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

lordgoat · 01-01-2012 03:28AM

Blatter wrote: »

^^^

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.

Here Blatter i think alot of people missed your excellent post and summary of events.

Big plus one for the concise summary.

Thanx 4 The Fish · 01-01-2012 03:28AM

They have already said that they will not interfere in a police investigation so until the trial is finished, there will be noting on this from the FA. An official from the FA is also heard to have said that if Terry comes back with a not guilty verdict the FA will have trouble charging him with it.

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 03:29AM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

That's what happened according to the findings,but you like most Liverpool fans are just denying everything in it.

And where in the 'findings' does it say that is what Suarez said?? Nowhere. The only place that's said is in Evra's statement.

Nobody's denying anything, we're actually reading the damn thing though lol

Lol all you want,fact is Evra came out as the credible source in this.

Dublin_Gunner · 01-01-2012 03:42AM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Lol all you want,fact is Evra came out as the credible source in this.

Thats the only thing. Thney found him more credible, so slapped a ban + fine on Suarez.

A bit of a joke really.

eigrod · 01-01-2012 03:49AM

Blatter wrote: »

^^^

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.

I'm sure you'd love to be convicted of something you were falsely accused of just because the accuser gave his evidence in a calm and composed way ? That's one bull**** element of this kangaroo court exposed.

Blatter wrote: »

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

Reading this report, Evra's statements started out as "******". Credible my ass.

Blatter wrote: »

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

Reading this report, Evra's statements started out as "******". Credible my ass.

Blatter wrote: »

-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.

Again, they chose to believe Evra.

Blatter wrote: »

-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.

They chose to believe Evra's Man Utd teamates, but not Suarez's Liverpool teammate (Kuyt). Why ?

Blatter wrote: »

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

Same linguistic experts claimed that what Suarez claimed to have said could be deemed not to be offensive in his native country. Again, that was dismissed the the "independent" panel.

Blatter wrote: »

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

Let's see it.

eigrod · 01-01-2012 03:53AM

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

They have already said that they will not interfere in a police investigation so until the trial is finished, there will be noting on this from the FA. An official from the FA is also heard to have said that if Terry comes back with a not guilty verdict the FA will have trouble charging him with it.

Hopefully, for Suarez sake, a police investigation will come out of this because there is a better chance there that one's man word against another's would not be used as the damning evidence. FA "independent enquiry" = kangaroo court.

abelard · 01-01-2012 04:04AM

I find it amazing how few people realise the importance of oral testimony as a source of evidence in common law, which I assume a quasi legal body such as the one involved here is based on. Study the law of evidence and you'll see that oral testimony is one the most commonly used sources of evidence, and is held in very high regard. This is the very reason why we have developed things like rules against narrative and hearsay and their exceptions, issues around competence and compellability, rules of cross-examination, corroboration requirements, judicial notice etc. etc. Cases are decided, and even criminal convictions made, on the basis of oral testimony (another one is how legal dramas have lead everyone to believe a conviction can never ever be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but that's another day's argument).

The basic point is if the FA's judgement is based on oral testimony from all the various parties, and nothing else, this does not in itself make it legally unsound. Whether right or wrong, the panel had every right to dismiss Suarez's version of events if they found his evidence inconsistent/unreliable (I can't recall the exact word they used) and every right to find as they did based on the testimony of various parties involved.

I think thus if Liverpool try argue this on a point of legal procedure that they won't get very far. They need to argue it on a point of fact. Whether they can find something in the report that will allow them to do so, well we'll have to wait and see I guess.

*Disclaimer (as it seems to be needed in this thread to argue any side without getting accused of being jealous/on a windup/a Liverpool hater/a racist)*
-Not a lawyer, but not ignorant in the field
-Not a fan of either LFC or MUFC

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 04:14AM

abelard wrote: »

I find it amazing how few people realise the importance of oral testimony as a source of evidence in common law, which I assume a quasi legal body such as the one involved here is based on. Study the law of evidence and you'll see that oral testimony is one the most commonly used sources of evidence, and is held in very high regard. This is the very reason why we have developed things like rules against narrative and hearsay and their exceptions, issues around competence and compellability, rules of cross-examination, corroboration requirements, judicial notice etc. etc. Cases are decided, and even criminal convictions made, on the basis of oral testimony (another one is how legal dramas have lead everyone to believe a conviction can never ever be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but that's another day's argument).

