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

NukaCola · 31-12-2011 07:50PM

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.

Are you ****ing kidding me? Have you read the report? Jeez.....

Tusky · 31-12-2011 07:52PM

What Evra has said may well be true. None of us know what really happened and I'm not saying that I believe Suarez simply because hes a Liverpool player. But you cant punish someone with no evidence, its ridiculous.

Morzadec · 31-12-2011 07:52PM

Tusky wrote: »

I have read almost all 100 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 not. It has basically come down to them choosing to accept Evra's version of events above Suarez'.

Yup fairly spot on. Spockety summed it up pretty nicely:

spockety wrote: »

"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."

spockety · 31-12-2011 07:53PM

How can Suarez talk himself into anything?

229. Mr Evra has played for Manchester United and France for a number of years. He has
captained both. He speaks a number of languages including Senegalese, French, Spanish,
58
Italian and some Portuguese. He gave his evidence to us in English. Although an
interpreter was present to assist him in giving evidence if he required it, in the event he
did not.

...

235. Mr Suarez speaks little English. There were occasions during the hearing when he clearly
understood a question in English because he gave a response in a few words of English or
by a nod of the head. But these were few and far between.
236. Mr Suarez was present for the whole of the hearing. It was inevitably a stressful time for
Mr Suarez facing, as he was, a serious charge in unfamiliar surroundings. He sat with his
own interpreter, who translated the proceedings for him throughout. When he gave
evidence, he did so through an independent interpreter. He gave evidence in a respectful
manner. We are conscious of the difficulties for Mr Suarez in giving evidence in the
circumstances which we have described.
237. However, Mr Suarez was not as impressive a witness as Mr Evra. His answers were not
always clear or directly addressed to the question. We give one example in paragraph 246
below. Whether this was due to language difficulties or evasiveness was not entirely clear
and so, whenever we could, we gave Mr Suarez the benefit of the doubt. We were
certainly more concerned by the substance of his evidence (as explained below) than by
the manner in which he gave it.

It reads like something from Dickens.

NoelJ · 31-12-2011 07:54PM

Basically there is no factual evidence in the case. They are both scumbags so I really don't think a judgement can be based on their evidence. This just isn't convincing by the F.A.

5starpool · 31-12-2011 07:54PM

I didn't know pinching was something the FA frown up until just now.

31-12-2011 07:56PM

Tusky wrote: »

What Evra has said may well be true. None of us know what really happened and I'm not saying that I believe Suarez simply because hes a Liverpool player. But you cant punish someone with no evidence, its ridiculous.

In a court of law No. In a Kangeroo court Yes.

The knuckledraggers are lapping this up.

Pathetic stuff from the English FA.

Dublin_Gunner · 31-12-2011 07:58PM

The report spends plenty of time explaining at the start what evidence they would look for subjectively, and objectively to prove whether a racist insult / comment had taken place.

They also go to some length to explain the burdon of proof is with Evra and his team, and not for Suarez to disprove.

Not only this, but they further go to explain that due to the seriousness of the accusation, a much higher burdon of proof is required, enough in fact that similar to criminal law would have to be considered beyond all reasonable doubt.

They never once prove a thing in that report, yet still find Suarez guilty.

Shocking stuff really.

My opinion: two lads call each other names on the park, one cries off to the teacher.

"Hey South American"

"Hey black man"

Both statements of fact, and neither derogatory or slanderous.

The whole fiasco is utter stupidity.

Fuhrer · 31-12-2011 07:58PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

In a court of law No. In a Kangeroo court Yes.

The knuckledraggers are lapping this up.

Pathetic stuff from the English FA.

In a court of civil law, yes.

Its a wonderful thing, called preponderance of the evidence.

Maybe you should read up on it before going out and making moronic and ignorant statements.

Handsome Bob · 31-12-2011 07:59PM

spockety wrote: »

How can Suarez talk himself into anything?

...

It reads like something from Dickens.

