Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 - Mod Note 4153

amiable · 31-12-2011 07:31PM

FA: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened." - Would "probably" stand up in court?

LuckyLloyd · 31-12-2011 07:32PM

spockety wrote: »

The video evidence was used not to confirm that Suarez said what Evra accuses him of, but that there was enough TIME to say all of it!

Holy fook, it took more to put the Guildford Four away!!

Can you cite the section of the report where that is confirmed?

Handsome Bob · 31-12-2011 07:32PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

You mean like Saurez admitting he called him a Negro?

From what I gathered, the report established that the word negro wasn't the actual problem, but rather the context of how it was said.

K-9 · 31-12-2011 07:32PM

Racism thread is back open, have fun.

corcaigh07 · 31-12-2011 07:33PM

My favourite bit:

Mr Dalglish does not speak Spanish, other than what he called "restaurant Spanish".

michael999999 · 31-12-2011 07:33PM

5starpool wrote: »

It must be misery enough for him to know that his side are only level on points with a poor Liverpool squad at the halfway stage of the season, albeit with a game in hand.[/QUOTE]

Gladly updated your post!

spockety · 31-12-2011 07:33PM

The entire 100+ pages could have been summarised as:

"Mr Suarez said and did some things during this process which caused us to doubt his character. Because of this, we have accepted Mr Evra's uncorroborated evidence in full and as matter of fact. Therefore we find Mr Suarez guilty and pass on an 8 game ban and 40,000 fine.".

Simple as that.

Turtyturd · 31-12-2011 07:34PM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

From what I gathered, the report established that the word negro wasn't the actual problem, but rather the context of how it was said.

He hasn't read the report. At most he has pieced it together from other posts.

monkey9 · 31-12-2011 07:35PM

amiable wrote: »

FA: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened." - Would "probably" stand up in court?

LOL!!! Priceless!! "Yeah lad's, i'd say what Evra said is probably what happened. Guilty! Right, anyone for scoops? Scoops?"

Morzadec · 31-12-2011 07:35PM

amiable wrote: »

FA: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened." - Would "probably" stand up in court?

lol it's a farce really isn't it???

Look at this contradiction also:

453. (4)

...he (Evra) and Mr Suarez were understandably unable to remember every detail of the exchanges

453. (5)

Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance.

spockety · 31-12-2011 07:36PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Can you cite the section of the report where that is confirmed?

Here you go:

373. We make a number of observations on these accounts of the conversation viewed as a
whole. Mr Evra's account is more detailed, Mr Suarez's account is shorter. Having viewed
the video evidence, it is clear that there was enough time for these exchanges to take place,
including the greater number of exchanges suggested by Mr Evra. Mr Suarez's version
does not seem to account for all of the comments that we see being made on the video
footage, but we appreciate it is difficult for both players to recall every word or phrase
that was uttered. For Mr Suarez to say to Mr Evra that he kicked him "because you're
black" is initially surprising. We found the "quacking" motion to be a puzzling gesture,
which was not really explained or explored further in the evidence.

The world and his f*****g wife know what the hand quacking motion means in a game. :mad:

"Talk talk talk"

Leiva · 31-12-2011 07:36PM

I was trilled with the Liverpool statement after the verdict , and now I'm even more satisfied .

Fuhrer · 31-12-2011 07:36PM

spockety wrote: »

The entire 100+ pages could have been summarised as:

"Mr Suarez said and did some things during this process which caused us to doubt his character. Because of this, we have accepted Mr Evra's uncorroborated evidence in full and as matter of fact. Therefore we find Mr Suarez guilty and pass on an 8 game ban and 40,000 fine.".

Simple as that.

Or heres a better one

"Suarez lied initially, tried to change his story constantly and couldn't even have the much reviewed lie match up with the video evidence. He admitted to saying things a racist would say but we arent allowed to come out and say what everyones thinking that he is a Racist"

Kess73 · 31-12-2011 07:37PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

You mean like Saurez admitting he called him a Negro?