The basic point is if the FA's judgement is based on oral testimony from all the various parties, and nothing else, this does not in itself make it legally unsound. Whether right or wrong, the panel had every right to dismiss Suarez's version of events if they found his evidence inconsistent/unreliable(I can't recall the exact word they used) and every right to find as they did based on the testimony of various parties involved.

I think thus if Liverpool try argue this on a point of legal procedure that they won't get very far. They need to argue it on a point of fact. Whether they can find something in the report that will allow them to do so, well we'll have to wait and see I guess.

*Disclaimer (as it seems to be needed in this thread to argue any side without getting accused of being jealous/on a windup/a Liverpool hater/a racist)*
-Not a lawyer, but not ignorant in the field
-Not a fan of either LFC or MUFC

Excellent post and the bolded part is something a lot of people are failing to grasp here.

abelard · 01-01-2012 04:18AM

cambo2008 wrote: »

Excellent post and the bolded part is something a lot of people are failing to grasp here.

I should qualify that my whole post is based on the assumption that the panel's operation and evidentiary requirements are in some way based on the common law. This is the FA we're talking about, so who knows....

jank · 01-01-2012 04:20AM

Blatter wrote: »

^^^

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.

This!!

CongoPowers · 01-01-2012 04:22AM

I would still guess Suárez is guilty of using offensive language towards Evra, but after reading this report, it seems as if it's a whole lot of nothing? 115 pages and no conclusive evidence? Maybe I'm mistaken but I'm not sure if this would be enough in a court of law. I was expecting the case to be put beyond any reasonable doubt before a suspension like that.

DOC09UNAM · 01-01-2012 04:38AM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

It was a remark relating to his skin colour no doubt, buts thats a far cry from racism.

That is by far the stupidest sentence I have ever read on this forum.

jank · 01-01-2012 04:38AM

I think some of the reaction here from Liverpool fans is disgraceful.
Some have been man enough to admit that they were wrong and Suarez is guilty of racist remarks. Does that make him a racist, well no but the media will jump with this and its his own fault.
Some though are a disgrace. So what if your a Liverpool fan, it doesn't mean you are less of a human being. A spade is a spade.

It is funny how the conversation has turned from. Negerito is a "friendly term" to "whaaaaaa they framed poor Suarez, it wont hold up in a court of law, whaaaaa" Cry me a fcuking river! The same ol poor me ****e we have seen from Liverpool for years. Yea, remember the 96 but don't dare mention Heysel as you will upset a few souls. I call bull**** on all this.

I don't like Evra, He comes across as a bit of a ****. As an Arsenal fan I don't like Man united. But I am not going to excuse a man whoever he is calling Evra a "negros" to get a rise out of him and then continue to call him the same thing up to 8 times in the space of a few minutes. That is disgraceful behavior whatever way you dress it.

An 8 game ban IMO is very lenient in this case but it has damaged the player and most importantly the club...permanently. I can't imagine the American owners being too pleased with the carry on of Danglish (an utter tool and cnut of a man) and co. There is no way in kingdom come that liverpool will appeal this. Quite a u-turn from their other statement a few weeks back that could have been written by Mr Alan.

The t-shirt incident will be remembered for years as the biggest own goal of PR this decade. I will even go so far it could probably cost Danglish his job at the end of the season.

Well done Liverpool F.C. an other mightly fcukup from you.

Benzino · 01-01-2012 04:45AM

To me, it seems Suarez changed his story a few times, which as already been said, is pretty damning. It's hard to trust his side of story after that. And as a Liverpool fan, I am immensely disappointed with him. He has let the club down big time, even more so considering the huge support the club gave him.

I really don't think he has any excuses to be honest. Whether he meant to it to be friendly or not, referring to somebody as a "Negro" is just plain idiotic, and asking for trouble. And it doesn't matter if that is accepted in South America, he is not in South America!

He is a great player, but he has really let the club down big time. It will be interesting to see how the club responds. I expect them to be harsh on him to be honest (If I recall correctly, a youth player was kicked out of the club for making a joke or laughing during the Hillsborough ceremonies a few years ago?).

ricero · 01-01-2012 04:49AM

jank wrote: »

I think some of the reaction here from Liverpool fans is disgraceful.
Some have been man enough to admit that they were wrong and Suarez is guilty of racist remarks. Does that make him a racist, well no but the media will jump with this and its his own fault.
Some though are a disgrace. So what if your a Liverpool fan, it doesn't mean you are less of a human being. A spade is a spade.

