won't change the outcome for Suarez. He is going to be the poster boy of racism and how it will be dealt with by the FA.

Leiva · 21-12-2011 12:56PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

What the hell are you on about? I have read the last few hours of this thread and you make the same point over and over and over and over. We get it. You think Suarez should have got off despite admitting to using racial language to Evra which is a disgraceful standpoint.
What will be a stick in the mud in a court case (and trust me, it wont get that far) is that Suarez has admitted he used the offending word. An admission of guilt pretty much opens and shuts the case should it go to Court. Imagine a guy being charged with rape, pleading guilty, turning up to Court and the victim getting harangued by the Judge? Not going to happen is it? What is it about all of this that is so hard to understand?
The verdict has been given. You complaining about it despite the FA looking at the case for 4 weeks, hearing the testimony of both players etc is quite amusing given that your own arguments are based on nothing more than your own unfortunate views on Liverpool and on the the issue of stamping out racism.
I know you'll be too stupid to get what i'm saying and will likely retort with more guff about this being decided on Evra's word etc and he is so unreliable based on past accusations etc (accusations which have been completely outlined here and elsewhere as not having come from Evra at all) so i'm not expecting much.
You'll Never Walk Alone is an apt anthem for you as it is unlikely that your carer will let you get too far from the group on any day trips you might go on

:pac: made me chuckle

Brain Stroking · 21-12-2011 12:56PM

K-9 wrote: »

The FA found his evidence suspect in the Chelsea case, its been quoted here in newspaper articleS numerous times. Evra didn't make the claim himself, FHACT, the FA found his evidence suspect, FHACT!

Are you missing his point on purpose? Whether his evidence was found suspect is irrelevant. Saying that Evra has accused others of racism before is false. That is the point that was made. Want to engage?

K-9 · 21-12-2011 12:58PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

theres a huge amount of irony in your posts. it was the liverpool fans who were willing to accept the fas punishment handed out to united over the years and getting away scot free themselves on many occasions. yet now, the fa are por united? united hate the fa, absolutely hate them. united get shafted 2 or 3 times a year and put up with it.

but sure tis grand, they are pro united despite -

evra being banned for 5 games.
rio banned for 8 months.
cantona banned for 8 months.
and rio getting 3 games.
and rooney and scholes getting 3 games from amsterdam.
and rooneys ban v west ham
and fergie being banned for 7 games.

but sure, united get all the decisions.

Just on this, surely all this gives you reason to be doubtful of the FA, thinking logically now? Leaving complexes aside! I'd wonder how somebody who obviously has issues with the FA would just assume this judgment is right.

Brain Stroking · 21-12-2011 12:58PM

mixednuts wrote: »

:pac: made me chuckle

Dont worry, i wasnt expecting you to take any of it on board.

MaceFace · 21-12-2011 01:02PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Really can someone please give me an explanation why the evidence wasn't released with the verdict ??

EXACTLY!

21-12-2011 01:09PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

exactly. its the persecution complex of most liverpool fans. even if there is no substance in it, they will use it anyway. evra is being accused of things, nothing to do with him. but sure, who cares, just make up a pack of lies and keep going with it. eventually enough mud will stick.

even their own club statement is taking this stance. perhaps it comes from the club manager who is like a delusional old sheppard leading a bunch of lost sheep, sheep who used to be king of the hills before, but have been left out in the wilderness for years now and need to fulfill a sense of self importance.

this afternoon, im sure we will get a full re run of the waybe bridge incident if terry is found guilty.

You are generalisaing Liverpool fans with every post.Your bias knows no bounds.

You are incapable of an unbiased opinion.

Your posting style is shockingly bad.

K-9 · 21-12-2011 01:11PM

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Are you missing his point on purpose? Whether his evidence was found suspect is irrelevant. Saying that Evra has accused others of racism before is false. That is the point that was made. Want to engage?

I never said he accused others of racism before. You should read posts more carefully, I thought the FHACT capitals would have alerted you to the distinction I was making, obviously not. The FA found his evidence in the Chelsea case suspect, it isn't arguable or debatable, it's a statement of FHACT.

It's the FA though so I can see why people are doubtful!

Will I Amnt · 21-12-2011 01:13PM

K-9 wrote: »

Brain Stroking wrote: »

Are you missing his point on purpose? Whether his evidence was found suspect is irrelevant. Saying that Evra has accused others of racism before is false. That is the point that was made. Want to engage?

I never said he accused others of racism before. You should read posts more carefully, I thought the FHACT capitals would have alerted you to the distinction I was making, obviously not. The FA found his evidence in the Chelsea case suspect, it isn't arguable or debatable, it's a statement of FHACT.

It's the FA though so I can see why people are doubtful!

Nice ninja edit there

K-9 · 21-12-2011 01:15PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Nice ninja edit there

Well at least I'm trying to be consistent! Its a hard ask on this thread.

LuckyLloyd · 21-12-2011 01:16PM

EdenHazard wrote: »

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.

Sure. No judge or panel with the power to decide upon an issue has ever made a mistake, ever. O.J. was innocent - like he was proven not guilty after a case, no biggie.

homerjay2005 · 21-12-2011 01:17PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

You are generalisaing Liverpool fans with every post.Your bias knows no bounds.

