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

K-9 · 31-12-2011 11:30PM

Just one thing on the case, there seems to be a perception that Kuyt overheard Suarez and Evra or that's my reading of a few posts, he didn't, its based on the Kuyt and Suarez interview in Dutch afterwards and Kuyt accepted that could well have been misinterpreted.

cloptrop · 31-12-2011 11:34PM

the fa decided suarez was not reliable
evra was
evra said suarez told him he kicked him cause hes a negro
suarez then told him he didnt talk to negroes
case closed argue all you want

clubberlang12 · 31-12-2011 11:35PM

Sorry wrong thread.....

spockety · 31-12-2011 11:48PM

There's a horrible thing happening on the threads discussing this whereby anyone who looks to point out the flaws in the FA's findings are being labelled as racist supporters or sympathisers etc. The holier than thou high horses are laughable. If anyone thinks that if roles were reversed and it was a United player in the frame that the exact same things would be said by United supporters, they are deluded.

Liverpool supporters are backing Suarez and pointing out flaws in the FA report because we are Liverpool supporters. Jesus, it's a human instinct, we support our own. Don't be hypocritical about it.

Blatter · 31-12-2011 11:48PM

Originally Posted by Daniel Taylor

Importantly, the report states that lawyers from both sides agreed it wasn't case of one man's word against another

^^^

People should take note of this before claiming otherwise.

As for the case itself, the verdict was sound IMO.

-First off, Evra was a credible witness. He gave his evidence in a calm, composed and clear way.

-Suarez admits referring to Evra as a ''Negro'' at least once(albeit claims in a friendly manner)

-Suarez changed his story three times during the case about the use of the word Negro. This badly damaged his credibility in this case.

-Comolli and Kuyt had both interpreted what Suarez had told them he said to Evra ''why? because you are black'' Their evidence was found to be inconsistent when compared with Suarez's.

-On the contrary, the accounts from witnesses on Evra's side(his Manchester United teammates, Sir Alex Ferguson and the interviewer from Canal+) were found to be consistent.

-When Suarez pinched Evra's skin, Suarez claims ''I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul.''

That's a bizarre, unbelievable explanation tbh and it looks very bad on Suarez that Evra claims that this passage was one of the moments he was being racially abused and didn't even recall the pinching of the skin, because he was too focused on what Suarez was saying to him.

-Linguistic experts assessed Suarez's defence but determined that his language on the pitch "would be considered racially offensive" anywhere, even in Uruguay.

Now a few myths that can now be exposed for what they are.

-Suarez did NOT use the term negrito. The term he used was Negro.

-It was accepted that Evra DID complain to the referee during the game about being racially abused.

-It was found that Evra did NOT say to Suarez ''Don't touch me you South American'' and there was absolutely NO suggestion that Evra used the term 'sudaca'.

-It was found that Evra did NOT accuse the referee of booking him because he was black.

-There WAS video evidence, recovered from TV stations, that was used as evidence in the case that had NOT been in the public eye.

killwill · 31-12-2011 11:51PM

MD1990 wrote: »

i don't understand how Evra is a reliable witness
he falsly accused a Chelsea groundman of racism in 2008

Not again

argosy2006 · 31-12-2011 11:54PM

The burden of proof is on SUAREZ to prove he is NOT guilty.

Only the Fa would get away with this, In court Liverpool could have a field day,

K-9 · 31-12-2011 11:56PM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

This is the same Kuyt who had to go back on his initial statement as to what he thought Suarez had said to him in his native Dutch language after the game?

He didn't go back on it, that's very unfair on a player who seems to have been very honest, even to Suarez's detriment. He said it was possible he'd misinterpreted the conversation.

Kuyt's or indeed any players statements are only on events after the incidents. Nobody actually heard any abuse during the rows, even the ref didn't remember Evra saying he was called black!

micks · 31-12-2011 11:56PM

flahavaj wrote: »

Even if Evra did say that it wouldnt really make anything I said earlier any less true. His other evidence makes a lot of people ITT and at LFC look like fools.

Ninja Edit!

spockety · 31-12-2011 11:56PM

argosy2006 wrote: »

The burden of proof is on SUAREZ to prove he is NOT guilty.

Only the Fa would get away with this, In court Liverpool could have a field day,

This times 1 million.

Effectively this is what it came down to.

The defendant didn't come across well in his evidence, therefore we have decided to switch the burden of proof.

K-9 · 31-12-2011 11:58PM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

I've read it. Because no United player has heard it means Evra made it all up, despite Suarez himself admitting to using the word "negro"? Suarez's defense by deciding not to counter examine Nani's, Anderson's, Valencia's, Hernandez's, Gigg's and the other United players/staff statements in effect concede that their testimonies are valid. Seriously, read the whole report and not just snippets of it as you are coming across as foolish.