It is funny how the conversation has turned from. Negerito is a "friendly term" to "whaaaaaa they framed poor Suarez, it wont hold up in a court of law, whaaaaa" Cry me a fcuking river! The same ol poor me ****e we have seen from Liverpool for years. Yea, remember the 96 but don't dare mention Heysel as you will upset a few souls. I call bull**** on all this.

I don't like Evra, He comes across as a bit of a ****. As an Arsenal fan I don't like Man united. But I am not going to excuse a man whoever he is calling Evra a "negros" to get a rise out of him and then continue to call him the same thing up to 8 times in the space of a few minutes. That is disgraceful behavior whatever way you dress it.

An 8 game ban IMO is very lenient in this case but it has damaged the player and most importantly the club...permanently. I can't imagine the American owners being too pleased with the carry on of Danglish (an utter tool and cnut of a man) and co. There is no way in kingdom come that liverpool will appeal this. Quite a u-turn from their other statement a few weeks back that could have been written by Mr Alan.

The t-shirt incident will be remembered for years as the biggest own goal of PR this decade. I will even go so far it could probably cost Danglish his job at the end of the season.

Well done Liverpool F.C. an other mightly fcukup from you.

seems like you have a vendetta against Liverpool fc. Besides evras word what otheR evidance did the fa have ????

DOC09UNAM · 01-01-2012 04:49AM

Benzino wrote: »

To me, it seems Suarez changed his story a few times, which as already been said, is pretty damning.

When you're being accused of Racism, I'm sure it's not out of the realms of possibility to be nervous and forget bits of what happened, in fact, wouldn't it have been worse if they had all(suarez, commoli, kuyt) planned a story and learned it off and stuck to it?

I wouldn't be using the fact he changed his story as a definite negative on whether he's telling lies, he may have just been nervous, which is understandable given the situation he was facing.

Regards this report, I'm still going to be waiting on the evidence to make a definite decision on this.

and to all the idiots making this Liverpool vs United, this is more than that, this is a groundbreaking case in the EPL, and they better not have fúcked it up, as they could be setting a ridiculously retarded precedent, with anybody that loses running to the FA after a match shouting racism, their better be some pretty damning evidence released imo.

DOC09UNAM · 01-01-2012 04:51AM

ricero wrote: »

seems like you have a vendetta against Liverpool fc

Tbh, what he has said about Liverpool was true, the t-shirt thing was idiotic, I'm sure most people agree on that.

ricero · 01-01-2012 04:54AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

ricero wrote: »

seems like you have a vendetta against Liverpool fc

Tbh, what he has said about Liverpool was true, the t-shirt thing was idiotic, I'm sure most people agree on that.

No need to bring up hillborough and heysel though was there ? T shirt was a show of unity and support and was immature but I think most liverpool fans would not condemn it. Suarez is a god to the kop he could kill people and they would still chant his name. this will not change the people of liverpools love for suarez

DOC09UNAM · 01-01-2012 05:02AM

ricero wrote: »

No need to bring up hillborough and heysel though was there ? T shirt was a show of unity and support and was immature but I think most liverpool fans would not condemn it. Suarez is a god to the kop he could kill people and they would still chant his name. this will not change the people of liverpools love for suarez

Apologies, didn't read that part, just skipped it when I read the first few words.

I agree with you, wtf does heysel and hillsborough have to do with this?

J. Marston · 01-01-2012 05:05AM

ricero wrote: »

No need to bring up hillborough and heysel though was there ? T shirt was a show of unity and support and was immature but I think most liverpool fans would not condemn it. Suarez is a god to the kop he could kill people and they would still chant his name. this will not change the people of liverpools love for suarez

All that in a year, impressive.

ricero · 01-01-2012 05:05AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

ricero wrote: »

No need to bring up hillborough and heysel though was there ? T shirt was a show of unity and support and was immature but I think most liverpool fans would not condemn it. Suarez is a god to the kop he could kill people and they would still chant his name. this will not change the people of liverpools love for suarez

Apologies, didn't read that part, just skipped it when I read the first few words.

I agree with you, wtf does heysel and hillsborough have to do with this?

