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

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 02:54PM

K-9 wrote: »

cambo2008 wrote: »

Your posts are getting progressively petty in here,that last paragraph sums it up perfectly.
Evra is the villain in all this yea??? :rolleyes:

Yeah, the reading skills aren't great in here either!

I used an example to make a point. The main evidence the FA has is that there was indeed an argument, it lasted a minute or so, Evra got very annoyed, nobody heard anything but Evra was still annoyed as he talked to the ref and then the players afterwards. Plus Suarez's evidence wasn't as credible, a couple of inconsistencies, even though Suarez didn't have to prove anything.

I just carried the same logic to a previous disagreement Evra had with the ref, before the start of the very same match, a petty row with the ref over the coin toss. Get this, its even referenced in the same report I take it you've read? You know, evidence and stuff like that.

I'm pointing out the logical sequence the FA have used and applying it to the coin toss to show it isn't that great a reasoning, as there's a good chance the ref rigged the toss going on that logic. You could take it as a dig at the FA but I suppose that wouldn't give a chance to get a petty dig in and an ould :rolleyes: and get offended over "your" player.

I'm not getting any petty digs in,you were one of a few on here that someone could have a reasonable debate with.
All I'm saying is you seem to be progressively siding with the "it's all Evras fault" brigade.

SantryRed · 01-01-2012 02:59PM

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, the reading skills aren't great in here either!

I used an example to make a point. The main evidence the FA has is that there was indeed an argument, it lasted a minute or so, Evra got very annoyed, nobody heard anything but Evra was still annoyed as he talked to the ref and then the players afterwards. Plus Suarez's evidence wasn't as credible, a couple of inconsistencies, even though Suarez didn't have to prove anything.

A couple of inconsistencies? You make it sound like they were small points. Have you read the report?? It reflects badly on Suarez and Liverpool as a whole.

Suarez:
One of the main inconsistencies is where he used the word negro. According to the report, when he said negro has changed for him several times. This is to try and agree with video evidence.

Liverpool:
This pisses me off and nothing has been said of it. Either Suarez has decided to lie and put himself in a pickle or Liverpool staff have deliberately began a cover up of what happened immediately after the game. Both Comolli and Kuyt spoke to Suarez after the game in two different languages (Dutch and Spanish), both of them are told by Suarez that he said to Evra "Because you are black". He is then in earshot of Comolli saying it in English to Dalglish of what happened. Comolli uses some excuse about different speech phrases in Spanish while Kuyt says in his Witness Statement that he could have misheard him. Also, I believe Comolli tried to cover up this "Tues negro", while being interviewed, by saying he doesn't have any recollection of Phil Dowd asking him to spell the word "Tues".

I'm not even getting into the supposed 5 times before this incident has happened that Suarez has now been found guilty of. This is more damning and it completely shows how Suarez and/or the Liverpool staff can't imo be used as credible witnesses.

The situation of where Suarez used negro and in what context absolutely stinks tbh.

This is from a neutral as well btw.

K-9 · 01-01-2012 03:00PM

cambo2008 wrote: »

I'm not getting any petty digs in,you were one of a few on here that someone could have a reasonable debate with.
All I'm saying is you seem to be progressively siding with the "it's all Evras fault" brigade.

No, its your preciousness!

Just using another example from the match and using similar logic. I suppose I could have picked a Liverpool player and it wouldn't have offended your sensibilities, it was just handy that the toss coin thing was in the report.

Nuri Sahin · 01-01-2012 03:14PM

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.

You remind me of some very bitter Arsenal supporters I grew up with, very strong hatred of Liverpool. Tis comical, keep it up.

___

Anyway, quite an amount of cretinous posts in this thread from both sides of the fence something of which I've tried my damnedest to avoid at least here on this forum, but let's not kid ourselves ... this is mainly a Man U vs Liverpool (or in your case, you're quite clear hatred of Liverpool being in an Arsenal fan) theme going on, racism is only a veil for many and a thin one at that. No one would admit that of course, I only got in an hour or so ago and have only glanced at the last two pages but it's easy to just look at some of the names who've have posted and put two and two together

I've received racial abuse on the pitch in the past, hell even so far back as a few weeks back playing in the 5 a-side league game lol. But I've shrugged it off, most of those who had to resort to are small minded WUM's who are playing badly. Everyone reacts different obviously. But yeah, probably best that I read the documents in their entirety over the next day or two before commenting any further. Tis easy to be selective to fuel ones agenda. From a glance, the documents look a bit dodgy all round IMO. If he(Suarez) definitely said what he has been accused of, I doubt more than 5% would argue the ban. People just want 100% clarity on the issue.

everdead.ie · 01-01-2012 03:16PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Anyone think that club statement was released by Liverpool in the knowledge that Suarez was guilty and the verdict was fair?

