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.
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'.
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."
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.
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.
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.
spockety wrote: » How can Suarez talk himself into anything? ... It reads like something from Dickens.
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.
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.
Turtyturd wrote: » Please don't tell me you are involved in the legal profession.
NukaCola wrote: » Are you ****ing kidding me? Have you read the report? Jeez.....
Samich wrote: » So saying that if someone broke into someones house, they're innocent because there was no evidence?
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.
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.
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?
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. #
Fuhrer wrote: » Jesus Christ, This is basic information, how ignorant are you?
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:
ShamoBuc wrote: » Rich:D
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.
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
[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."
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:
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