In the sense that he provided inconsistencies:

316. There were, thus, three changes in this account from what Mr Suarez had said in his 2 November interview: (1) Previously he had said that this exchange took place when they were walking away after the referee had spoken to them, whereas now it was said to have
occurred simultaneously with the referee blowing his whistle and before he spoke to them. (2) Previously he had said that the exchange took place in the context of Mr Suarez saying sorry to Mr Evra as required by the referee, whereas now nothing was said about Mr Suarez apologising. (3) Previously Mr Suarez said that he believed that Mr Evra's comment that Mr Suarez should not touch him was a reference to Mr Suarez putting his hand on the back of Mr Evra's head, whereas now it was said to be a reference to the pinching on the goal line.

318. In the course of the hearing, it became apparent that Mr Evra was not aware of Mr Suarez pinching him at the time it happened and only became aware of it when watching the footage subsequently. This posed a problem for Mr Suarez in that any comment by Mr Evra along the lines of "Don't touch me" could not have been referring to the pinching, of which Mr Evra was unaware at the time.

Turtyturd · 31-12-2011 08:00PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

In a court of civil law, yes.

Its a wonderful thing, called preponderance of the evidence.

Maybe you should read up on it before going out and making moronic and ignorant statements.

Please don't tell me you are involved in the legal profession.

Fuhrer · 31-12-2011 08:05PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

Please don't tell me you are involved in the legal profession.

Jesus Christ,

This is basic information, how ignorant are you?

Dublin_Gunner · 31-12-2011 08:09PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

In a court of civil law, yes.

Its a wonderful thing, called preponderance of the evidence.

Maybe you should read up on it before going out and making moronic and ignorant statements.

Maybe you should read the report where they state exactly what level of evidence they were looking for in this case. This is not a civil court, its an independant court with its own rules set up to enforce the FA's own laws.

They clearly and concisely outline they due to the seriousness of the accusation, they would look fgor more than the general civil court 'more likely than not' level of proof, but more towards the criminal 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

They never get close to either IMO yet still find Suarez guilty. That's the main issue here.

corcaigh07 · 31-12-2011 08:11PM

love the way the FA simply ignored the fact Evra accused Suarez of 10 racial slurs rather than the charged 5 on canal+ and how evra said nasty things at Suarez and his background and STILL believed him and his character over suarez.

Also, they seemed to ignore Kuyt, he clearly heard and was certain that evra thought he was getting booked because he's black which is kinda racist towards the ref as well. Kuyt was the closest to all of this nonsense and yet the FA seem more worried about the statements of De Gea, Giggs and co.

Samich · 31-12-2011 08:12PM

NukaCola wrote: »

Are you ****ing kidding me? Have you read the report? Jeez.....

No I haven't read it, I can't be bothered reading through pages of irrelevant crap.

And to the people who say "No Evidence, No Proof" Or whatever ye'r saying.

So saying that if someone broke into someones house, they're innocent because there was no evidence?

Tusky · 31-12-2011 08:13PM

Samich wrote: »

So saying that if someone broke into someones house, they're innocent because there was no evidence?

Eh...yes. That's generally how the world works.

5starpool · 31-12-2011 08:15PM

corcaigh07 wrote: »

love the way the FA simply ignored the fact Evra accused Suarez of 10 racial slurs rather than the charged 5 on canal+ and how evra said nasty things at Suarez and his background and STILL believed him and his character over suarez.

Also, they seemed to ignore Kuyt, he clearly heard and was certain that evra thought he was getting booked because he's black which is kinda racist towards the ref as well. Kuyt was the closest to all of this nonsense and yet the FA seem more worried about the statements of De Gea, Giggs and co.

On these. The first one they ignore because they accept his claim that in French that's a normal statement to make even though it might have been less. On the second one they dismissed it because the ref himself said he didn't hear it.

5starpool · 31-12-2011 08:15PM

LFC Statement

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/liverpool-fc-statement-8

The Club can confirm that they received the written reasons from the Regulatory Commission at short notice last night on the evening of the game against Newcastle United.