And then Evra saying he took it to mean it's Italian translation despite it being said in Spanish.

There is a hell of a lot of grey areas on both sides from I can see in that report.

I think the fact the FA have put in print that they believe that Suarez used the word at least 7 times without having any actual evidence to back it up bar Evra's word will cause hassle.

Would have been much smarter to just run with the once that Suarez admitted to, because that is the only bit where both Evra and Suarez agree that something was said, although it baffles me that Evra did not react more if he really did think that n*igger was the word being used like he is quoted as saying in the report.

mike65 · 31-12-2011 07:37PM

amiable wrote: »

FA: "We found that Mr Evra's account is probably what happened." - Would "probably" stand up in court?

They noted that they made the finding on the balance of probability and that this is a lower standard than a criminal court would require.

The standard of proof
76. Regulation 7.3 of the Disciplinary Regulations is in these terms:
"The applicable standard of proof shall be the flexible civil standard of the balance of probability. The more serious the allegation, taking into account the nature of the Misconduct alleged and the context of the case, the greater the burden of evidence required to prove the matter."

77. There are two different standards of proof which can apply in legal cases. One is the criminal standard which applies in criminal cases. The jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, or as it is sometimes put, so that it is sure, that the accused committed the alleged crime.

78. The other standard is the civil standard on the balance of probability. This is enshrined in Regulation 7.3 set out above, and applies to this case. It is a lower standard than the criminal standard. It is for the FA to satisfy us on the balance of probability that Mr Suarez breached the Rules. Alternative formulations for the civil standard are sometimes used, such as more likely than not to be correct, or probably correct.

barone · 31-12-2011 07:38PM

put it this way,

your at work, you have an slight disagreement with a fellow worker, he just happens to be black..

ye call each other names... end of.

days work is done and he accuses you of being a racist,saying you called him ni gger.. which you didnt. there is no evidence to prove you did say it other than his word.

you get suspended for 8 weeks and are hit with a massive fine :mad:

sounds reasonable dosent it .. would you accept it if it were not true and be branded a racist for the rest of your life?

now multipy that by 1000 because wherever suarez goes he will be recognised
and called a racist.

fair call fa.

Morzadec · 31-12-2011 07:39PM

So can this be challenged and brought to court if needs be?

I'm no legal eagle, but from films and books and whatnot my understanding is that to be found guilty of an offence it needs to be proved with evidence and not just believing one man's word over another.

Turtyturd · 31-12-2011 07:40PM

mixednuts wrote: »

I was trilled with the Liverpool statement after the verdict , and now I'm even more satisfied .

And if a couple of fans on a message board can pick the findings apart like this I look forward to seeing what the clubs legal team are capable of.:)

monkey9 · 31-12-2011 07:40PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Or heres a better one

"Suarez lied initially, tried to change his story constantly and couldn't even have the much reviewed lie match up with the video evidence. He admitted to saying things a racist would say but we arent allowed to come out and say what everyones thinking that he is a Racist"

Can't see that quote in the report, Fuhrer!

Handsome Bob · 31-12-2011 07:40PM

spockety wrote: »

The entire 100+ pages could have been summarised as:

"Mr Suarez said and did some things during this process which caused us to doubt his character. Because of this, we have accepted Mr Evra's uncorroborated evidence in full and as matter of fact. Therefore we find Mr Suarez guilty and pass on an 8 game ban and 40,000 fine.".

Simple as that.

You could also say in turn that Suarez talked himself into it. No actual solid evidence, just a player who contradicted himself one too many times. I really can't believe that the suits at LFC would really be so stupid as to allow that to happen.

5starpool · 31-12-2011 07:41PM

So it seems that their entire case is based not believing Suarez because of 2 things:

1. He said that he said "por que, negro" but told Commolli that he said "por que tu es negro"
2. He changed a bit when he said the above happened from before the ref talked to them to after it.