By backing Suarez, the club are building an us against them mentality, backing Suarez to the hilt and strengthening his loyalty to the club. They could have made an alternative statement, accepting the verdict or at least stating that they were considering it without being critical of Suarez, but from the clubs point of view, what would that have achieved?

He's been found guilty, that won't change. He may get the ban reduced, but this will be down to the merits of the appeal as oppose to the the clubs reaction

In short, perhaps they felt there was more to be gained from coming out as they did, as oppose to how they would have been expected to come out, in the long run

I'm not asking if it was morally the right thing to do, before the high horses ride in, but could this have been the motivation behind the statement and fashion range?

The stance Reflects badly on Liverpool and their attempts to increase their revenues etc in other markets. They should of said they would be making no further comment until they reviewed the FAs findings and would take the appropriate action in Due course.

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 03:17PM

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Once again your merely quoting what Evea said in his statement. Suarez said he never said 'negro negro negro' and the report explains that tv evidence doesn't show him saying it either.

Suarez called him a black man, I fail to see the issue. He is a black man, or hasn't he noticed.

It's merely a case of the race card being played.

There is no issue tbh just a load of people from a particular club getting their knickers in a twist over much ado about nothing. The Suarez case is like all their Xmas's and birthdays coming at once.

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 03:19PM

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.

Wow a lot of posters showing their true colours on here these last 24 hrs.

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 03:19PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Once again your merely quoting what Evea said in his statement. Suarez said he never said 'negro negro negro' and the report explains that tv evidence doesn't show him saying it either.

Suarez called him a black man, I fail to see the issue. He is a black man, or hasn't he noticed.

It's merely a case of the race card being played.

There is no issue tbh just a load of people from a particular club getting their knickers in a twist over much ado about nothing. The Suarez case is like all their Xmas's and birthdays coming at once.

You're right,let's just brush it under the carpet and let people call each other whatever they want.

SantryRed · 01-01-2012 03:20PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

There is no issue tbh just a load of people from a particular club getting their knickers in a twist over much ado about nothing. The Suarez case is like all their Xmas's and birthdays coming at once.

Could you reply to my post a few up from this. You duck and dive your way through this thread and pop in when you want. A reply to that would be great but no doubt you won't as it doesn't suit you.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 03:21PM

everdead.ie wrote: »

The stance Reflects badly on Liverpool and their attempts to increase their revenues etc in other markets. They should of said they would be making no further comment until they reviewed the FAs findings and would take the appropriate action in Due course.

I agree it reflects badly, but I don't think it will effect revenues notably

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 03:21PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Anyone think that club statement was released by Liverpool in the knowledge that Suarez was guilty and the verdict was fair?

By backing Suarez, the club are building an us against them mentality, backing Suarez to the hilt and strengthening his loyalty to the club. They could have made an alternative statement, accepting the verdict or at least stating that they were considering it without being critical of Suarez, but from the clubs point of view, what would that have achieved?

He's been found guilty, that won't change. He may get the ban reduced, but this will be down to the merits of the appeal as oppose to the the clubs reaction

In short, perhaps they felt there was more to be gained from coming out as they did, as oppose to how they would have been expected to come out, in the long run

I'm not asking if it was morally the right thing to do, before the high horses ride in, but could this have been the motivation behind the statement and fashion range?

No not at all. I expect the club to stand by the player and take the FA to court.

SoulTrader · 01-01-2012 03:21PM

If people are looking for an impartial opinion on the findings, here are some comments from Football Against Racism in Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jan/01/liverpool-luis-suarez-patrice-evra-racism

The_Kew_Tour · 01-01-2012 03:23PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

There is no issue tbh just a load of people from a particular club getting their knickers in a twist over much ado about nothing. The Suarez case is like all their Xmas's and birthdays coming at once.

So being a racist is ok?

Well that sums you up eh!!!

citytillidie · 01-01-2012 03:24PM

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.

And of course he is going to be calm and composed as he is not the one facing a charge

citytillidie · 01-01-2012 03:25PM

eigrod wrote: »

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.

Merseyside Police have already said they are not investigating it

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 03:26PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

No not at all. I expect the club to stand by the player and take the FA to court.

Take the FA to court? Isn't there an existing agreement between clubs and the FA in which the clubs agree to work within the FA's system, and not appeal to the courts?

It didn't work out too well for Sion

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 03:27PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

No not at all. I expect the club to stand by the player and take the FA to court.