Also back to the report after reading into it a good bit earlier tonight I honestly think Liverpool fc and suarez should bring the fa to court. The amount of incosistencies and lack of evidance is astonishing I think it could be turned over quite easily

DOC09UNAM · 01-01-2012 05:06AM

J. Marston wrote: »

All that in a year, impressive.

Phil Jones, Man United.

DOC09UNAM · 01-01-2012 05:07AM

ricero wrote: »

Also back to the report after reading into it a good bit earlier tonight I honestly think Liverpool fc and suarez should bring the fa to court. The amount of incosistencies and lack of evidance is astonishing I think it could be turned over quite easily

They haven't released the evidence though, and apparently there is TV evidence that wasn't released to the public eye.

I shan't lie, I haven't read the full thing yet, but will sit down tomorrow and try get through it all.

ricero · 01-01-2012 05:11AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

ricero wrote: »

Also back to the report after reading into it a good bit earlier tonight I honestly think Liverpool fc and suarez should bring the fa to court. The amount of incosistencies and lack of evidance is astonishing I think it could be turned over quite easily

They haven't released the evidence though, and apparently there is TV evidence that wasn't released to the public eye.

I shan't lie, I haven't read the full thing yet, but will sit down tomorrow and try get through it all.

But there is incosistencies in the amount of times that suarez called evra a Negro and also in the manner of evras statements being more credible over suarez statement. Also incosistencies regarding evra supposdly referring to suarez as a south American and dirk kuyts understanding of the situation as apparently he heard evra discussing with the ref over the matter

Benzino · 01-01-2012 05:11AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

When you're being accused of Racism, I'm sure it's not out of the realms of possibility to be nervous and forget bits of what happened, in fact, wouldn't it have been worse if they had all(suarez, commoli, kuyt) planned a story and learned it off and stuck to it?

A valid point indeed, however the fact that Comolli and Kuyt interpreted what he said as "because you are black" is enough for me. You just don't say that! Plus I find it hard to believe that he said it in a friendly manner during a heated "conversation". I just find it very hard to believe his side of the story.

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Tbh, what he has said about Liverpool was true, the t-shirt thing was idiotic, I'm sure most people agree on that.

I agree, it was idiotic by the club. I understand why they did it, to show support and unity behind Suarez, but you need to be 100% sure he is innocent. Based on his defense, I don't know how they were convinced he was innocent.

In saying that, there was no need to even mention Hillsborough and Heysel as ricero says. As for his description of Dalglish, he just comes across as somebody who has it out for LFC.

J. Marston · 01-01-2012 05:15AM

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Phil Jones, Man United.

Phil is a fair bit away from God-like status for Man United. Right now he has a cult, almost Chuck Norris-like following due to his good performances and wacky facial expressions.

Look at him, he has no control over his mental face!

Blatter · 01-01-2012 06:08AM

eigrod wrote: »

I'm sure you'd love to be convicted of something you were falsely accused of just because the accuser gave his evidence in a calm and composed way ? That's one bull**** element of this kangaroo court exposed.

It's only a kangaroo court because you don't like the verdict.

Reading this report, Evra's statements started out as "******". Credible my ass.

Reading this report, Evra's statements started out as "******". Credible my ass.

No, Evra always said he had heard the word ''negro'' or ''negros''. What he said was that he originally thought that it meant ''nigg*r'' but now says he understands that it means black, not nigg*r. It was simply a minor translation issue, not a false account of events. From the FA report:

The experts noted that, in interview, Mr Evra translated the word "negro" as French "nègre", which is translatable as both "Negro" and "******" and in current French usage is clearly a racially offensive term.

Again, they chose to believe Evra.

They chose to believe Evra's Man Utd teamates, but not Suarez's Liverpool teammate (Kuyt). Why ?

They were given no reason not to believe Evra as his recollection of events were consistent with that of the referee, his Utd teammates, SAF, the Canal+ interviewer and correlated with video evidence. Suarez's recollection of events was found to be unreliable, inconsistent and did not correlate with video evidence and contradicted Kuyt's and Comolli's evidence. Suarez even changed his story three times at one point!

Same linguistic experts claimed that what Suarez claimed to have said could be deemed not to be offensive in his native country. Again, that was dismissed the the "independent" panel.