You are incapable of an unbiased opinion.

Your posting style is shockingly bad.

typical, just focus on somebody else, its all you lot can do.

Blackhorse Slim · 21-12-2011 01:18PM

mixednuts wrote: »

Really can someone please give me an explanation why the evidence wasn't released with the verdict ??

Until such evidence is released, the only logical conclusion given Liverpool's statement is that there isn't any. If that is the case, then this will surely end up in the CAS.

The question, in "legal" terms, is not whether Suarez is racist, but whether he contravened the FAs rules. With what little evidence we have seen from the newspapers, which we don't know is true, it seems that both Suarez and Evra broke the same rules - FA Rule E3(1) and FA Rule E3(2). If that is the case, I don't see how they aren't both getting the same punishment.

Will I Amnt · 21-12-2011 01:19PM

K-9 wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

Nice ninja edit there

Well at least I'm trying to be consistent! Its a hard ask on this thread.

Oh I know,some people are tying themselves in knots trying to remember what they agreed with earlier on in the thread.
It makes for good reading.

K-9 · 21-12-2011 01:20PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

typical, just focus on somebody else, its all you lot can do.

From the one who posted a list of FA judgements against United that you have issue with and now seem to have no issue with this judgement. I suppose wanting your pound of flesh is the easy option. LOL at the persecution complex comment from yourself. Brilliant.

brick tamland · 21-12-2011 01:20PM

What confuses me is the bit of the Liverpool statement that says its just one mans word against another. I find it very hard to believe this bit. I find it very hard to believe the FA would apply the ban anyone when the evidence is one mans word against another. It also goes against everything that’s been in the media a lot of which has apparently come from Liverpool sorces ( allegedly ).

The only way the charge makes sense to me is that Suarez admitted using some form of N***o and the FA decided that that was enough ground to charge him. I reckon this will all come out in the evidence. Just my 2 cents

As a United fan the ban seems quite long, but maybe they had to make an example.

Paul Tergat · 21-12-2011 01:22PM

I wanna know exactly what that first rule is that he has said to have broken

kryogen · 21-12-2011 01:23PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

EdenHazard wrote: »

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.

Sure. No judge or panel with the power to decide upon an issue has ever made a mistake, ever. O.J. was innocent - like he was proven not guilty after a case, no biggie.

Oh dear

NotorietyH · 21-12-2011 01:24PM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

I wanna know exactly what that first rule is that he has said to have broken

He talked about Fight Club.

Brain Stroking · 21-12-2011 01:25PM

K-9 wrote: »

I never said he accused others of racism before. You should read posts more carefully, I thought the FHACT capitals would have alerted you to the distinction I was making, obviously not. The FA found his evidence in the Chelsea case suspect, it isn't arguable or debatable, it's a statement of FHACT.

It's the FA though so I can see why people are doubtful!

If you people would bother to think about the Chelsea case it would be a help. Evra said in that case that he never heard racial abuse. Even when Mike Phelan and another United coach were screaming blue murder. If Evra had lied and said that he had heard the alleged abuse too, then Phelan wouldnt have had his reputation soiled as it was. Evra also missed the opportunity to stick the knife into a real rival in Chelsea.

With regard to the issue of Evra's evidence being suspect in the above case, well the burden of proof in the matter didnt fall on Evra. It fell on those that alleged they heard the abuse ie Phelan and the other coach. Why would the FA find his evidence suspect? Any number of reasons, i'm a solicitor and it could be anything from Evra mixing up the events ie getting a time or location wrong or even who broke the news to him of the incident. If he mixed anything up in evidence the other side would have pounced on it and pushed to have his evidence thrown out.

I cant explain it any simpler i'm afraid. If you still are of the belief that Evra gave evidence on a slur that he always maintained he never heard and that the burden of proof in that matter fell on him, well i cant paint it any easier for you.

Sad day for Liverpool. A great club but they have let themselves down big time. And their fans have jumped over the cliff after them. Pity

kryogen · 21-12-2011 01:25PM

Paul Tergat wrote: »

I wanna know exactly what that first rule is that he has said to have broken

You should probably read the verdict then

s_carnage · 21-12-2011 01:26PM

brick tamland wrote: »

What confuses me is the bit of the Liverpool statement that says its just one mans word against another. I find it very hard to believe this bit. I find it very hard to believe the FA would apply the ban anyone when the evidence is one mans word against another. It also goes against everything that’s been in the media a lot of which has apparently come from Liverpool sorces ( allegedly ).

The only way the charge makes sense to me is that Suarez admitted using some form of N***o and the FA decided that that was enough ground to charge him. I reckon this will all come out in the evidence. Just my 2 cents

As a United fan the ban seems quite long, but maybe they had to make an example.

But Dalglish has backed up that he said as such. From todays article in the Telegraph

Kenny Dalglish, the Liverpool manager, defended his player from the outset and personally attended the hearing in Manchester last week.
He argued that the word “negro” – which Suarez admitted using once – does not necessarily have racist connotations in the player’s homeland in Uruguay.

Paul Tergat · 21-12-2011 01:26PM

kryogen wrote: »

You should probably read the verdict then

Sorry I phrased that badly. What exactly is covered under the rule?

(im a United fan btw before any of this bias bs)

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

Comments