On what legal basis ?

manual_man · 01-01-2012 03:31PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

No not at all. I expect the club to stand by the player and take the FA to court.

On what legal basis ?

Possibly the lack of fact...

Crazy Horse 6 · 01-01-2012 03:33PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

Take the FA to court? Isn't there an existing agreement between clubs and the FA in which the clubs agree to work within the FA's system, and not appeal to the courts?

It didn't work out too well for Sion

I think the fact that they didn't even bother to transcribe Evra's initial interview categorically shows that the FA were not interested in highlighting any inconsistencies in Evra's evidence. If you are going to come to a balanced and proper verdict then surely you must treat each person's evidence equally.

The biggest problem for me is that as soon as the FA charged Evra then in effect he became the prosecutions only witness and instead of looking for inconsistencies they did the opposite. Giving Evra prior access to the video of the incident was akin to a CPS lawyer coaching a prosecution witness.

The FA have acted as the Police force who compiled the evidence, the CPS who sifted through the evidence, the prosecution barrister who made the case and have appointed the Jury. It's not really surprising that they have come to the decision they have the biggest surprise is that even after that they couldn't come up with a shred of evidence that would be admissible in a real court.

Suarez has been convicted on hearsay and one mans word against each other. The most remarkable thing is that Evra can apparently remember everything verbatim whilst most footballers are so in the zone that they often do not even hear the crowd.

In short the FA have zero credible evidence and i've got a feeling Liverpool and Suarez are going to take them on, and win.

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 03:37PM

well at least you call yourself crazy in your username.

SoulTrader · 01-01-2012 03:37PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Suarez has been convicted on hearsay and one mans word against each other.

From the report, Suarez's lawyer has admitted that the above is not true.

It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another.

tommyhaas · 01-01-2012 03:37PM

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

I think the fact that they didn't even bother to transcribe Evra's initial interview categorically shows that the FA were not interested in highlighting any inconsistencies in Evra's evidence. If you are going to come to a balanced and proper verdict then surely you must treat each person's evidence equally.

The biggest problem for me is that as soon as the FA charged Evra then in effect he became the prosecutions only witness and instead of looking for inconsistencies they did the opposite. Giving Evra prior access to the video of the incident was akin to a CPS lawyer coaching a prosecution witness.

The FA have acted as the Police force who compiled the evidence, the CPS who sifted through the evidence, the prosecution barrister who made the case and have appointed the Jury. It's not really surprising that they have come to the decision they have the biggest surprise is that even after that they couldn't come up with a shred of evidence that would be admissible in a real court.

Suarez has been convicted on hearsay and one mans word against each other. The most remarkable thing is that Evra can apparently remember everything verbatim whilst most footballers are so in the zone that they often do not even hear the crowd.

In short the FA have zero credible evidence and i've got a feeling Liverpool and Suarez are going to take them on, and win.

Very good, but how can they take them to court when they've agreed not to? There'd obviously be severe penalties

And is there a credible link to the claim that Evra was allowed view the video's and Suarez was not?

manual_man · 01-01-2012 03:41PM

SoulTrader wrote: »

Crazy Horse 6 wrote: »

Suarez has been convicted on hearsay and one mans word against each other.

From the report, Suarez's lawyer has admitted that the above is not true.

It was accepted by both Mr Greaney and Mr McCormick in closing submissions that this is not simply a case of one person's word against another.

Note the word simply

SoulTrader · 01-01-2012 03:42PM

manual_man wrote: »

Note the word simply

Noted. And what do you infer from that?

ilovelamp2000 · 01-01-2012 03:45PM

SoulTrader wrote: »

Noted. And what do you infer from that?

I'm inferring quite a bit about manual man from this.

manual_man · 01-01-2012 03:49PM

SoulTrader wrote: »

manual_man wrote: »

Note the word simply

Noted. And what do you infer from that?

That what you suggested was admitted was in fact not admitted. It was simply an admission by both parties that there was more to the case than just one person's word v the other. If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

manual_man · 01-01-2012 03:50PM

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

SoulTrader wrote: »

Noted. And what do you infer from that?

I'm inferring quite a bit about manual man from this.

Explain that comment please

Nalz · 01-01-2012 03:56PM

What to...

And...

Why....

Did suarez change his story 3 times?

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 03:57PM

manual_man wrote: »

If it had said 'it was not' as opposed to 'it was not simply', you would be correct, but the word simply is important

Are you serious???
Both sentences mean the same thing,one is more descriptive than the other and that's it.

Will I Amnt · 01-01-2012 03:58PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

And is there a credible link to the claim that Evra was allowed view the video's and Suarez was not?

I would also like to know this.

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

Comments