Really? This is what was concluded:

The experts concluded their observations on Mr Evra's account as follows. If Mr Suarez used the words "negro" and "negros" as described by Mr Evra, this would be understood as offensive and offensive in racial terms in Uruguay and Spanish-speaking America more generally. The physical gesture of touching Mr Evra's arm would also, in the context of the phrases used, be interpreted as racist.

Let's see it.

If they released video evidence, it would undoubtedly be met with a pile of ''where does it show him say it'' questions.

Their video evidence doesn't show Suarez say something, it was looked at it in relation to the step-by-step accounts of both Suarez and Evra and shows how it had contradicted Suarez's account of what had happened in the goal mouth.

I would be in favour of them releasing the video footage, including step by step text on the video that showed how Suarez's version of events were found to be inaccurate.

An account made from the video evidence where Suarez was shown to have lied:

Not only did we reject this evidence of Mr Suarez, but we found it remarkable that he sought to advance a case that was so clearly inconsistent with any sensible appreciation of what happened. Even Mr McCormick(Suarez's lawyer) accepted in his closing submissions that the pinching could not reasonably be described as an attempt to defuse the situation. To suggest otherwise, as Mr Suarez did, was unarguable. Mr Suarez's evidence on these topics, which was shown to be flawed, profoundly undermined our confidence in the reliability of his evidence

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

When you're being accused of Racism, I'm sure it's not out of the realms of possibility to be nervous and forget bits of what happened, in fact, wouldn't it have been worse if they had all(suarez, commoli, kuyt) planned a story and learned it off and stuck to it?

I wouldn't be using the fact he changed his story as a definite negative on whether he's telling lies, he may have just been nervous, which is understandable given the situation he was facing.

It wasn't seen as him 'being confused'. The FA were very clear in that they felt Suarez was changing his account of what happened in order to suit new video evidence that he hadn't initially seen.

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.

The impression created by these inconsistencies was that Mr Suarez's evidence was not, on the whole, reliable. He had put forward an interpretation of events which was inconsistent with the contemporaneous video evidence. He had changed his account in a number of important respects without satisfactory explanation. As a result, we were hesitant about accepting Mr Suarez's account of events where it was disputed by other credible witnesses unless there was solid evidence to support it.

Revolution9 · 01-01-2012 06:27AM

I don't understand how the FA reached their verdict. No conclusive evidence, a whole lot of contradictory statements from both sides and Suarez and Evra each gave inconsistent statements to the press, referee, commission etc. from the day of the match onwards, and yet they decide that Evra's word is somehow the more reliable?

There's enough reasonable doubt about this for Liverpool to win any case brought to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (or whatever court would hold such a case) surely.

carlcon · 01-01-2012 07:10AM

People need to get over the "they never said he was racist" line.

The report claims;

Luis Suarez gave "unreliable" evidence.
Suarez has "damaged the image of English football around the world".
Evra asked Suarez why he had kicked him, to which the forward replied in Spanish: "Because you are black."
Suarez said (when threatened by Evra that he would punch him in the face if he didn't repeat what he said): "I don't speak to blacks."
Suarez is said to have used the term "negro" seven times in around two minutes.

Nowhere will you find the words "Luiz Suarez is a liar and a racist", because that's not professional. But what they've done is given information that shows Suarez to be both of those things.

You can agree or disagree with the overall result, and you can call the repost rubbish if you like... but the report does call him a racist.

--

On a side note: Absolute 100% credit to the Liverpool fans who have taken this on the chin and accepted the ban. Full respect to those who have not shown a blind eye to racism. As for the rest... stop thinking the world is out to get your team. Suarez is just one player... and that one player f*cked up. It's not a bad reflection on you as a person until you actually try defending him, or turning on the victim - which is a choice you have the right the make - but when you make that choice, don't be surprised when your points lose all credibility and people turn on you.

jank · 01-01-2012 07:45AM

ricero wrote: »

seems like you have a vendetta against Liverpool fc. Besides evras word what otheR evidance did the fa have ????

Video evidence, the ref's, Kuyt's and of course Suarez himself changing his story up to 3 times...... while Suarez himself admitted he used the word. Really you have to do better than that.

A question to Liverpool fans, what evidence would be suffice for you to say "Right, I was wrong. What Suarez did was wrong" In your eyes he will always be innocent just like a beloved son or daughter would be "innocent" if caught.

As regards an vendetta, well a Liverpool fan would think of that wouldn't they. "Poor me" strikes again.

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

Comments