It would be pointless cross examining witnesses that basically are repeating what Evra said after the events, and just what Evra said to them. Why would he doubt them?

spockety · 01-01-2012 12:00AM

K-9 wrote: »

It would be pointless cross examining witnesses that basically are repeating what Evra said after the events, and just what Evra said to them. Why would he doubt them?

It would be hearsay anyway. They shouldn't have been allowed to give evidence of what Evra told them Suarez said. More kangaroo court nonsense.

clubberlang12 · 01-01-2012 12:00AM

K-9 wrote: »

He didn't go back on it, that's very unfair on a player who seems to have been very honest, even to Suarez's detriment. He said it was possible he'd misinterpreted the conversation.

Kuyt's or indeed any players statements are only on events after the incidents. Nobody actually heard any abuse during the rows, even the ref didn't remember Evra saying he was called black!

He did have to go back on his initial statement. It is not an after-event. The part of Kuyts statement he had to back-track on was about the conversation himself and Suarez had after the game..........in Dutch. This is one of the area's the FA found there to be inconsistancies in Suarez's case.

quarryman · 01-01-2012 12:02AM

Well one positive from the report is that we won't have Mr Alan trying to convince us Negrito is not a racist term anymore...

michael999999 · 01-01-2012 12:03AM

So your allowed to call one set of fans a shower of w******s and then go on to call them c***s. The mask really slipped tonight

clubberlang12 · 01-01-2012 12:04AM

K-9 wrote: »

It would be pointless cross examining witnesses that basically are repeating what Evra said after the events, and just what Evra said to them. Why would he doubt them?

The O.P had stated that no United player could back Evra up. I stated that a number had infact given statements that Liverpool had decided didn't warrant any type of counter examination at all.

K-9 · 01-01-2012 12:09AM

Blatter wrote: »

-When Suarez pinched Evra's skin, Suarez claims ''I was trying to defuse the situation and was trying to intimate to Evra that he was not untouchable by reference to his question about the foul.''

That's a bizarre, unbelievable explanation tbh and it looks very bad on Suarez that Evra claims that this passage was one of the moments he was being racially abused and didn't even recall the pinching of the skin, because he was too focused on what Suarez was saying to him.

The FA didn't really put any weight on this at all, Evra didn't even remember it as he was so irate apparently!

What I find odd is Suarez shrugs his shoulders at this time when asked by Evra why he kicked him. It would easily tie in with Suarez saying "it just happened, part of the game" type stuff. The FA seemed to dismiss that as a reasonable explanation, conveniently.

willmunny1990 · 01-01-2012 12:11AM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Nice. Showing your true colours with your posts tonight. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.

Just like Liverpool fans showing their true colors, blindly defending a man guilty of Racism.

8 game ban wasn't harsh enough, the F.A have been very lenient IMO. The behavior of the fans and club have been appalling these past few weeks. I don't no why i am surprised TBH, this is just another black mark that will be put down in Liverpool's disgraceful past.

monkey9 · 01-01-2012 12:13AM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Just like Liverpool fans showing their true colors, blindly defending a man guilty of Racism.

8 game ban wasn't harsh enough, the F.A have been very lenient IMO. The behavior of the fans and club have been appalling these past few weeks. I don't no why i am surprised TBH, this is just another black mark that will be put down in Liverpool's disgraceful past.

Jog on, buddy!

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 12:15AM

spockety wrote: »

There's a horrible thing happening on the threads discussing this whereby anyone who looks to point out the flaws in the FA's findings are being labelled as racist supporters or sympathisers etc. The holier than thou high horses are laughable. If anyone thinks that if roles were reversed and it was a United player in the frame that the exact same things would be said by United supporters, they are deluded.

Liverpool supporters are backing Suarez and pointing out flaws in the FA report because we are Liverpool supporters. Jesus, it's a human instinct, we support our own. Don't be hypocritical about it.

It's been like that since day one in here. The usual suspects trying to make the club look bad and label everyone as racists with their fake moral outrage. The usual suspects could'nt give a sh1t about what Suarez said or did'nt say as long as they stick the boot in to the club they hate. The laughable thing is if the roles where reversed they would be defending their player in the exact same fashion.

One or two have been thankfully outed as nothing more than blaggards tonight.

K-9 · 01-01-2012 12:15AM

clubberlang12 wrote: »

He did have to go back on his initial statement. It is not an after-event. The part of Kuyts statement he had to back-track on was about the conversation himself and Suarez had after the game..........in Dutch. This is one of the area's the FA found there to be inconsistancies in Suarez's case.