Sounds sketchy to me. Also, since the commission believed Evra's case, none of the above actually happened anyhow.

LuckyLloyd · 31-12-2011 07:42PM

spockety wrote: »

Here you go:

The world and his f*****g wife know what the hand quacking motion means in a game. :mad:

"Talk talk talk"

Okay, so there is no video evidence able to corroborate exactly what was said. So the decision and punishment is based on versions of an event. Cool.

APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL

Helix · 31-12-2011 07:42PM

"Mr Suarez's evidence was unreliable in relation to matters of critical importance. It was, in part, inconsistent with the contemporaneous evidence, especially the video footage. For example, Mr Suarez said that he pinched Mr Evra's skin in an attempt to defuse the situation. He also said that his use of the word 'negro' to address Mr Evra was conciliatory and friendly. We rejected that evidence.

"To describe his own behaviour in that way was unsustainable and simply incredible given that the players were engaged in an acrimonious argument. That this was put forward by Mr Suarez was surprising and seriously undermined the reliability of his evidence on other matters.

"There were also inconsistencies between his accounts given at different times as to what happened."

spockety · 31-12-2011 07:43PM

Handsome Bob wrote: »

You could also say in turn that Suarez talked himself into it. No actual solid evidence, just a player who contradicted himself one too many times. I really can't believe that the suits at LFC would really be so stupid as to allow that to happen.

That's fine. If you don't believe Suarez, you just discount his testimony.

It doesn't necessarily mean that everything Evra is saying is a fact! The two things are exclusive of each other.

There is absolutely nothing to confirm what Evra accuses Suarez of saying. NOTHING.. In the absence of any concrete evidence, the FA essentially took Evra's apparent fine upstanding character to be enough to back up what he was saying.

Samich · 31-12-2011 07:43PM

mixednuts wrote: »

I was trilled with the Liverpool statement after the verdict , and now I'm even more satisfied .

That's a lolification if I ever saw one. Take your liverpool hat off for once and read i unbiased. Suarez got off lightly.

Tusky · 31-12-2011 07:43PM

I have read almost all 114 pages (mental I know) and I am genuinely bemused that their is almost zero evidence. I honestly thought they must have clear video evidence of the abuse or at least some witnesses who heard Evra's account, but no. It has basically come down to them choosing to accept Evra's version of events above Suarez'.

Handsome Bob · 31-12-2011 07:47PM

spockety wrote: »

That's fine. If you don't believe Suarez, you just discount his testimony.

It doesn't necessarily mean that everything Evra is saying is a fact! The two things are exclusive of each other.

There is absolutely nothing to confirm what Evra accuses Suarez of saying. NOTHING.. In the absence of any concrete evidence, the FA essentially took Evra's apparent fine upstanding character to be enough to back up what he was saying.

Oh I absolutely agree and that was what I find so frustrating, if LFC had prepped Suarez a bit better before the hearing we could have avoided this. From the sounds of it, we were facing an uphill struggle from the moment Comolli misunderstood what Suarez said after the game.

monkey9 · 31-12-2011 07:47PM

Samich wrote: »

That's a lolification if I ever saw one. Take your liverpool hat off for once and read i unbiased. Suarez got off lightly.

Suarez got off very very lightly if everything Patrice Evra said was proven to be true. But it hasn't been proven.

K-9 · 31-12-2011 07:48PM

mike65 wrote: »

They noted that they made the finding on the balance of probability and that this is a lower standard than a criminal court would require.

Then goes on to say, if its a serious charge which this is and it accepts, more evidence is needed! What's the more evidence? Evra's word?

NukaCola · 31-12-2011 07:49PM

No evidence, no ban....simple....appeal....any credible legal team put on this will make it no ban.......who are the guys who filed this report and done the investigation? Sounds like a bunch of amateurs

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 - Mod Note 4153

Comments