The player, the Club and our legal advisors will now take the necessary amount of time to read, digest and properly consider the contents of the 115 page judgment and will make no further comment at present.

amiable · 31-12-2011 08:16PM

Samich wrote: »

No I haven't read it, I can't be bothered reading through pages of irrelevant crap.

And to the people who say "No Evidence, No Proof" Or whatever ye'r saying.

So saying that if someone broke into someones house, they're innocent because there was no evidence?

Someone who can't be bothered to read the report but wants to give their opinion on it.

Explain how that works and why exactly you would like to be taken seriously.

Helix · 31-12-2011 08:18PM

corcaigh07 wrote: »

love the way the FA simply ignored the fact Evra accused Suarez of 10 racial slurs rather than the charged 5 on canal+ and how evra said nasty things at Suarez and his background and STILL believed him and his character over suarez. #

he was charged for 7, not 5

ShamoBuc · 31-12-2011 08:18PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Jesus Christ,

This is basic information, how ignorant are you?

Rich:D

Crazy Horse 6 · 31-12-2011 08:21PM

Just read the report (main parts) and i have to say i am genuinely stunned by it. Surely Liverpool now must not only appeal the FA but also Suarez and the club should go ahead and take legal proceedings against the FA.

"Suarez was found guilty on the "balance of probability" - a lower standard than the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". Lol. This is incredible stuff any lawyer worth their salt is going to love this stuff.:pac:

Helix · 31-12-2011 08:23PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Just read the report (main parts) and i have to say i am genuinely stunned by it. Surely Liverpool now must not only appeal the FA but also Suarez and the club should go ahead and take legal proceedings against the FA.

"Suarez was found guilty on the "balance of probability" - a lower standard than the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". Lol. This is incredible stuff any lawyer worth their salt is going to love this stuff.:pac:

again, if the fa rule book states that players can be found guilty on the balance of probability then there's not one jot liverpool can do about it

Fuhrer · 31-12-2011 08:24PM

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Rich:D

Rich for what?

Knowing basic information while you and the other Liverpool fans storm around in faux-outrage claiming that its not true?

Thanks, ill take that as a compliment.

stumpypeeps · 31-12-2011 08:26PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Rich for what?

Knowing basic information while you and the other Liverpool fans storm around in faux-outrage claiming that its not true?

Thanks, ill take that as a compliment.

I question your username. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrer

5starpool · 31-12-2011 08:27PM

OK, so, if there is no appeal, this was submitted to LFC yesterday, so the 14 days began then I assume, and he would be banned from the Stoke game onwards?

K-9 · 31-12-2011 08:27PM

Helix wrote: »

again, if the fa rule book states that players can be found guilty on the balance of probability then there's not one jot liverpool can do about it

It then says more evidence is required than is normal because its a serious charge.

Commoli and Evra don't seem up on Spanish as they like to think!

monkey9 · 31-12-2011 08:27PM

Fuhrer wrote: »

Rich for what?

Knowing basic information while you and the other Liverpool fans storm around in faux-outrage claiming that its not true?

Thanks, ill take that as a compliment.

LOL, yeah cos the Utd fans are doing no such thing!!!

opr · 31-12-2011 08:27PM

This is from a previous FA report. Honestly you couldn't make this stuff up.

From a previous FA Report:

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

[Patrice Evra Provided] "“exaggerated and unreliable” evidence following allegations of racism during the infamous ‘Battle of the Bridge’ with Chelsea ground staff in April 2008."

I guess he has turned over a new leaf :rolleyes:

Opr

clubberlang12 · 31-12-2011 08:29PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

"Suarez was found guilty on the "balance of probability" - a lower standard than the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt". Lol. This is incredible stuff any lawyer worth their salt is going to love this stuff.:pac:

The report clearly states it is not a criminal court and that the findings would be judged on the level of probability of either players account of what happened!!! Evra's evidence for the most part remained consistant while it is clear to see some of Suarez's evidence contradicts and is inbalanced.

Did you actually read the report?

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

Comments