No, if I read the report correctly, Kuyt didn't backtrack on his initial statement, he just agree with a reasonable assessment that he could have picked Suarez up wrong.

clubberlang12 wrote: »

The O.P had stated that no United player could back Evra up. I stated that a number had infact given statements that Liverpool had decided didn't warrant any type of counter examination at all.

True and fair enough. The United players statements don't matter much after the match though, maybe Giggs as that was during the match and after the events. All the statements about after the match all agree.

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 12:15AM

monkey9 wrote: »

Jog on, buddy!

Please lets not lower ourselves to his level.

K-9 · 01-01-2012 12:16AM

Have to agree with Spockety. It's a amazing how some United fans have seen the light in regards to FA findings. Evangelistic in many ways!

Nalz · 01-01-2012 12:18AM

spockety wrote: »

There's a horrible thing happening on the threads discussing this whereby anyone who looks to point out the flaws in the FA's findings are being labelled as racist supporters or sympathisers etc. The holier than thou high horses are laughable.

Liverpool supporters are backing Suarez and pointing out flaws in the FA report because we are Liverpool supporters. Jesus, it's a human instinct, we support our own. Don't be hypocritical about it.

Acceptable to a point... but this is the typical wise man reply post and it just won't do in this circumstance. These flaws are evident but given the overall outcome and the fact we're dealing with racism here the whole "we will support our own" just won't wash.

willmunny1990 · 01-01-2012 12:20AM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Please lets not lower ourselves to his level.

You or your club couldn't get any lower at this stage.:rolleyes:

clubberlang12 · 01-01-2012 12:21AM

K-9 wrote: »

No, if I read the report correctly, Kuyt didn't backtrack on his initial statement, he just agree with a reasonable assessment that he could have picked Suarez up wrong.

True and fair enough. The United players statements don't matter much after the match though, maybe Giggs as that was during the match and after the events. All the statements about after the match all agree.

While i see your point, that does mean Kuyt somewhat back-tracked. He was "certain" he heard Evra say he was being booked for being black yet he says he may have misunderstood what Suarez was saying to him in Dutch. I can understand that not speaking in his native tongue it may have come across different but that was both Kuyt and Comoli who had to say they may have misunderstood him.

Blatter · 01-01-2012 12:21AM

spockety wrote: »

But Kuyt's testimony that he heard Evra say to the ref that he was only being booked because he was black was dismissed by the FA, even though they acknowledge that he is "certain" that that was what he had heard. Lots of selectiveness all round.

Kuyt's initial interpretation of what Suarez said was backed up by LFC employee Damien Comolli. His testimony that Evra had accused the referee of booking him because he was black was found to be inconsistent when compared to the evidence of others.

Surely you can see why the FA give more credence to his testimony on what Suarez said, as opposed to his testimony about Evra and the referee?

Here's why the FA rejected Kuyt's claim that Evra accused the referee of booking him because he was black.

We found the evidence of Mr Marriner on this point to be credible and plausible. He recalled Mr Evra telling him that he was being called black. This is consistent with Mr Evra's evidence of what he told Mr Marriner at that time, and also with Mr Giggs' evidence of what Mr Evra said to him shortly afterwards. In light of this, we reject Mr Kuyt's evidence that Mr Evra said that the referee was only booking him because he was black, however certain Mr Kuyt was that he heard it. Moreover, it would make no sense in
the circumstances for Mr Evra to accuse the referee of only booking him because he was black. Not only had Mr Evra pushed Mr Kuyt away, which he is likely to have realised had led to his booking, but his concern at that stage was that he had been called black (bearing in mind that, at the very least, Mr Suarez admits having called Mr Evra "negro"
by this stage of the game).

Can you not see the difference between the FA rejecting Kuyt's claim about Evra and the referee in light of the above evidence, and them using a statement from Kuyt interpreting what Suarez had told him, that backs up Comolli's interpretation, against Suarez.

Don't try to make it out as some conspiracy that the FA selectively chose what to believe from Kuyt, there are logical reasons behind both conclusions.

01-01-2012 12:27AM

willmunny1990 wrote: »

Just like Liverpool fans showing their true colors, blindly defending a man guilty of Racism.

8 game ban wasn't harsh enough, the F.A have been very lenient IMO. The behavior of the fans and club have been appalling these past few weeks. I don't no why i am surprised TBH, this is just another black mark that will be put down in Liverpool's disgraceful past.

Dear god. And they say RAWK and Red Cafe are bad.

michael999999 · 01-01-2012 12:28AM

rarnes1 wrote: »

Dear god. And they say RAWK and Red Cafe are bad.

Chelsea fan doesnt do irony!

01-01-2012 12:30AM

michael999999 wrote: »

Chelsea fan doesnt do irony!

I'd be more worried about the decline of their club if I was a fan tbh.

And I'm not lumping all Chelsea fans in that bracket btw

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

Comments